who we are as a country. that is our show for this evening, now it's time for the last word with ali velshi in for lauren, good evening. >> caitlin is the reporter for the 80s on this particular story, which goes in and out of fashion for the right sometimes. it's the biggest story, and then sometimes, we forget for months. what your story tonight told us was that you might forget about this. this might not be the biggest thing on your agenda. you might be thinking about israel or ukraine or inflation or whatever it is. these people don't have places to sleep tonight. it's cold outside in your city. >> in new york city, around the roosevelt hotel down the street from where we work. we need to see them again. >> we have effectively -- it is a dehumanization of sorts. there are things that we talk about. they are pawns, as you describe. you're store humanize it and remind people, whatever you are doing, whatever your real passions are, whatever is important to you, there are many different things going on, there are these people around you who are new to this place, and they don't speak the language, and they are scared for their children. and they are just like you. they just want peace and shelter and health care and food. thank you for doing that, i appreciate it. >> hey, thank, thank, thank the good people doing the hard work. thank you, my friend. have a good show. >> i'll see you next week. d show the republican attorny general in the state of texas is trying to use a lot to stop non viable pregnancy and birth despite a risk to her life. its essence hyperbolic, it's not. that is what is happening tonight to kick cox, a 31-year-old mother of two, forced to beg a texas court for an emergency abortion, once she discovered that her fetus had a fatal genetic condition. her doctor warned her that her health and ability to have more children would be at risk if she did not terminate the pregnancy. the judge agreed, that she met the medical requirements obtain an abortion, even in texas. even under the states restrictive ban, calling it a miscarriage of justice to force or to continue with a non viable and potentially armful pregnancy but that was not enough for the texas republican attorney general. ken paxton, a man we could talk about at length another night, is threatening in writing to prosecution of any possible form of abortion under this law. the day, accident as the supreme court to intervene. >> before we were in this, i would never imagine that we would be in this position. like i said, i never thought that we would need or want an abortion. i always wanted a big family. i think forcing me to continue the pregnancy but the pain and suffering, put me through the risk of continuing the pregnancy, the risk of childbirth, again, especially given how my last two went, i think it's cool. >> it is cool. it's a dystopian. this is handmaid's tale stuff. a woman, already a mother, pregnant with a wanted child, dealt with a terrifying and frightening prognosis, as the republican attorney general and republican activists in texas overriding the advice of her doctor. texas's antiabortion laws already being challenged in court who say that the state then puts their lives in danger by denying them medically necessary abortions. this is the post-roe world created by republicans. voters have repeatedly shown, they do not want these extreme near total abortion bans with little or no exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother, even in red states. kansas, kentucky, ohio, republicans will not be stopped by mere voters. this week, new hampshire republicans propose a 15-day, you heard that right, a 15-day abortion ban. the new republic reports that a mere one day after medical experts say detection is even possible, via start but tests, close to conception. house bill 12:40 afn would also attack on criminal penalties to any of care providers performing abortions, categorizing the offense as a class b felony and potential fines ranging from 10,000 to $100, 000, and quote. my actually passed by the way. the bill might actually pass, even though an overwhelming majority of new hampshire voters support keeping abortion legal. , as is the case in america. the associated press reports that in missouri, republicans have introduced a bill to be considered and the legislative session that begins next month to apply homicide laws on behalf of a who is an unborn child at every stage of development, and quote. every stage of development. consider this a reminder, as we head 2024. elections have consequences. today, voters in once they are finally getting the protections that they voted for. about initiative to enshrine abortion rights in ohio state constitution is in effect today, after voters recently voted to protect a woman's right to bodily autonomy overriding the states abortion ban. of course, how republicans are still appealing this in court. joining us now is dr. lauren beene, founder and executive director of ohio physicians, for women's productive rights. doctor beene, thank you for being with. this event in ohio, this is no sure thing. it was two votes. there was finally a referendum to get this done. there are two votes, like a team vote to start with, and then having not succeeded in that, the antiabortion forces changed the methodology for the actual vote. and yet, and yet, ohioans took to the polls, maybe in some cases, put some of their personal beliefs about abortion aside and held up the fundamental belief, but take my rights away from me as an american. >> absolutely, ali, the people in ohio came out and voted very recently in support of the people making their own reproductive health care decisions. the impact of that goes far beyond issue one. it's really a statement by the people of ohio that medical decisions, including reproductive health care decisions, including those involving abortion, should be made by people, in consultation with their medical provider. and they should not be made by government officials, politicians, extremists, extremists running many of our state governments. because when those extremists try to take over and try to make decisions for people, then people suffer. people get hurt, and people die. and people realize that, right? they know that they want to make their own health care decisions. in ohio, we saw that, just like we did in several states in 2022, where the people came out, and they have come out over and over again now, saying, hey, i want to make my own health care decisions, i don't want my extremist politicians