"the reidout" with joy reid starts now. tonight on "the reidout" -- >> look, the role of the congress and the role of the vice president on that day is to open and count electoral votes, no more, no less. i will always believe by god's grace i did my duty that day. >> but there was more to it than that. there's new reporting that mike pence seriously considered shirking that solemn duty and skipping the january 6th electoral vote certification. also tonight, russia extends the detention of american journalist evan girsh kovich and is seeking to prosecutor another journalist. plus, honoring the life of former first lady rosalynn carter, a tribute service is attended by all the living first ladies. and three presidents including her beloved husband of 77 years. former president jimmy carter. >> but we begin tonight with new reporting about january 6th that may help explain a lingering mystery in the lead-up to that day. just one day before then vice president mike pence was to preside over the electoral college vote count, the president protemper of the senate, republican chuck grassley, set off quite the controversy when he indicated that he might in fact preside over the count after being asked by reporters how he was going to vote on the election certification. quote, well, first of all, i will be -- if the vice president isn't there, and we don't expect him to be there, i will be presiding over the senate. grassley's office was quick to claim that the senator's comment was being mischaracterized, thattee only meant that he would preside over the debate in the senate if pence had to step -- if mike pence had to step out, not preside over the certification in the joint session. given the mounting pressure pence was facing from trump and the rest of the maga world to buck the constitution in order to keep his boss in office, it would not be out of the realm of possibility for pence to step aside that day. but he ultimately presiding on january 6th, even as donald trump was simultaneously inciting the violent maga mob that was fighting to get into the capitol, the same mob that was chanting this about trump's vice president. [ chanting bring out pence ] [ chanting hang mike pence ] >> but it turns out pence did have second thoughts about showing up that day. aby news is reporting new details of what pence told jack smith's team earlier this year. including about one of pence's notes they obtained showing on christmas eve, he was ready to step aside from his ceremonial role. quote, not feeling like i should attend electoral count. too many questions, too many doubts, too hurtful to my friend. therefore, i'm not going to participate in certification of election. apparently, it was only when his son, who is a marine, told him across the dinner table that they both took the same oath to support and defend the constitution, that pence decided he would preside, even under the mounting pressure from trump, according to sources familiar. abc news added sources said that investigators questioning became so granular at times that they pressed pence over the placement of a comma in his book, when recounting a phone call with trump on christmas day, 2020. pence wrote in his book that he told trump, you know comma i don't think i have the authority to change the outcome of the election on january 6th, but pence allegedly told smith's investigators that the comma should have never been placed there, according to sources, pence told smith's investigators that he actually meant to write in his book that he admonished strump, saying you know i don't have the authority to change the outcome. suggesting trump was well aware of the limitations of pence's authority days before january 6th. the line smith includes in his indictment. the sources also said pence told investigators in the days leading up to january 6th that he was sure that he told trump he still hadn't seen evidence of significant election fraud. but trump was unmoved, having surrounded himself with, quote, crank attorneys espousing un-american legal theories. joining me now is barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney, professor at the university of michigan school of law, and msnbc legal analyst. and matthew dowd, political strategist and msnbc senior political analyst. thank you for being here. barb, the question of a comma, a comma, this is why i love language, because there's a big difference between, you know, i don't have this authority. and you know i don't have this authority. so what do you make of these sort of details which are emerging from what pence has told jack smith's team? >> yeah, it's like my dearest angelica, is there a comma or not? it changes everything about the meaning. here, is it a throw away line of just, you know, i don't have authority. or you know i don't have authority. i think that matters. because it is an acknowledgment between pence and trump that pence never had the authority to do what donald trump claimed that he did. so i think it's a really important point. and it's refreshing, i think, that mike pence is providing helpful, sounds like truthful information that can be helpful to the prosecution in this case. i imagine when this trial ultimately happens, joy, we're going to hear details we have never heard before. and they're going to be things like this, things about private conversations that were had between donald trump and others, that will be bone chilling. >> yeah, and pence will be a star witness. let me play for you, matthew, mike pence. he gets a lot of credit for saying things like this and even saying it to maga supporters. take a listen. >> i swore an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states of america. and it ended with a prayer. so help me god. my son, who is a captain in the united states marine corps reminded me one time that it's the exact same oath he took. there's almost no idea more un-american than the notion that any one person could pick the american president. people deserve to know that on that day, the former president