Meet the Press NOW — April 9

If it's Tuesday, Arizona Supreme Court says a near total ban on abortions, getting back to the 19th century is enforceable. A bombshell decision in yet another battleground state as the fight over reproductive rights pushes further to the forefront of 2024. Plus, Vice President Harris meets with the families of American hostages taken by Hamas. As Top Street's ceasefire deal appeared to hit a major sticking point over the future of northern Gaza, why Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu again vows to invade Raqqa no matter what.

And booked and busy, both chambers are back in session on Capitol Hill with foreign aid funding, makes speech-trip threat looming over the House as Senate Republicans look to move forward with the impeachment trial of a top Biden administration official. Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Yamiche Al-Sendor in Washington. We're following a bombshell ruling from the Arizona State Supreme Court.

A Civil War-era abortion ban still on the books is now enforceable. The 1864 Arizona law makes it a felony to perform an abortion or help a woman obtain an abortion in Arizona. The law had been on hold following the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The 160-year-old law will remain stayed for another two weeks, but Arizona joins a growing list of states banning or essentially banning this procedure. Currently, abortions are illegal in Arizona after 15 weeks. This afternoon, Arizona's Democratic governor reacting, calling it a dark day. She also emphasized that an executive order protecting abortion seekers and providers from prosecution remains in effect.

My executive order removing the ability of county attorneys to prosecute women and doctors for performing abortions remains. I refuse to allow extremist county prosecutors to use this abortion ban to lock up women and doctors seeking or providing needed health care. I am calling on the legislature to do the right thing right now and repeal this 1864 ban and protect access to reproductive health care. But this November, Arizona voters could have the chance to expand abortion access.

Organizers behind a proposed constitutional amendment say they have the signatures needed for the 2024 ballot. Arizona would join three other states already set to vote on similar measures. And abortion rights advocates in at least seven more states are also seeking ballot measures. Democrats hope these kinds of abortion ballot measures will drive voters to turn out in support of their party at the state level and in the presidential race.

Former President Donald Trump acknowledged the issue could hurt Republican candidates in November, even as he took credit for overturning Roe v. Wade. Now it's up to the states to do the right thing. Like Ronald Reagan, I'm strongly in favor of exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.

You must follow your heart of this issue. But remember, you must also win elections to restore our culture and, in fact, to save our country. This is the latest version of Trump's many positions on abortion, and he did not say whether he would sign a national abortion ban if Congress passed one. In the past, he has hinted that he might sign one, as his Republican allies have voiced support for a federal abortion ban.

That includes South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham who told my colleague Sahil Kapoor that Trump current position on abortion was a mistake The idea that Dobbs prevents the federal government from acting I think is an error For the pro movement it about the child not geography So if you're turning the pro-life movement into a geographical movement, I think you're making a mistake. Trump responded by bashing his critics on social media. He also did so during an interview with a right-wing network last night. We took a great victory, and guys like Lindsey Graham, they make it controversial.

It's not controversial. It goes back to the state where all legal scholars on both sides want it. It was a great victory. Meanwhile, President Biden is seizing on Trump's comments as he looks to tie state-level bans to his Republican opponent.

Yesterday, the Biden campaign releasing an emotional ad featuring Amanda Zyrkowski. She is a woman who sued Texas over its abortion restrictions after she almost died from a miscarriage, she said. Take a listen. Going to make me wear home from the hospital.

All of these. This is the blanket that she was in. Joining me now on the ground in Arizona's NBC News campaign event, Alex Tabbit. And also for the potential legal fallout, I'm joined by Michelle Goodwin, a professor of constitutional law and health policy at Georgetown University.

Also with us, NBC News is Vaughn Hilliard, and we have senior White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell. Now, Alex, I want to start with you. Take us through Arizona's state Supreme Court decision here. And what's been the reaction there on the ground?

Well, Yamiche, it's been an emotional and tense day here in Arizona as reproductive rights advocates have been learning in real time about this Supreme Court decision. The Arizona Supreme Court, which is right behind me, decided that the 1864 ban could, in fact, be enforced. And that's led a lot of reproductive rights advocates to come out and to make their voice heard about what their experience is like having an abortion already here in Arizona, where the ban is currently 15 weeks. I want to take a listen to State Senator Ava Birch.

She gained national headlines last month when she came out on the state Senate floor here in Arizona, told the people of Arizona about her own struggles with pregnancy, her own miscarriages, and her decision to get an abortion after learning that her fetus is not viable. Take a listen to what Birch had to say earlier this afternoon. Less than three weeks ago, I had an abortion, a baby that I would have loved to have had, with a husband who I love very much. And what I had to go through to receive that care was unconscionable as it was.

