0 southern baptist convention. reactions to roe v. wade were also really heterogeneous for a long time between the two political parties. there were plenty of antiabortion democrats, and there were lots of pro-choice republicans. republican governors wrote the forefront of decriminalizing of abortion in the states in the 1960s. including the governor of california, a man named ronald reagan. in 1967, ronald reagan signed into law the most liberal abortion rights bill in the country in california. so, it's not that there was not disagreement over abortion, or that there weren't strong feelings from various quarters about roe v. wade. but it was different. and specifically, it wasn't really a politics issue. it wasn't an issue that swayed election, or that was a key part of the two parties political platforms. contrary to popular belief, roe v. wade in 1973 did not spark some kind of immediate big backlash among conservatives, and evangelicals and republicans. it evolved differently, and it's important to know that today. the anti-abortion movement as an explicitly local project, a movement married to the republican party, that had to be deliberately created. it did not organically emerge. and it actually did not happen until years after roe was decided. i mean, the influential right-wing pro segregation religious leader, jerry falwell, his first antiabortion segment was not until 1978, more than five years after roe. even as late as 1980, when ronald reagan biden was no longer governor of california, he was running for president. in august 1980, reagan gave a speech to 10,000 cheering evangelicals in a dallas arena, and he talked about creationism, and the bible. he talked about how evangelical institutions ought to be able to remain racially segregated, if they wanted. that's nice. but even then, he did not mention abortion. the plan to use abortion as a right-wing political organizing tool, to try, for example, to move catholics to the republican party, to give a focal point, a policy focus, to right-wing, republican organizing against women's rights. it was a choice for them. it was a project that did not emerge organically. it was something they didn't really start working on in earnest until the 19 80s. ronald reagan, for example, he personally had to do a u-turn. he had to repudiate the abortion rights bill that get signed as a california governor, when he became the first president to make opposition to abortion a central part of his political identity. this person addressed formation on this issue shows the political transformation that was happening in the republican party on this issue too. pretty soon, opposition to abortion would become effectively an entry requirement for elected officials and the republican party. and then, pretty soon after that, anywhere republicans have political power, they would use it to attack abortion rights. the states became laboratories for these policies. they became almost mechanized overtime, but as soon as one republican-controlled state would innovate and come up with some new way to restrict abortion rights, all the other republican controlled states would then follow. the most restrictive laws allowed to stand by the federal courts, would and become the template for all the other republican controlled states, to try to enact those most restrictive rules too. wanting to ban worsen became much as the litmus test. questions for republican would be elected officials, at overtime, they made sure it was the litmus test for judges to be nominated by republicans. and at first, it was kind of tacit, like everybody knew it, but nobody would admit to it. between public and white houses and converse of activists. by 2016, though, republican president donald trump just made it official. he was known, obviously, for saying the quiet part out loud, my 2016, he was flat out saying that i would only nominate justices who will overturn roe. and he did. and sure today, we have the results, often not just these justices ascending to the court, we have the result of a concerted political project that is attached to the republican party that started 40 years ago for political reasons. and i know there's a lot to say about the court, and the reasoning of today's ruling, and the individual justices who did this. and indeed, the individual states, there are new laws, and how fast the curtain is coming down, and are we gonna do something about that over the course of this hour? but to know what's coming next year, we have to get real about who did this, and how they did it. because this is part of a political project. this is a 40 years in the making project. for big, well staffed, well funded, very radical project of the american political right and the republican party. and i say it's very radical, on purpose. i mean that both in terms of its aims, we're seeing that today. but also, in terms of its tactics. it's and polite to say this i know, but the antiabortion wing of the conservative movement and republican party has long had an armed wing, a terrorist wing, this killed a lot of americans in the past few decades, and set off a lot of bombs, for terroristic purposes. and that is terrible. and criminal, but it is undeniable that that is part of how the extreme right approached their role in this issue, and how to get what they want on this issue over these past 40 years. that has existed alongside the well staffed, well funded, well organized advocacy groups, and think tanks, and campus groups. the antiabortion political project off the republican party and the political right has been the central organizing principle for the rights entire effort around the judiciary. one for wishing there still no match or mirror on the left. it's a big deal. it's a big multi generational, again, well funded, tightly organized, and extremely, extremely militant american political project. and i think what's important to see today is that for them, this is not a movement that just got what it wanted, and now will go away. this is a movement that they have been building for 40 years, that is just now hitting its stride, that is just coming into maturity. i mean, this is a movement that can claim six of the nine members of the supreme court. we think of chief justice roberts as the moderate justice among them, but you know what? when he was nominated part of his bio was he was the spouse of the leader of an anti abortion organization. i mean, the antiabortion political project of the american right is a way of life for people on the american right. it is an industry. it's an employer. it's a big movement that has succeeded now as of