15 week abortion ban. we expect to hear from president biden in about 30 minutes, but for now this is "outnumbered" paired hello, i am kayleigh mcenany with my cohost haris faulkner, joining us jackie deangelis, tammy bruce, and david webb. for more on the breaking news, chief legal correspondent and anchor of fox news at night has more from us from the supreme court. >> hey, guys, busy day out here, the chant still continue behind me, though pro-choice protesters saying no justice, no peace, they are very fired up, this has not died down very much. let me read you from the opinion in the court 5-4 striking down roe while holding the mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks, right to the majority justice says this, abortion presenting a profound moral question that does not prohibit the state from regulating or prohibiting abortion, roe and casey irrigated that authority and overruled those decisions and return that authority to the people on their elected representatives. and as you all probably know, many states already had trigger laws in place. they were anticipating what the justices would do especially after we got the leak of the draft weeks ago. we are starting to get the press releases from a number of states saying exactly when the new abortion restrictions will kick in. at some of them are rather immediate, a few weeks or months down the road, but already in place on the other side you have states like colorado saying basically there will be no restrictions on abortion up through a due date. so now this goes back to state to that justice alito and the majority saying that's what should have happened. the dissent, something unusual that they all sign their names to this. it's not as if one broke the dissent and the other signed on, this brings the dissent in the obamacare case where all of the dissenters signed their names. they say this, one of us once said that it is not often in the law that so if you have so quickly change so much. that is a quote of justice breyer, for all of us in this time on the court has never been more true than today in overturning roe and casey with sorrow for this court, but more for the many millions of american women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection, we defend -- as you know that is the rough of the entire case, was this a constitutional protection? the majority says no. >> to that end, we know with kc that the court said the right to abortion was in the 14th amendment, but as a majority points out, that has to be deeply rooted in history tradition as they say on the majority opinion of the latter part of the 20th century there was no support and american law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. in other words, this opinion, if i'm reading it correctly halted the political process and nine unelected justices in black robes decided for the nation what would be a constitutional right. >> yes, and remember justice ginsburg was among those who was worried about the underpinnings of roe and whether the legal framework was sturdy and would survive a challenge like we have seen it actually fall to you through the mississippi law. so there are those left, right, and center who have often thought that roe was not on legal solid ground, and because of that what we saw today nearly 50 years after the decision it has been undone, because there were those worries about what it was based upon in the first place. >> kayleigh: thank you, shannon. to that end, tammy bruce, there is an interesting part of the opinion, page 53 where the courts goes through a litany of critics of roe, and those critics are not these suspected names, like archibald cox, they talk about ruth bader ginsburg, you can go to page 4 where ruth bader ginsburg criticized roe, halted a process that was moving in the right direction and prolong to divisiveness and the heard table settlement of the issue, so the very critics of roe where those who are some of abortion access biggest components. >> justice ginsburg realized this was not about abortion, it was about maintaining the court. with it at the court maintained to this unstable framework that both sides to some degree used politically to generates concern and instability and raise money and all of that. but what it also did was it protected democratic politicians. it protected politicians in general. they did not have to deal with it at the state level or deal with it in the house in the senate, because this is in fact a political issue and should reflect what people in a particular state want, whether it is california or georgia or north dakota, but then if you do that, then that means that a politician is going to have to take a stand. someone is going to have to write a bill. the good news is and i would disagree that this is just a pro-life victory, it clearly us, but that this means there is going to be more activism from state to state. the state activism levels and voting levels have been so low, maybe it is time for people to get more involved. women are the majority of voters in this country, have women not been voting for various reasons? so this takes it back it, brings it closer to the people, which is what the far left and liberals in general, classical liberals have been arguing for to have their voices heard. at the supreme court they are shut out. this is a done deal in d.c. between the dealmakers. well, now that it is back in state houses, you actually can be heard. you can make a difference. you can vote. you can have a protest, a nice protest that does not involve threatening to kill people, but actually do activism for a change. i believe that the left knows it does not know how to do that anymore. they have relied on this kind of hammer for half a century, and they don't know how to proceed. that's why they are desperate here, and they only know how to threaten, bring things down, have assassins somewhere, attack churches. it is about violence and intimidation and fear. that's what they are afraid of, but the average person benefits from this. the average american benefits from this, because it brings it back to the core of what the people want and we will see what happens from state to state. i think that it is a proper good decision and i think that ruth bader ginsburg would agree in that regard for the very same reason. >> kayleigh: as the beginning public goes, 135 years states decided abortion law. >> harris: i don't know who did not get the shard of the mic she just dropped. tammy, you had it on the head. it is about participation. it is about ownership. it is about all of that. and when obama had majority, he spent his capital on obamacare. and this issue did not even get talked about, because it had already been settled. it had already been done. and there was artie a grounds to all of this country about can we have a conversation? i find this to be really important. it is a look at why are most americans for keeping roe v. wade, when most americans think that abortion should be always illegal. a fox new poll found that let it stand, 63% said right now going into today, let it stand. 