wade." this texas law gets up in the face of "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 oppo

as the years passed, wade's obsession with the cases grew.s a detective, and hoped advances in dna technology would help her unmask the killer. but what she was about to learn would completely transform the investigation. here, again, is keith morrison with "evil was watching. " >> michella was so fierce. there really wasn't anything that intimidated her at all. she just took life, head on. >> it never left them. the spirit that was their sister followed them all around their growing-up years, and when they had families of their own. and they knew, always did, that their mom had lost a piece of herself. >> be all together, in this family environment. and then, just this closing would come down over her. >> yeah, and she'd just bawl. >> yep. you want mom back. >> the mystery of who killed michella and jenni haunted two families for nearly-30 years. all they knew, or thought they knew, was that some, unknown man, assaulted and killed those little girls. this man, who had killed once, had killed again. >> absolutely. there couldn't be two monste

wade. now, entirely separate from this texas case, there is a mississippi case in the traditional manner of supreme court cases. you know, one of the frankly many outrageous things about what's gone on in texas here is that the supreme court has acted in what's called the shadow docket. there was no formal briefing of this case. there was no oral argument of this case. roe v. wade is sort of thrown out of the back of the caboose without any sort of ceremony here. now, there will be a case about a mississippi law that is almost as restrictive as roe v. wade -- as this texas law that will be argued after october when the supreme court -- now, that will be the opportunity for the six conservative justices you just saw on the screen to formally end roe v. wade in the united states. 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 telecommunicatio

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

wade. >> we have no idea how on overturn roe v. wade. >> there is nothing happening there. and you don't know her view on roe v. wade. >> tonight melissa murray all join me live. and can they stand scrutiny over the capitol attack, threatening their way out of an investigation? >> these telecommunication companies, if they go along with this, they will be shut down. and that's a promise. >>> breaking news from the american medical association regarding doctors giving deworming medicine to covid patients. my exclusive interview with the head of the ama when "all in" starts right now. >>> good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. as of today, roe versus wade is essentially dead in the state of texas, the second largest state in the union. the right to abortion, as recognized by the supreme court in 1973 with decades of precedent reviewed over and over decades of jurisprudence. that right is effectively gone in our state of the union. it did not go into the 6-3 court with fanfare and covera

wade. >> we have no idea if will overturn roe v. wade. >> there's nothing happening there. >> donald -- >> and you don't know our view on roe v. wade. >> ten nights our guess all join me live. then can lawmakers facing scrutiny over the capitol attack threatened a way out of an investigation? >> these telecommunication companies if they go along with this they will be shut down and that is a promise. and breaking news from the american medical association regarding doctors giving de warming medicine to covid patient, my interview with the head of the ema. all in starts right now. >> good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes. 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 w

wade is the live the land.lso believed in exceptions to incest and rape which this law does not have. this is the harshest law that we could ever see coming, and at this point, i think even some republicans are going to have a hard time getting behind, it come 2022. >> eugene, you made an interesting point today, and that is that on the day that roe v. wade took effect, january's 22nd 1973, you are a reporter, and something else happened that day. and you in the newsroom, with your colleagues were having a discussion. about the coverage of it. >> yes i was in college. i was working for my college initiative for the michigan daily, and on the day that roe v. wade was decided, lyndon johnson died. and this is after the entire vietnam era, that everybody thought of when we thought about johnson. but also the severe rights legacy. and taking over after the kennedy assassination. a gigantic figure, in or mid century politics. and roe v. wade. a monumental world changing court decision. that affected 50% of the u.s.

wade. this is something that we expected. i should also mention that as justice sotomayor says it is , stunning. host: charles donovan, on the enforcement provisions, do you think those will hold up under supreme court scrutiny and do you see them as being a model for other states? guest: texas is unique. it may remain that way. it may be that now that we are moving toward chemical abortion, a parent finds that their child has been given an abortion pill by an abortion provider or someone who was an advocate or someone from overseas, which is now a policy. there are organizations that i advocate for abortion. think there are just uses of this statute. we will have to wait and see. here is the problem. the supreme court attempted to resolve a national abortion policy in 1973. they did it out of the blue. it was not briefed. it was not argued. they reconsidered it. they timed it politically after the 1972 election and they created a law that allows abortion to occur where one of seven countri

