Skip to main content

tv   CNN Newsroom With Poppy Harlow and Jim Sciutto  CNN  June 24, 2022 7:00am-8:00am PDT

7:00 am
one of them could impact abortion access across this country. a crowd of protesters gathered in front of the corpourt. first the january 6 committee laying out in stunning detail new evidence shows how high ranking justice department officials rejected former president trump's scheme to use the doj to back his claim. those top officials detailing how it all played out in multiple meetings and phone calls after the election. >> i'm just asking you to do is say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the republican congress. >> at up with point, he had raised the question of having a special counsel for election fraud. at up with point he raised the -- whether the justice department would file a lawsuit in the supreme court. a couple of junctures there were questions of making public
7:01 am
statements or about holding a press conference. the justice department declined all of those requests that i was just referencing because we did not think that they were appropriate based on the facts and the law. >> repeated attempts to over turn the election. much of yesterday hearing focused on jeffrey clark who played a central role in pushing trump's false election frauds and who trump wanted to install as the acting attorney general. just hours before yesterday's hearing, federal agents raided clark's home. we'll have much more on what led them to do that. >> our panel of experts join us as we cover the angles. the sarah, the select committee bringing into focus doj official jeffrey clark's role. significant role in the former president's scheme. >> yes, absolutely. rolling out how former president trump wanted to just set aside
7:02 am
jeff rosen and steal jeffrey clark as the acting attorney general. look, the witnesses are in person and in their video testimony were not holding back on what they thought about jeffrey clark and his qualifications. listen to what richard donahue had had to say about clark. >> i made the point that jeff clark is not competent to serve as the attorney general. he's never been a criminal attorney. he's never conducted a criminal investigation in his life. he's never been a trial jury. he kind of retorted by saying, well, i've done a will the of very complicated appeals and civil litigation, environmental litigation and things like that. i said that's right. you're an environmental lawyer. how about you go back to your office and we'll call you when there's an oil spill. >> officials were alarmed when they heard about steps that jeffrey clark was willing to take to try to push there notion
7:03 am
of voter fraud, frtry to over tn the election. listen to what this white house lawyer said. >> when he finished discussing what he planned on doing, i said good [ bleep ]. sorry. a-hole. congratulations. you just made the first step of committing a felony. >> reporter: the people around clark thought it was clear they thought the actions were insane, potentially unlawful and we know that clark's home has opibeen raided. >> thank you. let's talk about this. joining us is s.e. cupp, jeffrey toobin. >> tell us what this says about the doj investigation. they would have to prove to a judge that they reason to believe there was evidence of a crime in the house but also reason to believe the possibility of destruction of
7:04 am
that evidence. how seriously do they have to prove something before they do something like this? >> this is enormously important at many different levels. we were not sure -- the public was not sure -- that they were v investigating anything going on at the capitol. not only are they investigating a much broader possible conspiracy, they are investigating someone who was dealing extensively with president trump. this investigation has now reached inside the white house and inside the oval office. that's what that search warrant means. it doesn't mean that clark or anyone else will be charged for certain but the magnitude of the investigation is much greater than we previously known. the other thing we know is you don't get a search warrant into their house and for their phones
7:05 am
based on something that happened a year and a half ago. they need information that there is presently something on those phones that justifies a search. that means this investigation has found some evidence that there is some ongoing -- >> wow. >> activity that justifies a search. you can't get a swaearch warran for someone's house saying a year and a half they did x, y, z. you have to say there's presently evidence available that the investigators need to see. that's what made -- that's one of the many things that makes this search important. >> abbey, we laheard in the ope of the show saying the president wanted him to say it was corrupt and leave the represent to him and the gop congressmen. if you couple that with what else the committee presented which was that several sitting
7:06 am
members of congress asked for prospective pardons, blanket pardons to cover future criminality. what does the combination of those two things indicate to you? >> i think it's pretty clear it indicates they knew what they were doing was wrong, illegal. it required a certain degree of deception of the public. what they were basically -- what jeffrey clark was trying to strong arm the doj into doing what h was lie about the idea there was sufficient or sufficient suspicion there was fraud in the georgia election. he knew that wausn't true and that was the whole objective. at some point jeffrey clark says to the acting deputy attorney general, rosen, he would give up on the idea of taking over doj if they would sign this
7:07 am
fraudulent letter to georgia that would throw the election into chaos. this lines up with what we knew and reporting at the time about what was going on with trump and the people aiding and abetting them. they knew they didn't have evidence but they were looking for anything the slow or stall or stop the process of biden being certified as the winner of the election. >> those word, by the way, chronicled, s.e. cupp, in contemporaneous notes by the president. he said say it was rigged and the leave the rest up to me. is this evidence, as it's presents and related to the president, s.e. cupp, is it impactful for the republican party and his supporters?