asked me to choose him over my oath to the constitution. i chose the constitution, and i always will. >> except, matthew, that we now know from pence's own testimony to jack smith that he considered staying home and letting chuck grassley presumably do what he would not. your thoughts. >> i find so much of this fascinating. first, you know, i don't think mike pence -- i'm glad he's telling the truth, but all of this is an indictment on both donald trump and what he was doing and mike pence and what he was not doing. not only was he not saying anything publicly, which we all know at the time, but also his deliberation sounded like he was ready to do what donald trump wanted and then there's a reported meeting between him and his son where his son says, what are you talking about, dad? i took an oath, you took an oath. you better stick up for the constitution. then there's this other, which i find very weird line that mike pence says, but something like but he's my friend. but we're friends. some line where he says, friends, that to me sounds not like somebody that's in the middle of a constitutional crisis, but somebody that's in fourth grade wondering whether or not he should give valentines to the whole class. i don't know, should i give valentines to suzy and bill? not like, oh, there's a major constitutional crisis. i'm worried about my friend, donald trump, in this. so to me, i think barb's right. we're going to learn a lot more. every time we go through these things we think we know everything, and we learn more in this. i think mike pence's testimony is incredibly an indictment of donald trump but it's also an indictment of mike pence. >> it is a statement about the weakness of the republican party writ large, that they hem and haw. he had to go to a former vice president to ask, can i really do this? no. this is not considered one of the genius former vice presidents. not a smarty. go ahead. >> if dan quayle is giving you fiber in your backbone, you have a problem. >> can't even spell potato. because the question i guess for you, barb, is whether mike pence's reluctance to follow the constitution, even though he ultimately did, hireluctance, it's just a ceremonial job, his reluctance to do that and not turn it over to chuck grassley, does that make him a better witness or a worse witness? and hold that thought while you think about that. i want to play for you one of the things i thought was the most compelling from the january 6th hearings. and it was the story of what happened when mike pence actually finally did make the decision ultimately that he would do his job, his ceremonial job. here is greg jacob, this was pence's attorney, describing that pence was afraid to get into a car with secret service agents he didn't know. >> i understood that the vice president had refused to get into the car. the head of his secret service you, we're not going to drive out of the building without your permission. the vice president said something to the effect of, tim, i know you. i trust you. but you're not the one behind the wheel. and the vice president did not want to take any chance that the world would see the vice president of the united states fleeing the united states capitol. >> barb, does his hemming and hawing but ultimately doing what he was required by the constitution do make him a better witness or make him impeachable by the defense? >> i think it makes him a less likable witness for the jury, but as the government will often say with cooperators or associates of defendants, you don't have to like the witness to believe him. so i think, you know, people have flaws. cases have flaws. and i think what matters most is when someone is truthful. so i think admitting these flaws makes him believable. and is just as incriminating as it would be otherwise. >> i want to ask you both about mark meadows but i want to start with you, barb. mark meadows ain't getting a plea deal. moving to the other january 6th case in fulton county. fani willis is like no, no plea deal for you, no plea deal for giuliani, clearly no plea deal for trump. what do you make of that? because mark meadows, we had lawyers of the show who said if there was one person they would want to spill all the beans, it would be meadows. what do you make of the fact he ain't getting one, at least not from fani willis? >> it's really interesting, especially in light of the way he's been treated by federal prosecutors. he's not really included in that indictment among the unindicted coconspirators. i think his description was very significant in its absence which caused me to believe at the time that he was cooperating in the federal case. it's a very odd posture to cooperate in one forum and not the other, because you're really sort of working across purposes for yourself. but i don't know, it is a typical prosecutor's strategy to use the lower level offenders to go after the higher level offenders. being the chief of staff to the president is a pretty high level offender. >> i want to put up the cameneder for next year, which is going to be a dumpster fire for us all. don't make any plans. there it is. matthew, we have got everything all mixed together. donald trump is facing civil cases for alleged sexual assault, you have the iowa caucuses, then that's mixed in with his federal cases, super tuesday, it's all mixed in. the political calendar and his legal calendar. this is coming at a time where everyone involved in these cases against trump are facing just extraordinary threats. the threat environment is high. fani willis has faced them, the poor clerk in this new york fraud case has faced just abominable, unending threats, while the gag orders are lifted. how bad is it going to get next year in your view? i think it's going to be rough, but matthew, how bad do you think it's going to get? >> you mean for you, me, and barbara? >> just for us. make it about us. no, for the country. it's hard for me to imagine having all of these things happening at once. how bad do you think it will get for