to the point after viability? >> in some people's view it doesn't, your honor. but what the court said is that those philosophical differences can be resolved in a way -- >> that's what i'm getting at. what is the philosophical argument, the secular philosophical argument for saying that is the appropriate line? there are those who say the rights to personhood should be considered to have taken hold at a point when the fetus acquires certain independent characteristics. but viability is depend on medical technology and medical practice. it has changed. it may continue to change. >> no, your honor, it is principled, because in ordering the interests at stake the court had to set a line between conception and birth and it logically looked at the fetus' ability to survive separately is a lean line because it's subjectivively verifiable and doesn't require the court to resolve the philosophical issues at stake. >> i just want to focus on stare decisis a little bit. i found my colleague justice breyer's comments quite

from before viability to after viability? >> and some people's view, it doesn't what the court says is the philosophical practice could be resolved -- >> that's what i'm getting at, what is the philosophical argument? the secular philosophical argument for think this is the appropriate line. there are those who til say rigs of personhood should be considered to a have taken holdt a time when the fetus requires certain independent characteristics but viability is dependent on medical practice, it has changed in me continue to change. >> no, it's principal because in ordering the interest at stake, the court have to setd a line between conception and birth and it logically looked at the fetus' ability to survive separately as a line because it is verifiable doesn't require the court to resolve the philosophical issues at stake. >> i want to focus for a little bit on this, my colleague has something quite compelling, i'm not quite sure how they play out in casey. it is certainly true cannot base our decisions on whether they are

from the point before viability to the point after viability? >> in some people's view, it doesn't, but what the court said is those philosophical differences can be resolved in a way -- >> that's what i'm getting at. what is the philosophical argument? the argument for saying this is the appropriate line? there are those who say that the rights of personhood should be considered to have taken hold at a point when the fetus acquires certain independent argument risices, but viability is dependent on medical technology and medical practice. it has changed. it may continue to change. >> the court had to set a line between conception and birth, and it logically looked at the fe us the's ability to survive separately as a legal line. it's verifiable and doesn't require the court to resolve the philosophical issues at stake. >> i just want to focus on stardecisis for a moment. i found my colleague's comments compelling. i'm not quite sure how they play out in casey. it is certainly true that we cannot base our decisions on whether they're popular or

to the point after viability? >> in some people's view it doesn't. but what the court said is those philosophical differences couldn't be resolved in a way. >> that's what i'm getting at. what's the philosophical argument. the secular philosophical argument for saying this is the appropriate line. there are those who say that the rights of personhood should be considered to have taken hold at a point when the fetus acquires certain standards. it has changed and may continue to change. >> no, it is principled. in ordering the interest of state the court had to set a line between conception and birth and looked at the fetus's ability to survive separately as a legal line verifiable and doesn't require the court to resolve the philosophical issues at stake. >> i want to focus on stare decisis. i found justty breyer's comments quite compelling. i'm not quite sure how they play out in casey. it is certainly true that we cannot base our decisions on whether they are popular or not with the people. casey seemed to say we

. >> bill: we need to hear the word viability. the court ruled states cannot ban abortion before a fetus is viability at 24 weeks but science shows viability begins earlier than previously thought. >> dana: if it rules for mississippi and overturns roe it does not mean abortion is banned in the united states. it would leave that decision up to each individual state. >> bill: which is the basis for the argument today. state's rights and other possibility the court ruling for mississippi and doesn't overturn roe. they could get 15 weeks standard viability. >> it goes before a court with a conservative majority. the only justice who has openly called for roe to be overturned is clarence thomas. >> bill: emotions outside the court will run high on both sides. the decision not until late june which will be only months before next year's mid-term elections. >> abortion policy making should rest with the elected legislators and elected governors and so it is certainly important for us to make that request and know that the constitution g

the only thing at issue in this case is the viability line, and the viability line has been enduringly workable. the lower federal courts have applied it consistently and uniformly for 50 years, and the fifth circuit here below had no difficulty striking down this law unanimously, 3 -0. it's been an exceedingly workable standard. if i may return to your question, sir chief justice, a reasonable possibility standard would not be workable. it would ultimately boil down to an argument that states can prohibit a

