This spring, denim gets a softer, lighter update, introducing Old Navy's Drapy denim wide leg, a new fit that moves with you. It's everything you want denim to feel like for summer. Easy, breathable, and effortlessly cool. With a fit that creates natural movement, and a wide leg that feels modern, not overwhelming.
Plus, that signature, wait, for this price? Moment. Old Navy's Drapy Denim Wide Leg. Good evening.
We begin tonight with breaking news. Two court rulings, the first, potentially life-altering for women in this country, a federal judge in Texas, putting government approval of a drug widely used to terminate pregnancies on hold, effective seven days from now. If a priest's stone is the name of the drug, it first got FDA approval more than two decades ago. Until recently, the notion of a judge having grounds to reverse approval of it was seen by many legal experts as dubious the best.
However, abortion opponents steered their case to a judge named Matthew Kismarik of the Fifth Circuit in Texas, and he has ruled as they hoped. Just after that, we got word of a ruling in a different federal court in Washington state, affecting only some states on the same drug. So there's a lot to get to, seen in Supreme Court reporter Ariane Devogue, joins us right now on both rulings. Ariane first tells us about the Texas ruling and what that means.
Right. It's been an unbelievable night, right? Both of these rulings opposing, and they both have to do with the FDA's approval of the Medicaid application of abortion drug, and that approval came in 2000. In this first case, what the federal judge said is he blocked the government's approval of this drug.
He said he was going to put this on hold for a week to allow appeals to occur, but basically he said that the government had not taken into account the risks of the drug. The Biden administration, as you said, said that this lawsuit brought by opponents of abortion was unprecedented because that drug has been on the books for so long. But here's what the judge, who's a Trump nominee, said. He said that the FDA entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem by admitting any evaluation of the psychological effects of the drugs or an evaluation of the long-term medical consequences of the drug.
Now, it's worth noting here, Anderson, that most medical groups disagree with that, but that's what the judge did in that particular ruling tonight. And what about the Washington State ruling? Well, so that's totally different. So this ruling, this case was brought by more than a dozen liberal states, and they took the position that the FDA is not doing enough to ease access to this drug, so totally opposite from the other case.
And the federal judge here, who is an Obama nominee, he gave them a partial win. He said, look, for now, the FDA cannot withdraw this drug. So if you're confused, you have a right to be one judge, blocking it, although he put it on hold, and the other saying that in the states where he has jurisdiction, it has to stay on the market very confusing. So what happens when they're conflicting rulings like this?
So one thing we know, when you have two district courts who are saying opposite things, you know for sure that there's going to be a quick appeal, so a higher court, an appeal court, or the Supreme Court can sort this out. And that's what we know it's going to happen. It's going to move quickly with the appeals, and it is going to end up back somehow in some form before the Supreme Court. And keep in mind, it was less than a year ago that the Supreme Court reversed Roe v.
Wade. Has things stand right now? The majority of abortions are medication abortions. All right, I'd love to appreciate it.
Thank you for more on the judge in Texas. I want to go see this as Rosa Flores. So how did the lawsuit end up in front of this particular judge? And who is he?
Yeah, so the judge, as you mentioned Anderson, is Judge Matthew Kazmerich. He was appointed by President Trump. And before rising to the federal bench, he worked for the religious right, he worked for religious right law firm on anti-abortion advocacy. And who are the plaintiffs here?
A coalition of anti-abortion groups. And that's why abortion advocacy groups accused the plaintiffs of judge shopping. They pointed to a few factors, including not only the background of the judge, but also the fact that these plaintiffs didn't register in Amarillo, Texas, into a few months before this lawsuit was filed. And so that's why there's a lot of pointing the fingers at these plaintiffs by abortion advocacy groups saying that they were judge shopping.
The plaintiffs fired back saying that that was not indeed the case, that they have the right to file a lawsuit where the public is injured. But what's really interesting, Anderson, is that during that hearing, the plaintiffs admitted that the one doctor, the one plaintiff doctor, that was from Amarillo, this doctor actually did not prescribe Miffa Priestone, which really raised questions about why they were even filing this lawsuit with this particular judge. But this particular judge is the only one in Amarillo, Texas. And that's why advocacy groups say that these plaintiffs judge shopping went there.