27% said let roe v. wade be overturned. yet, should abortion be legal? 54% said no, it should be illegal. 44 set legal. it is exactly what you're saying. it is more complicated than hitting us all over the head with a hammer on an issue, but letting america figure out how it wants to debate the issue. and making a copious argument for why they believe what they believe, not just joining the masses and saying, don't do this one thing, do this one thing. why do you believe what you believe? walk it out. use your words! not your hands. >> kayleigh: one of the most powerful arguments too that i saw on the opinion was page six that talks about how we are among 600 countries that allow elective abortion after 20 weeks. it so that should tell you when you are a pariah among the nations in the world among the abortion law, as was said in other arguments. in north korea and the people's republic of china, we are on staff with other countries, so why not let the people decide. in new jersey will decide differently from florida who will decide differently from georgia. >> david: i think it is important and i will pick up one of the shards that came from the microphone. this was a great week for the constitution to tammy's point about bigger than that. you had an education case in maine that was decided that freedom of choice in education cannot be restricted. you had a second amendment case important to the protection of americans, and now you have this case. this is a constitution working as it is designed, and again, with the ability to amend if there is a problem. back to the point of the people stories. so it is important to see this and i want americans to look at this from that perspective. at that now their voices can be heard at the state levels, that is an important part of this. closest to home where their legislators are literally sometimes living in the same neighborhood. what we see here is something that overturns fakery in part on courts when they are activists. and i don't like an activist court, it's not a right or left court, it's a constitutional court that decides on what exists and what is written. i am an originalist, and i think when we are originalists, the country is better off. and for the nations around the world, by the way, we were the aberration. some of the socialist countries that liberals love so much, they had those prohibitions on late-term abortions. mississippi cases are important, it's that 15 week limits, they are going to lie on many of these left-wing networks and tell you that abortion is over it a legal, you are going to jail. he will be back alleys and hangers again, sorry to be crude, but that's what they are pushing out there. and that is not what it is. the american people have now been given back their constitution, whether you agree or disagree to exercise your right. >> kayleigh: exactly, and at the time that roe was decided, they pointed out that 30 states prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother, and then in a blink of an eye, nine justices overruled the opinions of 30 states. is that how the process that should? >> tammy: in and ask case, the left got what it wanted and that was okay, that's one conversation had. but what is interesting here is how misinformed people are about this. i've been getting texts all morning saying abortion is illegal. to your point, oh, my god, i can't believe that this is happening. everybody needs to take a deep breath and digest this. i actually think that it might've been intentional to drop this opinion on friday so that people had the weekend to kind of think about it to read through it, to watch some of the coverage and understand what is really happening out there. abortion is not going to be illegal in this country, it might be in certain states. and people need to internalize that and think about what it means and where they want to live, what they want to support. nancy pelosi was on earlier and she said reproductive freedom is on the ballot in november. it is, go make your voice heard. go get out they are coming or talking about the activism and you're talking about change that is very hard to absorb, i think that there are a lot of people to get frustrated or scared of it. go make your voice heard. >> tammy: just to add onto that very quickly, fear has been the debate of everything the left has done, and the stations in the news outlets are promoting this idea, the slide that abortion is illegal, because they want to see this movement. this is the only way that the democrats know how to organize people is through emotion. they don't organize through let's talk about the issues and figure this out. secondarily, when we talk about people can move out of the state, right? this does remain an issue for women that are on the margins. women who are poor, the economy is destroying the flexible income, women of color in certain areas, they don't have the luxury of leaving. and this brings up another issue that no one wants to talk about, which is that this is an economic issue. it is like, why are certain women not able to leave and have to deal with morality legislation effectively that stops their ability to have control of their own life including having a baby, even if it is unexpected, it is because he would have enough money to be able to do so. that you don't have to worry about that, but many women aren't going to be able to leave. and this is why, i would hurt that -- hope that certain states that have direct caney and laws that ban it entirely, that it is important to think about the 15 week ban in mississippi where there is the quickening so that there is an option for women who do not have certain resources, cannot move, and are limited in the options. i think that many states realize this and the 21st century that americans want some flexibility, but not to the point -- >> harris: i think that's what some of the polling was telling you, and your home state of florida, that's what we may see. congressman byron donald was on during the breaking news in "the faulkner focus" last hour and he said, because i was saying, oh, my gosh, so states are already triggering which brings us to a whole new level of legality, will there be scenes on those triggers to ban roe v. wade triggered missouri to become the very first to effectively end abortion with their ag opinion. so it is already happening and what does that mean? and what's congressman donald said for florida is that they are going to take a look at this immediately and where they will fall is probably somewhere in the middle as you say depending on what