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 t