And I'll leave you with one final thing. Texas, and because of Judge Kazmerich, Texas has become a bit of a graveyard for some of the Biden administration priorities, whether it be immigration or LGBTQ rights and abortion advocacy groups say that it's because of this, because they can judge up, they can take it to this court and they know exactly what they're going to get. Did the judge say anything to hearing last month that foreshadowed this? You know, it was very interesting.
This was a four hour hearing last month. And this judge appeared skeptical, Anderson, he appeared skeptical. And what was so fascinating was that the plaintiffs were really asking him practically to yank this medication off the shelves. And then the questions that the judge asked the plaintiffs, he seemed skeptical.
He even asked the plaintiffs, can you point to another case in which a judge has done exactly what you're asking me to do? And the plaintiffs couldn't point to another case. And that's why this case is so unprecedented, which brings me to this point, because this is so unprecedented. In essence, what the plaintiffs have asked the judge to do is to override the scientists, to override the FDA, which leads me to my final point.
How will the FDA read this and interpret this order? And what will they do? No, of course, we know that this order is on pause at the moment for seven days. But if it does go through, Anderson, I think one of the key things is how will the FDA interpret this?
Will they actually follow the law and the statute that dictates how they're supposed to suspend the drug? Or will they yank it all together because of other circumstances? And how will manufacturers, physicians, pharmacies, react as well? Will they automatically yank them off the shelves?
Or not? We don't know. It's unclear. But I think one thing is really clear.
This order, this decision, even though it's not in effect yet, is really sending ripple effects throughout the country because of its unprecedented nature. Yeah, Rosa Flores, I appreciate it. Thanks. Joining us now is author, medical journalist, and OBGYN physician, Dr.
Jen Kunti, also, CNNC, legal analyst, and anchor, Laura Coates, and Elliott Williams, C&N legal analyst, former deputy assistant attorney general. Dr. Kunti, I appreciate you joining us. And the majority of abortions in this country are medical abortions.
What's the impact of a ruling like this on women seeking that procedure? Thank you, Anderson, for having me. That's right. The majority of abortions in clinics in the US are medication abortion, which means this affects so many people.
And even beyond medication abortion, people forget that this medication is used for other aspects of reproductive healthcare. And it's used oftentimes for reasons like inducing a second trimester or a later loss with a very wanted pregnancy. So the fallout is really a lot wider than people realize. How unusual is it to have these two rulings on this issue on the same, basically, evening or afternoon?
And how does this get resolved? I mean, it's almost like lightning striking. That's how odd and unique this is. But it's also very odd and unique for a judge down in Texas to say, listen, although he has a JD, a doctorate, nothing like a doctor's degree, let alone a scientific one, which essentially is what the FDA, and of course, other entities who look at the FDA and clean their regimen of how to review this drug and others.
And they've said, you haven't done enough, and I can't trust the science. So I'm going to make sure that my judicial ruling eliminates the access to it, at least in about seven days from now. So it's very, very exciting to think about. It also leads the doctor to talk to about it to really probably illogical conclusions, because other drugs now will be called into question.
And other judges may have the authority to say, listen, although the FDA is the entity and the agency we'd like to be able to review for safety and pragmatic concerns, we will now use surf that authority. And really, that runs counter to this idea of why we use judges, what the legal system is for, and what we rely on various agencies, administrative and otherwise, to actually do the work, do the actual review, and decide on behalf of the people. Dr. Conti, one thing I just want to ask you before I get to Elliot, the judge in the case was saying that one of the things the FDA has not taken into account enough is the psychological effect that taking this drug has on women.
This drug has been around now for some two decades. Is there proof of that? I mean, is what he said accurate? No, not at all.
And I think you can tell from my eye rolling, that's a ridiculous claim. We've got over 20 years of collected data with millions of women who use this medication, millions of people who have used it. And also, lots of really good research. There's a really great powerhouse research coming out of UCSF and they call themselves answer where they really look forward actually at people who were denied abortion care.
And that is the population of people they find who actually have the most psychological damage. Elliot, this allegation of venue shopping in the Texas case, what do you make of it? Oh, and that's real Anderson. Look, there are 93 federal districts in the across the United States of America.
And typically, when a party files, you know, there might be 10 or 15 or however many judges in the district and you're rolling the dice on which judge will ultimately hear and get to decide on a case through a quirk of how courts are apportioned across the country, particularly in this portion of Texas. This judge was the one judge in the one court that could have gotten this case. It was a deliberate, clearly a deliberate choice on the part of the parties here to seek out this judge, quite possibly the most favorable judge on this issue, given sort of a prior history and background there on. So there's no question that not just the forum shopping in the sense of, well, I'd like to file this in the Southern United States before, you know, the Northeastern United States, where I might have a better chance of winning, but specifically seeking out one particular judge and trying to engineer an outcome.