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 l

wade per se.he issue back to the state which will be a partial strike that what's happening here gerry i was one of the sponsors of the house. those are tough when we had them challenged judicially. as you mentioned they craftily navigated this legislation to say we are going to ban abortion as six weeks that we will allow people to sue abortion providers and those who participate in the abortion so there's a financial consequence to it and that's why the supreme court allow this. you see for deal or sound and a lot of parents can see what your child looks like and a parent has a relationship with that child so i think technology is on the side but also let states and legislatures make this decision as opposed to in 1973 unelected justices who made the decision for america but let the people decide and that's what's motivating the energy behind this action from the supreme court on the right. gerry: will take one more quick break but i want to talk to our break but i want to talk to our guests abo

wade. today president biden made a substantive statement. not just criticizing the decision but saying what is wrong with the decision and what he plans to do about it. you may have heard, he made a statement about this today. check what he said here. quote, the supreme court's ruling overnight is an unprecedented assault on a woman's constitutional right under roe v. wade, which has been the law of the land. by allowing the law to go into effect that empowers private citizens in texas to sue health care providers, family members supporting a woman exercising her right, it unleashes unconstitutional chaos and empower self anointed in forces to have devastating impacts. complete strangers will now be empowered to inject themselves in private and personal health decisions face by women. this law is extreme and does not allow for exceptions. it not only empowers complete strangers to inject themselves into private decisions, it actually incentivizes them to do so, with the prospect of a 10,000

wade. the vote was 5 to 4, with the three trump appointed justice is joining with other conservative justices. dissenting were roberts and the three liberal justices. president biden -- said he planned to launch a whole of government effort to respond to this decision, looking specifically to hhs and doj to see what steps the federal government can take to insulate those in texas from this law. his words. this afternoon things became a little tense at the white house briefing, when the press secretary was asked about the president's faith and abortion rights. >> why does the president support abortion when his own catholic faith teaches that abortion is immoral? >> he believes it's a woman's body in a territories. >> [inaudible] >> he believes this up to a woman to make those decisions. i know you have never faced those choices or have been pregnant but for women who facie shaw is is it is an incredibly difficult thing. >> meanwhile, speaker pelosi promised to take steps to codify roe v. wa

wade. >> we debate it all with cedric richmond, republican senator bill cassidy and our powerhouse >>> and, "9/11 plus 20, the longest shadow." 20 years after the september 11th attacks the first look at our new abc news documentary. >> nobody needed to die there. i don't think i ever saw a greater strategic purpose for being there. >> martha raddatz, pierre thomas and charlie gibson remember that tragic day and reflect on the toll of america's longest war. >> announcer: from abc news, it's "this week." here now george stephanopoulos. >>> good morning and welcome to "this week." as we head into labor day the country is marking the 20th anniversary of 9/11 this week, still absorbing the heart breaking scenes from the chaotic exit from america's longest war. >>> hurricane ida's trail of devastation turned our focus inward this week. exposed a country clearly unprepared for this harsh new climate reality. >>> after the supreme court's conservative majority allowed texas to enact the most strin

wade. i want to go to john harwood and charlie dent. thank you for joining us this evening. i appreciate it. john, president biden delivering a forceful defense of the u.s. withdrawal from afghanistan today, not giving an inch to his critics. what was the strategy here? >> don, i think what you saw today was part strategy and part personal impulse. on the strategic level, he wanted to explain and defend the decision in broad strokes that led us here. that is that the war in afghanistan, it was time to bring it to a close. he not only deeply believes that now. he's believed it for ten years. obama and trump both wanted to do the same thing, but biden did it. and because biden did it, he's been for the last two weeks in a category 5 political hurricane. the proximate cause of that was the collapse of the afghan government and security forces, but the images that that put on our tv screens at the kabul airport led a chorus of critics, republicans, the news media, some democrats as well, to acc

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

wade and would overturn roe v. wade. it's not just this texas case. there is a membersississippi cat involves a 15-week abortion ban and that case is also slated to be taken up by the supreme court. 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 muc