And now I cannot believe that we are even talking about what we might do to doctors if they care for women in this way. What we might do to patients if they experience these hardships. And state Senator Birch has vowed to continue the fight regardless of the Supreme Court decision today Yamiche And Alex this ruling is stayed for 14 days So what does that mean in practicality for women in Arizona especially of course those women who are seeking abortions Well, Yamiche, that means for the next 14 days, the status quo will remain here in Arizona. That means that abortions will remain legal up until 15 weeks of pregnancy.

There will be no exceptions after 15 weeks for rape or incest. There will be an exception in the event that a mother's life is in danger. after those 14 days, Attorney General Chris Mays just recently said she's going to do whatever she can to fight to extend that stay. But after those 14 days, after those two weeks, we may start seeing that 1864 territorial ban enforced here in Arizona.

Thank you so much for your reporting, Alex. Michelle, I want to go to you. What is your reaction to this ruling? It's quite a draconian ruling.

To put this in context, the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery in the United States, was ratified in 1865, a year after this law. So this is a law that is rooted in a time in which slavery was legal in the United States. It's a time in which women who were married were considered the property of their husbands. It was a time in which marital rape was legal and domestic violence.

All of that is an interesting thing. It's a four to two opinion. And the majority in the case said that even though the state's 15-week abortion ban went into effect after Dobbs, they essentially said that that really didn't matter, that what Dobbs did was provide the window, the open door for this 1864 law to prevail. Now, in this case, there's a very strong dissent, and it's a dissent that's signed on by the Chief Justice.

It's written by the vice justice of the court, and it's nearly as long as the majority opinion. And here are a couple of things that they noted, which is that given that the 15 week abortion ban went into effect after the Dobbs decision, that that should be prevailing. And that there was no time when the legislature was working on that 15 week abortion ban that they said that the 1864 law should prevail. Although what the majority did say is that this law, which comes after Dobbs, basically has no effect on the validity of this 1864 law.

I want to also ask you, Michelle, this ruling is at the state for 14 days, but I imagine there'd be some providers who are going to be immediately worried about providing abortion care. So what's the legal reality here and the legal implications, really? Well, the legal implications are that doctors in that state and others who aid in the termination of a pregnancy risk to at least two years incarceration if they happen to be prosecuted. There's a possibility that the state's attorney general will tell.

And my understanding is that she is telling prosecutors in the state do not prosecute with this law. But that's not to say that prosecutors will abide by what she has said. So there's going to be chaos and fear. And if there anything to learn from what has taken place in Texas we know then that there would be doctors who may be so fearful of criminalization or losing their medical licenses to practice that they will not intervene even in cases where life is at risk for the pregnant person And it really interesting when you talk about chaos and fear because of course it also the fact that the Florida Supreme Court they recently ruled on abortion restrictions But the simply man is a more recent ban So I wonder what do you think is the significance here when you think about comparing those two abortion bans?

Well, these bans are actually quite similar in that they really provide no significant room for people who need to terminate a pregnancy because they're seeking to manage a miscarriage. The exceptions for the life of the pregnant person, we've seen in the past that those are more illusory than real because it makes it very, very difficult. Sometimes patients have to bleed for any number of days, be in sepsis, be in such life-threatening circumstances that they end up leaving the state. And it's worth noting, and something that we don't hear in these news cycles, is that these pre-1865, that's the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery, these abortion bans passed during that time were really in response to this fear that slavery would be coming to an end, that there would be the browning of the United States.

And this was seen as a means of making sure that white women would do, as one thing this doctor noted, spread their loins north, east, west, and south in order to combat the fear that the United States would become a place where there would be more freed black people. And so it's not surprising this law was passed before the abolition of American slavery. Wow. When you think about the fact that it was passed before slavery ended, and then when you think about that history, that is all really important context.

So thank you so much for your analysis, Michelle. Thank you. Now, Vaughn, of course, you're one of our resident Arizona experts, maybe the best Arizona expert that I've met. How big of a deal, though, do you think this will be for Arizona politics when you think about 2024 during this election year?

Right. It's going to be significant. And look, from exit polling, Yamiche, in the 2022 midterm elections, more than two thirds of Arizona voters said that they believe that abortion rights should be a constitutional right of Arizonans. And so now we have a situation in which multiple reproductive rights organizations have gathered what they say is more than 500,000 signatures to put that potential constitutional amendment granting abortion rights up to 24 weeks on the ballot in this November's election.

And if, in fact, that it's on the ballot, in seven months from now, we'll have a good understanding of how Arizona voters view this. But, you know, politically here, you've also got to look at the fact that, look, you've got a Democratic governor, a Democratic attorney general. And this is at the heart of what is being deliberated around the country, a patchwork of laws. And you're looking at the potential of Republican county attorneys who want to uphold this territorial ban in the state of Arizona, who could very well sue the Democratic attorney general to, in fact, prosecute the law that is technically on the books.