This wasn't many respects, sort of a policy decision in search of a quirk to help effect you. Laura, the FDA is obviously a federal agency. Presumably state legislatures can't intervene in this. No, and remember, look back to the DAW decision.
Remember, a lot of this Pandora's box has been opened, obviously, by the overturning of Roe v Wade. And much of this should have been foreseeable for the nine Supreme Court justices to anticipate what it would look like when you have a patchwork or confusion with respect to what it looks like in terms of a surgical abortion or a medication abortion, a ladder which the doctor spoke about far more common. And so the idea of returning it to the state, which is what the Supreme Court justices said to do, it was the majority said to do. Now you've got this conflict at play, but for those who are watching this from an esoteric notion, legally speaking, the fact that there are two conflicts now, one court saying one thing and another saying another, it generates such confusion that it's a fast track to the Supreme Court to look at these issues.
Now, I don't know if there should be legal optimism with respect to the issue about how they feel about abortion, given the most recent DAW decision, but just take a step back Anderson. The idea that an agency and over the last, not just 20 years, over the last 12 years, engage in higher levels of research to focus on this and about 299 other drugs when you have a whole universe of drugs that are available to focus on the research to look at these particular drugs, including this one in particular. And then to say that it's a judge who has the power to usurp the authority of that agency for the justices who care a great deal, which the Supreme Court has many now, about the idea of administrative law, this is antithetical. And so looking ahead to what they might conclude on that basis, I think there is room to question the longevity of the Texas decision.
Dr. County, I mean, do you have from a medical standpoint, just on the efficacy and the safety of this drug, do you have any concerns about this drug, any qualms about this drug? Because the judge had also raised questions about the FDA saying they hadn't looked at it and women below the age of 18, I think, was one of those comments. No, not at all.
And look, the goal of these anti-abortion extremists, including this judge, has always been to ban completed abortion care. It's not about the safety. This has never been about the safety. This is about finding a way of abortion.
And here, actually, is how that looks. If you ban medication abortion, or if you ban what people associate is the only form of medication abortion, which is not, we'll get back to that, you essentially have all of these states now that have banned surgical abortion, and you've created this chaos where people think that they can't have either medication or now surgical abortion, time goes by and essentially they're trapped. And that's the goal, the goal is to trap them and create chaos and fear. The second point I wanted to make about the medication is that medication abortion is still available.
So even though this medication is potentially going away, it sounds like it's going away, misa-prosto, which is the other or the second medication that we use together is still available, and that is promising. And what do you think the immediate impact of this, assuming seven days goes by and this is actually removed? Chaos. I mean, I think chaos, fear.
I think even talking to highly educated people who consider themselves in the know and who are pro-choice, a lot of people are confused right now. They think that this medication going away, pardon me, means that medication abortion is no longer available. And whereas the most effective and efficient way to do medication abortion will not be available anywhere, we have a regimen in place to do medication abortion with just misa-prosto alone, which is that second medication. What's the difference in, why is that, why is that the secondary, you know, why is that not the one you would first use?
So it requires going back a little bit of history. So in 2000 when the US approved a mythopristone with the FDA, we changed the way we did medication abortion. So we started using both mythopristone and misa-prosto together, and it made the efficacy of abortion just skyrocketed when up to like 95%. If you use just the medication, misa-prosto, you've still got a pretty good chance of having an effective abortion is 85 to 90%.
But remember, there's a lot of countries all over the world who don't have access to mythopristone and use that regimen still. So whereas it may not be as effective, it's still an option. Dr. Ponzi appreciated Laura Coates, Elliot Williams as well.
Thank you. We'll get reaction from New York Democratic Congress when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez next. She joins us live. Vice President Kamala Harris just weighed in on tonight's breaking news of federal judge in Texas and validating FDA approval of mythopristone widely used to draw the medication abortion, speaking at the airport in Nashville, here's her initial response.
So the district court in the abortion medication decision came down today. I haven't read it yet, so I'm going to do an analysis of it. But as a general matter, I'll say that there is no question that the president and I are going to stand with the women of America and do everything we can to ensure that women have the ability to make decisions about their health care, their reproductive health care in a manner that is what they need, and they decide that not their government. More reaction now to that.