7:08 am
we brushed off so much in the last 18 months. is there anything that moves that dial for them? >> there's a wing of trump supporters who will not be moved by anything. they will firmly believe, probably to the end, that the election was rigged because the president says it was. if you switch over to fox, i saw a number of fox analysts and hosts saying this looks really bad. i don't think, frankly, republicans or democrats think this is an election issue. and let's not forget this is an election year. i do think you have some republican members of congress who are wondering, okay. how far am i going to go backing this idea when clearly it looks like president trump was using the doj to fry to break our election system, to try to break
7:09 am
democracy. maybe i won't be as full throated in my defense of this. i think there is some concern at how bad and egregious and obvious this effort was but i don't think you'll find any soul z searching among his hardened supporters. >> elliot williams was predicting the hearing was going to be most consequential so far. i wonder do you think it was? >> they have all been. what's interesting to me is taking them as a whole. they have been organized in such a way that you see what the president has done. he's tried with different audiences to over turn this election. you had one hearing about trying to convince the vice president to try to over turn the election. you had another hearing about trying to convince the states to
7:10 am
over turn the election and yesterday you had atrying to us department to over turn the election. it's the cumulative effect that is most meaningful to me. that is a moral and historical matter. whether it's true that any crimes were committed by donald trump or anyone else, i'm not prepared to say at this point. certainly yesterday was something that justified a criminal investigation. there's no doubt that what was going on there. as the people involved knew. that's another thing that's interesting about these pardon requests is that even at the time all these people knew, something bad was going on here. this is why the lawyer is saying the eastman, you need a criminal defense lawyer. that's why he's saying to jeffrey clark, you're going to commit crimes if you do what you
7:11 am
say you're going to do. the air of criminality is not something we're imposing after the fact. they newspknew it at the time. that's significant. we'll see where it goes. >> standby, jeffrey. we do have breaking news just in to cnn. the supreme court has issued and this is the decision many r waiting for, ruling in dobbs versus jackson women's health organization. the major case. as we wait to read this decision. jeffrey, put into context how consequential this is. >> psychologists have a term called flashbulb memory. you remember where you are when something happened. today is the moment we will learn the fate of constitutional abortion rights in america. in 1973, is supreme court
7:12 am
decdecide ed roe versus wade. now the dobbs case involving a statute out of mississippi is whether rights will continue. this is a especially bizarre scenario in supreme court history because a draft opinion of this -- in this case was leaked about six weeks ago .