the country? >> awful. i don't think we have ever seen this kind of convergence between a former president running for office again in the midst of multiple trials held simultaneously while he wins primaries and caucuses. the people running against him, nikki haley and whatever, i think what's going to end up happening is he's going to have momentum. he'll win iowa, win new hampshire, win south carolina, and he'll basically all but be the nominee, and basically be there, and then he's going to get convicted before he goes to the rnc convention in july. so he'll be the nominee, but be a convicted nominee in the midst of this, and then we'll be headed to a general election with the nominee of a major political party convicted at least in one court if not in two different courts in this time. a convicted felon running for president under the republican party. we have never in my life have ever seen a calendar that will unfold in that manner. but it also is, it's going to be so weird while this is going on, republican voters voting for him to be the nominee of the party as he's convicted. >> it is -- but it's not -- it's not as if it hasn't ever happened, right? israel has a current sitting prime minister who is indicted along with his wife for crimes, and still got the job. and his behavior is sort of speaks to the desperation of when you are in a corner. and look, fear for the future, but scaring is caring. barbara mcquade, matthew dowd, thank you both very much. up next on "the reidout," a temporary truce in gaza extends into day five as more hostages are released and the white house pushes to extend it even longer. "the reidout" continues after this. disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. arexvy does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients. those with weakened immune systems may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects are injection site pain, fatigue, muscle pain, headache, and joint pain. i chose arexvy. rsv? make it arexvy. another breakthrough day in the fragile and fluid hostages for prisoners exchange between israel and hamas. ten israeli hostages and two thai hostages returned to israeli territory today. here are some of them in photos that were released today. in exchange for this latest group, 30 palestinian detainees were returned home. we have reached day five of the extended pause between israel and hamas. cia director william burns arrived in qatar tod to meet with israel's spy chief and qatar's prime minister. per "the washington post," the quote, secret meetings are aimed at brokering an expansive deal between israel and hamas. the humanitarian situation remains catastrophic in gaza. where health officials say the death toll has surpassed 14,500. after weeks of israeli attacks. israel has vowed to resume its assault on hamas once the hostage releases end. joining me now is omer, professor of holocaust and genocide studies at brown university. professor, i was very excited when my producers told me, i asked if they could see if you would come on the show, and they said you would. so thank you for being here. i read your very brilliant piece, which i have printed out here and have marked up extensively so no one can borrow it. i want to go through a few of the things you said and i'm going to post it on threads. so people can read it. you said that when october 7 happened, as somebody who is from israel yourself, who fought in the 1973 war, you're a veteran of the israeli military. you were shocked but you were not surprised. why? >> well, i was shocked, first of all, thank you for having me on your show. it's really a pleasure. i was shocked because it was so atrocious. the killings were so terrible and the extent of it was so extraordinary. but i was not surprised because as i write there, if you keep people under siege for 16 years without any hope, without proper sanitation, without proper education, with very heavy unemployment, a place where they cannot leave, it becomes a pressure cooker. and people will want to break out. and people will be brutalized by that situation. and in a sense, hamas, which is a terrorist organization, was making use of that. and immobilizing that rage, that frustration, and so at some point, something had to break, and so i was not surprised that it happened although it was shocking to see. >> you have also disputed some of the sort of characterizations of what's happened. this has been called a pogrom. it is the worst attack on israel since, you know, i think in its existence in terms of the number of dead since 1948. it's obviously being described as their 9/11. but you have said some of the characterizations are not accurate. explain what you mean. >> well, some people have called it a pogrom. and a pogrom is something that happens, started happening really in the late 19th century, these were attacks by mobs on jewish communities. and jews in southern russia and ukraine were living there as minorities, and the mobs were part of the majority population. sometimes assisted by the authorities. and so the police, the army was on the side of the mobs. and the whole idea of zionism was to create a jewish state, a jewish majority state where the police would be jewish, the army would be jewish, and therefore, pogroms wouldn't happen. what happened on october 7th was a terrorist attack. calling it a pogrom and sort of contextualizing it that way, what it means is this was an anti-semitic attack. therefore, what do you do with anti-semites if they attack you? then you have to attack them back, there's no talking with them. that's part of how the israeli government wants to frame this whole thing, that is to present it as something that these people just want to destroy us. we can't talk with them. we have to either remove them or put them behind a fence. and so i think to call it a pogrom is a little like calling 9/11 a pogrom. it was a terrorist attack, not a pogrom. >> what do you make of the fact they are talking to them now? i mean, you know, the israeli press, they