they economic and other types of health care burdens. and with their own constituents want. >> kayleigh: will get to you in just one moment, we want to bring in andy mccarthy, one thing i wanted to quell is we are seeing a lot of apoplectic rhetoric on the other side, the end to certain marriage opinions, contraception opinions, but the majority in page 13, go look it up for yourself, those of you watching, it differentiates roe from those cases saying that to specifically abortion is different because it destroys what those decisions call fetal life, can you share with us why those specific rights are very much differentiated from those that are issues in roe? >> i actually think that the problem in strong's argument from the pro-abortion side is precisely that today are not that different, and the reason that the court needed to make an emphatic statement that what we are doing here does not affect that line of precedents is if you logically apply what the court is saying here, what they are saying is we are not going to derive our right unless it is a key part of the foundation in american history and the foundation of american law and basic to a system of order liberty. and they say, basically abortion is not to. well, if you just straight line apply that, you can see the same thing about the contraception decisions and what the left has been i think understandably, not just the left, but other people that are concerned about those lines of authority, what they are basically saying is if this is going to be the courts test for substantive due process going forward, then these other lines of authority are at risk, and to the reason that the court felt like they had to make this an emphatic statement that we are only talking about fetal life here, we are only talking about abortion is the logic of it would open those other case lines up to challenge. >> kayleigh: andy, just to address the idea that you respect precedent, there is a very powerful part of the opinion footnote 47 i believe where they go through a litany of cases that overturn precedent, many of which the same people protesting dobbs with the court, and the footnote to same-sex marriage which overturns precedent, another that they mention in the text of the opinion is brown v board of education which overturned ferguson. so while we have respect for precedent, if you can walk us through that, there is sometimes when precedent is just wrong. >> well, precedent, stare decisis which is the doctrine we respect precedent is not a hard and fast rule. it's basically a test and a multiprong test that you applied to decide whether a precedent should be followed even if it is argued really wrong. and what is interesting that you end up fighting this on the ground is because nobody for 50 years has been willing to get up and make a straight face argument that you can derive roe from the constitutional rights, it can be done. and in fact, kayleigh was talking before about the liberals jurist and legal scholars who have criticized pointedly justice alito talks about john hart to the prominent legal scholar who at the time roe was decided said the problem is not that it is bad constitutional law, it is that it is not constitutional law at all and does not show any sign of obligation to try to be constitutional law. so the reason we are talking about precedent is that roe has never been able to be defended on its own terms, so when you are now applying those decisive tests, the question becomes how wrong is the decision? how much are people relying on it? there is a number of factors. i think that here it is interesting to note that we really have not been under roe for decades. when casey was decided, it basically gutted the reasoning of roe and kept only the holding, and what case he ended up imposing was this different undue burden test of the regulation creating an undue burden on a woman's right to get an abortion, which basically invited years of litigation over what an undue burden was, and i think what that underscores is just how unsettled this is. and if something is unsettled, it's very hard to make an argument for precedent on it. >> harris: i am literally taking notes on what you said in terms of casey, because it is really critical that people understand how we got here. when you talk about precedent, how did they get to roe v. wade, what about the more than hundred years before that? how did they make the argument to go forth? speak of the long answer, harris is they made it up. >> harris: okay, all right. i do have another question for you, and it has to do with missouri becoming the first nation in the country to effectively trigger that mechanism that is in their legal state legislature that says that they can now ban abortion now that roe has been overturned, and there are several other states on the automatic list, some will wait 30 days for what their legislation says in their state, but eventually states will begin to feather out and put those triggers in place and ban abortion in the states, are we in a place where we will see the fight legally that we have never seen or at least not in decades over a portion of judges say we will stay the ruling and do this, can you fight the legislature? because that is something that seems like states like missouri are ready to posture for now. >> i actually think that this is going to be mainly a political fight. good legal flip side to the points that tammy was making about the atrophying of political activism that has been caused by roe is that there is a corresponding corrosion and corruption of the law, because there wasn't any legal foundation for this in the first place, and because the law is not a self-contained thing. roe is a precedent that is spread throughout the law and encourages judges to do this freelancing that was done in roe and what the supreme court is basically saying today is that we are putting this house in order. you don't get to make it up. there is no unenumerated right that we are going to enforce unless you can show it's foundational in american history in american tradition and it is fundamental to our system of ordered liberty. if it does not make that cut, don't bring it to us. so i think that the dynamic movement here and now it's going to be political and is going to be at the state level, and you know it, that is good. that's what it was supposed to be in the first place. >> kayleigh: tammy, that is exactly right, every voice deserves to be heard, if you are pro-choice, you can make it heard and political process, also being as someone pro-life, speak to a lot of these groups and they are very compassionate and a loving movement, they change women's lives. and they deserve to be heard too. their view, it's my view as well, the white house says that is 15 weeks at a baby as a baby, 15 links a baby has arms and legs and