7:13 am
it's a historical moment. >> standby. i want to get to jessica schneider outside of the court with more. jessica, what is the opinion from the court? >> reporter: the court issuing that landmark ruling that this nation has been bracing for and the supreme court has overturned roe v wade. they have eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion and at first glance this opinion is very similar to that draft opinion that we saw leaked about a month and a half ago at the beginning of may. what we're seeing at first glance here is that this is a 5-4 decision. this is an opinion written by justice samuel aletto joined with the other conservatives. the chief justice john roberts not joining in the opinion but joining in the judgment meaning he agrees that the mississippi 15-week abortion ban should be upheld but not agreeing with there sweeping proclamation that
7:14 am
roe v wade is over turned. we're looking into this opinion but this will have immediate effects here. by all estimates about half of the states are expected to eliminate the right to abortion. we have got about a half dozen states that have so called trig er laws their abortion bans will go into effect immediately or within the next 30 days or next few months. we have dozen states with zombie laws. they were on the books before roe v wade that will go back into effect. on the flip side, there are about 16 states in washington, d.c. that have sort of amped up their abortion protections. they are expecting potentially to see an influx of patients coming into their states to actually get abortions for people who are living in statements that will soon not be able to get abortions. this is a landmark ruling here. this is over turning nearly 450 years of pres cedent that was
7:15 am
established in roe v wade and affirmed in casey. those opinions, there's been a constitutional right to an abortion from the supreme court. women have been able to get abortions. the state has not been able to restrict abortions up to the point of viability about 23 to 24 weeks. now this court up ending the past 50 years of history. looking very similar to that draft decision written by justice samuel aletto. he said that roe v wade was egregiously wrong. if it similar, which it appears to be, he'll talk about how there's no historical precedent for the supreme court upholding the right to an abortion and this should be left to the states. this is what this opinion will do. it will say this constitution does not guarantee the right to abortion and it's left to the individual states. one last thing, guys, justice
7:16 am
aletto said in the draft within and probably says it, this is too divisive an issue to kind of glean from the constitution when it isn't specific about abortion and a about the right to abortion. this needs to be decided by individual states where people have the right to vote in their representatives and the power should be returned to the states. it will be returned to the states now that the court has over turned roe v wade. jim and poppy. >> thank you very much. as jessica said this is a court that's just up ended a half century of law of constitutionally protected right to abortion. it affects nearly every family across america in one way or another. we have our team here. also cnn legal analyst joan.
7:17 am
roberts joins in the judgment. your first reaction and who this affects the most. >> definitely affects poor women the most who won't be able to travel from state to state. i have to say there's a thresholds matter, it's so startling even though we had seen a glimpse of it on may 2nd when the draft leaked. it still is so amazing to look at this right now and think of 4 50 years of supreme court precedent and a constitutional right. this was a constitutional right that 1973 court declared suddenly evaporate in this moment. to also think about how different this supreme court is in america. this is a court made up of three trump appointees. all in their 450s. they will be with us in a long time and setting the law of the land. to get to your question about
7:18 am
who this would affect. women, families, generations of americans because gears have been switched now. obviously, the administration is going to try the take some steps to counter it but once you lift a constitutional right the way this five justice block as done with such sweeping defiance of precedent, it will be years and years before the court even thinks about going back, if it ever does. this is ruling for the age, poppy. >> your reference to precedent is important because, joan, as you fwhknow better than us, this 50 years of right that past court muster at multiple levels. these are all justices who are asked in their confirmation hearing if they respect p precedent. they all said yes, repeatedly.
7:19 am
the justice you wrote about favored slower movement rather than quick movement. tell us about split in this decision here as it reflects that? >> that's exactly right. this decision was 5-1-3 with the one being chief justice john roberts concurring, in part, to say he would have upheld with the majority, the mississippi ban on abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy. he would have not taken this leap to over turn roe v wade. this is significant because chief justice john roberts has never favored abortion rights but he has wanted to protect the institution of the supreme court and reenforce the adherence to precedent. the regard for presence dent which is the corner stone of the supreme court's work. what he said is yes to uphold mississippi but this is such a big change for america and this is the roberts court.