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

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

wade. new measure is strictest state level abortion ban that went into effect after the supreme court did not act on a request to block it. private individuals can sue anyone who performs an abortion or helps a woman obtain one. white house wasted no time in voicing objections to the ban. >> this extreme texas law blatantly violates the constitutional right established under roe v. wade and upheld over half a century. our focus is reiterate our commitment to the constitutional right and continue to call for the codeification of roe, which was called for on the campaign trail. >> elizabeth warren explained the real life consequences of the law. >> enables people to target abortion providers, people who give advice, try to help, everything to say we're going to isolate and make life as hard as possible for those who don't have resources. they're not going to get the medical care, the treatment that they should be entitled to as human beings. >> right now millions of people in louisiana are st

wade?an a year, i sad they writing is on the wall for roe v. wade like it or not, and the supreme court is likely to overrule it. in the constitutional system two ways to guarantee abortion rights and one is the way that roe does a court decision saying that texas or louisiana or whatever, you cannot have that law, and it is unconstitutional and off of the table in our democracy. and one way, but there is a separate way which is congress, itself, can guarantee it, and thinking about employment discrimination, and that is something that congress guaranteed in title seven in 1965 and not part of the constitution. and so congress tomorrow by simple majority vote can pass a bill to codify roe v. wade and so happy to see speaker pelosi to say she is going to take that up right away. >> on the other hand, you can see the people looking at the texas example and the tweet from kristi noem saying that to leave that texas law in place, i have the unborn child advocate in my office to review the texas

wade. bringing it to the floor. i'm so grateful to speaker pelosi, and i'm grateful that president biden is indeed supporting the right for a statutory kind of improvement to the roe v. wade debate. >> the 216 cosponsors and with speaker pelosi now backing this effort and her commitment to it today to get it done, i have a -- i believe that this can pass the house. the democratic majority has speaker pelosi behind it and those kind of numbers you are going to get there. are you also working on another strategy. there are ashbly a few, maybe two, democratic senators who are explicitly anti-choice. there are also at least ostensibly republican senators who say they are for upholding the protections of roe v. wade. setting aside the filibuster now and whether or not the filibuster will survive this challenging time in our nation's history, do you believe that it's possible to even cobble together a 50-vote majority in the senate to pass it? >> i do believe that it's possible. and let me say th

wade. this is radical. under this bill viability is whatever the portionist deems it to be. i urge all of my colleagues today to stop the abortion on demand until birth act. open your minds to science, technology. look and see the mysteries of the mother's womb. open your ears to the cries of the unborn. may hearts break and may we celebrate life. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: madam speaker, i yield now 30 second to the chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey -- new york is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, i'd like to insert a letter from 60 civil rights organizations in support of the act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nadler: i watched the new york assembly legalize abortion. if you told me then 51 years later i would be standing on the house floor still fighting for women to have the right to make their own decision about their own family i'd call you

wade decision from almost 50 years ago. 3 wade decision from almost 50 years ago-— wade decision from, ~ ., , years ago. a landmark legalised abortions... _ years ago. a landmark legalised abortions... officials _ years ago. a landmark legalised abortions... officials and - abortions... officials and other states _ abortions... officials and other states are - abortions... officials and other states are saying l abortions... officials and i other states are saying that considering similar laws to the texas man, prompting a warning from the attorney general that the justice department will bring the same kind of lawsuit against them. mary zeigler is a professor at the florida state university college of law and the author of �*abortion and the law in america'. earlier, when i spoke to her, she explained how the texas law is unconstitutional. we have never seen a we have never seen a state essentially be able to enforce a law that is clearly unconstitutional under roe and eliminate abortion, coutu has eliminated 80% of all abortions in the state.— in the state. roe v. wade, that was 24

the wade and roe versus wade was henry wade, the district attorney up there who was sued. and texas is also the place, reverend, where we had white primaries. so you are white it's linked to voting, as well. and after white primaries were outlawed by the supreme court, texas had white pre-primaries. yes, i believe that there are those who will seek to have this reward accorded them. they will go out and try to find ways to literally bring people before the borough of justice in court in a civil lawsuit to try to acquire $10,000 because they may suspect that someone has sought to get an abortion within this six-weeks period. i would also say to you that i don't understand how rape and incest can be eliminated because if a young-teenage daughter is raped, what parent would not want to help that daughter receive the choice that she might have of not carrying to term? it's just amazing to me and i support, totally, the opposition to this. speaker pelosi has said that we would codify this law so that it would not become something that the supreme court might act on in this arbi