making that for me. >> one of the interesting things here, for some people, when roe felt was an abstraction, the idea that states would be okay, and then we found out that states are very draconian and i want to take that right away. ultimately, in ohio and other places, kansas and other states, there were activists on the ground, making sure that people didn't, but people answered the call. they came out and said, i will vote to protect, not just my rights, your rights. >> yes, more than, that people came out at the beginning, so shortly after roe fell, our organization formed. i am one of the cofounders and executive directors of ohio physicians from reproductive rights, which did not exist before roe fell. but within days after row, over 8000 doctors came together, all with the same belief that our patients need to be able to get the health care that they need when they need to, and it can't be something that they have to call attorneys and ask for permission. we can't go to judges to get permission, like what just happened and texas, and that was the beginning of really a moment this landslide grassroots effect that has continued to build momentum throughout the last year and a half in ohio, and is now continuing into other states across the country. we had such an incredible volunteer enthusiasm. we had a tremendous amount of participation and collecting signatures that were required to get abortion on the ballot in ohio. we submitted over 710,000 signatures, in order to get our petition on the ballot in a record amount of time, and then we had, like a couple million people come out and vote and say, yes, yes, i want to be able to make those decisions from ourselves. absolutely, the people spoke, and i continue to speak in other states as well. >> dr. lauren beene, i appreciate your time. thank you for the work that you have done. dr. lauren beene is the physician and cofounder of executive director for a high of physicians for reproductive rights. with a go to state representative alexis simpson. thank you for being with us this evening. i don't want to insult my viewers intelligence by stating the obvious, but a 15-day abortion, nobody knows that they are pregnant and 15 weeks. >> exactly, exactly. it was shocking when we saw the statement come through on monday, the language. we talk for a minute, 15 weeks but, no, 15 days. we are still shocked today that this bill was not proposed, but, ali, this is part of the republican strategy for restricting abortion rights. this bill, actually builds on the increasingly extreme abortion bans that republicans have tried to enact since they passed the 24 we've been here in new hampshire two years ago. since roe v. wade fell, since it was overturned, in 22 states, they have banned abortion across the country. here in new hampshire, in both the 2022 and the 2023 sessions, a majority of house republicans backed bills to ban abortions at six weeks. those bills were only defeated because has democrats oppose them. this ridiculous attempt to ban abortions a 15 days is sadly what we have come to expect from new hampshire republicans. >> i am puzzled about the possibility that this could pass. a 2022 saint and some college poll found that 71% of respondents in your state identified as pro choice. as this point, as we saw in ohio and kansas, it's not even whether you use the language of pro-choice or pro-life. there are people who are not abortion activists and may not make that choice for themselves, who are coming out to vote to protect abortion rights, because it's a fundamental right. they think it's right. they don't let new hampshire politicians tell you what you and a doctor need to be discussing. why is this even a possibility? why are we having this discussion tonight? >> that's a great question. so, here in new hampshire, in the legislature, we really are a microcosm of the issues of them that we see nationwide from republicans. which is only really escalated over the past few years. in a state where voters overwhelmingly believe, as you say, that reproductive health decisions should be made solely between patients and medical providers. this legislation really is absurd. it's dangerous, it's extreme, and it's out of touch. most women don't even know that they're pregnant f-15es. this alone goes to show that the people who crafted this legislation have absolutely no clue about the realities of women's health care. as you showed, a vast majority of -- agree with our motto, live free or die. >> this is pretty obvious, right? this fits with the license plate. let me ask you this, do they look at these other states. i know that there is a small republican majority in the legislature. there are three independents and for vacant seats. in theory, it's a close match. did they look at ohio, look at kansas, look at these places and say, this is not going to work, if most of the residents of the state do not support banning abortion, they are going to come at us at some point. they are going to come back, the dog has slammed into the car, and this is not good for republicans to continue this. >> well, ali, that is what i would think, but over the past three years, with the republican control of the new hampshire state government, we have seen numerous attempts to restrict access to reproductive health care, and that has not slowed down. house republicans continue to file legislations to restrict further and prohibit abortion rights for instate hers. they may say that they don't want more restrictions, but here, we had this bill, from responders in both chambers, trying to move the ban to 15 days. if it one of their most vulnerable republican members, john sellers, who won by only four votes, in 2022, sponsoring the legislation. >> i guess he seems confident that he'll get the four vote again next time. thank you for being with us, i am sorry for having this conversation. -- there are serious consequences, to these things. i think that the work you are doing to uphold democracy. alexis simpson is the new hampshire state democratic representative. thank you for being with us tonight. >> yes, thank you. >> coming up, some news today -- that for the indicted former president, the legal legal loss for defendant trump's next. r defendant trump's next from one serving. to help keep me sharp. try new neuriva ultra. think bigger. when you have chronic kidney disease... ...there are places you'd like to be. like here. and here. not so much here. farxiga reduces the risk of kidney failure which can lead to dialysis. ♪far-xi-ga♪ farxiga can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, urinary tract or genital yeast infections, and low blood sugar. