wade. roe v. wade, as this body knows extremely well, the supreme court decided the constitution guarantees the right to have an abortion until the viability of a child, with very little understanding of the term viability. years later in planned parenthood vs. casey the court also said that the government couldn't place an undue burden on access to abortion which has been used to block many laws that aim to protect women and children. both decisions were completely arbitrary and not based in constitutional law. viability, quite frankly, is impossible to define because children develop at different speeds. one child, like curtis means who just left the university of alabama regional neonatal regional intensive care unit after being delivered at 21 weeks, one day, the youngest child fob p born ever. -- to be born ever. another child may not survive if they were delivered at 32 weeks. viability was completely invented by the court in 1973 as a standard and is impossible to actually track. america ha

he talked about how he felt that roe v. wade was wrongly decided. take a listen. >> i believe in a simple reading of the united states constitution that when roe was decided in 1973, there is no fundamental right in our united states constitution to an abortion. and furthermore, chuck, i believe very strongly that you read the constitution, there is nowhere in the constitution that prohibits individual states, states like mississippi, to limit access to abortions. >> barbara, what do you make of that argument? >> i think -- i'm so glad that he raised that argument, because it is such a straw man. the ninth amendment to the constitution also says that the constitution preserves unenumerated rights. it is not intended to be an exclusive list. and as a result to the supreme court over the decades has found other unenumerated rights, like the right to vote, the right to travel, the right to be presu ed innocent many trial. in fact, the supreme court has settled since 1973 and affirmed and reaffirmed the holding that the constitution does recognize a fun

it violates the right to sit and leave abortion established under roe v. wade. it creates a scheme for private citizens to invade that. >> the case is crucial to women and it may impact other constitutional rights as well. the special structure can be used in future laws to strike down the right to free speech or to own a gun. >> that was our will -- our washington correspondent explains what impact this can have on reduction -- reproduction rhts in t united states. >> this won't lead to the question of overturning roe v. wade. that is the case that gave this right to abortion here in the united states but it could have an effect on how states, especially conservative states decide to handle abortion legislation. apron much clears the path to ban abortions virtually -- it pretty much clearshe path to ban abortions in texas. the position of the supreme court will be extremely important. if they decide to uphold this texas law, it will grant states to go around roe v. wade in order to ban abortions in their state. that said, the first hearing that we heard, some o

wade or over turns roe v. wade completely? i know your views on roe v. wade, you'd like to see it overturned or you believe it was wrongly decided. do you think it needs to be overturned, or do you think they can redefine roe v. wade to allow this law to be enacted? >> well, that's a complicated question. clearly, i think this law can be enacted within a changing confinement of roe v. wade, but i also believe roe v. wade was wrongly decided. i believe in a simple reading of the united states constitution that when roe was decided in 1973, there is no fundamental right in our united states constitution to an abortion. furthermore, chuck, i believe very strongly that if you read the constitution there is nowhere in the constitution that prohibits individual states, states like mississippi, to limit access to abortions. i think roe was wrongly decided. i also believe that some 20 years later in 1992 casey was incorrectly decided. if you look at the casey ruling, what you find in my opinion is a ruling that was not based upon fundamentals of the constitution

roe v. wade. >> the new abortion challenge facing the u.s. supreme court and why it's so consequential. >>> good monday, everyone. thanks for joining us. >> things are changing rapidly. the immediate impact is travel. foreign travelers from several countries in south african are now banned from entering the united states. president biden says it's not a matter of if the omicron variant is coming here, but when it will arrive. here is chris pallone. >> reporter: president biden sounding a cautious alarm over the latest covid-19 variant omicron. >> this variant is a cause for concern, not a cause for panic. >> reporter: the world health organization calls the global risk from the new mutation very high, but health experts say it will be a couple weeks before they know true transmissable it is. the best protection still, they say, is to get vaccinated. >> if you haven't already gotten vaccinated or if you have and you're eligible for a booster, do it now. this is the best way to protect yourself against delta, which is still very much with us in