wade. we've been in a constant battle to preserve our democracy. and we are at a place where we knew what was going to happen when mitch mcconnell decided to jam through the appointment of amy coney barrett three weeks before the election. three supreme court justices that mitch mcconnell was able to put on the courts because guess what -- democrats don't talk about the courts. and it's one of the most important things that we need to talk about. when we're talking about voting rights, when we're talking about lgbtq rights, when we're talking about women's rights, where does that come from? it doesn't come from congress alone, it comes from the courts. mitch mcconnell appointed over 300 federal justices, and we have now the most conservative court that we have ever seen. and so yeah, i wish that democrats would stop playing defense and start playing offense and use the power that the people gave them in the midst of a pandemic in 2020 and came out in a historic election. look, voting is ext

virginia wade wimbledon 1977, it has been _ a long time.de wimbledon 1977, it has been a _ a long time. virginia wade wimbledon 1977, it has been a while _ a long time. virginia wade wimbledon 1977, it has been a while since - a long time. virginia wade wimbledon 1977, it has been a while since a - 1977, it has been a while since a british woman last won a grand slam title but globally women's tennis has been waiting as well for a new young player to capture the worlds imagination. emma raducanu. it could certainly be her, itjust as easily be leylah fernandez her opponent. the 19—year—old canadian shares a lot with emma, not least the fearlessness of youth, after all what is experience but the memory of defeat. when it is all this new has nothing to lose. flushing meadows is the place to be this evening — just over two hours away from the final. give us a sense of what we saw unfold this last fortnight, some of the records emma raducanu is breaking. we the records emma raducanu is breakinu. ~ . , breaking. we have never seen an hinu breakin

roe v wade was declared by the justices. the justices are supposed to be the last word on any kind of individual rights in america. lower courts cannot usurp that responsibility. in effect the justices have allowed the fifth circuit and officials in texas to take over here. the question of why, this goes to how secretive the supreme court can be. they deal with scores of cases each year in these emergency requests. they really will tell us what the vote counts are. they rarely will tell us reasoning. this time they didn't tell us anything. the clinics' hlawyers said they needed some intervention. as we approached midnight last night with people in texas on both sides anxiously waiting and the national audience, the court said nothing. the justices could be sitting in their respective chambers although right now they're in recess and thinking, well, this is confusing, it's complicated. >> isn't everything always confusing and complicated that makes it to the supreme court? >> it does signal this abdication of responsibility b

wade. i want to play some sound where the justices stand on this. >> one of the important things to keep in mind about roe v. wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years. i understand the importance of the issue. >> roe v. wade decided in 1973. the president of the united states supreme court, it has been reaffirmed. the reliance interest considerations are important there. >> i can't express views on cases or precommit to approaching a case any particular way. >> there was a lot of gray there. right? but now we know where they stand when it comes to this texas law. can we now assume how they would vote if roe v. wade were challenged? or are we going to have to wait to see what happens with this mississippi case? >> i think we are going to have to wait and see. certain it was a signal. there was language in the court's order wednesday night about how they were serious question about the law's constitutionality and you should read the court's order as a decision abo

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

wade. for what it's worth, the texas ban says it's illegal for a woman to get an abortion in texas if her pregnancy is more than roughly six weeks along. six weeks is well before many women have any idea that they're pregnant at all. it's estimated that 85% to 90% of all abortions in texas -- 85% to 90% of all abortions everywhere in america happen after six weeks. texas' ban would render all of those illegal. now, as i mentioned, republican-controlled state legislatures and republican governors pass abortion bans all the time now even though they know they'll get struck down. some of it a hobby. they just want to get in the habit of banning abortion whenever they can, even if it won't work. but some of it is planning, and what republicans have been banking on for the last few months -- for the last couple of years honestly, is that the three trump justices who joined the court are now going to be enough to collapse roe, to collapse the protections that women get now understand roe versus w