And so this is where it becomes complicated, not just here in the year 2024, but well beyond, Demish. It is really complicated because you could have an attorney general who doesn't agree with the law being forced to enforce it. I want to ask you, though, also about Team Trump. We saw the former president release a statement talking about abortion laws should be left to the states.

What is Team Trump saying now? And what do you think they're thinking right now? It's Arizona. Now it's going to be a big issue there come November.

Right. And that video that Donald Trump posted on his social media account yesterday, he really didn't say much new other than the fact that he touted the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Three of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court bench were nominated by him.

And though he said that it should be up to states, whether it be the voters or state legislatures, governors, to determine the laws. They have on the books. Of course, he got pushback not only from his own former vice president, Mike Pence, who said that this should be a federal ban of sorts on abortion. It should not be a patchwork.

It should not be a geographical issue. You heard Lindsey Graham discuss it. But even if you take Arizona as an example here, this is the issue for Republican candidates because Carrie Lake is running for the U.S. Senate seat in Arizona, the open Senate seat.

And when I talked to her about this Arizona territorial territorial ban back in 2022, she told me that if she were to have won that governor's race, she would stand by and uphold the territorial ban. Fast forward to today, she now says that she opposes the territorial ban and that Arizona voters should make it clear at the ballot box where they stand on this issue. So there is an acknowledgment politically that a majority of voters, at least in Arizona, but we also see this nationally, are supportive of reproductive rights or at least access to abortion care. And that is going to be an issue here that is going to complicate others who say that this is a hard, fast moral conviction that they have.

And yet the question is, do a majority of the voters side with them? And that is really where these states, including Arizona, could make that very clear in the months ahead. Vaughn, it's so interesting to see Carrie Lake fall in line. We've also seen Republicans in Pennsylvania and Nevada also be falling in line and echoing Trump's language now.

So very interesting reporting. Thanks, Vaughn. Thanks. Now, of course, there's Kelly O'Donnell.

Of course, I want to talk to you about the White House stance here. Vice President Harris came out just really within minutes of this ruling saying she's heading to Arizona on Friday. She's been front and center on this issue. Does the White House be her really as her best messenger on this issue?

What do we expect to hear from her as she goes to Arizona? Well, they definitely view the vice president as having a unique role to play here as the highest ranking woman in American history and elective politics and being a voice on this issue. And she has been making it a central piece of some of her outreach. And so she will be going back to Arizona on Friday.

She was in Phoenix earlier, now headed to Tucson and being a key messenger on this. Part of what they are seeing here is that the views that the Biden administration and the Biden campaign have are very much in alignment. And we don't always see official policy and campaign policy running as easily on parallel as we do in this instance. And so certainly from all the official acts of the White House, the administration believes strongly that it has made a commitment to the American voter that they want to restore the protections that were in Roe v.

Wade. They'd like to do that through a Congress that would be a majority Democrat after voters go to the polls. They also want to do things like using executive powers to protect access to different care and to try to make movement between states more easy for women who are facing some of these difficult circumstances. Now, in the campaign lane, you're getting a lot of the messaging now.

You showed a piece of one of the new ads from the Biden campaign. And you'll see a lot of that kind of deeply personal experience put through this message because they are trying to galvanize women and the people in their families who also agree that these deeply personal decisions should be in the hands of families with their doctors. And this of course has long been a volatile issue and their people have very strong feelings in support of the fact that Roe v Wade was overturned But for the Biden campaign they view this as a way to motivate voters and to try to get support in places where perhaps we haven seen the potential for these battleground states to have movement This is an area where the president believes there is strength because these issues motivate voters Yamiche As you talk about motivating voters after the Florida abortion ruling, the Biden campaign said, and a number of Democrats said that they believe now that that state, which is my native state, but it's become really a lot of ruby red and it's not really a swing state anymore. They said that they thought that that might be putting Florida in play.

Do you have that same sentiment coming from the Biden campaign when you look at Arizona with this ruling? They certainly believe that there is the potential here because this does cut across in ways that some other issues, whether it's the economy or taxes or the border, this cuts differently. And there are certainly some of the Nikki Haley type voters from the Republican Party, independents and so forth, who choose to vote differently when an issue like access to this kind of medical care, access to abortion rights is put before them. So convincing voters to tie this to a presidential vote is part of what the Biden campaign wants to do over the next several months.

Well, thank you, Kelly O'Donnell, for breaking it all down from the White House. Coming up, we have new developments in the ceasefire negotiations as the withdrawal by the idea from a key southern Gaza city lays bare the board's devastating toll, reliving Israel with the latest developments. Plus, winning over Wisconsin. I'll talk to a Wisconsin House Democrat about the president's political standing in the must-win state.

And why progressives are pushing back on U.S. military support of Israel. That's ahead. You're watching Meet the Press Now.

Welcome back. Today, Vice President Harris met with the families of some of the Americans taken hostage by Hamas during the October 7th attack. It's the second time she has met with hostage families. According to the White House, the vice president expressed her continued support for the families and provided an update on the ongoing talks to release the remaining hostages in Gaza.