7:20 am
>> it is. as he said just three years, four years ago, roberts court sometimes get in trouble when they sweep more broadly than necessary. jeffrey, to you. let's talk about the impact state to state. trigger laws. laws already in states now that will immediately take effect. >> will immediately take effect. if you think this is going to lead to some sort of the neat solution where one set of states it's legal and another set of states abortion is illegal, that's not how it's going to work. this is going to be a legal several war between the states because you are going to have situations in many states where it is illegal to help people get abortions and people from other states are going to give money. they will travel to those states. they are going to participate in trying to help these women get
7:21 am
abortions. if you travel from new york to oklahoma to help a woman get abortion, are you going to be prosecuted. if you send money, are you going to be prosecuted. >> companies funding people. >> there's also isthe issue of e commercial impact. boycotts. what if a company says they will travel for abortion out of another state. anti-abortion people may want to boycott that company. what if they say they will not pay for abortion. pro-abortion people say they will boycott. this is going to have enormous ramifications but they all start with the effect on women who will lose a right that they have had for 50 years in this country. >> jennifer, when you look at the mississippi case here, the dobbs case, this speaks to the
7:22 am
broadness, the brdecision. it has no exceptions for rape or incest as many of these trigger laws we see. that's quite a broad change in this country. imagine your wife or girlfriend or daughter raped but it also raises questions about ivf. what happens with embryos that are not implanted when women are seeking to have babies. help folks at home understand how broad this goes. >> listen, it's a heartbreaking betrayal of half of the country. i'm getting -- watching the women there. it's emotional. it's a real problem. people are talking about privacy issues. can state who is are trying to criminalize abortion not just to the women getting them but doctors providing them, people driving them to the clinic, are they going to be able to search your apps. there's apps that track mensm menstrual cycles. how far are the states going the
7:23 am
try to go in criminalizing every single aspect of women trying control their reproductive rights. we don't know what state will try to do. it's going to be a patch work and lead to laws where they try to really invade people's privacy in unprecedented ways and those will have to be challenged and work their way through the court. we're talk about a period of chaos where women not only can't be confident that they can get an abortion but can't even be sure they have the right to track their own cycles. to control other parts of their reproductive processes in a way. we have taken for granted not just for 50 years buttrying to opinion. it looks almost identical to the leaked opinion including the phrase that roe was egregiously wrong when it was decided. if this decision was egregiously
7:24 am
wrong, more than a dozen supreme court justices since 1973 have said, it was actually quite right. this just gives you an idea of how different the five justices and the majority. the three justices plus aletto and thomas from the other republican appointees. >> those words never left the mouths of the folk on the majority side of this. they were pressed op this and they can't say how they will decide decisions but they did go out of their way to say they -- >> brett cavskavanaugh has a concurring opinion where he's trying to protect susan collins. susan kcollins said who is pro-choice on abortion said, kavanaugh assured me that he believes in stare decisis. he said i was for it but this
7:25 am
case is an exception. >> joan, i'd like to go back to you and to the point that jeffrey made about 12 times then since the early '70s, the court has upheld this most notably in '92. sandra day o' connor wrote something about the institution of the court as a body irregardless of justice's personal opinions. >> we have a whole different crop of republican appointed justices compared to back in the '90s, '70, and '80s. a lot of people don't remember roe v wade was written by a nixon appointee, harry blackman when it was upheld.
7:26 am
the court is not to define the moral choice for every one. they might disagree with it, roe, and they did disagree with roe but it had become so much a part of american society and american law and was rooted in the constitution in terms of their minds that that's why it involved being upheld. since the p1973 court there's opinion 15 new justices on the bench. nine of them went along with this. some a little bit reluctantly like sandra day o' connor. many robustly because it has been part of precedent but only six broke off and five of them are still with us. that's the point we have got right now. this is such a different court that america is going to have to get accustomed to. the three trump appointees are
7:27 am
only in their 50s. >> on a whole host of decisions. we saw on guns yesterday. this is the desire decision. i want to read a quote from the majority opinion here written by justice. he writes roe was wrong from the start. its reasoning was exceptionally weak and the decision has had damaging consequences. far from bringing about a national settlement, roe and casey have inflamed debate and deepened division. in fairness, i'll read from the dissenting opinion. justices write with sorrow for this court but more for the many millions of american women who have lost a fundamental constitutional protection. we dissent. if you can, jeffrey, describe the division on the court on this issue. i can't imagine a more stark one. >> it really goes to the
7:28 am
conception of the constitution and what the constitution means and how it should be interpreted. the conservatives are, for the most part, originalists. who believe the constitution should be interpreted as the people who ratified it in the late 18th century understood the words to mean and as the justice aletto opinion said the constitution doesn't mention abortion so there's no right to abortion. that's the end of the story, to him. other justices feel that the constitution has to be interpreted in light of how the society has changed and sometimes driebd as a living constitution and it was a decision based on a living conception of the constitution. the originalists are winning.