wade," he's not in favor of "roe v. wade." can you imagine, you know, everybody says there are all these red states that are going to follow suit with texas. can you imagine if a state like california, now, it's not going to happen because we have a democratically controlled legislature, but to have somebody at the head of a state of 40 million people, that talks about women the way he does, about climate change that he denies, and about the covid epidemic, it's just -- it makes your head explode. >> rob, let me ask you, because of the dire straits you're talking about here in california, if somebody like larry elder becomes governor, are democrats taking this seriously enough? are they responding to this a little too late? yes, they've been sending out elizabeth warren and you have amy klobuchar tomorrow. other big names are on their way. is this coming soon enough? >> i hope so. as you pointed out in your segment before, you said that it's the summertime. it's after labor day, people are not paying attention. it's an off-yea

wade. 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

wade. so i think that roe vs. wade is very much in jeopardy and even if they don't overrule roe vs. wade, there could definitely be five votes to seriously undermine to make it much easier for states to pass restrictive abortion laws in the future. >> amy, thank you for that excellent examination. appreciate it. >>> joining me now to talk about what options congress has, debbie dingell of michigan. thanks for joining us. we appreciate it. is there any pathway forward to codify roe v. wade? >> well, i think that people have been talking about that for a long time. certainly the speaker has made clear that the house will vote on this when we return the week of september 20th. i think that it will be a narrow passage, i think that the house will probably pass it. but the problem is that the united states senate. i think that joe biden has made it clear that he would sign it, but everything these days the senate is more a robot [ inaudible ]. >> we haven't heard from many republicans in congress about this texas law. they have been fairly silent especially senator ted cruz who we would

but what is not complicated _ roe v wade. but what is not complicated is _ roe v wade.s 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

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

wade. and clear the way for abortion bans, in republican-controlled states. and when i said tonight, i mean tonight. tonight by midnight central time. 1 am eastern. here's what's going on. three months ago, republicans in texas passed an abortion ban. republicans in state legislatures do this all the time. now they all get struck down by the courts. the supreme court decision roe v. wade, restrict states from banning abortion, in most circumstances. it's a controlling precedent in the supreme court since 1973. and at first glance, this new texas abortion ban looks like one of the many bands that republican state legislatures, half past. which of then all been disallowed by the federal courts. because of the protections that we haven't thanks to roe v. wade. for what it's, worth the texas band says, it's illegal for a woman to get an abortion in texas, if a pregnancy is more than six weeks along. six weeks. it's well before many women have any idea they're pregnant at all. it's estimated tha

wade. >> we have no idea how on overturn roe v. wade. >> there is nothing happening there.murray all join me live. and can they stand scrutiny over

wade?we put out that statement this morning but let me reiterate the key points and i will of course answer your russian. the president said this morning that this extreme texas law blatantly violates the constitutional rights established by roe v. wade and upheld for half a century. significantly impairing the access to the help they need for individuals with low incomes and communities of color and it deputize as private citizens to bring lawsuits against anyone who they believe has help another person get an abortion, include and family members, front desks staff, health care workers, or strangers with no connection to the individual. this further isolates individuals facing the tough choice and i would note that for those who didn't see, people who report, these private citizens, could get up to $10,000 for reporting someone seeking an abortion. our focus in the president's focus is to reiterate the deep commitment to the constitutional right established by roe v. wade five decades ago

wade? >> one of the things that representative howard had named is this is not the first restriction. we have seen hundreds of restrictions passed over the last decade and in isolation, one of these types of restrictions might harm someone, it might force you to go deeper into your pregnancy, you will have to travel hundreds of miles. these restrictions are happening on top of each other in places like texas. for many people, abortion is already out of reach. >> my last question, professor. the texas case is just the most recent example of the supreme court issuing short, unsigned 5-4 decisions without full briefing or oral argument that directly impacts people's lives. we have seen voting rights where one day before wisconsin's primary election, they released in decision reversing a district court order that allowed voters to count absentee balance in the middle of a pandemic. instead, we saw voters standing in long lines in garbage bags in a rainstorm. what does it mean for public confide