But any deal on a ceasefire in exchange for the release of more hostages remains out of reach. One of the biggest sticking points is centered on whether displaced Palestinians will be able to return to northern Gaza. The leaders of Jordan, Egypt and France, some of the key players in those talks, just published a new op-ed in The Washington Post. They joined together to call for an immediate ceasefire and lasting peace through a two-state solution.

That comes as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says a date has been set for the start of the military offensive into Rafah in southern Gaza. Today Netanyahu said, quote, no force in the world will stop us. Joining me now from Tel Aviv is NBC News International correspondent Halak Arani. So thank you so much for being here.

What are the remaining obstacles in those talks? And how likely is it that these two sides will be able to work through them? Well, you mentioned one of them, and we spoke to one of our sources close to the prime minister's office, who's briefed on some of the discussions in the war cabinet. And what they said was that that return of Palestinians to the north is one of the sticking points.

The Hamas representatives would have wanted a completely limitless return of all of the Palestinians, including Hamas operatives, potentially to the north of the Gaza Strip. And Israeli representatives were against that, wanting a limited number to return with very strict security checks. But of course, there are many, many more disagreements, namely how long a ceasefire would last, how many hostages can and would be released. So the two sides appear still to be far apart Though we hearing some conflicting reports because over the weekend there were some of the participants quoted by Egyptian media quoted as saying that really we had made more progress this time around than in previous rounds It is now in the hands of Hamas we understand, and we are waiting for their response to the proposal that was put forth in Cairo.

And so that's something we'll be keeping a close eye on, Yamiche. And as you keep a close eye on that, what more do we know about Israel's plans for Rafa and whether they have a solid plan to protect the millions of civilians that are sheltering there? so um we do know that rhetorically at least the israeli government prime minister benjamin ethan yahoo the defense minister in this country are all still very much vowing uh to go ahead with this rafa offensive that president biden has publicly said is not a good idea um however with the retreat of ground troops in the south over the weekend to the north and the fact that these ceasefire negotiations are still um still very much alive hopefully and that any ceasefire of course would delay a full-scale ground offensive in rafa it doesn't seem as though anything is imminent. Now, when it comes, Yamiche, to the protection of civilians, Palestinians will tell you they don't believe that the Israeli government will protect civilians.

They will point to how they've been treated in the Gaza Strip, to how they've been told to go to safe zones that were then subsequently bombed. And so therefore, there is zero trust on the Palestinian side. I can tell you that, that the Israeli government or that the Israeli military will protect civilians in any offensive, Yamiche. Certainly a heartbreaking situation.

Thank you so much for your reporting. And a programming note tonight on NBC News Now, a conversation with the families of Americans still being held hostage by Hamas. They join Lester Holt for a sit down tonight at 10 30 p.m. Eastern.

And coming up, trouble at the polls, why so many election workers are quitting and what the historic turnover rates could mean for November. That story is next. You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back.

Voter turnout may be a key factor this November, but another potential issue, whether there will be enough election workers to execute the election. NBC News has exclusive new reporting that election worker turnover has reached historic highs. According to new data, at least 36 percent of local election offices have changed hands since 2020. And in 2022, 39 percent of jurisdictions had new top election officials compared to four years earlier.

NBC News senior reporter Jane Tim joins me now for more. So this is really a fascinating story and so important. Why has there been so much turnover in election workers? You know, what we're learning from this data out of the Bipartisan Policy Center is that there's a couple of things happening here.

First, of course, we can't ignore 2020. There was a pandemic, election denialism, conspiracy theories abounded. Election workers faced enormous scrutiny while overhauling their elections. And since then, we've all overhauled our election codes as a country in most states.

And that, of course, has driven a lot of election workers to say, you know what, this is too much. I got to get out. But it's not the only trend. So we're also seeing in the data that smaller jurisdictions, the ones that have fewer voters and usually less staff running these elections, that turnover in those districts started well before President Donald Trump ever ran for office.

So we know that there are both contemporary problems like election denialism and the harassment and the scrutiny as well as longstanding systemic problems probably funding lack of resources that helps these people in smaller jurisdictions run their elections But when I talk to officials across the country election denialism figures really strongly in how they talk about their experiences. Let's play the sound of someone in Cobb County, Georgia. I have had hours long conversations with voters explaining every single thing and answering every single question and showing them everything I can. And they'll stand up and they'll say, thank you for your time, but I still don't believe you.

Now, Tate turned 30 this month. She's part of a new generation of election workers. She feels really strongly that it's her duty to her community to count the votes and to count them accurately. But it still figures into her every day.

She said he checks her rearview mirror when she drives home every day to make sure she's not getting followed. And it's striking and heartbreaking to think that someone is so scared when she's really just trying to be a person who's working for our democracy. But I also want to ask you, of course, what are the potential consequences of all this? If you have less election workers, could these elections be affected?