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. when you have chronic kidney disease, it's time to ask your doctor for farxiga. because there are places you want to be. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. ♪far-xi-ga♪ hmmm... kind of needs to be more, squiggly? perfect! so now, do you have a driver's license? oh. what did you get us? with the click of a pen, you can a new volkswagen at the sign, then drive event. sign today and you're off in a new volkswagen during the sign, then drive event. with 30 grams of protein. those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. -ahh, -here, i'll take that. woo hoo! ensure max protein 30 grams protein, one gram sugar, 25 vitamins and minerals, and nutrients for immune health. (♪♪) the best advice i ever got and nutrients was to invest with vanguard for my retirement. the second best? stay healthy enough to enjoy it. so i started preparing physically and financially. then you came along and made every mile worth it. the news tonight if you are hi mom. at vanguard you're more than just an investor, you're an owner. helping you prepare for today's longer retirement. that's the value of ownership. someone that believes that donald trump should be treated like any other criminal. the fed, this afternoon, a three judge panel on the d.c. appeals court reinstated the limit gag order that was based on donald trump by a tanya chutkan in special counsel jack smith's case against a former president for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. in a 68-page opinion, judge persha -- wrote, quote, like any other criminal defendant mr. trump as a constitutional right to speak. also like any other trump defended, mr. trump does not have an unlimited right to speak. in particular, the public has a compelling interest in ensuring that the criminal proceedings against mr. trump is not obstructed, hindered or tonight, but is fairly conducted and resolved according to the judgment of an impartial jury based only on the evidence introduced through the court, and quote. now, under the new conditions that the gag order, donald trump is prohibited from making any public statements about witnesses, court staff, lawyers, their families.nsel staff or but in a break from judge chutkan's original gag order, trump is now free to resume is verbal attacks on jack smith. quote, the order should not have restricted speech about the special counsel himself. as a high ranking government official who exercise his ultimate control over the conduct of this prosecution, the special counsel is no more enticed -- entitled to protection from lawful public criticism then is the institution he represents, and quote. judge philip concludes the reading by stretching that the decision to reinstate that gag order was important for upholding the rule of law in america. quote, we do not allow such an order lightly. mr. trump is a former president and current candidate for the presidency, and there is a strong public interest and what he has to say. but mr. trump is also an indicted criminal defendant, and he must stand trial in a courtroom under the same procedures that govern all other criminal defendants. that is what the rule of law means, and. joining me now is harry litman, former united states attorney and deputy assistant attorney general. he's a senior legal affairs analyst for the los angeles times, a guy returned to a lot to understand these things. i wasn't surprised, harry, that our relatively simple finding was 68 pages long. they seem to really want to go into a lot of detail about why or why not or something that most people who are not lawyers would say, it's reasonable to contain some of the things that donald trump says to witnesses or jurors are people at that. >> it's an interesting point. it happens a lot. i think one reason is that they have already started writing before the argument, in a big case like this. i think the judge was already doing it. second, they really wanted to dig in deeply and give full weight, which is to say, limited way for the first amendment part. as you say, they sounded all the most important themes, especially on the rule of law, and the hearings are pretty inconsequential. jack smith, i was a u.s. attorney, really does go with the office, that is not a big problem. really, they had her back in every important way. one other big point is timing. they denied his motion to postpone until after the trial. they actually put a little sense in there that the trial will be well over before the election. they got the opinion out quickly. i think they really showed -- oh, and it could have remanded. they changed it a little, could have sent it back to her. instead, they just decided. i think it shows their real focus on the timing here, which, of course, everyone is thinking about. >> harry, important or not, legally, within the first few paragraphs of jack smith's indictment of donald trump, he talks about the first amendment. he said specifically, donald trump has under the first amendment, lots of things he has the right to. he can lie about the election, continue to lie about the election, say is stolen, read secure accounts from court and audits in all kinds of stuff. but there are limitations to his rights. donald trump goes back to this one over and over and over again. it carries on outside the courts about how this is infringement on his speech. he's really relying on this idea that he should be free to say anything that he wants anywhere. this court is saying that this trial has to happen in a courtroom. a decision has to come from a jury inside a courtroom. why is donald trump so up on the first amendment stuff? >> i did not know that is where you were going to go. why is he not home above first amendment stuff? i think, obviously, it's a vicious political purposes. they really made the right theme. yes, they talked about that, but when push comes to shove, we're not talking about the first amendment. that was his argument. it's a big first amendment case. they are saying that there is a different government interest here in the integrity of the proceedings. of course, he is going to push the first amendment to its widest berth possible through the things that he wants to say, but they were pretty clear where the first amendment must stand. it must stand in for other criminal defendants, in screwing up the integrity of the trial itself. asked did, that in that spher