And a separate ruling Washington state on the same drug going in the opposite direction, all of it likely headed to the Supreme Court, joining us in New York Democratic Congress when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thinks it would be with us. When you've heard the news this afternoon, a couple hours ago, what did you think? Well, you know, I think rulings like this, and I think we've seen from the effort to the FDA and also from activity in Congress that some of these rulings, I think we've been preparing and anticipating for there being these egregious overreaches by members of the judiciary appointed by a right wing Republican party whose goal for a very long time was to just pack these courts with partisan judges, often under qualified or completely unqualified for their role. And so there has been thought, I believe, given to this, Senator Ron Weiden has already issued statements, for example, advising what we should do in a situation like this, which I concur, which is that I believe that the Biden administration should ignore this ruling.
I think that we, you know, the courts have the legitimacy and they rely on the legitimacy of their rulings. And what they are currently doing is engaged in an unprecedented and dramatic erosion of the legitimacy of the courts. It is the justices themselves through the deeply partisan and unfounded nature of these rulings that are undermining their own enforcement. So what you're saying the Biden administration should ignore this court, but what does that look like?
What does that actually mean? You know, I think the interesting thing when it comes to a ruling is that it relies on enforcement because it is up to the Biden administration to enforce, to choose whether or not to enforce such a ruling. But is that do we want to live in a world where the government can decide to ignore a federal ruling? Well, no, of course.
I mean, I do think that this, that it raises a, these important questions. And I do think that when we look at, and there are serious questions that the FDA and Biden administration is going to have to figure out how exactly we map this out. But on the other hand, what we are also seeing is, is a power grab over our courts in which the laws passed by Congress and the rules and policies passed by the executive branch. Now we're going to require unanimous consent from 650 district court judges, many of which are appointed with even the American Bar Association saying that they're completely unfit for the role.
You know, it is one of the things that a lot of people didn't pay that much attention to during the Trump administration because there were so many bizarre things going on every day. But Mitch McConnell was, you know, getting judges appointed to the bench who were the most conservative judges possible. And they weren't just conservative. They were completely unqualified.
And you know, the American Bar Association, along with many other organizations, they issue recommendations or assessments. Sometimes some of them are nonpartisan about how qualified a candidate may be to be nominated for the bench. And many of them were completely unqualified. And Republicans knowingly put these folks on the bench because they, you know, the federal between nominations with the federal society and other organizations knew that they would get outcomes like these.
And this is an effort to really subvert the will of the American people who elect their legislators and who elect their leaders to enact the policies that they are accountable to. I understand, you know, people having differences of opinions on matters like this, religious differences, whatever it may be. What's interesting to be of this judge though, the arguments he's making, I mean, we just spoke to that physician, the arguments he's making about the medical concerns just do not stand up to the fact. And that is exactly what makes this ruling different.
This is not about a case where a judge is calling balls and strikes on what is within the bounds of law and not, Mythopristone has been legal and in the market for 23 years. And it's not as if there's some new study that has come out and said, oh my gosh, this is actually, this is like someone coming out and a judge just coming out and outline Claridin or Aspirin or Plan B because they felt like it. I mean, the contents of this judge's ruling is frankly shocking and it should be appalling to anyone who practices law because it is so unfounded. It is insulting, I believe, to any profession in the law because it is pure conjecture, pure conjecture as you mentioned.
There is no medical evidence. There is no new study. This is a ruling that happens because they could because they wanted to. So what you see Vice President Harris saying, you know, we're going to do everything we can to stand, you know, to stop this, to stand by, to stand with women, you're saying that they should not, they should just ignore this judge?
I think, I think what we need to see here, and we saw, and there is precedent for this and the precedent for it escalated in the Supreme Court back, you know, 100 years ago when there were these mounting freshers with Ben FDR and the Supreme Court where the Supreme, there was a concern about the Supreme Court truly expanding its reach and abusing its power. And when we have a system of checks and balances, there is the question of who is the check on the Supreme Court. On the presidency, you have the check on Congress through veto power and you have the check on the presidency with overriding. You have the check on both with the Supreme Court ruling in their rulings.
But what is the check on the Supreme Court? And that is up to the president of the United States and Congress. I want to ask you about what we saw in Tennessee last night, three legislators who took part in a protest on the floor of the state house, not with protesters, but now on the actual floor. They had a bullhorn, clearly a violation of the rules of decorum, you know, not something legislators normally do or would, you know, make sense to have legislators do for a good order of actually hearing people's arguments.