Yeah, you know, a lot of the incoming officials, they do have similar levels of experience to past elections based on the data we have. But we do know that When you have new people doing jobs, there's a learning curve. You know, these jobs rely heavily on institutional knowledge. I've seen firsthand in areas where they've had complete overhauls of the staff.

Running future elections has been hard. I followed a county in Virginia, Buckingham County, where the entire staff all resigned last year. 2022 was tough for them. They were the last county in the state to report their results.

They had to make corrections. It wasn't easy to get it done when you have a brand new staff. Well, Jane Tan, this is really great exclusive reporting and such an important topic that we'll definitely keep an eye on. Thank you so much.

Thank you. And still ahead, the House gets back to work on an ever-growing to-do list. And Wisconsin Democrat Mark Pocan joins me to talk about his party's priorities and why he and his dozens of other progressives are calling on the president to halt weapons transfers to Israel. You're watching me to press now.

Welcome back for the first time in more than two weeks. Both the House and the Senate are back in session. Today, House lawmakers return to Capitol Hill. Funding for Ukraine is likely to be a key focus in the coming weeks.

Meanwhile, minutes ago, House Speaker Mike Johnson's office confirmed that he delayed, said that he will be delaying sending articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas until next week. The House voted to impeach Mayorkas nearly two months ago, but that impeachment effort will likely die in the Democrat-controlled Senate, where an impeachment trial likely won't even happen. Joining me now is Sahil Kapoor on Capitol Hill. So what exactly is Mike Johnson, Speaker Mike Johnson, saying about this delay?

Well, Yamiche, there has been a change of plan here. Speaker Mike Johnson and House Republicans were all set to transmit the articles of impeachment for DHS Secretary Mayorkas to the Senate tomorrow evening. That has now changed, and Johnson's office just put out a statement moments ago saying that it will now happen next week. I'll read a portion of it from the Speaker's spokesman saying, quote, to ensure the Senate has adequate time to perform its constitutional duty, the House will transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate next week, unquote.

And he goes on to call on the Senate not to abdicate its responsibility to hold an impeachment trial. Now this comes after multiple Senate Republicans have advised Speaker Johnson to do just that. They worry that if Johnson had transmitted the articles on Wednesday evening, then it would leave just Thursday for the Senate to start acting And this is going to sound absurd, but it's true. A lot of those Republicans feared that the Senate would be very motivated to immediately dismiss those articles so they can leave on Thursday for a long weekend.

Senators really value that extra time, those long weekends. And what these Senate Republicans said was the best way to try to pressure Democrats to hold a trial, to move forward with this and give it full consideration, was to transmit it next week when there's several extra days for the Senate to be in session before that long weekend. And we got some reactions to this. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic majority leader, said simply, we're ready to go whenever they are.

We're sticking with our plan. We're going to move this as expeditiously as possible, unquote. And Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House, released a somewhat mocking and dismissive statement, noting that House Republicans waited two months to send these articles already. Now he says they're delaying it for another week.

He says, quote, it lays bare how baseless and devoid of substance this whole PR stunt is, referring to the impeachment of anarchists. Strong language there. We also heard from some Senate Republicans on Hill in the last hour. What can we expect from them once this impeachment trial begins?

Well, a couple of things. Senate Republicans are going to do everything they can to try to pressure Democrats to do a full trial. This can go one of two ways. There can be a trial and full consideration and then a vote to convict or acquit.

Or the other way this could go is any one senator can call up a motion to dismiss the trial. And all it takes is 51 senators to dismiss the trial. And the entire thing is over. Republicans tried to do this exact same thing with the trial of Donald Trump after January 6th.

Most Republicans voted for it, but they couldn't find a majority. Democrats have 51 votes in the Senate right now. If they all stick together and vote to dismiss this, it could go away very quickly, Yamiche. And at this moment, there's not a single Democrat who says they necessarily believe there should be a trial.

There's some who haven't taken a position yet. So all Senate Republicans can do is try to pressure Democrats to keep this going. And the reason they want to do that is because they see this as a winning political issue. Senator Mitt Romney made clear that this is not going anywhere.

Let's play what he said. I think there's no question but that this is not going to result in a conviction because the test of a high crime or misdemeanor being committed has not been alleged. And as a result of that, there will not be a conviction. So it's either a dismissal or an acquittal.

A dismissal or an acquittal. It's going to be very interesting to watch whenever those articles finally make it over to the Senate. Thanks so much, I hope. And joining me now is Democratic Congressman from Wisconsin, Mark Pocan.

Thank you so much for being here. So I want to, of course, start with the news of the day. Congressman, Arizona Supreme Court upheld a near total abortion ban in that state. What's your reaction to this ruling?

