the latest on the assessment by u.s. and western officials that vladimir putin may soon formally declare war on ukraine. kaitlan collins reported earlier that the decision could come in the next week in order to coincide with the national holiday in russia commemorating victory in world war ii. it would allow vladimir putin to mobilize reserves, draft more conscripts, and address a manpower shortage. we'll talk with a top congressional democrat who has returned from a trip to ukraine where he and others met with president zelenskyy has part of a delegation. we have the latest state of play on the battlefield and russians targeting children. we start just outside of kyiv. images now coming in giving us a look at a battered town that you may not have heard of, but its defense played a crucial role in the defense of the city and perhaps the country as a whole. matt rivers has details. >> reporter: at the entrance to the ukrainian village of ma shun, an effigy twists in the breeze, a uniform stripped off a dead russian soldier, stuffed and hung from a tree. people hate russia here because of what it did. the tiny town northwest of kyiv has been levelled. russian bombs, rockets, bullets, destroyed streets after streets after street. this was the site of some of the most intense fighting of the war so far. on their drive toward kyiv, the russians attacked soldiers and civilians alike here. ukrainian bunkers alongside ordinary houses shelled relentlessly to devastating effect. this was probably somebody's kitchen. you can see there's an oven there, pots and pan, a microwave. this house gets hit with artillery, there's subsequent fire and just look. i mean, it's eviscerated. if there is a building in this village that hasn't been damaged in this fighting, we haven't seen it yet. >> translator: boom, boom, boom, fire, fire. it was everywhere. it's nightmare. >> reporter: valentina has lived in moschun for years and has never known war until it landed on her doorstep and forced her into a neighbor's doorstep. how scared were you? >> translator: we were very scared. my heart was beating very fast. we thought we would die there. the russians fired indiscriminately. >> reporter: the fighting only eased when russia withdrew from the entire kyiv region. valentina, emerging from the basement to find shell casings in her garden and whatever else the russians left behind. so, all these things, she says the russians left behind. so, this for watching your hands. another cup of some kind here. this some sort of life jacket that the russians use. and then even here you've got old meal boxes even with some things left inside there that you can see. >> reporter: for nearly two months after the fighting, residents stayed away. a trickle have started to return. for them, russia's lasting effects here more than just bullet holes and bomb craters. not only do people who are trying to rebuild so often have to start from scratch, but there remains so many mines and pieces of unexploded ordnance that authorities are actually considering closing down this town for a few days until they can clear it. it's open for now though, which meant valentina could come back home for the first time in weeks. and the weather was nice, so her niece and nephew played on the spring, different than the last time they were here, when they hid in a basement, as bombs destroyed everything above. is it difficult to think about that? >> translator: i don't even know what to say. >> reporter: what we can say is that this tiny town has turned into a symbol of sorts, a village mercilessly attacked that, in the end, stood its ground, a microcosm, perhaps, of the country in which it lies. and matt rivers joins us now. the town, it's amazing that people are still living there. it just seems so completely destroyed. >> when we went there, the first time we went there was about ten days ago or so now with a previous congressional delegation that was in town. and when we were there with them, we spoke to a commander in the ukrainian forces who basically told us this town is the reason there was not street fighting in kyiv. we didn't realize it was that important because it is just this tiny, little village. and yet it's only about 15 miles or so from where we are here. and when we spoke to commanders there, they said had that town fallen, there would have been street fighting here. that's why the russians tried to hard to take it, why the ukrainians put up such a fight, and that's why there's so much damage. we're going to talk about that on the show looking at more how that battle played out. i'm joined by democratic congressman jim mcgovern who was recently in kyiv. he was part of a congressional delegation that just returned. while he was here, he and others met with president zelenskyy. this reporting that president putin might declare this a war on may 9th, one week from today, obviously it's been a war since they invaded. but does that factor into your concerns about the situation here at all? >> yeah, i am -- we all are worried about what president putin might do next. he can end this war if he wants to. and we all hope and pray that he would do that. i mean, this is his war. ukraine didn't invade russia. russia invaded ukraine. and putin has launched a war against ukrainian people that is -- that is vicious and barbaric. i mean, we -- when we were there on our delegation, led by speaker pelosi, i mean, we heard the stories of the war crimes, of the targeting of maternity hospitals, of the mass graves that are being uncovered, of these young girls that are being raped in front of their mothers by russian soldiers, and some being put into human trafficking. i mean, it is horrific the stories that we have heard from people, ngos that are also on the ground. but we went on this delegation that speaker pelosi