we are asking the court to overturn roe v. wade. it's been time. it's been nearly 50 years. the reality is, this is a rule of law question. it's time to return it to the states. abortion policy making should rest with the elected legislators and elected governors to make those decisions on behalf of the people. that's what they're elected to do. that's the will of the people. so it's certainlily portion for us to make that request and know the constitution gives us the power for people. that's what they're supposed to do. as you look at what you just read, roe v. wade has pitted women against their children, woman against woman and now it's time to stop and empower women and support life. >> martha: so you say you believe that a win in this case would be a win as you just mentioned not only for the unborn but for women as well. you outlined why you think the argument for roe v. wade essentially, to prevent women from abortion would be an undue burden on them has not turned out to be the case when you look at the history of that ruling. succinctly as possible, can you wrestle

wade or over turns roe v. wade completely? i know your views on roe v. wade, you'd like to see it overturned or you believe it was wrongly decided. do you think it needs to be overturned or dough you think they can redefine roe v. wade to allow this law to be enacted? >> well, that's a complicated question. clearly, i think this law can be enacted within a changing confinement of roe v. wade, but i also believe roe v. wade was wrongly decided. i believe in a similar reading of the united states constitution that when roe was decided in 1973, there is no fundamental right in our united states constitution to an abortion. furthermore, chuck, i believe very strongly that if you read the constitution there is nowhere in the constitution that prohibits individual states, states like mississippi to limit access to abortions. i think roe was wrongly decided. i also believe that some 20 years later in 1992 casey was incorrectly decided. if you look at the casey ruling, what you find in my opinion is a ruling that was not based upon fundamentals of the constituti

called roe v. wade. at a time where seven of the nine justices were appointed by republican presidents. with that right man specifically, was that a state couldn't restrict abortion if it were before the 25th week. the so-called viability line. mississippi now, just in recent years, has come along and said, no we are actually going to ban abortion after 15 weeks. other states like texas have gone even further and said we are going to ban abortion after six weeks. with this case in the court will be evaluating on wednesday, is whether this mississippi law 15 weeks is constitutional or not. with the new york times article is basically saying is, roe v. wade set a viability line. it's 25 weeks. in order for the mississippi law to be upheld and declared valid by the supreme court, the supreme court is going to have to overrule roe v. wade. >> let's talk about what john roberts wants to do, what he can do. the associated press writing that chief justice john roberts might find the more incremental approach ap

wade but i also believe that roe v. wade was wrongly decided. i believe in a simple reading of the united states constitution, that when roe was decided in 1973, there is no fundamental right in our united states constitution to an abortion. and furthermore, chuck, i believe very strongly that if you read the constitution, there is nowhere in the constitution that prohibits individual states, states like mississippi, to limit access to abortions. >> he is saying the law can be enacted in a changing environment of roe v. wade. what does that mean to you?well we just heard was premiere legal scholarship because we have a lot of rights as americans that aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution. for instance, the constitution doesn't specifically mention that you have a right to vote. it discusses principles that make it clear that you do, but it's not specific. abortion is one of those rights that's a privacy right that the supreme court has interpreted from other constitutional rights and the fact that it's been embedded in our case law i

some comments about roe v. wade and the line set. dave saying, roe v. wade was unconstitutional, it should be overturned and sent back to the states. another viewer saying, what if an individual does not believe in god or the same god? stephen on facebook, we should refer back to roe v. wade. do not make changes to that. one more from facebook saying, i predict they will not overturn roe, but they will give the power to determine when life begins to the states and that will gut roe and help the supreme court get away from politics. looking for your comments on facebook, twitter and on our messaging platform. you can send us a text. a democrat on the line. good morning. caller: how are you? host: doing well. caller: one thing i have not heard mentioned is a case of rape or incised. -- incest. a gentlemen called earlier and said something about a man and woman are procreation no. -- are procreational. but that is assault. and to make mother carry a fetus to full term is unbelievably cruel. where is the help going to be for the child after it is born? host