That being said, the punishment for two of them was to be expelled. How do you see that? Do you think that really was about the rules of decorum or something else? We know that it absolutely was not.
We know that, and there is precedent for this, you know, while protest is not a normal occurrence on the house floor, it happens all the time. We saw John Lewis lead us sit in on the floor of the United States Congress. You saw the, you know, the unseeming behavior from House Republicans even during the state of the union, yelling and hooting and hollering from the National Republican Party during the president's state of the union. Were these people expelled?
Was there even an ethics, you know, question brought up to this? No, there was not. There was a shush. Right.
And so what we're also seeing here, and there are so many levels before expulsion naturally, there's even censure, there is striking the word, there is. So what was it about? Pardon? What was it about?
I think this is about the fascist takeover of our state houses that Republicans have invested in in the last several decades. This is about a negative abuse of power. This is about disenfranchising, this is about disenfranchising Democrats in a state in states where there is extreme levels of voter suppression. And it was also about racism.
It was deeply about racism. From the comments, the absolutely disrespectful and denigrating comments made to the black members of the Tennessee House, to the fact that these Republicans voted to expel, after charging three of these members, they had spelled two black male legislators and they voted to acquit in a way, or they voted to not expel the sole white woman, Representative Lori Johnson, who has been a phenomenal ally. Who herself raised this issue of race, yes. And they have no defense.
There is no defense and we have not heard any rational explanation for why that is. And it's so important that we recognize this for what it is and that we see this for what it is. Because if we do not, then we will not take the proper actions to stop it. I'm just wondering if you want to talk to Andrew.
I have a question. Thank you. Thank you so much. Coming up, more breaking news on the leak online of classified information in the war in Ukraine, plus escalation in the Middle East, Israel, Prime Minister, orders additional troops, as well as all police, border, reserve units, mobilized by the Labor Party from Tel Aviv.
More breaking news tonight. We have new information related to that leak on social media of screenshots, but apparently classified US and NATO military information in the war in Ukraine. It's now apparently more extensive than originally believed our senior national security correspondent, Alex Markbar joins us. So, Alex, the Department of Justice is now looking into this.
What more are you learning? More than looking into an Anderson, they have officially launched an investigation. We had been told by both the Pentagon and the CIA that they were looking into this possible trove of classified documents, US intelligence documents, NATO intelligence documents that had been leaked online. And now this appears to be escalating significantly, both because DOJ has launched an investigation and also what appears to be online is much more extensive than we initially knew about.
The DOJ spokesperson telling CNN tonight that they have been in touch with the Pentagon. They have officially launched an investigation, but that's really all they are saying. Anderson, the initial trove of documents that I first got at Glimsov last night, was really specific about Ukraine and what's going on in Ukraine. Now, the latest documents, there appear to be dozens more that include much wider ranging subjects like the Wagner-Mercynary Group's presence in Africa, pathways for Israel to provide lethal aid to Ukraine, which is something that they haven't done yet, the ties between the United Arab Emirates and Russia.
And then South Korean concerns about providing ammunition for Ukraine. So, it is a much broader range of issues. The documents that I've seen, Anderson, they clearly say secret and top secret at the top. There are notations that say they shouldn't be shared with foreign countries or only certain countries.
There are maps, there are troop levels, force postures, the types of ammunition that's being used, very specific numbers, Anderson, like a number of American special forces that are in Ukraine. It is not the most sensitive intelligence that is possible. It is certainly something that you can imagine Russia and other adversaries would be interested in. There have been some early speculation that this might be part of a Russian disinformation campaign, because some of the documents did appear to be edited in a way that reduced Russian casualties and raised Ukrainian casualties.
But that speculation appears to be fading as these documents do appear to look more and more real, certainly the Department of Justice, as well as the Pentagon and the CIA taking the seriously. Alright, Alex Markbar, I appreciate the update. And Israel from the Sir Netanyahu tonight ordered the mobilization of all police border reserve units as well as additional troops from the Israeli Defense Forces or IDF. It comes in the wake of a vehicle attack in Tel Aviv, which injured seven people killed one.