put together. we met with president zelenskyy to tell him that we stand with the ukrainian people, that we -- that we will do what we can to provide him the weapons, the humanitarian assistance, the economic assistance to be able to stand his ground and be able to push the russians back. >> yeah, you met with zelenskyy, i understand, for three hours. and i know you've described the meeting as intense. is it clear to you more of what he's looking for from the united states at this point? >> well, first of all, he was grateful to the united states for the support that we have provided him up to this point. he's also grateful to the people of the united states who are, you know, raising money for relief efforts in food, in bake sales on college campuses. i mean, he knows that the american people stand with him and the ukrainian people. but what he wants and what he needs is more. i mean, look, russia's army is huge compared to the ukrainian army. but what he doesn't have in numbers, zelenskyy has in spirit and commitment from the ukrainian people who are doing everything they can to hold on, to push back. i mean, look, you know, a few weeks ago, all the experts said that russia would roll over ukraine in a matter of days. that did not happen and it will not happen. and i believe at the end of the day, ukraine will prevail. and what putin is doing is evil. and at the end of the day, i believe that evil will not triumph here, that the ukrainian people, with the help of the international community, will stand tall and be able to push the russians back. >> did you get a sense of how efficient the flow of weaponry is currently? i know the u.s. officials say that the majority of the howitzers that had been promised are already in country. is it clear to you if those weapons have already been brought to bear on the battlefield? >> i can't tell you whether they have or not. but, you know the focus of the discussion was not on any complaints about how slow things were but just kind of the understanding that this may be a long ordeal and that he needs to be able to count on not just the united states but others to be there, to make sure that he has what he needs to push the russians back. what putin is doing is committing war crimes. and i said at a press conference afterwards in poland that this war -- and people need to understand this -- is not just a war against the ukrainian people. it is a war against the most vulnerable in the world. putin is blocking ukraine, which is the bread basket of the world, from getting wheat and maize and sunflower oil to africa, to the middle east. i mean, he is provoking a hunger crisis, a global hunger crisis with rising costs in food and energy. >> yeah. >> so, putin can starve the whole world. but people need to understand, this is not just about ukraine. it is about the freedom and independence of other nations. it is about trying to prevent a global food crisis as well. >> congressman mcgovern, appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you and be safe. >> thank you. appreciate it. ukrainians worried about other potential front in this war along ukraine's southwest border with the break away region inside neighboring moldova. probably haven't heard much about it before, but it's called trans northeast i can't. it's had russia soldiers there for decades. it will work with moldova and the eu. >> reporter: this the village -- the last village before the border. almost everyone here told us they did not want to be interviewed. one woman told us, quote, the less you talk, the more you live. that's where we met tonya. she fled odesa, ukraine, with her two children only to end up here just a few miles away and feels under threat again. >> the russian troops are very close to here. does that concern you? >> translator: she tells me, yes, she's very afraid. she's very scared. she says her bags are packed and she's hoping to get to poland or somewhere safer very soon. >> are you worried that russia will invade moldova. yes, of course she's afraid for moldova, she says. moldovans are really good people who took ukrainians in. down the road, we found a another village. people here were much more willing to speak with us. are you nervous? >> no. no. i feel very good. i know that i can stay for my country. yes. >> reporter: you don't have a bag packed to go? >> no. no. i will stay here, and i will protect my family and my house. yes. >> reporter: so, you would stay and fight? >> yes, yes of course. why not? it's my country. >> reporter: how do you feel about living so close to tran cyst i can't? >> i feel okay, but i understand there is a problem. there is a problem that exists a lot of time. yes. and i think now it's moment to resolve it. >> reporter: the trouble is its proximity to ukraine and its relationship with russia, which has kept troops there for decades. if putin's troops are somehow successful in taking control of southern ukraine, they could create a land corridor. and some here fear eventually into moldova and deeper into eastern europe. this man tells me he's very worried for what may happen in moldova. can moldova defend itself against russia, do you think? no, he says, then asks me, have you seen the moldovan army? he says, moldova is a friendly, neutral state that happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. this woman tells me she too is very worried about russia invading. for now, it's not a threat, she says, but if that changes, she and her husband plan to run away. this woman came all the way from canada to check on her family. you're worried for your family. >> yes. >> reporter: she grew up here and is familiar with the threats of a russian invasion. she wanted to make sure her brother and sister and mother-in-law have all they need to escape. >> we try to help them with the money but