. >> let's talk about if, in fact, roe v. wade, barbara, is overturned. you got 12 states in the nation right now with kind of these overnight trigger laws if, in fact, this happens. talk about the power that these conservative legislatures have across the country if, in fact, roe v. wade is overturned in this mississippi case. >> well, as you said, there are a number of states where nothing needs to be done. it will automatically revert to making abortion illegal in a number of states. in those states where it's not, there are republican majorities where they could make it illegal in a number of additional states, and i think what we'll see is the opportunity for women of means, women who have wealth to be able to travel to states where abortion is legal and for other women who cannot afford to make that step to have to resort to back alley abortions and all of the dangers that come with that, and so i think we're going to see a world much like the one that existed before roe vs. wade in 1973, one where women's health is at risk and there is a great disp

supreme court in 1992 which is credited with saving roe v. wade. she is co-founder of the center for reproductive rights and co-author of "controlling women: what we must do now to save reproductive freedom." her column in monday's "new york times" is headlined "roe is as good as gone. it's time for a new strategy." thank you so much for joining us, kitty kolbert. you listened to the oral arguments yesterday. what is your take away? >> thank you so much. great to be here. my take away is this particular case, the case is the court heard yesterday, are not about abortion at all but the rule of law and the ability of plaintiffs or people suing to get into federal court to redress the grievances. the clip you play from justice kagan showed the court was conceed about the fact that avenue had been blocked by the texas legislature and other legislatures could do so on a whole host of issues. i think they were concerned about that. let's clear, however, these cases are not about abortion. they are not about whether or not the texas law is unconstitutiona

supreme court in 1992 which is credited with saving roe v. wade. she is co-founder of the center for reproductive rights and co-author of "controlling women: what we must do now to save reproductive freedom." her column in monday's "new york times" is headlined "roe is as good as gone. it's time for a new strategy." thank you so much for joining us, kitty kolbert. you listened to the oral arguments yesterday. what is your take away? >> thank you so much. great to be here. my take away is this particular case, the case is the court heard yesterday, are not about abortion at all but the rule of law and the ability of plaintiffs or people suing to get into federal court to redress the grievances. the clip you play from justice kagan showed the court was ncerned about the fact that avenue had been blocked by the texas legislature and other legislatures could do so on a whole host of issues. i think they were concerned about that. l's be clear, however, these cases are not about abortion. they are not about whether or not the texas law is unconstitution

v. wade. >> the actual provisions in this law have prevented every woman in texas from exercising a constitutional right as declared by this court. >> there's a loophole exploited or used here. >> that loophole centers around how texas wrote the law to try to keep it out of federal courts. instead of state officials enforcing, private citizens can go to state courts to sue anyone who performs abortions. fines start at $10,000. signaling concern that the new law could be used as a law for other states to restrict constitutional rights. it could be free speech, free exercise of religion, second amendment rights if this position is accepted here. >> demonstrators on both sides of the issue gathered outside the court monday. >> we are excited to see a post rural america and provide women with the resources they need to keep their children. >> we would be very disappointed if we went back before roe v. wade. very, very disappointed. >> monday's argument centered around legal procedure, justic

it's not a judgment on whether roe v. wade is going to be the law of the land. and so if my prediction is right, and texas loses in the supreme court, today's royal argument that doesn't mean that this supreme court is going to now uphold roe v. wade or anything like that. and indeed, a month from today, we'll be hearing a case for mississippi which is designed to overrule roe v. wade. and it is it is very possible the same justices, who today strike down the vigilante, or bounty provision by procedural grounds, may still vote to overrule roe v. wade. so elections matter, tomorrow's elections matter -- in of course, who's on the u.s. supreme court. >> so what are the options for the court in this case? is it -- are they being asked to simply allow people to file lawsuits and bring lawsuits to block this law in federal court? >> right, that's the basic claim that the challengers of the united states government are making, which is let us have a day in court at least argue as to whether the texas law is constitutional or not. if texas had its way, you couldn't act

effectively if not overturn roe v. wade, but got the protection that roe v. wade provided for. women in this becomes the template for other states, to pretty much again, not officially overturn roe v. wade, but, render it no? >> i think certainly the two texas cases, that if the supreme court word to allow them to stand, we've already seen other states, begin to look at ways to replicate what's been done in texas, as a way to avoid the constitution, the question is, it is a way to get around the courts if you will, and i do you think, should the supreme court and up allowing the texas statute to remain in place, then it is the drip drip after, all in texas, it is essentially stopped 85 to 90% of abortions, that are being provided, women in texas are going to other states to seek their abortions, and, it effectively shuts it down, and if many more states do, that especially the ones that are surrounding texas, it could have a devastating impact, whether or not roe is actually gotten rid of. >> it may actually happen in december, when that specifically comes up. >> that's, right