7:29 am
they won yesterday, at least that's how justice thomas raised his opinion in the guns case. you know, again, it depends how cynical you are about how the supreme court works. some justices want to reach one result or reach another result and find a justification. originalism and a living constitution is what this debate oaf abortion and the supreme court is about. >> joan, justice aletto writes we hold that roe and casey must be over turned. the constitution makes no reference to abortion. that's what jeffrey is talking about. substantive due process. this can have implications way beyond abortion.
7:30 am
if you look back to these cases, loving versus virginia. lawrence versus texas. the right to same-sex marriage. what does this decision by the court in this way it's written despite what aletto says, this doesn't affect anything else. legally, it can be used to undermine those rights, correct? >> of course. people will seize bupon the basc holding here that talks about the right to abortion not being in the constitution but you mention griswald versus connecticut from 1965. the court said there's a privacy right embodied in the 14th amendment that covers married couples ability to get contraceptives. that is what roe is built upon. it's so interesting to think about how the justices talk even about griswald. some of you might remember that amy coney barrett whose vote
7:31 am
made this whole thing possible wouldn't endorse griswald and the right to contraceptives at her hearing. she showed us what she was going to do even though she had not pre-judged roe. this was coming and i think you're right, poppy. this opens the door to many other challenges and one last thing i mentioned about this court. amy coney barrett joined in october of 2020. less than two years we have gone tw when this majority has seized this moment. chief justice john roberts would have been ready to over turn roe at some point. >> it's a moment for this country. supreme court has over turned roe versus wade after nearly 450 years. we'll take a quick break.
7:32 am
still lots of questions to answer. we'll be right back. machine dry skin is sensitive skin, too. and it's natural. treat it that way. aveeno® daily moisture with prebiotic oatat is proven to moistururize dry skin all day. you'll love our formula for face, too. aveeno®.. welcome to your world. your why. what drives you? what do you want to leave behind? what do you want to give back? what do you want to be remembered for? that's your why. it's your purpose, and we will work with you every step of the way to achieve it. at pnc private bank, we'll help you take care of the how. so tell us - what's your why? ♪
7:33 am
♪ making friends again, billy? i like to keep my enemies close. guys, excuse me. i didn't quite get that. i'm hard of hearing. ♪ oh hey, don't forget about the tense music too. would you say tense? i'd say suspenseful. aren't they the same thing? can we move on guys, please? alexa, turn on the subtitles. and dim the lights. ok, dimming the lights. do you have a life insurance policy you no longer need? now you can sell your policy - even a term policy - for an immediate cash payment. we thought we had planned carefully for our retirement. but we quickly realized we needed a way to supplement our income. if you have $100,000 or more of life
7:34 am
insurance, you may qualify to sell your policy. don't cancel or let your policy lapse without finding out what it's worth. visit to find out if your policy qualifies. or call the number on your screen. coventry direct, redefining insurance. lemons. lemons, lemons, lemons. look how nice they are. the moment you become an expedia member, you can instantly start saving on your travels. so you can go and see all those, lovely, lemony, lemons. ♪ and never wonder if you got a good deal. because you did. ♪ if your moderate to severe crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis symptoms are stopping you in your tracks... choose stelara® from the start... and move toward relief after the first dose...