You know, it's similar to what we have in Wisconsin, quite honestly. When Roe v. Wade got overturned thanks to Donald Trump's fix on the Supreme Court, we went back to 1849 law in Wisconsin. In 1849, we were taxing horses with horses and buggies, and that law now is the law of the land in a place like Wisconsin.

So it's seen as ridiculous by people, and I hope that they find every way to deal with it electorally or otherwise this year to overturn it. Yeah. Well, I also now want to turn to another topic, and that, of course, is Israel. Yesterday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said a date has been set for Israel's ground offensive into Rafa.

What should the consequences be if Israel does lock that offensive into Rafa without a legitimate plan to protect the millions and millions of civilians that are sheltering there Yeah I just was home for two weeks for getting around the district with town halls and meetings and some of the smallest communities in my district And it was interesting This issue kept coming up about Gaza And people can believe the carnage and the way that Benjamin Netanyahu has conducted his alleged response to Hamas Instead, people see it as a collective punishment, as being overly broad, killing 34,000 people, 70 percent of which are women and children. And I think if he does this, you know, a lot of us are asking for it. We did just do a letter with 56 members of Congress to the president to have conditions and no additional weapons transfers until we know what's going on, especially with the killings of the most recent aid workers from Chef Andres' organization. You know, over 200 aid workers have been killed just trying to get food and water to people who are starving in Gaza.

And this is not something that can be done in any way with the United States involvement. So, you know, I think he should tread very carefully. Our support of Israel is a support of Israel, but it's not just a blind support of Benjamin Netanyahu in doing what I think people back in Wisconsin anyway don't support. Well, I also mean, as you talk about sort of those aid workers and that, you're calling for the Biden administration to withhold the transfer of more military aids to Israel.

Why is this strike, you think, on aid workers seemingly the last straw for so many in your party? Yeah, I think it really changed probably six, eight weeks ago among the mass numbers of folks in the district where people just can't understand anymore the continued killing and the amount of carnage and the destruction in Gaza. It's just this happens to be the most recent really foul example of an execution of a response to Hamas because this clearly wasn't responding to Hamas. And it's just an overly broad attempt to, I think, clear out Gaza.

And I think people have just had enough. And, you know, what we're trying to do is make sure we don't have any additional weapons transfers. We want an investigation of this. We want to know aid workers are protected.

And we certainly don't want U.S. weaponry or equipment used if there is going to be an invasion of Rafa. And I think those are all things that we're trying to express to the president. He has the ability to do a number of those things on his own.

I want to ask you specifically, because Jose Andres has said he really is heartbroken that it took the death of foreigners for there really to feel like there was a shift. After you had thousands and thousands, more than 30,000 civilians, Palestinians killed. So I wonder, could you talk a bit more about why this was different and why what you make of Jose Andres saying that maybe there should have been a shift earlier when there were so many kids and Palestinians killed? Yeah, I mean, part of it, please don't take this the wrong way, but it's media coverage of what happened.

I had these town halls prior to the bombing of his aid vehicles, and I heard these things. So honestly, it's not like people suddenly saw that and changed their opinion in the rural parts of my district where I was doing town halls. They already had a different opinion of what's going on. This is just one more really unbelievable example.

When you look at this, aid workers who told the military where they're at, said who they were, and this still happened to them. You know, that's just unacceptable at every level. And I think that's why, just right, full attention's on it. But honestly, before you all covered it before this happened, I've already seen the turn happen in my district.

Yeah, well, of course, we have been covering here NBC News very closely before this aid workers were killed. But I take your point Congressman How concerned are you that this position on aid to Israel pushing for conditions to possibly be put on it That could backfire on Democrats especially during an election year I tell you it backfires if we don do anything We just had the presidential primary for Joe Biden but we had 48 people vote uninstructed which is the protest vote to say they're not happy with what's going on in Gaza. He only won by just under 21,000. We're a purple state and every vote matters.

And if people stay home or vote a third party, we have real problems. But this isn't just those wards near the campus where 30 and 40 percent of people voted uninstructed. Like I said, I went to rural parts of my district. I went to Edgerton and Monroe, Sauk City, Mazomany, places that probably most people I listen to your program.

I've never heard of. And this is what I heard from, you know, older folks who are coming to town halls. They have the same concerns. So I think we make a mistake if we don't listen to where the public's at.

I think people are leading. Now we need to follow. And I think once we do, we're going to be in a much better place. I also want to ask you, Congressman, among the lawmakers behind that letter to Biden pushing for conditions on aid to Israel was Congressman Jim McGovern.

He is also behind a discharge petition to bring the Senate passed foreign aid bill to the floor. You have not signed so far as we can tell yet. Do you plan to do that? Do you support the Senate version that includes money for Israel, Ukraine and the Indo-Pacific?

I completely support the funding for Ukraine. In fact, I think three quarters of Congress would if we can get it to the floor. The problem is that resolution has zero conditions on aid to Israel right now. That's why we're hoping that the White House can provide some assurances on that so that we can move forward or just completely take the Ukraine funding up on its own.