lynn finch asked the court to overturn roe v. wade. some of the access to abortion under attack, what is the role of the state a.g. in protecting reproductive health care, and i'll start with a.g. healey because i know -- [inaudible] >> you know, what happened in texas is just so wrong. it is a blatantly unconstitutional law, and it is harming people every day. the stories are heartbreaking. and we've talked to our democratic colleagues in colorado, nevada and new mexico where women in their states weren't actually able to access a clinic for abortions because, understandably, so many people have fled texas to get those services. and it's heartbreaking to hear the stories of what is happening. women who are driving a thousand miles round trip in a day because they don't have child carat home, they don't have time off from work. they hay be trying to escape an abuser who assaulted them in the

i believe he will not overturn roe v. wade." he allowed the texas law to go into effect, which suggests a hostility to abortion rights. he seems like the only hope for roe v. wade to survive. >> whatever happens in texas, the mississippi case is a forward challenge to roe. >> what makes today's argument a little weird it is mostly it seems about the procedural aspect of who has the right to challenge the law, not about the law ititself. the mississippi case is a 15-week abortion ban, that will be heard december 1st and that will really decide the fate of roe v. wade even if the texas case doesn't. >> where can we watch the arguments on tv? are you listening? >> nowhere. there nor cameras in the supreme court. however, there is live video, go to supremecourt.gov, it's not satisfactory to you and to me, but it's certainly better than it used to be where you couldn't listen to live audio the aul aat all. >> can i talk to him about john eastman? john eastman was the guy who wrote the blueprint for how mike pence could overturn the e

there is 8,000 legislators in thee country one of whom say we want to return roe v wade but they say spare me that. suddenly abortionf is illegal. it's not true. overturning roe v wade would establish and reestablish abortion as a subject regular bowl by state law and you would differences. you would have one regime in louisiana and one in new york they are looking forward to this because they believe that it will energize suburban women going into the 2022 election. arguments are going to be made but it's going to turn into a fight given how emotional this issue is. >> people are emotional about everything. you can imagine what it's going to be like. june,em 2022. >> i have a lot of faith in them because they are believing well and i have minimal faith in the other branches of government at this point. if we are going to have a limited government, it depends on the supervision of democracy by the judiciary. congress will not limit itself and it will not stop violating the nondelegation doctrine from enforcinge which says legislats can make laws but they are not other legislators so

now we have a much more straightforward question on should "roe v. wade" survive? and we know that he has voted against abortion rights in the past. most recently though in 2020, he voted for abortion rights precedent just because it was precedent, so he comes to this case with some mixed signals and probably a lot of ambivalence here, paula, because he has opposed abortion rights but he also knows how politically charged everything is right now and how much of the court's institution is at stake, and it will be a very fine line he starts to walk. and, you know, we both have now been talking about texas, and i do think there is some sign here from this court that a majority has allowed that texas ban to be in place for nearly three months now which means women in texas do not have a right to an abortion which the supreme court previously said that they should have at this point, so that's -- that's a signal that maybe the -- the ground under roe truly is crumbling right now. >> joan, thank you so much. i encourage everyone to go out and check out your excellent ana

and how it takes direct aim at roe v wade. in the spotlight today w the two co-hosts of the boom lawyer podcast, eye manny gandhi and jessica. brk. we'll be right back. we'll be right back. superpowers from a spider bite? i could use some help showing the world how liberty mutual customizes their car insurance so they only pay for what they need. (gasps) ♪ did it work? only pay for what you need ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ spider-man no way home in theaters december 17th feeling sluggish or weighed down? ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ it could be a sign that your digestive system isn't working at it's best taking metamucil everyday can help. metamucil psyllium fiber, gels to trap and remove the waste that weighs you down. it also helps lower cholesterol and slows sugar absorption to promote healthy blood sugar levels. so you can feel lighter and more energetic metamucil. support your daily digestive health. and try metamucil fiber thins. a great tasting and easy way to start your day. i am robert