is moving rapidly, the baby's eyes are closed, but the baby can sense light, and the white house was asked if this was a baby, they would not say, as a 17 week pregnant woman, i can tell you i had a very exciting moment yesterday where i felt my baby move. and i said come here, come here, come here and i got emotional, i got emotional this morning, but for this movement at a spot for decades, this is a victory, not that i don't over turn abortion across the nation, but that it allows their voices to be heard via a political process. >> having been on the front line when i was on the left on the abortion rights movement and not looking at the pro-life people with a kind frame of mind, over the decade, that is change, not just for me, but for my generation as we have moved into the 21st century become women, become older women, understanding what the pro-life movement has always done, what they claim have been like abortion to the point of birth come we dismiss that as being hysteria and paranoia, and it is happening. so my generation sees this and understands that this is not 1960 or 1970 on their options, but we also understand the power of the argument and let me say for all the pro-life out there, for someone like myself, your argument over time has changed people. they have changed me, they have made a difference in a generation now that has power and is having a conversation about this issue. it has been brilliant and important. and i think that when we talk about the necessary local arguments now, more people instead of having a stereotype or a caricature of a pro-life woman and a pro-life man and a family are going to -- you are going to see them in your community. you are going to have these conversations, and people like me, people younger than me are going to realize this is real life, there are more options coming at it is going to be better for the country. >> harris: what is interesting too to further that, tammy is something that i often hear you say and we are looking for any reason to bring us together. right? and in particular as women because they like to put us on a block and put shiny objects in front of us to try to get us to go to the polls. i mean, seriously. rather than the hard topics and everything else, look at the plate of doughnuts. and what you're saying though is that it means that those women might even vote the same. they don't even know how different they are in terms of how they are looking at this issue, because they are all making assumptions about each other. and to the point that you are making, the people showing up at the u.s. supreme court, those that are pro-life were on their knees praying, they were quiet, and you know, i've had some guests on today earlier in the last hour who suggested that part of that is because they know that they are still under threat. they are in a place that is unfriendly for them and are outnumbered in that moment, but they go to say that this is what they prayed for. it is amazing. before we move on, i know that you have waited patiently, david. >> i have and i am glad that i have, because i want to put three things click on the table. one to something that tammy said about the effects on the floor. one of the things that affects the poor the most is early pregnancy as a teenager or young woman, it holds your education, it changes your life trajectory, that is important. solutions, i am a solution-oriented guy. i've said this for years, reduce the rate of pregnancy by any means necessary. education, prevention, especially in any community for that matter and you remove the need for abortion, that's important. science, from the founder of science on the left, i followed the science, when roe v. wade was decided the science was different, you did not see a baby at 12 weeks with a heart beat, you did not see that sonogram, the 3d imaging, all of the things that where there are there now. so the science has evolved to understand what the life is, which supports the argument that that is a baby. so follow the science, you see what it is. the limitations are the discussions that will happen next, but if these three points are brought in by our colleagues on the pro-life side of this argument, you will bring more people over to the cause by saying, hang on, this is a life, just as doctors are taught, the minute you are pregnant, your doctors has two patience. the minute that determination is made. follow the signs in the argument and look at the economics of who it affects. if we begin to have that discussion and we should have that discussion, between now and november, more people will put this on the ballot. >> tammy: it is a quickening that happens, any woman who has had a child knows or not completed because of a miscarriage, for hundreds of years the recognition that when the quickening happens of what you are feeling, that is a baby, that's a life that is occurring. when the 21st century, all of us across the board can admit that, embrace it, accept it, and support it. >> harris: i want to move on to this, and this has been the hardest part of the discussion today, because it deals with violence, which is the opposite potentially of life. right now the nation is bracing for potential violence after the supreme court decision to overturn roe v. wade and as you have been watching huge protests have erupted outside the court, in fact a little while ago we were watching live as they were walking. this was a huge group of people from the u.s. capital to the u.s. supreme court, so we know that there are a lot of people out there. they are doing their -- well, that sign is very unfortunate, we will take down off of that word, but they are doing the right to protest. they can be out there. keep it peaceful. the threats have been ramping up of late, and after the assassination attempt on justice kavanaugh vandalizing over the weekend, the last several weeks in fact, just an hour ago, the pro-choice group of justice clarence thomas tweeting tonight -- that was the tweet. they also tweeted last night showing protesters near justice barrett's house. and we know that that is a federal offense for them to be there. let's see if biden and his doj will lean in. we know that the threats are real. you may remember james revenge has about a night of rage. when your name is revenge... you can see it. it is unbelievable to me that we can't agree on adjudicating the law in this sense and we have to wait for congress to come up with a way to protect to the justices. that money is stalled, senate saying we got it together, house, come on and pass the money to protect u.s. marshals. >> i think it is unfortunate that violence for certain people is the answer here, and of course as we have been watching this play out since the draft opinion was leaked, violence has not been challenged in any way. it is not legal to