All tourists, Israel's foreign ministry is calling it a terror attack. Tensions have been high since nearly three dozen rockets were fired into Israel from southern Lebanon. The first one that had flipped over was reaching for a weapon and then shot that person. So this all of this could have been a lot worse than it actually was.
However, as you can imagine, a lot of people here taking back very much by what happened here tonight. You mentioned all the people who were killed in that incident or the one person was killed, was a tourist. The other ones who were injured also were all tourists as well. Benjamin Netanyahu, by the way, not only mobilizing those border reserves earlier today, he had called on reserves as well for the Air Force and the air defense sector.
And that just gives you an idea about how volatile the situation is in the wake of those Israeli retaliatory strikes that took place. Of course, also in the wake of some of those strikes that come from Gaza as well. It remains a volatile situation, even though the Israelis are saying, it seems on the other side is saying as well, they don't want this to escalate any further Anderson. It's what our officials are saying about next steps.
That's a very good question. They are saying essentially they don't want this to go any further. The Israelis are saying they are prepared for anything that might come next, but right now they're saying they don't want to act any further. In fact, the Israelis have announced tonight that right now, as of right now, as we're speaking here right now, their operation in Gaza and in South Lebanon is over.
They don't intend to fly anymore sorties. Now, of course, that is predicated on no more rockets flying into Israeli territory as well. So what you have on the ground here right now is a very tense calm at the same time the Israelis getting ready for anything that could come. And you do, of course, also have mediation efforts that are going on as well to try and calm the general situation down because, of course, as we've been seeing over this past week and as we've been reporting, of course, on our air as well, there have been several incidences past week that have just escalated the situation further.
We're thinking of, for instance, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Israelis going into that, raiding that, then of course, those strikes coming from Lebanon onto Israeli territories, the Israeli strikes in retaliation. It is generally an extremely volatile situation. It seems though right now, powers here in this region, meteors are trying to generally calm that down somewhat while at the same time the Israelis are saying that they will continue to toe a very hard line. Anderson, I'd like to appreciate it.
Thank you coming up next from Minnesota Democratic Center Amy Klobuchar on today's abortion drug ruling in Texas. Continue to follow the breaking news on a Texas federal judge's spending FDA approval of drug Miffa-Pristone, which has been safely used for decades by millions of women in medication abortions. That competing ruling as well, affecting 12 states from a federal judge in Washington state, just moments ago, attorney General Garland said the Justice Department will appeal the Texas ruling quoting from the statement, quote, today's decision overturns the FDA's expert judgment rendered over two decades that Miffa-Pristone is safe and effective. The department will continue to defend the FDA's decision.
Joining us now by phone is Minnesota Democratic Center Amy Klobuchar, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Klobuchar, I'm wondering what your reaction to the two rulings is, particularly the Texas ruling. This is just a complete shock for women across the nation. This medication abortion is safe.
It was approved as pointed out by the attorney general over 20 years ago. The approval process took four years, yet this judge, a notorious weak conservative judge, Judge Cass Merrick from Texas, he's a same one Anderson who issued the initial decision in the Dobbs case that shredded more than nearly five decades of precedent for protecting women's rights to make her own decision by her health care. He's now said this drug, which is literally used for more than half the abortions in the US. It cannot be used.
Now, he stayed his opinion for one week. So the Justice Department will appeal on behalf of the FDA. They're going to have one week to do that and they go to the Fifth Circuit, notoriously, again, conservative circuit. And then they will decide if it could stay for a longer time.
And if that doesn't work, of course, they go to the Supreme Court. I was talking to Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez earlier in the program. She said she believed the Biden administration should just ignore the Texas ruling. Is that something that you would support?
I believe that in the law, and I think what you're going to see here is an uprising of women across the country that you've already seen, look at what's just happened in Wisconsin. And I think what you do have available is a second drug that is also being challenged, which is slightly less effective. And then you have 12 states. And this is key Anderson.
12 states, which you pointed out, where the court out of Washington State is actually will be opposite. And as far as I know, those 12 states, it's okay. And that includes my state of Minnesota. So once again, you're going to have a patchwork of law.
The hope, of course, is that between these two courts, someone will stay the decision longer than a week. And meanwhile, the Washington court case applies to those 12 other states. It does seem like the judge in Texas focused on what he said were concerns he had about the drugs impact psychologically on women. I talked to a physician earlier in the program who said there's no evidence of that.
In fact, the psychological harm is for women who are trying to get this procedure and are unable to. I mean, does the judge's decision make sense just on the merits of the rule? Not at all. And especially when he said it was rushed, for years available for over two decades.