roe v. wade established that abortion is constitutional. later cases said up to viability, 22 to 24 weeks before states can put on restrictions. so that's justice barrett. justice kavanagh asked questions said if texas can pass this law stopping abortions, what's to stop other states from passing laws that might restrict other constitutional rights, perhaps gun rights? so a crucial line of questioning from conservatives. it points to the fact they might go to the heart of this texas law and allow these challenges to proceed, which is exactly what the justice department and these abortion providers want. this is a texas law that has sparked outrage across the country. we are seeing protests on both sides. we've been seeing protests in texas for the entire two months this law has been in effect, effectively stopping abortions across the state of texas because the law prohibits providers from performing abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, usually at six weeks often before a woman knows she's pregnant. crucially kate, it's a law that

as julia said, i don't know that this means ultimately that roe v. wade is going to survive this term, but i think it means that justices barrett, kavanaugh, and roberts demonstrated that they were skeptical, if not downright hostile to the structure of this law because it evades judicial review. i think we all expected to hear this question about, isn't it true if you can do this with abortion rights, effectively, making them evade all judicial review, can't you it with all other rights, like gun rights? but i don't think we expected to hear it from brett kavanaugh. so the fact that we did, it appears that those legises in addition to the more liberal justices are hostile to this law. and so i think we could see this struck down, although as julia has said, we still have that dobbs case on the docket for december, which is probably the more likely vehicle to reconsider the continuing validity of roe v. wade. >> amy, your life's work is on the line. even if the supreme court knocks down the law, how long would it take for you to get your clinic back

we candle longer say roe v. wade is the law of the land. so, dr., could you elaborate on the impact some of these barriers have had on women in your practice and i would like to pick up on a question that my friend and colleague asked you, can you expand on some of the complications, perhaps like the one i told you about my mother-in-law's mom, some of the complications that might lead a doctor to discuss the option of abortion, even when a pregnancy is wanted? >> thank you for allowing me to continue. in any point in pregnancy, but for example, at 15 weeks, someone's bag of water can break. when that happens, there is no intervention that can help continue that pregnancy, there is no intervention that can usher life for that pregnancy. the recommendation at that point is delivery or procedure and abortion, to prevent death and that person. but this law, sb-8, prevents us from being able to do that and we have to actually wait until the person is critically ill until we can intervene. that is situation comes up quite a bit, where someone ha

roe v. wade has not been under such a challenge as we have now since 1992 when the justices narrowly affirmed roe v. wade, which had been declared national right for women to be able to end a pregnancy in 1973. that was affirmed about two decades later, and now we have as i said the most serious threat since then because we have a whole new court with -- now we have six conservative justices, many who have spoken out against roe v. wade, and this challenge that you just referred to that's going to be heard wednesday goes to the heart of roe. it's a 15-week ban on abortions from the state of mississippi. roe v. wade and the 1992 planned parenthood versus casey said women have a right to end a pregnancy before viability. that is at about 22, 24 weeks when the fetus can live on its own outside of the woman. and that's what's at stake now with the 15-week ban. now, jim, you referred to other challenges, and i know you're thinking what is happening in texas where there's a six-week ban on abortio

today's argument isn't about the substantive merits of abortion rights in roe v. wade. it's about whether this texas law where there's so much indication where it's directly designed to avoid judicial review, whether laws of that statute are legitimate or whether the court should enjoin it from staying in effect while the litigation is ongoing. the most interesting feature of this morning's argument as julia notes has been questioning from both justices barrett and justice kavanaugh that suggests that they might have decided to flip sides. they originally voted against enjoining the law. this morning they are testing with lawyers for the state of texas the merits of this sort of approach suggesting that it could be used broadly, for instance, to thwart religious rights or rights to gun ownership. so this will be a very narrow decision when it comes out about this statutory mechanism and less so about abortion itself. >> harry litman, i know it's dangerous to prejudge from oral arguments which way the supreme court is going. but as a former supreme court clerk, help us t