actually to prepare maybe the documents just in case, just in case to have the passports. >> reporter: so many moldovans deciding whether to stay or go as they wait for what putin does next. >> and randi joins us now from moldova. i know you spoke to the former ambassador to the united states. is he concerned about russia expanding the war? >> reporter: absolutely, anderson. we spoke to the former moldovan ambassador and he's quite concerned russia could push through into moldova. he sees moldova as a very easy target. they have a very weak army here, 3,000 or 4,000 people. you heard us talking about it in the story. when you talk to moldovans around here, they really feel like they look to ukraine as their army. they feel like right now ukrainians are fighting for not only peace in ukraine but peace here in moldova and the region as well. of course there's that concern about the 1,500 so-called peace keeping troops, russian troops, that are there right now. that same ambassador told me he believes that number could jump to 50,000 or more. he said they're already recruiting there, and that is quite concerning to him, anderson. still to come, the state of play on the battlefield as u.s. intelligence believes vladimir putin may soon formally declare war on ukraine, see how his forces are doing in efforts to secure victory in the east and the south ahead. ♪("i've been everywhere" by johnny cash) ♪ ♪i've traveled every road in this here land!♪ ♪i've been everywhere, man.♪ ♪i'veve been everywhere, man.♪ ♪of travel i've hadad my share, man.♪ ♪i've been everywhere.♪ ♪ ♪ it wasn't me by shaggy ♪ you're never responsible for unauthorized purchases on your discover card. welcome to allstate. where everyone saves when they bundle their home and auto insurance. isn't that right, frank? i saved 25%. booyah. you protected your casa? sure did. and the frank tank? you know it. and now you're relaxing. i'm working from home. sure you are. alright i see a lot of head nods. let's circle back tomorrow. you weren't kidding. save up to 25% when you bundle home and auto with allstate. click or call for a quote today. ( ♪ ) ( ♪ ) ( ♪ ) this is the planning effect. nina's got a lot of ideas for the future... a lot of ideas. so when she wants a plan based on what matters most, she turns to fidelity. at fidelity, anyone can create a free plan. a plan that can change as your priorities do. and nina's free plan? it leaves her free to focus on what's important right now. that's the planning effect. from fidelity. (music) who said you have to starve yourself to lose weight? who said you can't do dinner? who said only this is good? and this is bad? i'm doing it my way. meet plenity. an fda -cleared clinically proven weight management aid for adults with a bmi of 25-40 when combined with diet and exercise. plenity is not a drug - it's made from naturally derived building blocks and helps you feel fuller and eat less. it is a prescription only treatment and is not for pregnant women or people allergic to its ingredients. talk to your doctor or visit myplenity.com to learn more. discover a simple way to use colors in managing diabetes! inspired by nature, onetouch verio reflect® meter shows instantly if you're below, within or above your range. it cheers you on and provides guidance. connected to your health and your phone. visit onetouch.com today. >> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. we have breaking news to report on a historic supreme court decision that could determine the legality of abortion in all 50 states. and a frankly unprecedented way, the court's decision may -- and we stress may -- have been announced. cnn is still trying to confirm a new report by politico saying it obtained a draft opinion of sam alito. the draft opinion indicates that the supreme court is ready to strike down the landmark decision in roe v. wade as well as k.c.v. planned parndhood. this is from page five of a draft opinion obtained by politico. we hold that rho and casey must be overruled. the constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of rho and casey rely the due process clause of the 14th amendment. jessica schneider joins us by phone. talk -- what more do we know about what they have decided? >> reporter: yeah, so, anderson, i mean, this is just an absolutely stunning report. and if it's true, as politico say, this would be a stunning breach of court confidentiality. politico says that it has obtained this draft majority opinion written by justice samuel alito overturning rho v wade saying there is no constitutional right to abortion. again, this is just a draft opinion. we're expecting a final opinion from this court sometime in the next eight weeks. they usually wrap up their term at the end of june, and we've been bracing for a decision. this draft has reportedly been leaked to politico. the justice apparently wrote in the 98-page opinion that there was no constitutional right to abortion. the constitution, in his words, makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision. now, a note for our viewers. the way the supreme court works procedurally is they hear the arguments. they heard this particular argument on a mississippi law banning abortion at 15 weeks. they heard that on december 1st. right after the argument, they go into conference. that's when they take their initial vote. and politico is saying that at their initial vote, five of the justices voted to overturn roe v. wade. again, voting against the constitutional right to an abortion. if those numbers hold 5-4 with alito writing the opinion, justices thomas, gorsuch, kavanaugh, and barrett joining him, that would, indeed, be enough. it appears by this draft that the chief justice will side with the liberals if this holds. but again, anderson, this is not final. it is possible for justices to