Like I said, I think 100 Republicans and virtually every Democrat would support that, including myself. It's being hung up right now because of the aid to Israel and what's happening. And we should let Benjamin Netanyahu essentially hold up funding that's needed in Ukraine. So we hope that there can be some direct action by the White House to help get it across the finish line by providing some conditions on that aid.

Well, thank you so much for joining us, Congressman Mark Pocan. Thank you. Appreciate it. We'll dig deeper into the conflicts on Capitol Hill and the political fallout of today's Arizona abortion ruling.

The panel's next. You're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome back. More now on the political fallout from today's major news out of Arizona.

The state Supreme Court's ruling that a law banning nearly all abortions can be enforced. The White House announced that Vice President Harris will travel to Arizona on Friday for an event on Reproductive Freedom. And today's ruling also comes a day after Donald Trump released a statement saying abortion restrictions should be left to the states. For more, I'm joined by Eugene Scott, senior politics reporter at the FCL.

So Megan Hayes, former special assistant to President Biden. Carlos Corbello, of course, former Republican congressman from Florida and now an NBC News political analyst. So thank you all for being here. I'm going to start with you, Carlos, if I can.

Former President Trump said yesterday that abortion access should really be left up to the states here. But now, of course, we have a battleground state that is reaching all the way back before the Civil War to ban all abortions. What do you make of that? Well, I mean, Republicans fear the abortion issue.

Donald Trump is leading the charge and demonstrating that fear, right? doing this extraordinary video trying to really distance himself from these abortion restrictions. Look, there's some states like Florida where abortion is going to be more prominent due to a ballot question. I don think it going to have an impact on the result of races on the top of the ticket But in a state like Arizona it a completely different story You of course have the presidential race which was very close there in 2020 You have a Senate race that could decide control of the Senate And you have a House race that was decided by a few hundred votes in 2022 So those are the kinds of races where this can really make a difference.

And I think you're going to see Arizona Republicans, if they haven't already, running away from this issue. They have. We've seen Carrie Lake come out. Exactly.

We've seen Representative Juan Siskamani come out. He represents, I believe, Southern Arizona, where Tucson is, University of Arizona, lots of young voters where the vice president is going to speak this week. this is a state where swing voters, young voters, suburban voters will determine who wins. And an issue like this, a stance like this, is not going to be helpful for Donald Trump.

And what do you think this makes the impact of this could have on the Senate race in Arizona there? There's not only the presidential race, but there's of course the down ballot races. I think that it has a huge impact on the down ballot races. And one thing to just add to what's going to happen in November, this is going to have an immediate impact now in fundraising.

And that is going to impact the calendar, or the map writ large, and not just in Arizona. And every time Republicans bring this up, this is a huge fundraising opportunity for Democrats. And it just continues to put a finer point that Trump took took credit for this for something that is pulling terribly for Republicans and is a winning issue for Democrats. And I think this also deflects attention from the immigration issue, which is obviously a big deal in Arizona.

We know Republicans want immigration to be prominent. As we get closer to the election, Democrats want abortion. This helps Democrats at this time. Yeah.

I also want to ask, of course, about as you bring up immigration. Eugene, is this impeachment trial, maybe even is the articles, are they ever going to even make it to the Senate? Are we ever going to even see this trial happen? You think it doesn't seem like it.

I mean, the reality is what far right Republicans have said, the proof they have that should justify or move forward impeachment articles. They just haven't produced that yet. They got the talking points they wanted in conservative media. I don't know that that was as helpful and fruitful as they thought it would be.

And to your point earlier, obviously, there are now other things that they're now being forced to focus on. But respectfully, Mike Johnson is trying to hold things together right now. Well, that's one way to put it. He's definitely trying to hold things together.

But Megan, is there anything you think that Republicans can do to try to make this harder on Democrats and to try to sort of really hammer home the point that they want to make here? I mean, they need to come together and create more of a coalition. But they have their right, their far right in leading the message here. And they didn't even send the articles to the Senate until there wasn't even a talk of sending them until there was a threat that he was going to lose his speakers.

So it's just not a lot of there there for them. And I mean, Senator Schumer is just like, why are we doing this? This is kind of ridiculous. And Secretary Mayorkas is just sort of playing, you know, he just is a ping pong basically in their game right now.

And so it's just they need to coalesce around actual issues that the American people care about or they are going to really see the impacts in November. And Carlos, I mean, there are some Democrats that say that this is actually embarrassing for Republicans. But how do you see this? Well, think about it.

Republicans politically were gifted the issue of immigration. I mean, most of the country we've seen the polling. It's very bad for President Biden. This is their best issue politically.