. >> reporter: now the court is not reconsidering roe v. wade in this case, but one month from today it will take up a different case that's asking the justices to overturn roe and allow mississippi's 15-week ban on abortion. it's not clear if we'll have a decision in this texas case by then. norah? >> jan crawford at the supreme court, thank you, jan. >>> there is fears tonight that air travel chaos over the halloween weekend could signal ahead for thanksgiving and christmas travelers. american airlines has canceled more than 2,000 flights in recent days because of bad weather and a shortage of workers. here is cbs' errol barnett. >> they delayed our flight a couple of times, and then they told us it was canceled. >> and i'm kind of stranded. >> reporter: frustrated flyers felt like they were being tricked after this halloween weekend. >> right when we arrived we got a message that it got canceled. >> reporter: american airlines passengers are lining up for answers after the carrier canceled more than 2,000 flights since friday, including

you just mentioned brown v. board. you mentioned roe v. wade. the court has an absolutely essential role, especially as elections get politicized. we need to have a functioning court that americans have confidence in. my concern was that the commission is so worried about making the court look bad that they threw away almost any important, salient, groundbreaking reform idea and they dressed it up in these sort of oh, no, we don't want people to think that the court isn't legitimate. so there are things we have to do and things that the court isn't even considering doing, the reform commission, and those are the kind of things that have to happen before we get enmeshed in another election crisis. >> except none of them are going to happen before some very, very big cases that are coming to the supreme court, including a mississippi case that directly challenges roe v. wade. what happens then? what happens if this conservative court doesn't heed your warnings, doesn't heed public opinion, and does away with roe v. wade? what happens? >> well, you

the court could also strike down this ban and just keep roe v. wade as part of the ban. we had the person who did that in court for obama has solicitor general and the solicitor general reports up to the attorney general. the new attorney general, merrick garland, has been leading the opposition to these southern state bans and accuses them of simply defying, denying and abrogating women's constitutional rights. >> the obvious and expressly acknowledged intention of this statutory scheme is to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights. >> that is just legally true. that's not a debate. the supreme court has long ruled these are constitutional rights. in fact, new members of the court will say that they will ignore precedent or reverse that. you may recall this from the supreme court confirmation hearings that get covered on tv, it has been kind of a weird tradition, for the even republican appointees to say under oath all sorts of words about roe being a type of settled precedent. >> i understand the importance of the precedent set forth in roe v. wade. >

wade? >> i am very distressed. one would have thought that roe v. wade was settled law, and it did not matter who was on the court, it was settled law. dubious courts -- previous courts with conservatives, moderates, liberal justices, it's very distressing to see what happens. of course it affects minority people, poor people. it is very distressing. i was going to ask you what you thought was going to be the outcome of all of this. here we were over decades, we made gains, women were able to be able to not be fearful about going to an abortion clinic or being able to get contraception, being able to make the most personal decisions in their lives controlling their own body, now we have a whittling away of roe v. wade. i know you are again leading the way to try and prevent that kind of incursion, but are we going to see road disappear? >> i hope not. but i know in this book you detail, way back in the 1970's, reproductive rights, you defended our rights on behalf of all women not only in new york state but in mississippi and texas, we thank you. >>

with the future of roe v. wade at stake. the state concerns a mississippi law that would ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. joining me to talk about this, justice correspondent pete williams, a clerk to judge sotomayor, now an nyu law professor, and joyce vance, a former u.s. attorney. great to have you all here. pete, what are the possible outcomes here? i keep hearing there's no middle ground. >> people say there's no middle ground for this reason. the court starting with roe and many other decisions about abortion has said before viability, before the fetus can exist outside the womb, a state can restrict abortion but not ban it. viability is generally thought to be 24 weeks. along comes mississippi and says we want to ban it after 15 weeks. if the supreme court says yes, we agree with mississippi, that would seem to undercut the central holding of the decisions which is no, states can't ban before viability. now, one of the fallbacks or one of the compromises that mississippi is suggesting here is okay, you

and now we have a ripping away of roe v. wade. and i know you're again leading the way to try to prevent that kind of, you know, incursion. but are we going to see roe disappear? >> i hope not. but i know that in this book you do detail way back in the 1970s defended reproductive rights. you defended our right, and on behalf of all women not only in new york state but in mississippi and in texas, we thank you. so you transformed the office of attorney general prior to your arrival there were no regional offices. there were 16 regional offices as a result of your vision. regional offices from buffalo all the way to suffolk county on long island. and you obviously focused on consumer rights and the environmental space. why did you find it necessary to revolutionize the office of attorney general? >> well, again, it was -- i felt my obligation to try to maximize the role and the power of attorney general on behalf of the people. people should understand this isn't -- you and i know uniquely because we're both attorneys general, what