the viability standard is 24 weeksment many of the arguments here is that the viability standard should be moved up because science has changed over the last 40 plus years. of course it's all playing out in front of the supreme court as we speak. they're going to be hear all day. they're going to be at these rallies all day waiting to hear these arguments play out and a decision to come down from the supreme court hopefully in the spring. >> barbara, i'll get to you in one second. pete, as yasmin is talking about these arguments playing out, what are you going to be listening for as we hear from the justices? are there certain signals or questions that are going to pique your interest more than others. >> i think the question is who's the fifth vote. remember, it takes four votes to grant a case. the mississippi law was declared unenforceable by the fifth circuit court of appeals which ruled that supreme court precedent wouldn't allow this law to stand. you have to assume there are tissue you have to know that there are four justices who agreed to hear this case. that suggests four just

the states could ban that every two weeks increment until viability. that is that viability line. there will be no clear line for them to abide by. and it is not a reasonable possibility. mississippi itself conceded in this case that there are people who just can't get to the clinic before 15 weeks, and this law will prohibit them from being able to make this basic decision for their lives, and those are people in difficult circumstances -- they have had major health or life changes over the course of their pregnancy, they may be young people or people without contraception who don't recognize a pregnancy until later. or the 75% of people who obtain an abortion in this country that are poor or low income and overcoming various obstacles to get to a clinic, especially because they live far away and can't get there. this will mean all those people are forced to continue the pregnancy, go through labor and delivery, and have the child even if they decided that was not the best decision for them. that would be incredibly harmful . emily: our next question, similar question, are you wo

that is not a dramatic departure from viability. it is the standard that the vast majority of other countries have . when you get to the viability standard, we share that standard with the people's republic of china and north korea. i don't think he had to be in favor of looking to international law to set our constitutional standards to be concerted. those are your shared effort -- amy: that is john roberts questioning julie rikelman. if you can talk about the fact this is the roberts court and the particular significance of him raising this, then we will go to kavanaugh on so-called neutrality of the court. >> justice roberts is missing several things. the first, i hate to start with simple math, but 15 wes is nineeeks less than4. the way pregnancy is dated zero to two weeks, or not really egnant, since st people i relate in the middle of the month. so that is 40% less time to discover your pregnant and take the action necessary if you choose to in your pregncy. so it is not insignificant. the otheriece is conceptual. as i said ea

that is not a dramatic departure from viability. it is the standard that the vast majority of other countries have . when you get to the viability standard, we share that standard with the people's republic of china and north korea. i don't think he had to be in favor of looking to international law to set our constitutional standards to be concerted. those are your shared effort -- amy: that is john roberts questioning julie rikelman. if you can talk about the fact this is the roberts court and the particular significance of him raising this, then we will go to kavanaugh on so-called neutrality of the court. >> justice roberts is missing several things. the first, i hate to start with simple math, but 15 wes is nineeeks less than4. the way pregnancy is dated zero to two weeks, or not really pregnant, since st people i relate in the middle of the month. so that is 40% less time to discover your pregnant and take the action necessary if you choose to in your pregncy. so it is not insignificant. the otheriece is conceptual. as i said

what does viability mean? we've heard seven countries around the world have more permissive or equally permissive abortion laws as the united states. i frankly don't want to be in the same company as north korea or the people's republic of china governed by the communist party. i would hope that america would aspire to something different than better and more humane. more in line with our fundamental statement about the unalienable right to life. but the fact that one of only-- america's only one of seven countries that allows elective abortions after 20 weeks puts us in the same category as i said of communist china or north korea, you would think that that would raise a huge red flag and say something is terribly wrong here. how is it that we're in the same category as communist north korea, communist china when it comes to the value we place on unborn life? well, unfortunately, we've seen the right to life become a partisan issue in the united states congress. when you take a look at the pro-life legislatio