7:35 am
with injections every two months. stelara® may increase your risk of infections, some serious, and cancer. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection, flu-like symptoms, sores, new skin growths, have had cancer, or if you need a vaccine. pres, a rare, potentially fatal brain condition, may be possible. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. feel unstoppable. ask your doctor how lasting remission can start with stelara®. janssen can help you explore cost support options. ♪ we could walk forever ♪ ( ♪ ) ♪ walking on ♪ ♪ walking on the moon ♪
7:36 am
♪ some ♪ ♪ may say ♪ ♪ i'm wishing my days away ♪ ♪ no way ♪ ♪ walking on the moon ♪ . we are continuing our break news coverage this morning. the supreme court has over turned roe versus wade. this changes abortion rights and access across the country for millions of women. i want to read you part of the majority opinion that comes from justice samuel aletto addressing
7:37 am
the issue of pres dent. let me read you from the majority opinion. he writes the dissent argues that he with have abandoned stare decisis and we have done no such thing. with sorrow for this court but more for the millions of american women who have lost a fundamental constitutional prek. we dissent. >> jennifer rogers, run question is how broadly this impacts not just abortion rights but other rights. our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no ore right. nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt or on precedents that do not concern abortion. there are better than me, many rights like a right to privacy that are not referenced at all that people have come to enjoy and believe are part of their
7:38 am
lives today whether that's contraception or interracial marriage. is that true in practice when these issues are likely coming to court? >> no. first of all, you have the rights we have been discussing that are based in the right of privacy they have dismissed contra contraception, the right to do sexual acts in your own home but you have other things that are not enumerated and the court said enjoy constitutional protection. maybe most obvious being yesterday's decision in the gun case. nowhere in the constitution does it say you have a right to an individual to carry a weapon outside of the home and yet they have found that is a constitutional right protected and there are other examples. it's just, they find the right when they want the right. never before, never before, jeffrey can correct me if i'm wrong, has the history of the supreme court recognized a constitutional right and then
7:39 am
taken it away. the cases they cite that have over turned prior cases are saying we got it wrong by not recognizing it and now we do it. this is different. this is you have this right. it's in the constitution. wait a minute, 50 years later, you don't have it anymore. that's never been done before sd. >> it's a good point. it's like foot point where cases have been over turned. there's a fundamental significant difference between those cases and roe versus wading with over turned. >> the only parallel i can think of in terms of a right being taken away from americans is not a supreme court amendment but prohibition. prohibition tyke away a right that people had for the entirety of american history. didn't work out so well. there was a constitutional amendment taking it back. we're now in the middle of an
7:40 am
experiment of what it's like to have a right taken away for millions of people that they expected to have and understood sto to have and decades. how the country responds to that, i don't know. >> states are responding. the missouri attorney just signed an opinion in the last few minutes that will end abortion in that state. this is something we have been discussing on this broadcast. a number of states have trigger laws that would go in effect. now going into effect as a result of this decision. this has tremendous imply kags for perhaps two dozen states around the country. >> yeah, absolutely. i was struck by you were reading from the opinion he talks about how roe has, in his opinion, exacerbated the political divide on the issue of abortion but the data that we have on public opinion as it relates to abortion just does not bear that
7:41 am
out. for decades, more than 60% in our latest poll, about 66% of americans favor roe v wade staying in place and the number of americans who want it to be over turned has never exceeded 40%. this is actually something where the public opinion has opinion fairly stable over decades. it leads to a will the of questions about what happens when the court really is so out of step with where the country is. what you're going to see on the political side, you're going to hear a lot of abortion opponents arguing this is just going to send it out to the states. it's not going to have as significant as an impact as it seems but the reality of what we're seeing at the state level is that there are very active, powerful activists groups who have succeeded in pushing abortion laws that are
7:42 am