protest at the home of a supreme court justice. as we debate these issues of constitutionality, we also should debate other issues as well, what is acceptable in our society? violence is not the answer, to tammy's point before and as david was saying as well, this is about activism and trying to come together and change is hard to absorb, but there will be changes as a result of this as well, people don't know the impact in their particular state. harris, you had made this point earlier about public, private, all coming together and making certain distinctions. we have a number of business -- businesses themselves, amazon, city, apple, they are going to make provisions for their employees if they live in a state where they cannot get an abortion if they need money to travel, so these are going to be things that give people more options. and that's why i just encourage people to take a deep breath, to see what happens. be part of the discourse, but the violence is not the solution. >> harris: disney just added their name to that list, and i know that your group at fox business has been keeping this going as well. look, it is all part of the new story today, what corporations, what everybody is going to do to react. the vice president, former vice president mike penn said today life one by overturning roe vs. wade, though supreme court of the united states has given the american people and new beginning for life and i commend the justices in the majority of her having the courage of their convictions. former president barack obama who could have addressed all of this when he had the majority of it was important. super majorities, rights, majority with a cape on it. said joined with the activists who have been sounding the alarm on abortion access for years and act. stand with them at a local protest. volunteer with one of their organizations, knock on doors for a candidate you believe in. vote on or before november 8th and every other election. because in the end, if we want judges who will protect all and not just some of our rights, then we have got to elected officials committed to doing the same. tammy bruce, i can't even imagine how frustrated this man feels today when he looks outside wherever he is today and looks at his television and sees, that's not what people have been doing. that's probably not what is on the plan for them. they want to shout, i don't know if they want to go out and vote. >> tammy: he knows this, he has been effectively head of the democratic party by doing nothing legislatively on abortion, it was a statement that this is what the standard should be. and then he says to hold judges accountable. and does not talk about holding politicians accountable. they still don't want it to be in their realm, because they never want to take a position. all the people out there right now are being used. they are being effectively victimized by a political system that sees them as chess pieces or as dirty dish rags that can be used on this issue. and if they get arrested or like i said, the young man who was arrested for attempting to kill justice kavanaugh, nobody is going to come up and pay his bail, obama is not going to go there and represent him on that case, the as our lives that will be lost, again, when you are dealing with the 60s or the 70s or the 80's, my goodness, for everyone watching who remembers me and the activism in the '80's and the '90s, it is the 21st century, this is old and useless. you are being used and you are being manipulated into an emotional state that will in fact perhaps ruin people's lives, do nothing on the issue, because people like barack obama and joe biden and nancy pelosi want to -- they want you to go out there and be a distraction as they continue to ruin your wages and make it impossible for you to get gas, where's the baby freak in formula? it is still a crisis? where are the jobs going? there will likely be a recession, consumer confidence has plunged again to a record low, but they want you out there screaming about abortion and it's all a lie. it's been on that brings me to the question, how long does this last, what tammy is talking about? because tax is still going to be high on monday, i realize the story broke today, and all of the people who say that they are angry and galvanizing the former president to go out and he doesn't want them to vote eventually. reading the statement verbatim, but how long does this last when you realize the price of bread and some places in this country, you have to make decisions, do i buy what is fresh and enough of it for my family? or do i hold back cash for gas? we sell real statistics and pulling on people who are making that decision just this week. >> myra florez was on your show and she mentioned to you that's what her constituents are talking about. i don't think an independent is going to be swayed by this, however, what this will do is undoubtedly mobilize the left, what is it now, 35% that support joe biden that is the far left and they will show up at the polls in november. this will be a motivating factor for them, but it is not going to change the overall calculus in my mind of what happens in the midterm. i will say, correct me if i'm wrong, but as you are reading that statement from the former president, i thought it was missing -- you read obama as well, right? for former president obama, i thought that something was missing and please don't act violently, i did not hear that in there, we have not heard that from president biden. he's set to speak for and a half minutes ago and we don't know when he will show up, but he needs to say i do not condone violence, because they must, there have been more than 40 attacks on pro-life centers, james revenge, let's be clear on what they said just a few days ago, the measures might not come and be cleaned up so easily as fire and graffiti. they call for people to cut. i don't know what you mean by cut other than violence. it is incumbent upon this president, president biden to be a moral leader right now. say what you want about dobbs, but along with that must come an explicit call for peace on a night where some of those who support you on the far left are calling for a night of rage. >> david: you are being reasonable, but you are dealing with ideologues and people with the defined outcomes by any means necessary, what you have with the left especially the far left and with joe biden for decades now when you look at his history is implicit versus passive, you have tacit approval of these tactics. the supreme court if you go to the website says closed for business with a exclamation on the front page and it has for weeks, why? they are not doing it because people will get on their knees and prayed outside the court, they are going to come in and riot like they did in madison, wisconsin, for example. they are doing it