that is not a dramatic departure from viability. it is the standard that the vast majority of other countries have. when you get to the viability standard, we share that standard with the people's republic of china and north korea. and i don't think you have to be in favor of looking to international law to set our constitutional standards to be conservative. >> i think there's two questions there, if i may. first, that is not correct about international law. in fact, the majority of countries that permit legal access to abortion allow access right up until viability, even if they have nominal lines earlier. for example, canada, great britain, and most of europe allow access to abortion right up until viability and it also doesn't have the same barriers in place. >> what does that mean even if they have nominal lines earlier? >> some countries have a nominal line of 12 weeks or 18 weeks but they permit legal access after that for broad social reasons, health reasons, socioeconomic and they also don't have the same types of barriers

i'm not sure, what about viability. and justice blackman says, well, they're both arbitrary, so let's go with viability. so a really strong point in favor of the chief's point that viability has no basis in the constitution, is not a constitutional rule and rather something that looks more legislative. >> so i just want to close that loop here, scott. what's that mean? for those that aren't in that precedent as deeply. if viability goes by the wayside, your argument is standard should be -- >> sure. it should be the rational basis of review that applies to all laws. in other words if the constitution does not mark something off for special protection, then the people get to decide it with judicial review that largely respects people's choices. the way i like to think of it, chief justice the rehnquist had this great line in one of the most important cases before casey called webster, and what he says is the goal of constitutional adjudication is to hold true the balance between that which the constitution puts beyond th

that is not a dramatic departure from viability. it is the standard that the vast majority of other countries have . when you get to the viability standard, we share that standard with the people's republic of china and north korea. and i don't think you have to be in favor of looking to international law to set our constitutional standards to be conservative. >> i think there's two questions there, if i may. first, that is not correct about international law. in fact, the majority of countries that permit legal access to abortion allow access right up until viability, even if they have nominal lines earlier. for example, canada, great britain, and most of europe allow access to abortion right up until viability and it also doesn't have the same barriers in place. >> what does that mean even if they have nominal lines earlier. >> some countries have a nominal line of 12 weeks or 18 weeks but they permit legal access after that for broad social reasons, health reasons, socioeconomic and they also don't have the same types of barriers

so viability, it seems to me, doesn't have anything to do with choice. but if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time? >> for a few reasons, your honor. first, the state has conceded that some women will not be able to obtain an abortion before 15 weeks and this law will bar them from doing so and a reasonable possibility standard would be completely unworkable for the courts, it would be less principled and less workable than viability and some of the reasons for that are without viability there would be no stopping point. states will rush to ban abortion at virtually any point in pregnancy. mississippi itself has a six week ban, defending with very similar arguments to the 15-week ban and there are states with bans. >> well i know, but i'd like to focus on the 15-week ban, because that's not a dramatic departure from liability. it is the standard that the vast majority of other countries have. when you get to the viability standard, we share that standard with the peoples' republic of china and north korea and i don't think

i don't see how that adds up because you said the viability firewall before fetal viability the state can make a woman walk on her hands the state can make a woman jumped through 20 oops and stand on her head and also to step at the end of the day she has an absolute right to terminate her pregnancy. i'm not sure what happens next. one of the most common questions phrased in one way or another at a justice in an oral argument will ask the lawyer is what is your limited and simple and that means you know do we buy what you are selling and what do we do in the next case? what's the moment of principle and in the states is viability. it's got to come down to how we think about when life begins. some say life begins at conception and some say life begins at implementation and others might say like against the earth i don't know but it all comes down to a philosophical orientation to this question. viability is such a bright line because we all agree on what viability is the developing fetus to move independently outside of a woman's. and the significance of that as a constitutional matter

she just said viability is the principal line. you get my point here. he was right to raise this, the viability standard is not what the court is tasked with doing. the fetus has its own individual rights. he's precisely right. democrats are just members of the party of death. basic logic and essential truths when life begins doesn't matter to them. abortion is their holy grail two joe biden who likes calling himself a catholic school kid is too unprincipled to take a stand. that led justice brett kavanaugh at the end of the oral argument to raise the issue that the liberal justices conveniently avoided. he says there is also an interest in fetal life, that is at stake as well. his solicitor general gave an answer to cavanagh because there is no answer. in the framers who wrote the original constitution nor the drafters of the 14th amendment ever intended to create a constitutional right to abortion. indeed they would have found such a concept to be barbarous and evil. the left claims to care about democracy, so let's let the people decide the important