today, at the first top of the list thing they wanted to. why would you think they would stop now? now, when they are really feeling and starting to show what they can do. i mean, justice amy coney barrett is 50 years old. she could be on the court another 40 years, justice gorsuch is 54 years old. vice president pence's immediate reaction to today's ruling came down was to curb how we really now need a nationwide abortion ban, don't leave it to the states, ban it nationwide. house speaker nancy pelosi today pointed right at that, as what to expect next from them. >> in the congress, be aware of this -- the republicans are plotting a nationwide abortion ban. they cannot be allowed to have a majority in the congress to do that. but that is their goal. >> that's their goal. this is where we are. of course, as long as a democrat's president, any democratic president would veto a nationwide abortion ban, a ban passed by republican -controlled congress. but there's a presidential election around the corner. and the republican president would sign a nationwide abortion ban without hesitation. that said, if we are being real about this, that question might be moved by the time we have a next republican president. because there is nothing in the reasoning of today's opinion from the six justices that would stop them from accepting something like a fetal personhood case. fetal personhood, a concept that the right has been building in this political movement, that they've built around the abortion issue -- a fetal person could case, get into this court, would give the court a path to not just let individual states ban abortion, which is what they did today. if they took a fetal personhood case, that could be their vehicle to impose a nationwide ban on abortion, on the order of the united states supreme court. when that would apply, yes, even in california, even in new york, even in anywhere. and yes, that would be a radical thing for the supreme court to do. but wouldn't be that much more radical them but they have done today? i mean, they've kind of broken the seal here, haven't they? roe was a 50 year old precedent that had been reaffirmed by the supreme court, by itself, multiple times. that did not matter to them at all today. yesterday, they took a 111 year old law on concealed weapons in new york -- a 111 year old law -- and threw that out as well. i mean, what's the principal at work there? states cannot be trusted with the power to regulate concealed handguns but they can force you to give birth to a child against your will. a 111 year old precedent 1:50 -year-old president precedent. what's the consistent role between these two rulings? only consistent principle between these two rulings in two days is that conservatives have power on this court. and they will now wielded however they want, to achieve whatever outcomes they want, to change the country however they want without restriction. and you must do what they say. but again, i think it is helpful to not try to find some evolution in conservative jurisprudence here. this isn't that kind of ruling. this is a political project. this is the culminating work of a concerted political project. that to find this as a goal for the american political right and that put in place the people who would enacted. this is a very well organized, well staffed, well funded, very committed, very radical -- in its prime -- movement. that still sees it as a problem that the blue states are still going to have abortion rights. i mean, overturning roe today immediately effectuate outright bans on abortion in many states. so, we are going to talk about this that over the course of this hour. but it also really does foreshadow a future case, perhaps quickly, a future ruling, in which the supreme court will outright ban abortion themselves in every state. and it is worth getting real about that. justice thomas today in his concurrence spelled out the rights that he wants thrown out next beyond abortion, now that they've taken care of roe. he wants griswold, lawrence and obergefell, in his words, reconsidered, which means he wants them overthrown. those three cases are about contraception, consensual sex between adults and same-sex marriage, which means next on clarence thomas's list are to get -- this may be the time to think about protective legal arrangements, about you on your spouse, your property in your finances. a list of what rights they are going to abolish next, being in a same-sex marriage now means there is a target on you from this court, and this court has proven themselves to be absolutely unconstrained, and only by precedent, not only by consistency of previous reasoning, but from any concern. take that seriously. tactically, that notice from justice thomas today, lining up those righties ready to get rid of next, i believe that will have a practical effect on this political movement from which he and his colleagues have emerged. take that seriously. tactically, that notice from justice thomas today, lining up those righties ready to get rid of next, i believe that will have a practical effect on this political movement from which he and his colleagues have emerged. he has put out that list now of what they are going to go after next. he put it in writing, in his concurrence today, watch for action in response to that, watch for people involved in the political movement to start teen up cases to get them to justice thomas, to get the job done, on marriage rights, watch for county clerk somewhere to refuse a license to a couple trying to get married, in order to start court proceedings that would put marriage back in front of this court. watch for somebody who works at a health facility somewhere to refuse to process a prescription or an order for contraception, for an iud, for the pale. again, to start litigation, to start legal proceedings, which will eventually put access to contraception before this court. they have asked for it, and the movement they come from will give them that. watch for texas or another controlled state to bring back its saw dummy law, to control with whom you are allowed to have sex and how. they will try to bring back that law. it will start legal proceedings that will eventually be designed to put saudi laws back in front of this court. they have asked for, the movement they come from will give them that opportunity. they are unconstrained in seeking to change the country in these ways. i mean, for them, the dam's worst. burst. what do you see in their behavior that would give you any reason to believe that they see any reason to stop? in the short run, we do now have