change their vote. and you almost wonder if perhaps someone from the supreme court purposely leaked this opinion to get enough public outrage in the coming weeks that maybe one of the justices might change their opinion. that's a possibility here. so, again, this is not a final opinion by the court. we get those in very particular order. we get them when the court announces them. they usually release them at 10:00 on certain mornings. it'll happen over the next eight weeks. the court -- i have reached tout the court for comment. the court says that they have no comment on this. so, they're not striking this down, but they are not commenting at all. again, this would be one of the most consequential decisions from the supreme court in decades. it is not often they overturn precedent, as roe v. wade, has been, anderson, since the 1970s. you know, we saw, you know, back in 1896, plessy versus plerg son overturned brown v. board of education declaring separate but equal unconstitutional. this would be momentous. this would be earth shattering. and you know what anderson? we're already seeing states across the country, and particular in oklahoma, in florida, even arizona, we're seeing these states already starting to change their abortion laws. oklahoma has outlawed abortion. that goes into effect in august. they're expecting that the supreme court will overturn roe v. wade. so, these states are already taking action on what they expected from this court. and anderson, tonight it appears, based on what politico says is a draft opinion, it appears that the supreme court has five justices -- that is enough -- who have voted to overturn roe v. wade. no official announcement from the court, but politico saying they have this draft opinion, which indicates what the court will eventually announce here. anderson. >> and jessica, if that is in fact the ruling of the court, it would then be up to each state to decide, for politicians in each state, to decide what the law is in their state, correct? >> that's exactly right. and what's interesting about this politico report is that's one of the lines that they pull from the opinion. and that's some of these justices' argument all along, that since the right to abortion is not enshrined in the constitution that it should be left to the states and the people of the states. one of the lines politico has, justice alito wrote, it is time to heed the constitution and return to the people's elects' representatives. the thought is since it's not specifically in the constitution it should be legislated in individual states and returned to the people of the states to elect their representative who is will decide how abortion will be handled. in those states that are led by republicans, we're already seeing them move to ban abortion. and notably, anderson, there are some states that have trigger laws that will go into effect the second that roe v. wade is overturned that will ban abortion. in fact, the governor of michigan, gretchen whitmer, has just filed a lawsuit to block a law from going into effect. there is a law in michigan that if roe v. wade is overturned, it will automatically be banned in michigan. >> jessica schneider, no doubt we'll be coming back to you as events warrant. joining us, jeffrey toobin, former texas state senator, wendy davis, and steve vladeck. jeff, you predicted this would happen. talk about the importance of this. >> well, i predicted it would happen, but i sure as hell didn't predict it would happen this way. you just have to understand what a breach of supreme court tradition this is. this was known as the one leak-proof institution in washington. there has never been anything like a leak of this magnitude, anything close, never, never, never. and it's just an indication of how liven the supreme court is by anger and viciousness over this issue. but putting the procedural issue aside, what this means if this is, in fact, a supreme court decision that is, as justice alito's words stand, as the court's decision, what this means is that a constitutional right that women have had in this country for 50 years, pushing three generations, is gone. it is gone overnight, and it is now up to the politicians. and this idea that it is simply returning the abortion rights to the states is not really correct because what we are seeing in these states that are banning abortion is they are reaching out. they are trying to ban abortion in the whole country. they are banning the use of the males for medical abortion. they are banning travel for abortion purposes. they are criminalizing attempts for members from other states to try to ban abortion within their states. i mean, this is a constitutional earthquake if it stands. and american life, not just american law, will be very different if this is the law of the land. >> senator davis, what's your reaction to this? >> it's not surprising, anderson, but of course deeply shocking all at the same time. this is a moment that we hoped we would never see. and what's really fascinating to me about the court's opinion, if indeed this is the opinion that is issued, is they talk about this as though it's a return to the states, to the will of the people. and yet the supreme court itself has been the major obstacle to voting rights reform, redistricting reform, that would actually return the will of the people to state legislative bodies around this country. what it says to us is that this november, the stakes in the u.s. house and senate races just got that much higher because if the court is going to abandon women across this country and the constitutional protections that we've had, as jeffrey said, for more than 50 years, we can only rely now on the two other branches to make up what women will be losing throughout this country. and there will be no end in sight to