to protect themselves from the far left so you had that tacit approval and will not get a statement about no violence unless it is something that serves the bite in politically to pretend it is. his history demonstrates this, the left demonstrates this, tammy knows for years i have gone and covered the left for decades now. and the term useful idiots, remember that term, it is used people laying as ponds, not even nights, bishops, queens and chess game, but ponds to achieve an end. spin on two-minute morning for the president of the united states to come out and speak publicly for the very first time in reaction to the monumental change that this country is seeing. a wave across the country that invites constitutionally for states to get involved with the issue of abortion. on their own, separate from the federal government, because roe vs. wade is gone. that decision earlier today announced that opinion and ruling in detail. and it did mirror, quite frankly, and some places verbatim the leaked opinion, that draft opinion that was leaked weeks ago. will the presidents call out the jeopardy, the threat that we know exists for particularly conservatives u.s. supreme court justices before and now with this opinion released? will this president call out the jeopardy and the threat against pregnancy centers and churches that we have seen in recent days? will he unites the country? he promised that he would on every issue, can he start now? the president to the united states, joe biden on this day. let's watch together. >> president biden: to date the united states expressively took away at the constitutional rights of the american people that it had already recognized. it did not limit it, it simply took it away. that has never been done to a right so important to so many americans. but they did it. it is a sad day for the court and for the country. 50 years ago roe v. wade was decided and has been the law of the land since then. this landmark case protected a woman's right to choose, or right to make intensely personal decisions with her doctor, free from interference of politics. it reaffirmed basic principles of equality, and women had the power to control their own destiny, and it reinforced a fundamental right of privacy, a right of each of us to choose how to live our lives. now with roe gone, let's be very clear, the health and life of women in this nation are now at risk. as chairman and ranking member of the senate judiciary committee and its vice president announced as now present in the united states i have studied this case carefully. and overseen court accomplishment -- confirmations than anyone today where this case was always discussed. i believe roe v. wade was the correct decision, as a matter of constitutional law and application of the fundamental right to privacy and liberty in matters of family and personal economy. it was a decision on a complex matter, but to a careful balance between a woman's right to choose earlier in her pregnancy and the state's ability to regulate later in her pregnancy. a decision with broad national consensus that most americans of faith and backgrounds found acceptable and that have been the law of the land for most of the lifetime of americans today. and it was a constitutional principle upheld by justices appointed by democrats and republican presidents alike. roe v. wade was a 7/2 decision written by a justice and appointed by a republican president, richard nixon. in the five decades that is followed, justices appointed by republican presidents from eisenhower, nixon, and reagan, george w. bush were among the justices who voted to uphold the principles set forth in roe v. wade. it was three justices named by one president, donald trump who are the core of today's decision to up end to the scale of justice and live in a fundamental right this country. make no mistake, this decision is a culmination of a deliberate efforts over decades of scented balance of our law. it's a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the supreme court in my view. the courts has done what it has never done before, expressly take away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many americans that have already been recognized. the court's decision to do so will have real and immediate consequences. a state law banning abortion are automatically taken effect today, jeopardizing the health of millions of women, some without exceptions. so extreme that the women could be punished for protecting their health. it so extreme that women and girls are forced to bear their rapist's child. a child of consequence. it just stuns me. so ashamed that doctors will be criminalized for fulfilling their duty to care, imagine having a young woman having to choose to carry a child of, as a consequence of with no option. too often the case. the poor women are going to be hit the hardest. it is cruel, in fact, the court laid out to state laws criminalizing abortion that go back to the 1800s as rationale. the court literally taking america back 150 years. this is a sad day for the country in my view, but it does not mean that the fight is over. let me be very clear and unambiguous. the only way we can secure a woman's right to choose in the balance that exists is for congress to restore the protections of roe v. wade as federal law. no executive action from the president can do that, and if congress as it appears lacks the votes to do that now, voters need to make their voices heard. this fall you must elect more senators and representatives who will codify a woman's right to choose at the federal law once again. elect more state leaders to protect us right at the local level. we need to restore the protections of roe as law of the land and elected officials who will do that. this fall roe is on the ballot, personal freedoms are on the ballot. the right to privacy, liberty, equality, they are all on the ballot. until then, i will do all in my power to protect a woman's right in states where they will face the consequences of today's decision. of the court's decision in casting a large shadow through a large swath of the land, many states in this country still recognize a woman's right to choose. so if a woman lives in a state that restricts abortion, the supreme court's decision does not prevent her from traveling from her home state to the state that allows it. it does not prevent a doctor in that state from treating her. as the attorney general has made clear, women must remain free to travel safely to another state to seek care they need. in my administration it will defend that bedrock right. if any state or local official high or low tries to interfere with a woman's exercise in her basic right to travel, i will do everything in my power to fight that deeply un-american attack. my administration will also protect a woman's access to medications