increasingly restrictive. not just abortion restricted by 15 weeks as the mississippi law was but going all the way to fertilization and all kinds of language that bans abortion entirely in their states. those things are also based on what we know about public opinion out of step with where most americans are. the question is, does that start to matter to more people when they go to the ballot box and make decisions about and that what this decision throws this debate into the realplrks of. >> a little bit more from the dissent. one result is the curtailment of women's rights and status of
7:43 am
free and equal citizens. that's the dissent part of this result. this was not decide op equal protection grounds. this was decided on a lack of a right to privacy. it was not decided on equal protection grounds. your white house has been working on a number of question marks of what power it has and doesn't have if this were to be the decision. what can you tell us about that and the reaction from the president now? >> the white house knew this decision was coming. they didn't know exactly what the final ruling was going to look like but every one had a pretty good idea after the leaked opinion happened several weeks ago. they had time to prepare for this and have been bracing for this decision. we are told we will hear from president biden today. it's not clear exactly when but the white house is making preparations for the president to address the nation on this monumental moment. one of the things they have been doing is pleati ingmeeting with
7:44 am
holders, abortion providers and attorneys general in democratic states to prepare. they know while there's little they can do, all eyes will be turning to the white house now that this ruling has come down to see what exactly it is they are going to do in response. they have been preparing several announcements. at the end och the day, the white house knows no executive order they issue will restore this right that has been taken away with there ruling. that can only be done with an act of congress. ri they know the significant does not have the votes to get a
7:45 am
national standard legalized. they have been preparing these actions on their own. that could be something you hear from president biden as soon as today because they knew every one is going to be seeing what the white house is saying in response to this and potentially people going to the polls in november over this issue. >> we should acknowledge and you and i have been talking about this is a deeply emotional issue for americans. there are americans watching this upset by there decision. there are some who are celebrating this decision and probably many more who have complicated views and see things they welcome an things they are concerned about. it's an issue that we pledged to you and will continue to discuss in coming days and weeks as it affects and plays out across this country. >> you're right. there are many families who will look at this decision and say this should have come decades ago and many who are devastated by this as they see a half century of their constitutionally protected right gone. it is divisive within families across the country and beyond.
7:46 am
>> please stay with us. we have many more questions, including which states are most likely to act very quickly to ban abortion based on this decision. we'll take a short break. we'll be right back. was not g. i had periodontal disease, and i i just didn't feel well. but then i found clearchoice.. [ forde e ] replacing marcia's teeth with dental implants at clearchoice was going to afforord her that permanent solution. [ marcia ] clearchoice dental implants gave me the ability to take on the world. i feel so much better, and i think that that is the key. - common percy! - yeah let's go! on a trip. book with priceline. you save more, so you can “woooo” more. o- wooo.p. book w- wooo.celine. wooooo!!!!! woohoooo!!! w-o-o-o-o-o... yeah, feel the savings. priceline. every trips a big deal.
7:47 am
my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... ...the burning, the itching. the stinging. my skin was no longer mine. emerge tremfyant®. with tremfya®, most people saw 90% clearer skin at 16 weeks. the majority of people saw 90% clearer skin even at 5 years. tremfya® is the first medication of its kind also approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis... ...and it's 6 doses a year after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms
7:48 am
or if you had a vaccine or plan to. emerge tremfyant®. with tremfya®... ask your doctor about tremfya® today. are your hr processes weighing down your employees? on to quarterly projections! expense report!
7:49 am
if you're using multiple systems, re-entering data over and over time sheet! using email and spreadsheets to manage information and approvals, then your hr systems are a drag on productive time. with paycom, employees enter and manage their own hr data in a single, easy-to-use software. visit paycom dot com and schedule your demo today. do they know this door is locked
7:50 am
truly consequential day in america. welcome back to our coverage.