it. we've already seen here in texas a young woman in the rio grande valley crimly charged for choosing to abort a pregnancy. and i truly believe this is where we are headed under this supreme court opinion if, indeed n june or july, this comes to pass. >> jeff tuben, if you can, can you just explain why is there a draft? how does this work in the supreme court? >> well, again, this is how it works is that the supreme court hears arguments usually monday, tuesday, wednesday, or some combination thereof. and then on friday, they have their conference, which is the super-secret meeting of the nine justices in the chief justice's conference room. no one is allowed in that room. only the justices are around the table. and they take what's called a draft -- a -- they take a vote, but it's not a permanent vote. it's a tentative vote on the -- on what the result of the case is. based on the result in that case -- of the tentative vote on that friday, the chief justice or the senior associate justice in the majority then assigns the opinion to member of the majority. the chief justice could assign it to himself. if this is split in the court, the senior associate justice would have been clarence thomas. he's now the senior associate justice if chief justice roberts is in dissent. so, chief justice thomas here would have signed the opinion to justice alito to write the opinion for the majority. he then would have prepared a draft. and that's what it appears this is that was leaked to politico. that is then circulated among the nine justices, and the justices in the majority get to comment on it and say, well, i would change this. i would change that. and then the four dissenters decide are they going to write a single dissenting opinion? are they going to write separate dissenting opinions? but this circulation process, it often takes months, especially with high-profile cases. this case was argued in the fall, this hobbs case from mississippi, and it's not surprising that, you know, it's taken all these months to be resolved. but i can't emphasize enough, as someone who has covered this court for 30 years, who's written two books on the court, there has never been a leak anything like this. there's never been a leak of a vote, much less an actual opinion, much less in a case of this significance. it's really going to be an interesting question, putting aside so much about what this means for the institution of the supreme court. you know, what it means for the respect that the justices and the court's decisions are held. the idea that a decision of this magnitude could leak is really a shattering experience for the justices and the court. and i really don't know how the institution is going to recover. >> steve, i'm wondering what your initial reaction is to this overturning of precedent. >> anderson, i mean, it's an earthquake, and it's an earthquake for all the reasons that jeff was talking about, that you guy versus been talking about. it's an earthquake for what it portends for millions of american women, especially in states like texas, where i live, where the overturning of roe and casey means that abortion access means whether you can leave the state. it's an earthquake, anderson, for how we think about precedent and whether the supreme court really can undo rights that entire generations of justices recognized. there aren't examples of that outside of the specific context of economic rights. anderson, it is an earthquake for the supreme court as an institution. jeff is right. we've had leaks in the past of results. we've had leaks of votes. we've never had a leak like this. and, you know, it's possible that this is not the final result. this is the way the supreme court process works. as you heard, we know of prior examples throughout history where opinions that started as majority opinions, lost their majority, turned into dissents, but that we are at a point where someone, whether it's a law clerk or one of the justices in dissent is leaking this draft opinion, is a pretty staggering reflection of where we are when it comes to public perception in the supreme court. and, you know, jeff is right, anderson, i don't know what this -- how the supreme court recovers from this, both with regard to how much is going to galvanize opposition on the left and frustration on the left and hostility on the left. and just the optics and the politics of the leak and the fact this is a court that has historically kept its opinions incredibly close to the chest. and here we are weeks, months away from this final decision and we have a 98-page draft that looks like a draft opinion purporting to overrule these critical precedents. anderson, i can't recall an episode like this in the supreme court's history and not one in our lifetimes. >> senator davis, many conservative states have already been testing the waters and restricting access to abortion. what about states that want to continue to allow access to abortion? what would be the impact on women? >> well, right now we've already seen, for example, anderson, in oklahoma, where a lot of texas women have gone to to seek abortion services and where abortion will soon be against the law. it is putting tremendous pressure on these states that do provide abortion. and they're having a very difficult time with the waiting periods that people are having to endure within their own states, never mind the people who are trying to come from out of state. and for people in states like texas and the more than 20 states across this country that have a trigger law of some form or fashion, these people who cannot afford the ability to leave work, to find care for the children that they already have, to afford to travel and have a procedure elsewhere in the overnight stays, they are going to be trapped in a situation of forced pregnancy. and