that are approved by the food and drug administration, the fda like contraception, which is essential for preventative health care. lubiprostone, which the fda approved 20 years ago to safely and early pregnancy is. and is commonly used to treat miscarriages. some states are saying they will try to ban or severely restrict access to these medications, but extremist governors and state legislators are looking to block the mail, or search a person's medicine cabinet or control her action by tracking data on her abs she uses are wrong and extreme and out of touch! with the majority of americans, "the american medical association," the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists wrote to me and vice president harris addressing that these laws are not based on evidence and asking us to act to protect access to care, they say by limiting access to these medicines return a mortality that will climb in america. that's what they say. today i am directing the department of health and human services to take steps to secure these critical medications available to the fullest extent possible. politicians cannot interfere in the decisions that can be made between a woman and her doctor. and my administration remains vigilant as the implications of this decision play out. i have warned about how this decision risks a broader right to privacy for everyone. that's because roe recognize the fundamental right to privacy, that is in surges up basic right for so many rights that we have come to take for granted that are ingrained in the fabric of this country. the right to make the best decisions for your health. the right to use birth control, a married couple in the privacy of their bedroom for god sake. at the right to marry the person you love. it justice thomas said as much today, he explicitly called to reconsider the right of marriage equality in the right of couples to make their choices on contraception. this extreme and dangerous path to corners now taking us on. let me close rhetorical points. first are: everyone no matter how deeply they care about this decision to keep all protest peaceful. peaceful, peaceful, peaceful. no intimidation. violence is never acceptable. threats and intimidation are not speech. we must disband violence in any form regardless of your rationale. second, i know so many of us are frustrated and disillusioned with the court taken something away that is so fundamental. i know so many women are now going to face incredibly difficult situations. i hear you. i support you. i stand with you. the consequences and the consensus of the american people, core principles of equality, liberty, dignity, and a stability of the rule of law to demand that roe should not of been overturned, with this decision the conservative majority of the supreme court shows how extreme it is. how far removed they are from the majority of this country, they made the united states an outlier of the nations of the world. but this decision must not be the final word. my administration will use all of its lawful powers, but congress must act. with your vote, you can act. you can have the final word. this is not over. thank you very much. i will have more to say in the weeks to come. >> harris: so we always wait just for a second to see if the president might take questions. especially on a day as critical as this for the country and for particularly his party, as he is now saying that he wants to call on congress and to get the ball rolling they are legally to fight what happened in the u.s. supreme court today. let's get into really what that means, i think that we have jonathan turley standing by, jonathan, are you with me? okay okay, we will wait a moment for that. while we wait, my question for jonathan and i will hold, but for right now you had quite a reaction to this, david. and he wants you to share it. >> well, for one, this is a fireman, this is a president who comes out in a sense sets the fire and then plays fireman. it's the first time he has actually set on a public stage, peace, peace, peace. it is repetition after the fact with no effect on what is happened before. a planned assassination of a supreme court justice, violation of federal law and trying to influence the case. but you know, i have a conversation i am going to recount what we are waiting for jonathan that i had agreed at one time that was relevant, because i think of all the people on this dais, i am the one that knew sarah weddington that argued roe v. wade, and at one point we had a conversation about ten years or so ago about the case. she even told me where she was when the case was decided, she was actually in class teaching and did not know that she had won. she did not think that she would win the case. and in subsequent conversations we had more conversations about how she argued. one, she said i did my job for my client. that was what she was doing. sarah weddington was someone who did believe in choice, but was someone who also worked with other groups like republican majority for choice and others to advance the rights of women. she was a women's right activist. however someone may feel about the court's decision, she represented her client jane roe and fought the case. but she did not think that she would win it, because it did not meet the standard of what she thought would be a win and supreme court. sarah died last december, and the gist of our conversations of which there were a few was that there were some things that in time may be relevant to speak on. this is the first time i have told that, there were others there with me that are probably watching now, because i remember that dinner and evening when this first began, and i think that people need that context of understanding that it goes along with ruth bader ginsburg and what she said about being improperly decided what others have said. spin on that it's really interesting. i know that you are kind of leaning in a few moments ago saying i want to share this now, because it is important that people know that when you really talk about women's rights, you mean all women. i remember when we had the rally on washington and everybody had on the pink hats. i can't remember what they were calling them on that day, but you know what they were meant to look like. and i thought that it was just so awkward and shameful that those women did not once women there who might not agree with them, because as tammy has pointed out, so eloquently today, apparently the debate does not deserve real debate. one side just once the moral majority and to be rights, and not to be disturbed in that journey by anything that even would be a copious argument. so what do we get in the end? some days you get days like this. where states now will have to hear from all the constituents, which they should've been listening to anyway so that they