i don't see how that adds up because h as you said, the viability firewall, before viability the state can make a woman walk on her hands, make a woman jumped through 20 hoops, stand on her head and do all kinds of stuff but at the end of the day she has an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy. once that firewall is breached, i'm not sure what happens next. one of the most common questions in one way or another that a justice and oral argument will ask what is your limiting principle that means if we buy what you're selling, what do we do in the next case? what is the principal once you say it's not viability? it's got to come down to whatever we think about when life begins. that gets us right back into religion. somebody might believe it begins at conception. some might believe that it begins at implantation. somebody might believe life begins you know, at birth. i don't know. but it all comes down to somebody's religious and philosophical orientation to the question. as a constitutional or a moral matter but we cannot debate the fact that it is what it is. everything is open to d

science hasn't changed about viability. women's need to be able to control their bodies, to be able to make the decisions about their pregnancy hasn't changed. the only thing that has changed is politics and the republican party has been on a mission to end access to safe and legal abortion for years and now they are within striking distance of doing just that. this was chilling. it is frightening to think this is happening. i would also say, lawrence, we're talking about the state of mississippi but my home state of texas for nearly three months now women have not been able to access safe and legal abortion in that state. effectively roe has already been overturned in the state of texas and this supreme court has done nothing about it. i think the most important thing about all this is the solution is at the ballot box. and this issue, the ability to make your own decision about your pregnancy is igniting women around this country and not just democratic women, independent women, 80% of people in this country believe these

justice alito was right to raise it, the viability standard is not what the court is tasked with doing, the fetus has its own individual rights. he is precisely right but the democrats are the members of the party of death. basic logic and essential truths when life begins doesn't matter to them. abortion is the holy grail. and president biden likes calling himself a catholic school kid is too unprincipled to take the stand that his own faith requires. that led justice brett kavanaugh at the end of the or large humans to raise the issue the liberal justices conveniently avoided. he said there is an interesting fetal life, that is at stake as well and biden absolutely general gave a nonanswer to brett kavanaugh because there is no answer. the fact is my the framers who wrote the original constitution and bill of rights know the drafters of the fourteenth amendment ever intended to create a constitutional right to abortion. they profound such a concept to be barbarous and evil. the black -- the left things to claire about democracy, let them decide the questions presented by abortion and

i thought they might limit viability and then work their way up to overruling roe in a later case. what i heard today is that many of the justices seemed potentially ready to overturn roe now. amy coney barrett asked questions stating that women did not need access to abortion. i don't think these are questions you ask if you are not seriously thinking about overturning roe. judy: let's talk about some of the specifics of what we heard today. it was clear in the first few minutes of these oral arguments that this case was one of great consequence. we heard justice breyer race the critical question of overturning precedent. he spoke in reference to the 1992 abortion decision, which you just mentioned. we have an audio recording of that. he makes a comment and then you hear from the mississippi state solicitor general. >> what the court said follows from that is that it should be more unwilling to overrule a prior case, far more unwilling we should be, whether that case is right or wrong, than the ordinary case. it is particularly important to show what we do in overturning the case

it's the line of work and viability much sooner and are therefore we should leave it to the people. we think it was an interesting dichotomy between one side having extreme at utmost faith in the people to determine their will and on the other side sort of a lack of faith in the people in the absence of fear that the will of the people might actually wrote individual liberties that might be protected by the court. robots will not shannon? >> that's a good breakdown of where these two sides are. they are in favor of upholding the law and they said this is something that should be left to the people. and that was decided on very quickly took away the conversation on the state so they couldn't work it out with the individual democracy is to figure this out. the whole argument for mississippi was that we should've left us to the people in the states can individually decide in his acknowledgment on both sides that listen, alabama will decide differently than new york. and there's a question and of course the ultimate decision is, they would overturn and the root states have rights and th