That is not rushed. Used by in one year alone, half a million women was the way that they accessed abortion care. So this is obviously outrageous. You can see a very strong case on the other side.
And then you have states all over the country. I guess it won't just be these 12 that will also be bringing cases as well. Because as you know, there's still a number of states, including mine, that is an island in the middle of a number of states that ban abortion now that allow for abortion. So I think that his ruling just under the law makes no sense when you look at FDA law.
On the other hand, I don't think we're surprised. Another, you know, Trump appointed judge. You have got these people that Donald Trump put in. You've got Supreme Court that did all it good and that a job's decision to overturn 50 years of precedent.
You've got women and men from Kansas to Alaska telling them, no, we don't agree with it. 70, 80% of the public is with us. So one answer, of course, is to pass the Women's Health Protection Act in Congress. But right now we have a House of Representatives controlled by the Republicans that won't let it through.
Senator Klobuchar, I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Next, the former president's declared a likely primary rival are saying or not saying, as the case may be, about his criminal indictments this week.
Last night, two contenders for the Republican nomination for the president seen to keep Haley and Ron DeSantis had ample opportunity to speak out about the former president also running for the White House. They got a campaign event, did not mention the former president or the indictment. DeSantis never mentioned his name. The criminal charges against the former president appear to have frozen in place any possible attacks against the against him by current or potential presidential opponents.
The Republicans overall spent this historically, the first ever where former presidents had to say not guilty to criminal charges rallying to his side, or at least saying nothing critical about him. So you know, Jeff Zellini has won. They plan to run against him. The winners get to make policy.
The losers go home. And believed Republicans were ready to turn the page. If you're tired of losing, put your trust in a new generation. Yet at the end of a historic week in American politics.
The only crime that I have committed is to fearlessly defend our nation from those who seek to destroy it. Donald Trump's top GOP challengers are suddenly on his side after falling into line and blasting criminal charges against the former president. You see this guy in Manhattan, this district attorney, they're weaponizing the prosecutorial power to advance a political agenda. Maybe it's targeting a politician they don't like.
Republican rivals fear their opening against Trump may have closed a bit. After Manhattan district attorney, Albin Braggs and Diamond on 34 counts. These are felony crimes in New York State. No matter who you are.
You can't get a storm about rage. Even from some of Trump's fiercest critics like Senator Mitt Romney, who called it a dangerous president saying, I believe President Trump's character and conduct make him unfit for office. Even so, I believe the New York prosecutor has stretched to reach felony criminal charges in order to fit a political agenda. With Republican wagons circling around Trump, or at least against his indictment, it's unclear when the window to forcefully challenge his candidacy will open again.
Or who will dare to try. You got a liberal prosecutor that's doing political revenge against a former president. I mean, that's not a precedent that you want to have. Not long ago, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis did tiptoe around a critique of Trump's predicament.
With Stormy Daniels. I don't know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star to secure silence over some type of alleged affair. I just I can't speak to that. Before quickly dropping any references to porn stars and hush money and simply going on the attack against the New York prosecutor.
When asked today whether the indictment influences plans to run, DeSantis answered like this. It's affected me in the sense that it's reinforced this problem we have in our country where we have the political left weaponizing the rule of law actually abandoning the rule of law by weaponizing it and using it's people they don't like. And that needs to stop in this country. And an Orthodox presidential primary becomes even more so.
Advisors to Republican campaigns tell CNN the biggest risk of all is to get crosswise with voters deeply loyal to Trump, who once again is dominating and overshadowing the race. This fake case was brought only to interfere with the upcoming 2024 election. And it should be dropped immediately. Jeff Zeleny CNN Washington.
Joining us now from White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci and CNN senior political comms here at Kinzinger former Republican congressman. Mr. Scaramucci, can you believe? I mean, it's been almost eight years since Donald Trump announced he was running for president and nobody seems to know how to run against him still.
Well, Joe Biden, he knew how to run against him, but he's a different ilk and these Republican politicians and they need to go after him Anderson. If they don't go after him, they're going to lose him. What does that mean to you go after? I mean, how do you think?
Because that, I mean, did Marco Rubio try that? No, it's different. You have to go after him on policy. You have to go after him on character.
You can't call his hands a little. That's just getting in the mud with him. You have to explain to the American people and the Republican party that it's a different country than it was in 2016. It's a totally different demographic and you have to appeal to a wider base of people.