will know what americans want, and stop trying to decide what america wants. there is a difference. because we actually live in this country. bret baier is host of "special report" with us now. we watch the president do something that was awkward at times, because he had a couple of gaps, and i don't know if that was prompted or whatever, we won't lean on that too hard. but he walked away as we have seen them do so many times without taking any a question as we say in the south. and i don't know if he would be open to it, but here's what i would ask. you say you want to take this to congress, is that a political flex ahead of of the midterm so you can help people out with your 33% approval rating? or do you really mean that congress can overturn this? and are you talking about packing the court? >> yes, it's a great question, harris. good afternoon. i think that the president was clear that he is saying that this is on the ballot, that this is now how they are going to frame the midterm elections, and especially for race is in the suburbs of the country where this issue may split a few races that we see just looking politically, saying it is a sad day for the court. it is a sad day for the country. i think that it was also important to as david pointed out that the president said this was that peaceful protest, that violence is never acceptable, because as you are listening to all of the uproar about this ruling, that is a key message from this president from the pulpit, but clearly he is laying down the marker politically that this is going to be the battle that they wage. >> kayleigh: we did as you mention, he said stay peaceful, peaceful, peaceful, we are against violence in any form, we have heard that against the secretary and now hearing that from the president of the united states today after a decision and before a night of rage as some of the interest groups have said, but we did hear him bring him today president trump again today, called them trump justices, never mind -- not trump justices, but it seemed like a speech that was casting the diet ahead of a constitutional election. >> big time, and elections have big consequences, we know this, but this is setting the framework. and i think that they are going to use the issue on guns, the ruling yesterday, the abortion ruling and to try to fire up the base as much as they can. i do think that every message from democratic lawmakers is that we are going to do everything we can to overturn it. but understanding that this is not outlawing abortion in the country. it is taking the issue to the states with the state legislatures make that call. there are 13 states that have triggered legislation that should this ruling come down, it is already ready to go. so that is the battle that is going to be on the state level. >> harris: we are tight to the top of the hour, but i do want to get this and put how disingenuous will it be for democrats and for this president to press this issue going forward as if there were anything they could do to change or challenge it before november 8th when people are hurting, they are hurting because of inflation. they are hurting -- and i don't care about that little gimmicky gas tax thing he is going to do, we'll absorb that $0.18 and keep going as we observed at the release of oil, we do not even feel that bump in the road. it feels like alive. >> yeah, harris, you're exactly right and the overwhelming thought is that inflation will drive the day and how people feel at the kitchen table, how they feel about what their own economic situation is will drive the day. but this will fire up the democratic base, make no doubt about it. and it may affect some races on the outskirts. >> harris: bright bear, i appreciate you so much, thank you for being here. jackie, talk to us about the economy right now. and i don't mean like break it all down in the numbers, but how it matches up with what people headed into november are going to feel? because you know how we are headed. >> jackie: absolutely, and listening to the present right there, he did say be peaceful at the very end and kind of buried it, he started out by fueling the fire a little bit and said that they took away a constitutional rights, he said it is a sad day for the court in the country and roused people up, because he needs to restrict ointment distract from the bad polling members, and rising gas prices and inflation right now that is crippling a lot of this country and people are complaining about it. so this is an opportune moment for him to stand up and bring us together, but i think that he played it with the political hand as it exactly as i expected him to. >> harris: kayleigh, we have been on the set together since before, during, and after the leak of this opinion. and what this day could look like, is this what you thought? >> kayleigh: i think it is exactly what i thought. it's odd to me, harris, and apparently the fbi has geared up their search for who the weaker was, they have taken phones and it's been unprecedented and good they have done that, but i think that the fact that this leaker thought if i leak and in advance, i will roll over the intentional fortitude of justices was wrong. these justices stuck to the law. they stuck to what they said where no, you must respect the second amendment written in the constitution and cannot invent a right to not written in the constitution. we saw justices stick to truth and the law and stick to what cases have said and stick to what is correct. and thank goodness we have a supreme court, the most trusted institution in the country, i know it has taken a little dip of the most trusted institution in the country has the fortitude to say i don't care if you are outside my house, the law matters. >> harris: and the federal government has a requirement, a promise that it has to keep. it has that anticipated role and all of our lives, particularly for the highest court in the land to keep them safe and alive. and they had better step up to the plate. because that's what we anticipate and that also can be a polling issue. it also can be a reason for voters to go to the polls if they think that the federal government now is ceasing to do its main role in our lives and keep people safe. >> kayleigh: protect the justices, it should of been done long ago, it should not have taken a call. a long overdue. it's been on a lot of breaking news, fox news alert, a political change in america, supreme court overturning the half century court ruling on roe vs. wade, guaranteed the federal right to abortion. i'm sandra smith on this friday afternoon. >> very busy friday, i'm trace gallagher in for john roberts. this is "america reports." justice samuel alito writing the majority opinion ending roe, joined by clarence thomas, neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh, and amy