it was only coming to us on the issue of when is viability a fair factor, and how do we judge viability of the fetus. it sounds like judge roberts is more inclined to keep roe in place and only tinker with this case around the edges. >> well, we'll see where the other five go. it wouldn't be the first case roberts sided with the liberal justices, we're still overruled by the more conservative justices. kim wehle, paul callan, thanks very much. >>> struggling to keep the republican party unified. the latest public feud between lawmakers playing out on twitter. how this could spell trouble for house minority leader kevin mccarthy coming up. sales, they are doing extra cash back, there's coupons. it's just deals on top of deals. you're stacking your savings. i'm definitely going to use rakuten for my holiday shopping, i got a lot of family, so i might as well get some cash back. it's so easy and the best way to start off the new year. sign up today and get cash back at rakuten.com cha-ching! lisa here, has had many jobs. and all that experience has led her to a job that feels like home. wi

viability is you point out is somewhere around 22 to 24 weeks. this is a law that bans abortion after 15 weeks. there is no argument that 15 weeks or 16 weeks is viability. the core of roe v. wade and the casey decision from 1992 is that the state has very different abilities to regulate abortion before and after viability. viability has been the key determinant in abortion law for 50 years. this mississippi law without question bans abortion before viability. and that's a question that the court is going to have to grapple with today and at least three of the conservatives i think are very likely to uphold the law and want to overturn roe v. wade. that's clarence thomas, as you pointed out earlier, neil gorsuch, and samuel alito. the other conservatives, you have chief justice john roberts who is actually said he wants to support the precedent of roe v. wade, at least in some circumstances, and the two people to keep an eye on today are brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett, because they have not really talked about abortion since they have been

chief justice john roberts zeroing on a key issue -- viability. right now, roe and other cases prohibit states from banning abortion before viability, about 24 weeks. the chief justice saying mississippi's ban on abortions after 15 weeks gives women plenty of time to choose. >> viability, it seems to me, doesn't have anything to do with choice. but if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time? >> reporter: justice brett kavanaugh suggested the court should leave the abortion issue to elected politicians in state legislatures. >> why should this court be the arbiter rather than congress, the state legislatures, state supreme courts, the people being able to resolve this and there will be different answers in mississippi, in new york. >> reporter: making the case for the biden administration, solicitor general elizabeth prelogar said that would set women's rights in america back de decades. >> for a half century, this court has correctly recognized that the constitution protects a woman's fundamental right to decide whether

roe is based on viability. the fetus able to leave outside the woman independently. in 1973, 21 to 24 weeks maybe. this 15 week mississippi law is getting pretty close as the technology improved for taking care of, you know, fetal health. so i believe that you have a very strong circumstance here with the conservatives are in a position to modify profoundly roe v. wade. i believe that that is the odds on destination where the court is headed right now, neil. >> neil: if they do line up action geraldo said to their philosophical bend, a 6-3 conservative court, it certainly was mirrored in a lot of the questioning from the justices. what did you learn from that? >> i was around for roe but i don't remember it. i agree with geraldo's read. chief roberts vote may not matter here. you have the five conservatives throwing out a compromise. he might say okay, roe v. wade requires us to strike down laws that interfere with abortion before viability, which is around 23, 24 weeks of pregnancy. roberts says what is so bad about 15 weeks? wes to out the roe-casey frame work but

so if viability it steams to me doesn't have anything to do with choice. but if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time. >> the question is why would women need access to abortion after 15 weeks. and what is the effect on them. and there are any number of women who cannot get an abortion earlier. they don't realize that they are pregnant. thats especially true of women who are browning or don't have an experience of pregnancy before. or their life circumstances change, they lose their job or their relationship breaks apart or they have medical complications. or for many women they don't have the resources to pay for it earlier. >> woodruff: and mary, we were saying earlier that the chief justice seems to be searching for a middle ground here. >> right, i think that going into this, it is a stretch to call it a middle ground because to get rid of viability as the dividing line would be to reverse a core dimension of roe v. wade that has been there since 1973. but that seemed to be the solution that chief justice john roberts was