And if you do that, you'll beat him. If you don't do that, it'll be like seven dwarfs up against him and each get three to five percent of the vote. He'll get his requisite 20 to 25 percent he'll win. Congressman Kinsinger, do any of these candidates who have announced so far, do you think they know how to run against him?
Well, I think, you know, Aes is going to take it to him a little bit. No, they don't because the hope right now is just that Donald Trump goes away magically through some guy writing on a unicorn to save the day of which they are the unicorn class. They're just not going to come and do it. That's the hope.
That's the only way they think they can win because if they go after him, you know, if anyone goes after them, they're out. They all have to go after him and they're all not going to do that. Kinsinger, do you think that Nikki Haley, Ron, or Stens? I mean, are they hoping, are they waiting for, you know, other indictments to come that there'll be just a weight of indictments that somehow erode his base support?
Because clearly they don't want to upset the base. Yeah, that's exactly what they're doing. They'll never tell you that. I mean, you'd have to put them on truth here when you get that out of them.
But they're exactly hoping that those further indictments take him out. They're hoping some sweet meteor comes along and changes the political dynamic, but they're not going to take them on because, you know, if you do it alone, you're going to get crushed out of the primary. Everybody has to unionize and do it, but they won't do that. Anthony, what do you think?
What's going to be a sort of a weight of more indictments coming? I mean, if that, will that have an impact? See, I have a different take on all this. I do think that's going to impact him.
It'll be very time consuming. But I think the absence of his family members in this campaign is going to knock him out of the race. He just doesn't do well without them. He ran Trump Organization with them, reality television with them, the White House with them, the 2016 campaign and the 2020 campaign.
They want nothing to do with this campaign Anderson and they were conspicuously absent from the courtroom. So I think it's kind of a hard time. He may not even make it to the Iowa caucuses, not because of anything other than the combination of the lawsuits and the family's absence. It may not be anything to do with the Republican adversaries that he's facing.
So you think he might actually drop out? Well, he would fake an illness or something like that. He would come up with a very clever excuse. But listen, you could hit with two more lawsuits like this, maybe another arrest in arraignment in Georgia and your family's nowhere to be seen and you're somebody like Donald Trump.
It's possible. You can't rule it out. Let's put it that way. Are these people that see him as indestructible at age 78 and he's going to ride himself back into the White House?
I think that's also far-fetched. Congressman Kinsinger, what do you think of that? Yeah, I'm sorry. I was getting some bad audio, so I couldn't catch what you were.
I said there, Anderson. Oh, he said you were a great person, Adam. I said you were a great person. I called that part.
I called that part. And he was saying he thought that Trump might actually just fake an illness or something and ultimately drop out of the race. Oh, I think it'd be great if you, I mean, yeah, I like your theory. I like his theory.
I'm still, I don't know, maybe I've been through this for long enough to just kind of be under the impression that this guy, everybody is just waiting that Donald Trump's going to match week and get out of the race. And we were doing that in 2016 as well. I think it's quite possible. I mean, Anthony knows the family and kind of that dynamics better than I do.
Certainly, it's not going to be from other candidates taking on Donald Trump because you just can't do it. You can't do it and survive in this party. And it's really kind of a bad rap on the party, unfortunately. Yeah.
Adam, I'm considering Anthony Scaramucci. I appreciate you being on. I'm sorry. We got pressed for time and giving all the break and do it.
Thank you so much. That'll be your news continues to see now tonight starts right now. From the descendants of history makers involved in the Louisiana purchase to the Lewis and Clark expedition, discover the untold stories of American expansion in the CNN original series this land premiering June 7 on CNN. Hey, I'm Anderson Cooper.
Unlike podcast, all there is we explore grief and loss in all its complexities. As Ken Burns said on an earlier podcast, the half life of grief is endless. Mrska Hargate knows that very well. Jane Mansfield was killed in a car crash in 1967.
Mrska was in the car with her after decades spent coming to terms with her past and wanting to learn more about the mother she doesn't remember. Mrska has made a remarkable documentary called My Mom Jane. Our vulnerability is our greatest strength and our greatest connector. And so in telling the story, I don't feel vulnerable.
I feel free. We all have a story. And you've never know what somebody else carries. Talking grief, building community.
That's what the podcast is all about. This is all there is. Listen and follow wherever you get your podcast.