if texas is any indication, even leaving the state, even donating to organizations that help people to leave the state, that too is going to become against the law, not only with civil penalties but likely criminal penalties that will follow. and what will that mean for businesses in states that have overturned the right to access abortion and criminalized the ability even to leave the state to get it? what will it mean to the ability for those companies to maintain and recruit a work force? and what will the ripple impacts of this be not only in the lives of the individuals who will be impacted but in our economy across this country as women's ability to participate in the work force takes a dramatic and drastic blow. and that's exactly what's going to happen with the overturning of roe v. wade. >> cnn legal analyst joins us now. joan, you've covered the court for 25 years. you have written multiple books on the court, including chief justice roberts. what is your initial reaction to this? >> my initial reaction is that it's stunning on so many levels. first of all, just for what's happening in america, we're talking about 50 years of precedent that it appears now will definitely be thrown out the window. the chief justice of the united states was already concerned about the integrity of the court and public opinion of the court in this moment as abortion rights are being dissolved nationwide, appear to be being dissolved nationwide. and frankly, a lot of what's in this opinion does jive with what i've been hearing myself in my reporting. although i want to make clear that we have not authenticated this document ourselves. but we know that a lot of it rings true with what we've been told already. but to have it come out this way, to have this first draft -- and typically it's one of many drafts that will be amended through the next couple of weeks. but it looks like it's about to sail through at least five justice -- probably just five justices -- ready to overturn roe v. wade. the chief justice who likely was not part of that vote because what we believe is that the chief was ready to uphold the mississippi law that was a ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, that he had the majority for that part of it, ai six-justice majority. but he is not with what appears to be samuel alito writing for a five-justice majority that would be samuel alito, clarence thomas, and the three new appointees of president donald trump. again, this is what politico was reporting as part of this draft. but, as i say, this all rings very true and very troubling. and for the chief justice to see this case at this moment unfold publicly like this, i think that -- i'm sure he will try to get to the bottom of how this all happened. you know, there's been a lot of talk about how this was leaked, whether it was leaked. it was really in the interest of no one of the nine justices to have it come out like this. the conservatives apparently have won. they didn't need to have it come out like this. it would come out at the end of june. that's when the law would be changed, when abortion rights, you know from 1973 would be rolled back. it would not be in the interest of the three liberals who, i'm sure, are dissenting vigorously. we don't know yet whether the first drafts from the centers had been circulated because all we have is apparently this one first draft for the majority. so, there's so many unanswered questions about how justice alito's colleagued would be reacting to this. but, you know, anderson, this was the biggest case of this term, the biggest case of the decade in some ways. and to have it burst forth on the american public like this is -- to use a word that john roberts used in his own confirmation hearing -- a jolt and ten times a jolt. so, we have had leaks in the past of vote counts, of what we thought was in draft opinions. but this is -- this is unprecedented in so many ways. and unprecedented in a way that matters so much to americans and to the individual justices who, i'm sure at this very moment, are all conferring to try to figure out what happened and what should happen next. some people i talk to tonight -- go ahead. yeah? >> sorry, chief justice roberts name is not one of the justices listed on the draft. why would that be? >> that's because he was -- he is -- i believe. this is -- now, this is independent of what politico is reporting here. but i believe he is not in the majority to overturn roe vs. wade. and what the opinion is that politico has published is on that major question. what i believe has been happening is that the chief, as i say, was ready to uphold the mississippi ban on abortion after 15 weeks. but what he wasn't ready to do was to go as far as what samuel alito, clarence thomas, and the three trump appointees are doing in that opinion, saying roe v. wade out the window completely. and just to clarify, anderson, the mississippi law would ban abortion at 15 weeks but let earlier abortions go forward. a woman who might discover she's pregnant at the 7th week and want to have an abortion could still do it under what mississippi law was and what i believe the chief was willing to go with. but what's in this opinion by justice alito is never would abortion be a constitutional right nationwide as it is right now in america. right now, it is. but at the end of june, it looks like, as i say, it's gone forever. >> i want to get reaction to this from the president and ceo of planned parenthood, alexis miguel johnson. your response to what you have read tonight in politico? >> it's just unconscionable, anderson. i mean, what we have seen tonight is not just a draft. we believe this is a roadmap for how they will take roe down. and we have already seen it over these last nine months in texas. the devastation of what we have