7:51 am
you can see large crowd gathered outside the court this morning. protesting both for and against this decision. justices breyer, sotomayor an can re and kagen said a state will be able to impose its moral choice on a woman and give birth to a child. we want to begin with tom foreman. we will break down the ripple effect of this ruling across dozens of states. >> this is how it will affect you. 13 state vss have the trig ger in place. laws go into effect quickly to ban abortion. in kentucky, louisiana and south dakota, it happens immediately. meaning if you had an
7:52 am
appointment this morning at 8:00 for this procedure, you could go through it with it. from here on out, no you request not. then we move to a second group. the next level, borg will be banned 30 days, idaho, tennessee, tennessee. then a half dozen states where officials would need to certify it as legally valid before their bans will kick in. that includes north dakota, arkansas, missouri and mississippi. this could be incredibly quick or maybe a few days. they could be need oimmediate o couple of days. we have old, unenforced abortion bans that could be enforced and those that pass bans under roe that were blocked by courts. you get 26 states certain or likely to ban abortion. that's compared to just 16
7:53 am
states in d.c. with laws to protect abortion rights. states that are preparing for an influx of patients. you can imagine what it's like in illinois that will quickly ban abortion. what is the severity of these bans. what are we looking at here? missouri has eyes on targeting even non-residents. fp if you were to pass through and conceive a child, they would continue on that if you got an abortion elsewhere fp laws are severe. big steps that effect every community. >> thank you. to your point about the difference in states that is highlighted in the dissent about the impact on women without means, poor women. let's take you now to washington, d.c. house speaker nancy pelosi. >> in the congress, be aware of this, the republicans are plotting a nationwide abortion
7:54 am
ban. they cannot allow to have majority in the congress to do that. that's their goal. if you read and we're all studying that is all but if you read what is in the very clear, one of the justices had his own statement it's about co contra contraception, in vitro fertilization. that is all what will spring from the decision they made today. such a contradiction. yesterday to say the states cannot make laws governing the constitutional right to bear arms and today, they're saying the exact reverse that the states can over turn a
7:55 am
constitutional right. for 50 years a constitutional right for women having the right to choose. the hypocrisy is raging but the harm is endless. what this means to women is such an insult. it's slap in face to women about using their own judgment to make their own decisions about their reproductive freedom, and again, it goes what i have said determination of a pregnancy is just their opening act. it's just their front game. behind it and for years, i have seen in this congress, opposition to any family planning domestic or global. when we have had those discussions and those debates and those votes on floor of the house.
7:56 am
this is deadly serious. we are not going to let there pass. a woman's right to choose, reproductive freedom is on the ballot in november. we cannot allow them to take charge so that they can institute their goal which is to crimi criminalize reproductive freedom. to criminalize it. right now, they are saying in states they can arrest doctors and all the rest. what is happening here? what is happening? a woman's health decisions are her own to make in consultation with her doctor, her faith, her family. not some right wing politicians that donald trump and mitch mcconnell packed the court with. republicans seek to punish and control women, democrats will keep fighting to enshrine roe v
7:57 am
wade into law of the land. there cruel ruling is outrageous and heart wrenching. make no mistake, it's all on the ballot in november. supreme court has ended a constitutional right. this is 50 years proclaimed a constitutional right. what happened today was historic in many respects. historic in that it had not granted recognize a constitutional right and then reversed it. this is a first. again, just before it imposed a constitutional right to allow for concealed weapons. how about those justices coming before the senators and saying they that respect ed the pres
7:58 am
dent of the court. they respected the right of privacy and the constitution of the united states. did you hear that? were they not telling the truth then? again, just getting to the gun issue because really in preparation for this morning i was really in an exhalted state about what happened in the united states senate yet. counter point to the dangerous decision of this trumpian supreme court that they made yesterday but a way to take us as the bill is called community safety. safer community acts. right now and i'll have to leave because we just first nished vo.
7:59 am
we will be debating the bill on the floor and we expect a good bipartisan vote in the house. we congratulate the senate on the work they have done and the timeliness to be passed in the senate and the strong bipartisan way on a day when the court made such a dangerous, dangerous decision. we will, many of our house democrats, democrats proposal that are included in this package are that keep deadly weapons out of dangerous hands by encouraging states to establish extreme risk protection and laws. help put end to straw purchases, close the boyfriend loophole. some many good things are in there. it's not everything we wanted. we must keep moving toward background checks.
8:00 am
this is a giant step forward. maybe not so much a giant but a good step forward. as i say to members all the time with legislation, do not judge it for what isn't it but respect it for what is. there's much to be respected in this legislation . >> we follow this historic breaking news. we were just listening to nancy pelosi who in reaction to the


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on