chief justice john roberts zeroing on a key issue -- viability. right now, roe and other cases prohibit states from banning abortion before viability, about 24 weeks. roberts saying mississippi's ban on abortions after 15 weeks gives women plenty of time to choose. >> viability, it seems to me, doesn't have anything to do with choice. but if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time? >> reporter: justice brett kavanaugh suggested the states or congress and not the supreme court shouldbe the final arbiters. >> why should this court be the arbiter rather than congress, the state legislatures, state supreme courts, the people being able to resolve this and there will be different answers in mississippi, in new york. >> reporter: making the case for the biden administration, solicitor general elizabeth prelogar said that would set women's rights in america back decades. >> for a half century, this court has correctly recognized that the constitution protects a woman's fundamental right to decide whether to end a pregnancy bef

boyd continued to push the viability to the outer edges? host: today it is the largest provider of third trimester abortion, and she does that because his friend is murdered. you want to grapple with this. he does not want to provide any abortions, then pre-roe a poor woman comes to him and he aborts the pregnancy. then he stops at 16 weeks and a few more years go by and he stops it viability. then a woman comes to them, and turns out she is carrying a fetus that is a miserable disease that will cause a baby to die in infancy or as a toddler. why did i not abort the pregnancy? after dr. tiller is murdered he feels it is something that he must do. the single most important thing about him is that keep pre-figures the attitudinal shift and abortion that abortion should be safe and rare. it is something he believes is a social and moral good, something that empowers women, so that movement has adopted his view of abortion. host: let's bring the story back to norma mccorvey. the abortion decision is made by the supreme court in 1973. so many pe

. >> reporter: the court also focusing on fetus viability. the mississippi bill seeks to ban abortions after 15 weeks. >> why would 15 weeks be an inappropriate line? viability, it seems to me, doesn't have anything to do with choice. but if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time? >> first, the state has conceded that some women will not be able to obtain an abortion before 15 weeks, and this law will bar them from doing so. >> reporter: justice amy coney barrett offering the idea that women are allowed in most states to give up their newborn babies as an alternative to abortion. >> justice barrett seemed to say, given the ready ability of adoption today, is it really true that requiring woman to carry a pregnancy to term necessarily impedes professional prospects? that i think was a very striking line. it was impossible to hear the questions and not think about justice barrett and her own biography. she's a mother of seven, two of her children are adopted. it did feel as though her personal experience may have fi

the question for those conservative justices will be about fetal viability. right now, under the current situation, that fetal viability is at around 24 weeks -- later than the 15 weeks in that mississippi law. and some justices, including chief justice roberts, really questioned whether this viability threshold actually made sense. there is a possibility that chief justice roberts for example, could go in the direction of upholding the mississippi law, saying a 15 week band does not prevent anyone from getting an abortion. it simply restricts it, but not enough to make it unconstitutional, without going to overturning roe v. wade. some of the more conservative justices like justice alito or justice thomas hinting at wanting much more. they are proponents of completely overturning roe v. wade. the question will be which side of the conservative barrier, if you will, will win that disagreement? will they go with the more conservative, or will they go with the compromise, which is restricting a little bit abortion rights, but not overturning roe v. wade? mark:

science hasn't changed about viability. women's need to be able to control their bodies, to be able to make decisions about the pregnancies hasn't changed. the only thing that has changed is politics. and the republican party has been on a mission to and access to safe and legal abortion for years. and now there are within striking distance of doing just that. this is -- it was chilling. it is frightening to think that this is happening. but i would also say, lawrence, we're talking about the state of mississippi. but my home state of texas, for nearly three months now, women have not been able to access safe and legal abortions in that state. effectively roe has already be overturned in the state of texas and the supreme court has done nothing about it. i think the most important thing about all this is the solution is at the ballot box. and this issue, the ability to make your decision about your pregnancy, is igniting women around the country. and not just democratic women. republican women, independent women, 80% of peo

well know, roe v wade gives women the right to an abortion up to what is called the stage of foetal viability, which comes around 2a weeks. this is a constitutional right. the mississippi case is a deliberate and direct challenge to that. the challenge being issued in washington at the supreme court on both sides of the argument acknowledge the importance of this moment. we're very excited. we think this is a great case, it is a great law and we look forward to seeing what the court does. we are very concerned that anything short of a complete repudiation of what has happened in mississippi with the legislation is going to be really damaging for access to reproductive health and reproductive freedom in this country. now, the mississippi law reaching the supreme court is one part of why america has reached this moment. next, we need to take a step back because the timing of this law is not by chance. its backers know the supreme court has changed. here are the current nine supreme courtjustices. three of them are appointed by donald trump when he was president and because of them, the court le