seen, patients traveling thousands of miles to get access to basic abortion care. but i will tell you, abortion is still legal right now. we are letting our patients know, patients who are seeking access to abortion, that they can still go and seek their provider right now. but what is happening right now in front of the court is unbelievable. >> how -- how many states do you think would still continue to -- if it goes to state legislatures, how many states do you think would continue to allow abortions to take place? >> here's what we know. we know that there are 26 states that are poised and ready and emboldened, quite frankly, because of this court to overturn roe in their own states, right? once the federal protection is gone, it means the states will be making these decisions. and we've seen it, as i said, in texas. we've seen florida move to 15-week bans, arizona move to 15-week bans. we've seen oklahoma, idaho move to 6-week bans. we will see 26 states move to ensure that we no longer have control over our own bodies to make these decisions about ourselves, about our families. and that is actually what is truly devastating right now. so, they forecast this in the draft opinion, however it was leaked, this is unprecedented in and of itself. but what's also unprecedented is the fact that we have had this right for 49 years. for 49 years we have fought to make sure that we are able to make these decisions, not some lawmakers down the street, not somebody who honestly doesn't even know how our bodies work. and now they are determined to take this right away from us to control our own self-determination. that is what is happening right now with what we see in this draft opinion. >> so, for planned parenthood, what is the next step? >> we are obviously in conversation right now, as we speak, the liberated abortion coalition is on the line. they are strategizing about all ways in which we are going to show up. we know that this decision is going to enrage people. we know. we've already seen what's happened when people find out that -- when they found out what was happening in texas, they started filling state houses in florida, they started filling state houses in other places because they know that the fight right now is on the ground and in the states. so, we are going to continue to capture that rage and make sure they understand who is accountable right now. the last administration appointed three justices who are -- will be responsible for us losing a constitutional right that we have held for 49 years. and those people who empowered that administration, the justices, the folks who would not vote for the women's health protection act, those folks are going to be held accountable so that we know when we move into this next election cycle from the state legislature to the d.a. to the senate to the governors, we are going to be making sure that in each and every state where we can fight that we are ensuring that people understand what's at stake right now. it's literally their bodies on the line. >> alexis miguel johnson, appreciate your time. we're going to continue this conversation of our breaking news in just a moment, in particular how this scrambles the political climate also in a major electoral year. a lot to cover. we'll be right back. ♪ life can be a lot to handle. ♪ this magic moment ♪ but heinz knows there's plenty of magic in all that chaos. ♪ so different and so new ♪ ♪ was like any other... ♪ this is roundup weed and grass killer with sure shot wand. this stuff works. this stuff works in flower beds. this stuff works in tree rings. this stuff works in walkways, driveways, pathways. this stuff works down to the root so weeds don't come back. this stuff works for you, your neighbor, your neighbor's neighbor, her neighbor's neighbor. this stuff works guaranteed, or your money back. this stuff works without hurting your back. this stuff works without hurting your pride. this stuff works early shifts, late nights, and holiday weekends. this is roundup weed & grass killer with sure shot wand. this stuff works. as a business owner, your bottom line is always top of mind. so start saving by switching to the mobile service designed for small business: comcast business mobile. flexible data plans mean you can get unlimited data or pay by the gig. all on the most reliable 5g network. with no line activation fees or term contracts... saving you up to $500 a year. and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities.™ san francisco is getting back on its feet. people are heading back to the office and out with friends across the city. prop a ensures that muni delivers you there quickly and safely. with less wait time and fewer delays. and a focus on health and safety in every neighborhood through zero emissions fleets. best of all, prop a won't raise your taxes. vote yes on prop a for fast, safe, reliable transit. breaking news this evening, politico obtained a draft opinion by a majority of the supreme court that would strike down roe v wade. the release is unprecedented by itself. what this would mean for the pro-choice movement as well as the u.s. political landscape just 340months ahead of the election that will begin shortly thereafter. back with us is joan and david and on the phone jeff zeleny who is in ohio. david, we're obviously on the brink of a very active midterm election cycle. what does this mean? >> anderson, you have seen all the polling that i've seen, as well, about this midterm election year and the greatest cause of concern for democrats is a potential lack of enthusiasm among democratic voters in this midterm year and when i would ask democratic officials across the board from the white house to capitol hill, people running campaigns, what will motivate democratic voters this year and wake them up and get them to turn out