abortion bans in effect in multiple states as of right now, because of today's ruling already. we are going to be talking about that in more detail over the course of the hour. one of the short run consequences of that is not just the number of states but the actual number of buildings, the number of facilities, in which an abortion can legally be provided in america has to shrunk radically. the number of legal abortion providers in america has today radically contracted. and that means the existing extant still working abortion providers in this country now stand out more, to the people who have been targeting them for decades. it means that the people from the terroristic side of the anti abortion movement will now have a smaller number of higher profile targets the target. we should take that seriously, i thought a time when violence against abortion providers is already spiking, the providers who are now left in the states where it is not banned yet -- the providers who are now left in the states where it is not banned yet -- those providers are facing a lot of changes. they are going to have to operate now with a higher volume of patients. people from further away, people coming in later in their pregnancies, which means potentially more complicated procedures because of that. but they also are going to have to cope, on top of all that, they are going to have to cope with a higher threat environment than they are used to. because the anti-abortion movement, feeling its oats, really does have an armed terrorist wing that shoots people. and that's been true for decades. it has never been more crucial to protect abortion providers. the department of homeland security today released a notification to law enforcement officials around the country of potential domestic violence extremist activity following the courts act ruling. also in the short term, aka, now -- the underground plants for gray market and black market abortions, those also now go into effect. it's go time. nobody ever plans to have an unplanned pregnancy. but that means other people who support women have to plan for women who will suddenly find themselves in desperate circumstances. those networks have long been nascent. those networks have long been in the works. those networks have long been nascent. those networks have long been in the works. those networks have long been training. they now are coming online. so, women can still get help, so they don't have to try to face their crisis alone, whether or not 80s legal. but i will close with this point. not just for pregnant women but for all americans. today starts a new era of very, very, very, very, very big government, very intrusive government. do you want to start a family or have your first child? or maybe you have a child or children already, you would like to have one more. mazel tov, congratulations, it's a beautiful thing. everybody with a heart wishes you all the best in this country, though, now, the decision tree for you is now much more complex than it was before. obviously, most wanted pregnancies are safe and straightforward and they end with the happiest possible news. but sadly, many don't. because of what the court did today, if, god forbid, you have a miscarriage in your pregnancy, now in some states that will be more than a personal tragedy. that will be a matter of public record and potentially public investigation. your miscarriage will be viewed as a potential crime. are you suspected of having induced that miscarriage? did the police want to talk to you about some questions they have about whether somebody else might have been boosted for you? i mean, how do you plan to prove that it happened on its own in an actual course. how can you prove it? these officers are going to need to speak with you. think about how that gets enforced. think about the relationship between american women and the government in this environment. how do authorities know if you've miscarried in the first place? would if somebody heard you are pregnant or they thought you might be pregnant and now it seems like you are not. how is an investigation conducted? how is the state government in your state -- how are your police locally going to check to see if maybe you had been pregnant and now you are not, and did you just committed felony? if you see car at a hospital in the event of a miscarriage, the drug you are most often given is treatment for a miscarriage is the same drug that republican lawmakers are now trying to treat as an illegal instrument of abortion in their states. even if you have just had a miscarriage naturally, in the natural course of events, he will likely be treated for that miscarriage with medication they are targeting with their abortion bans. your use of that drug may make you a criminal suspect. and make the exact scene and circumstance of your miscarriage a crime scene, even if it was in the hospital. in some states, even if the complication in your pregnancy is a risk to your health, if continuing the to carry the pregnancy could interview, doctors in some states would be forced to stand by and deliberately inflict that risk on you, by forcing you to keep the pregnancy going against your will, because otherwise they will face jail. what does that do to the relationship between you and your doctor? what does that do, again, to the relationship between you as an american woman in your government? if you have the kind of complication in your pregnancy where the pregnancy is not viable, where the baby cannot live, in some states you now may be forced by the state government, under threat of criminal prosecution, to nevertheless carry the non viable pregnancy to term. think about how that gets enforced. think about what that means about the relationship between you, as an american citizen, and your government, that is forcing that out of you. today starts an era of very, very, very big government, where it's the government that decides if you are going to have a baby or not. or it's the government that is in charge of your pregnancy. for women who have an unwanted, unwanted planted planned pregnancy, the nightmare is here. in many ways, though, it is also no here for any woman who wants a child, who wants to have a baby and now -- i mean, until today, this was an area of life in which we had some privacy, to make our own decisions. now, at least for now, in republican-controlled states, it's the police. it's the state, knock knock. joining us now is amy hector miller, she's founder of hold women's health, and it upended provider with locations in five states, including the great state of texas. miss texter