though. this is, hallie, going to be the biggest abortion case, the mississippi case, since roe v. wade. i don t feel there s a debate about whether the mississippi law will be allowed to go forward. the question is does it go forward under roe v. wade, too? and the political impact of whatever the decision, which we won t know for months, after the arguments happen on wednesday, what s so interesting is the question that s come up that i hear a lot which is how much of a galvanizing issue is abortion going to be. i don t have to tell you there are typical smaller but very vocal minorities in the parties, activists on both sides who want to make this an issue. what we ve seen, especially for voters, in a midterm and presidential, it s not. it s the economy, it s covid. we ve seen that in the polling numbers. when you look at texas and what we saw there, in some ways outpacing where the electorate is, even in the republican party. when you look at numbers out, for example, from npr sh
professor, and joyce vance, a former u.s. attorney. great to have you all here. pete, what are the possible outcomes here? i keep hearing there s no middle ground. people say there s no middle ground for this reason. the court starting with roe and many other decisions about abortion has said before viability, before the fetus can exist outside the womb, a state can restrict abortion but not ban it. viability is generally thought to be 24 weeks. along comes mississippi and says we want to ban it after 15 weeks. if the supreme court says yes, we agree with mississippi, that would seem to undercut the central holding of the decisions which is no, states can t ban before viability. now, one of the fallbacks or one of the compromises that mississippi is suggesting here is okay, you don t have to overturn roe they say. just say that restricting abortion or banning abortion after 15 weeks does not unduly burden the right of access to abortion. what the state says is something
it could lead to the redefining or overturning of roe v. wade. it makes sense for the court to review their decisions in the past, and this is a vehicle in which for them to do it. i ll talk to mississippi governor tate reeves. also, donald trump s former personal attorney michael cohen is free after serving time for breaking tax and campaign laws. i ll talk to him about the investigation into mr. trump s financial dealings they re working on a daily basis in terms of bringing this indictment. and the former president s political ambitions. joining me for insight and analysis are nbc news senior washington correspondent hallie jackson, washington post, columnist eugene robinson, daniella pletka of the american enterprise institute and jake sherman, founder of bunch bowl news. welcome to sunday. it s meet the press. announcer: from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is meet the press with chuck todd.
barbara, good morning. does the supreme court s refusal to so far ban abortions at six weeks give us any sense of what it may do in this particular case? well, i think that decision early on, in early september, was a real red flag that caused a lot of alarm in people. i think that the oral argument we heard there gave a little bit of reassurance that justices amy coney barrett and brett kavanaugh might be willing to strike that down, but more as a procedural matter. i think, instead, what we re looking at on wednesday in the dobbs case is a head-on, full-smack attack of the substance on the right to an abortion, a chance to overturn roe v. wade, and i think that reluctance does suggest a hostility to the right to abortion. let s talk about a little bit about it. using this mississippi case to overturn roe v. wade, how could that happen? what could the supreme court end up doing here?
in the constitution that prohibits individual states, states like mississippi, to limit access to abortions. melissa, what s the other side of this argument about constitutionality? well, the governor is correct. the right to an abortion or the right to privacy is nowhere explicitly enumerated in the constitution. neither are other constitutional things like the right to marry, and even though there was a period of time when people would have banned interracial or six marriage, the constitution protects those decisions. it is true, it s not explicitly in there, but there are a lot of things that are constitutionally guaranteed that aren t specifically in the constitution. i mentioned the appointees that donald trump was able to put on the court. who in particular and what are you going to be listening for