in the numbers you need? the one thing that all these democrats would point to is that if the supreme court ruling came in june to overturn roe v wade, they would attempt to mobilize democrats nationwide around this issue like never before and that's part of the story of the politics of abortion rights in this country. over the last 50 years, it has been the life blood of the republican party and conservative movement to overturn roe v wade. we've seen election cycle after election cycle how that issue really motivated voters in the base of the right conservative movement to get out to the polls. what we didn't see despite rhetoric around it is that moving voters on the left to the same degree now that we're seeing this draft report again this may not be where the case ends up but given this draft report that's been published, you're seeing, my inbox is flooded with statements from a shrew slew of democrats running for the house and senate across the country mobilizing, galvanizing and calling the political arms their base voters as to how important it is now to show up and try and save the majority that the democrats have in the united states senate, which you know is tied in order to be able to preserve future supreme court nominees from a democratic president and you're also seeing -- >> yeah. >> on the progressive left a call to end the filibuster so they can try to codify roe into law. >> jeff zeleny, how much of a rallying cry do you think this will be in states around the country? >> there is no doubt the democrats will try to use it as a rallying cry as david said, republicans have used this really for generations. it's been the motivating force of the party ever since roe versus wade became law. for more than four decades. democrats struggled to do so. this is a new moment as this decision seems tonight which we do not know of course. the democrats aren't waiting for that. they're trying to use this to rally their bases in the midterm elections. anderson, it's a very open question if that will be possible for democrats. i was speaking to one senior democrat who advices a congressional campaign as well as the white house. they called it an epic but uphill battle. this is something that even if democrats would happen to hold control of the house, which virtually nobody thinks is likely and potentially the senate which is more likely, that would not have an immediate effect at all on this ruling if this is what the decision would do but it would simply cast on even more pressure and more weight on that 2024 presidential election. of course, the next supreme court justices would be very key on this but as we've been saying all evening, this takes it to the state's most likely that is a central motivating force here. this is an epic battle for them they've never been able to rally behind this issue but there is a generation of young women and men and voters who have long thought this is settled law. they haven't seen this necessarily as something that's been a motivating force in their life. this could change everything. one thing is clear as we are getting early reactions to this, i'm told the white house is not going to have a comment this evening but the president could speak to it as early as tomorrow is that they are going to not wait for the final decision in june, they're going to start making their political arguments as early as the morning as the supreme court of course, figures out how this extraordinary leak happened and continues on with the case. so we're absolutely in uncharted political waters, legal waters, as well. people on both sides of the aisle, republican senators, democratic senators are criticizing this leak without question it is unprecedented and the fallout will continue. >> as we mentioned, you have written multiple books on the supreme court. how much of the justices have a sense or pay attention to the politics of a huge issue like this? >> anderson, i can't tell you how much this episode, the way it's burst into the public scene tonight exacerbates the trouble for them and how they view themself in the public eye. they have all been increasingly concerned about their stature in the american eye. they know that polls show public approval of them dropping. they know they're getting criticized from many sides and i believe what they thought they would be doing with this opinion is laying out legal arguments from the conservative point of view why roe should be overturned and the liberals are countering that. to have it come out this way only accelerates or i believe it will accelerate public concerns about the legitimacy of the supreme court in this way. you know, because the chief justice john roberts isn't on the supreme court is that he was willing to uphold the mis mississippi law in dispute that would ban abortions after 15 weeks but he was not ready to do what sam alito was doing for a five justice majority completely strike down roe v wade and a reason the chief was holding back is because of this half century old precedent and how people had relied on it and to have the rug pulled out from underneath everyone in america in this fashion i think just makes it more difficult for the justices themselves to justify when they do finally release it to the public. anderson. >> thank you-all. we'll have more in a moment. be right back. when you need help it's great to be in sync with customer service. a team of reps who can anticipate the next step genesys technology is changing the way customer service teams anticipate what customers need. because happy customers are music to our ears. genesys, we're behind every customer smile. here in the u.s. with seismic implications. i'm talking about what is possibly going to happen in the supreme court and what politico obtained. >> yeah, i mean, it's a, it is a stunning laeak.