And they have managed to really muddy it. I mean, they abandoned a compromise that really would have tied the executive's hands when it comes to immigration, a pretty conservative bill on Donald Trump's orders. And now they're sending all these mixed messages on New Yorkers where people know most Senate Republicans don't even want to take up this case because it's a waste of time. So here's an issue where Republicans have had a very clear shot.

and they're managing to squander a lot of that political capital and not put Democrats' feet to the fire. Do you think there is something that Republicans could do to sort of wrestle this issue back in a way that would be effective for them? Because when I talk to voters out there, focus groups, even when I go out to different states, they bring up immigration, including some Democrats who say that this issue, they see this issue as out of hand. Even if they live in a state like Michigan, it's thousands of miles away.

So what should Republicans be doing? Well, a very easy thing to do would be to bring forward and to pass the bill that Senator Lankford negotiated with Senators Murphy and Sinema, because then it would show that Republicans are actually serious about doing something about the border crisis. But instead, they listened to President Trump, who said, don't do this. It's going to be bad for me politically.

And Republicans, again, they're in the Trump trap. They know what they want to do. They know what's the right thing to do. But Donald Trump won't let them do it.

And they don't want to get sideways with Donald Trump. Yeah, well, I'm going to start the Trump trap. I think we could use that phrase a couple more times. It's yours.

Eugene, I want to ask you, of course, about the others, because there is this long to-do list for Capitol Hill. How confident are you that there could be an aid package passed here, including aid that goes to Ukraine? You mean how soon or just in general, right? I mean, one day it could happen.

Yeah. If it's going to happen anytime soon, it doesn't look like it. What's going to be interesting is everyone's obviously thinking about November. And there are far-right lawmakers who are going to work as hard as possible to keep it from moving forward.

There are people who are in swing districts who know that their voters want to see something happen, some type of compromise. There are obviously people left of these individuals who not only want to see more humanitarian aid for Ukraine, but, I mean, for Haiti, for Sudan. You know, there's a real ideological diversity within the House in terms of what should be our role, America's role in the world. And whether or not these lawmakers are going to get on the same page in the next couple of months, it just seems highly unlikely.

Do you think this could cost House Speaker Mike Johnson's job? It's looking like it. I mean, within the last, I think it was a week or two ago, he was referring to Marjorie Taylor Greene as a friend. And, you know, she was fundraising or campaigning this past weekend, saying some very unfriendly things about him.

And so if he doesn't move in a direction that seems to be winsome to her and people like her, she's made it clear that she's going to try her best to get him out of there. Should Democrats Megan you think help Mike Johnson in his job I was you had on that representative FBI yesterday I said would you vote to help Mike Johnson keep his job He said no I would vote for Hakeem Jeffries What do you make of that Yeah I mean I think that Democrats are going to hold true to their values and want a Democratic speaker when they back in leadership I not sure that they going to help Mike Johnson I do think that there are things legislatively that they want to get done, like a Ukraine package, like Israel funding. They want to get a comprehensive immigration bill, but I'm not sure that they're going to tie themselves to Mike Johnson. I will bet that Democrats will, of course, be loyal to Hakeem Jeffries.

But that enough of them will not be as disciplined as they were last time to not push the House into another two to three week fiasco. That's just not good for anyone, right? It's not good for anybody. So if Johnson moves the Ukraine package, I do think maybe not explicitly, but I think Democrats will give him a pass and let him stay.

Now, really quickly, in the past 30 seconds that we have here, Donald Trump is, of course, talking again about Jewish Americans who vote for Democrats, attacking them. Is that smart for him? And is this just something that people get used to from Trump? I mean, it's bigoted to assume that someone, because of their race, ethnicity or religion, should only vote for one party or the other is just completely absurd.

People in both parties have done it. In this case, Trump is doing it and it's just totally wrong. Does it hurt him at all, though? I mean, look, it probably hurts him with a lot of the voters that he's been losing and that Republicans have been losing since Donald Trump emerged on the national stage.

Right. College educated suburban women really get turned off by these kinds of racial ethnic messages. So, yes, it'll hurt him on the margins and the margins matter in these races. Do you think this will be a gift to Democrats or do we think that it's sort of the people who are going to not be with Trump?

I think right now it's people who just people turn it off. And I think when it comes to October, November, when this kind of hateful rhetoric is coming out of his mouth, it's a gift to Democrats. Yeah. Yeah.

Well, thank you so much for another spirited conversation. Eugene, Megan, Carlos. Thank you all. And we're back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now.

The news continues with Hallie Jackson right now. Hey, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor and host of The Drink. This month, Demi Lovato is my guest. The global superstar tells me that she is the happiest she's ever been right now.

But getting there, it wasn't simple. Demi opens up about starting in Hollywood young and why she now thinks she may have started too soon. She talks about recovery, her new marriage, and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook. The Drink is always about the journey to the top, and this was an honest conversation about what that takes.

Hope you'll listen and follow The Drink wherever you get your podcasts.