a case that could decide the fate of roe v. wade. we'll talk about that next. fate of roe v. wade. 'lwel talk about that next (vo) t-mobile for business helps small business owners prosper during their most important time of year. when you switch to t-mobile and bring your own device, we'll pay off your phone up to $1000. you can keep your phone. keep your number. and get your employees connected on the largest and fastest 5g network. plus, we give you $200 in facebook ads on us! so you can reach more customers, create more opportunities, and finish this year strong. visit your local t-mobile store today. (swords clashing) -had enough? -no... arthritis. here. new aspercreme arthritis. full prescription-strength? reduces inflammation? thank the gods. don't thank them too soon. kick pain in the aspercreme. instantly clear everyday congestion d with vicks sinex saline. for fast drug free relief vicks sinex. instantly clear everyday congestion. and try vicks sinex children's saline. safe and gentle relief for children's noses. come here! i've got big news! now, nurtec odt can not only

v wade. we have an opportunity say millions and millions of lives in the future. if this is to be ruled favorably. mississippi governor tate reeves shepherded the law in question through the state legislature and fellow republican governors like south dakota's kristi noem support it. we actually got to go out and take actions that offend lives and save lives. the justices are not expected to rule until next summer. >> but if they overturn roe many states, including mississippi and south dakota already have measures in place that would automatically ban abortion in washington. i'm jessi tenure. a jury has been selected in the trafficking trial of ghislane maxwell. this was the scene earlier this morning outside the new york city courtroom where her trial is underway. >> prosecutors say maxwell is a former employee and romantic partner of the late financier and convicted offender jeffrey epstein. she is accused of recruiting and grooming underage girls for epstein 12 jurors and 6 alternates hav

what do you think is going to happen with respect to roe v. wade? >> one would have thought roe v. wade was settled long ago, and it did not matter who was on the court, what orientation was, it is settled law. previous courts, conservatives and moderates and liberal justices had rules. it is distressing to see what happens, and it unfortunately affects minority people, for people the most, very distressing, and i was going to ask you what you thought was going to be the outcome of all of this. here we were over the decades, we made gains, women were able to be not fearful of going to an abortion clinic, being able to get contraception, being able to make the most personal decisions about their lives and controlling their own body, and now we have a whittling away of roe v. wade. i know that you are leading the way to try to prevent that kind of incursion, but are we going to see roe disappear? >> i hope not, but i note in this book you detail way back in the 1970's you defended reproductive rights on behalf of all women. we thank you. [applause] you transform the office of attorne

wade is the effect the same in if you allow the mechanism to go forward, that roe v. wade decision and the right that came from you as you say doesn't mean a lot in states that would pass similar legislation. >> that's right. i think that's why back in september when the supreme court allowed the law to go into effect by a 5-4 vote so many thought that was a harbinger. if there weren't five justices to block a law like this, that spelled trouble for roe versus wade. the key is not just that a ruling against the providers that are ruling against the federal government would allow this restrictive abortion law to remain in effect and other states -- the problem it wouldn't stop with abortion. obviously folks have strong views about abortion and the constitutional right the supreme court has recognized to abortion but the cases the supreme courts hear are about so much more than that and that's why it's going to be critical to see if conservative justices who we know are hostile to roe versus wade and the constitutional right the supreme court recognized they're in are m

wade, many say it was designed eed to violate roe v. wade but what's unusual is to have supreme court justices seem to signal where their heads are the way we saw. we have john mulaney we have someone who argued before the justices on behalf of reproductive right in texas let's get his take on what was frighteningly obvious in court today. next. bogeys on your six, limu. they need customized car insurance from liberty mutual so they only pay for what they need. woooooooooooooo... we are not getting you a helicopter. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ people everywhere living with type 2 diabetes are waking up to what's possible with rybelsus®. ♪ you are my sunshine ♪ ♪ my only sunshine... ♪ rybelsus® is a pill that lowers blood sugar in three ways. increases insulin when you need it... decreases sugar... and slows food. the majority of people taking rybelsus® lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than 7. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't take rybelsus®