a lot of what we consider viability's. the kind of life -- i think it would be a real torture with their condition in the kind of world. the question for me is who do you really care about? some abstract principle or the inch -- individual produced from such a union? the emphasis on the discussion should be on birth control, the repeated appearances from abortion. we should realize that an abortion is a way of ending a terribly suffering life in many cases because in the early years of life it is getting printed in. host: we will hear from our guests. guest: there are questions wilton, one is about viability and the life will have suffering. in some cases that is right. it is not even close to significant percentage of abortions. yes, there are those cases. a couple of things to consider the reason that standard came about was maybe it is a human being, it is on the table and could live without the umbilical cord. obviously the baby cannot live, none of us are completely self-sufficient. many of us feel nonviable often bec

well, before viability lower courts have ruled the ban unconstitutional. but now the supreme court with its new 63 conservative majority will have the final word. president trump appointed 3 justices, that he, that he promised would overrule roe vs wade. but there is no reason there is no constitutional basis to overturn nearly 50 years in president during the hearing liberal justice to waste concern the court legitimacy with that state. will this institution survive the stench that this create in the public perception that the constitution and it's reading are just political acts. but many conservative states are viewing this moment as the most opportune in a generation to attack abortion access were about to make it law live in after more than $100.00 state level restrictions this year alone, including a texas ban on abortions after just 6 weeks of pregnancy that way, but that's nothing compared to what may happen if the supreme court overturns ro, if the court were to do that, it would mean that states across the country that of that of enacted so calle

if you abandon it viability test, commonalities it is case—by—case, and states can come up with all kinds of random tests orjust say it is “p random tests orjust say it is up to the legislature or the judges, and there will be a race to the bottom because many states already have trigger laws, which is as soon as roe vs wade is overturned, these laws go into effect and they will affect abortion going outward. will affect abortion going outward-— will affect abortion going outward. ., outward. how does the court reached its _ outward. how does the court reached its ruling _ outward. how does the court reached its ruling on - outward. how does the court| reached its ruling on this? do each of the justices go and make their own minds up and then we get that final tally? or could it be that they discuss it, and it comes down to how persuasive some are in the arguments they put their fellow justices? the arguments they put their fellowjustices? it the arguments they put their fellowjustices?— the arguments they put their fellowjustices? fellow 'ustices? it depends on the fellowjustices?

why is the supreme court setting the line at viability or 15 weeks? what responsibility or power does it have to do that? none. >> claire, is the argument then that you -- you would make it front of the court simply like this is about -- you have to have a baseline of individual rights for women? >> listen, you know, a patchwork may sound great in theory, but there are poor women that aren't going to have choices. there are poor women that are going to be facing really difficult situations. and they're not going to be able to afford to travel to a "friendly" state. this feels very personal to women. i can assure you. and you know, i just think it's really interesting that kavanaugh was all about precedent when he was in front of the supreme court, reassuring susan collins and then he spent his entire time today talking about how precedent stinks. you know, these right-wing jurists who want to talk about precedent until they don't. this is a 50-year precedent in this country, and now they're saying, well, never mind, it's -- it's really politically int

to the point after viability? >> to re-examine a watershed decision would subvert the court's legitimacy beyond any serious question. this court should be scrupulously neutral on the question of abortion, neither pro-choice nor pro-life. >> of course, conservative majority appear ready to uphold mississippi's ban on abortion over 15 weeks and possibly overturn roe v. wade all together. that would trigger other states that have anti-abortion laws ready to take effect. joining the panel is joan skubic. joan, you spent your life studying reporters, talking to folks about the court. how likely is it now the court will overturn roe and what does that mean for activists? >> let me put you in the courtroom for a second, it was so dramatic and also so startling. what we thought going into it the discussion would be about would be viability question, because booth roe in 1973 and casey in 1972 said the state cannot interfere with the abortion choice before the fetus was available, and that's at about 23 weeks. that's where

