protect a right to abortion, that the supreme court errored in 1973 when it recognized under the due process cause of the 14th amendment a right for pregnant individuals, pregnant women to obtain previability abortions and the court is righting the wrong, that its predecessors made 49 years ago. don, i think one of the many, many, many layers here is not just what this opinion, if it becomes the law of the land means for abortion in america, but what it means for other rights that the supreme court has tied to the same constitutional provision, to the due process clause of the 14th amendment. rights that we take for granted, rights to contraception. rights on the part of same sex couples to get married. this is such a bomb shell for what it portends beyond abortion, if it court continues to exercise this kind of power going forward. jennifer, alito said the
casey that allows for regulation so long as there s not an undue burden on the exercise of the right previability. some of what we re wrestling here is the question of i think what senator cornyn was driving at is how particular the concept of deeply rooted goes and how that is abound on what the judiciary can do. i want to thank you. we re nearly at time. i want to thank you for engaging in the back and forth. i want to think more about what you said and look forward to further discussion tomorrow. it still appears to me there s a very basic difference between a judicial philosophy and a judicial methodology and how you go about applying that when you interpret a law and making a determination about constitutionality or non. i know you have not claimed a judicial philosophy at all, a judicial philosophy of originalism here, but i think
law which is unusual. it gives authority to private citizens rather than state officials to signal violations. the ban on abortions post six weeks remains in place while legal challenges continue. the president of the national pro-life group appeared on america s newsroom. i would say that it s good news. there s a pathway for this to continue to be litigated in the lower courts, it s good news because it will remain in effect as it has for quite some time already saving thousands of lives. challenges to the texas law will return to the state and does not directly address the constitutionality of roe v. wade. a different case does. the supreme court is hearing a separate challenge of mississippi s 16 week abortion law. it has the potential of overturning the 1973 roe v. wade decision the guarantees nationwide access to previability abortions. we ruling there is likely to come next spring in the heat of
committee continues to signal they re not messing around. two of trump s lawyers have now invoked their fifth amendment rights. we re going to talk about what that means. and a state senator from michigan asks a striking question following the deadly school shooting that left four people dead in her state. why are children s lives worth less than guns? she s going to join me live this hour to talk about what she thinks needs to happen to address what s becoming an inherently american problem. i m ayman mohyeldin. let s get started. all right, so nearly 50 years ago the supreme court handed down a very important decision that essentially made it a constitutional right for women to have an abortion. and the two newest justices made it clear this week that right is at risk. on wednesday the justices heard
watch this. roe v. wade is planned parent hood vs. casey haunt our country. they have no basis in our constitution. they have no home in our history and traditions. they ve damaged the democratic process. they ve poisoned the law. they ve choked off compromise. roe and casey and failed. but the people if given the chance will succeed. this court should overrule roe and casey and uphold the states law. i want to talk about the term the people for a moment. let s talk about that here. 60% of americans say roe v. wade should be upheld. 75% say abortion access should be a decision between a woman and her doctor. and the court is already concerned with its public image. what kind of damage could a decision so out of line with the general public opinion on this issue do to the court, and what do you think of that argument that you re invoking the people?