the only reason that it is unenforceable today is because of roe v. wade. and the second that roe v. wade falls, inn the event that it falls this term which we believe that it will, that it's likely to, it will automatically become the law again. it doesn't have to be signed by nothe governor, it automatically takes effect. i have statewide jurisdictionis criminally in the state of michigan, but we also have 83 if county prosecutors in the state. and it wase my commitment to do this. first of all, wee know that making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortions from happening, it just makes them incredibly unsafe. and what it means is we'll go back to the days that we were in before 1973 where women routinely died each73 and every day from illegal abortions that were not safe and were not properly performed by medical staff. and as a result, what we're going to see in my state again is that women are going to be pushed back in the back alleys that they think they're going to be from are thed. and it's not just the medical providers that were prosecuted. often t

kathryn: the controversial ruling in the roe v. wade case has divided americans for decades. male: abortion is murder. kathryn: now the conservative south is launching its biggest challenge. philip gunn: on behalf of the state of missiippi, we are pro-life. phil bryant: it is law. sam lee: all pro-lifers that i know of reject there is

a law that justices called unprecedented and specifically ce signed to get around roe v. wade. >> the actual provisions in this law have prevented every woman in texas from exercising a constitutional right as declared by this court. >> reporter: after three hours poft liberal and conservative justices didn't like what texas was up to. >> there's a loophole that's been exploited here or used here. >> reporter: the loophole is in how texas wrote the law to keep it out of federal courts which would block it, instead of state officials enforcing the law, at least that to private citizens, who can go to state court and sue anyone who helps perform an abortion, with fines starting at $10,000. kamar is a doctor of planned parenthood in houston. >> i would be surprised if anyone has seen 10 to 20% to have the patient they usually see. it has been a very dramatic reduction. >> reporter: but the case goes well beyond abortion rights. the justices were concerned the texas law could be a model for statements to restricter constitutional rights. >> and it could be free speech rights,

a law that justices called unprecedented and specifically designed to get around "roe v. wade." >> the actual provisions in this law have prevented every woman in texas from exercising a constitutional right as declared by this court. >> reporter: after three hours of arguments, it was evident liberal and conservative justices didn't like what texas was up to. >> there's a loophole that's been exploited here or used here. >> reporter: the loophole is in how texas wrote the law to try to keep it out of federal courts which would block it. instead of state officials enforcing the law, it leaves that to private citizens, who can go to state court and sue anyone who helps perform an abortion, with fines starting at $10,000. bhavik kamar is a doctor of planned parenthood in houston. >> i would be surprised if anyone has seen 10-20% to have the patient they usually see. it has been a very dramatic reduction. >> reporter: but the case goes well beyond abortion rights. the justices were concerned the texas law could be a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights. >

wade." you have several justices who have voiced opposition to "roe v. wade." we'll see what happens. that's down the pipeline as well, bianna shepard jessica snider in washington, thank you as always. >>> well, thousands of first responders out sick as new york city's vaccine mandate goes into effect. what does it mean for emergency services in america's largest city? at's why i love liberty mutual. they customize my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. how about a throwback? ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ ♪ say it's all right ♪ ♪ say it's all right, it's all right ♪ ♪ have a good time 'cause it's all right ♪ ♪ now listen to the beat ♪ ♪ kinda pat your feet ♪ ♪ it's all right ♪ ♪ have a good time 'cause it's all right ♪ ♪ oh, it's all right ♪ i brought in ensure max protein, with thirty grams of protein. those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks! ( sighs wearily ) here, i'll take that! ( excited yell ) woo-hoo! ensure max prot

. >>> we could deal a death blow to roe v. wade and this week could be the beginning of the end. phil cotya joins me next. phil cotya joins me next ♪ living with metastatic breast cancer means being relentless. because every day matters. and having more of them is possible with verzenio. the only one of its kind proven to help you live significantly longer when taken with fulvestrant, regardless of menopause. verzenio + fulvestrant is for hr+, her2-metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after hormone therapy. diarrhea is common, may be severe, or cause dehydration or infection. at the first sign, call your doctor start an anti-diarrheal and drink fluids. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor about any fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. life-threatening lung inflammation can occur. tell your doctor about any new or worsening trouble breathing, cough, or chest pain. serious liver problems can happen. symptoms include fatigue, appetite loss, stomach pain and