viability, the point at which a fetus could survive outside the womb was the other key issue today and whether it should remain the benchmark for limiting state's ability to restrict abortion. prompting chief justice roberts to ask. >> viability, it seems to me, doesn't have anything to do with choice. if it really is an issue about choice why is 15 weeks not enough time? >> and while mississippi's solicitor general argued that science and technology have advanced significantly since roe, including findings on feettled pain, justice sotomayor criticized the idea that pain can be experienced before viability as held by a fringe minority and, quote. not founded in science. >> justice barrett also today brought up the issue of safe haven laws exist in all 50 states allowing a woman to give up a baby after birth no questions asked. justice barrett asked does that answer this argument about forcing a woman to bear a child that she says she did cannot or does not want to care for. we know how everyone vote. right in the middle of the 2022 midterm elections. >> bret: shannon, we have been thr

to say yes to the question any pre-viability limit constitutional is to eviscerate roe v. wade because of the viability test and come up with some ancient other test is arbitrary. just as arbitrary as what is currently in the supreme court parlance. so yes, i think the politics of this is vitally important. if it happens the question will be returned to the states to allow the democratic process to unfold. each state has its consensus and that consensus would be allowed to make its way into the law and congress. so it's exactly how it should work and what has been prevented for 48 years. while we've had such polar i zailtion on this issue for so long. >> bill: we expected texas quickly. when would you expect mississippi to be ruled on? >> that is going to take a while. we'll go into next year. i think that it will be likely a fractured decision and that could delay it even further. we're talking months. in the meantime texas can proceed although one court obviously has already ruled that law is unconstitutional. but the court is going back to a single track and that track

wade said states can't prohibit abortions before viability. in 1992, in planned parenthood versus casey, the supreme court said, quote, the essential holding of roe was that states can't prohibit before viability. it's about the 24th week of pregnancy. mississippi after the 15th. texas after the sixth week of pregnancy. once the supreme court upholds the laws, there is nothing left of roe v. wade. >> there are 20 plus states, i think we have a map of them, ready to be triggered because they have already -- there it is. 26 states certain or likely to ban abortion if roe v. wade is overturned. in many respects, it's almost like a cnn election night map, right? it's a very red state/blue state thing. look at that comparison. my god, it's hard to tell the difference of an election night map versus a post-roe v. wade map. is that where we are headed, professor? >> yes. the reality is that places like california, new york, the blue states will remain to have legal abortion. but places like texas, mississippi, and so many of the red states will prohi

viability is going to change. but again, we have to confront the fact that this is what makes us an intractable problem. pro-choice people say one person is involved and pro-life people say there are two individuals involved. and we're going to have to argue that again. >> you really think it's an intractable problem and you could make the argument about viability with all we know about science now post 1973 and how creamy children can survive outside the will? >> not only can they survive outside the women, intrauterine medicine can do wonders for pre-born children. i'm not saying you can't split the difference. some people on the right to life side safe from the moment of conception on there is a distinctly unique creature who absent violence or accident is going to become a person. you got that and that's true, that's not medial the elegy, that's my school biology but if we had abortion laws much more like those in europe for example. europe is hardly a theocracy these days. if we had say a limit on abortion of

and a decision holding that pre-viability bans are permissible going forward would, of course, encompass these texas cases, as well. >> so what do you think this means in the state of texas? >> reporter: well, what will happen in texas is that this law continues to -- will be adjoined as to its operation right now. and that sort of pulls it in advance, as this challenge goes forward. but again, there's already considerable confusion on the ground in texas. some providers have already stopped providing abortion services and they may not be able to come back online. so i think that this law accomplished its purpose, which was to arrest the exercise of this constitutional right for some period of time in texas. and it certainly did that for two months. >> and i'm just wondering, if this -- and i know you just talked a little bit about it. it really can tell us very little about how the supreme court may be thinking in total on the mississippi case. >> well, i love the use of all of the latin here. i think we did get a sense of where the court is going in that mississippi case. i think the r