have been clear that benjamin netanyahu has seen hamas as useful in some ways and that the worse they are, the worse they behave, the more he can point to them and say see, that's why they'll never be a palestinian state. he's again saying those kinds of things. there won't be a palestinian state under his watch, that he can manage the american public opinion, et cetera. he's also made it very clear that they want to continue this war and they would go back to bombing to eradicate hamas. you have cast doubt on whether that can happen. why? whether hamas can be eradicated. >> well, look, i mean, i think hamas is both a terrorist organization, a social movement, and the political and military hedge amaund in gaza. it's a belief. i do think it could be removed from gaza. i don't think what propels it, what it feeds on can be easily removed. in order to remove hamas, in order to solve the situation, what you need is to change the political paradigm. what you need to say is that the state of israel after the october 7th attack has understood it can no longer manage the conflict, which is exactly what netanyahu has been saying for 20 years. we will manage the conflict, and the conflict is not manageable. the conflict has to be solved. that was shown on october 7th. in a horrific way, but that was shown. to change the paradigm, i think hamas is not a good partner for negotiations. it would be very good to see hamas gone. but the israeli government is also not a good partner for negotiations because netanyahu and the people to his right who are very extreme do not want any settlement. what they want is really if they could, to remove the population of gaza from gaza, to make them into refugees elsewhere, maybe taken for humanitarian reasons into other countries, and to gradually ethnically cleanse the west bank and settle there too. that will not happen. there's 7 million palestinians living in areas controlled by israel, and 7 million jews. it's 50/50. they have to learn to live together, and they have to find a way of doing that. and the netanyahu regime will never agree to that, so in the long run, the way to stop this war is to change the entire political paradigm and look to a different future. >> we are out of time -- i wish we can have you back. can you please come back? i want to talk to you longer. we're out of time. if you'll come back, we'll have part two of this conversation. professor, thank you very much. and hopefully we'll see you again soon. coming up next, with the world's attention on the middle east, russia ramps up its crackdown on domestic dissent with a case against masha gessen who joins me next. who joins me next. i was a bit nervous at first but then i figured it's just walking, right? [dog barks] oh. no it's just a bunny! calm down taco. sit duchess. stop! sesame no no. archie! walter don't, no, ahhhh. ahhhhh! you're lucky you're so cute. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪ when you have chronic kidney disease... ...there are places you'd like to be. like here. and here. not so much here. farxiga reduces the risk of kidney failure which can lead to dialysis. ♪far-xi-ga♪ farxiga can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, urinary tract or genital yeast infections, and low blood sugar. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. when you have chronic kidney disease, it's time to ask your doctor for farxiga. because there are places you want to be. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. ♪far-xi-ga♪ at bombas we make the comfiest socks, underwear, and t-shirts that feel good and most of all do good. because when you purchase one, we donate one to those in need. visit bombas.com and get 20% off your first purchase. bombas. give the good. with everything that's going on in the world, we should not turn a blind eye to the other major war western news media were covering relentlessly overseas for a time, namely, russia's war in ukraine. this weekend, russia launched its largest drone attack on ukraine since the war began, targeting the capital city of kyiv. several buildings were damaged including a kindergarten. russia's crackdown on anyone who criticizes or questioned the kremlin is also ongoing. today, the detention of evan gershkovich was extended for a third time, until at least january 30th. he's been in a russian jail for nine months on charges of spying, which he, the journal, and the state department all deny. russia has now also opened a criminal case against russian american journalist masha gessen, who is a writer for the new yorker. accusing them of spreading knowingly false information about atrocities committed by russian soldiers in ukraine. in a recent interview, guessen discussed a reporting trip to several ukrainian cities to document potential war crimes in the first months of the war. specifically, the brutal killings of civilians in bucha in march of 2022. joining me is masha gessen, staff writer for the new yorker, and author of the book "surviving autocracy." and i like to say friend of the show as well. masha, thank you for being here. i want to get your initial reaction when you heard the news that russia had opened this prosecution against you. >> well, i'm one of several hundred people who are persecuted in this way by the russian state. so my reaction is double edged. on the one hand, it's a badge of honor, a sort of recognition of my work. on the other hand, it's disappointing. it's saddening, and it's maddening. and it will make work harder because there are a number of places in the world that i will no longer be able to go. >> right, and that's what i wanted to get into next, how this pragmatically impacts your journalism. you have done some phenomenal reporting being able to go to ukraine and see the atrocities and write about them from a first-hand point of view as a journalist. how limiting will this be in terms of your ability to do your job? >> well, first, i want to say that i'm one of 245 people who have so far been charged under this war time law that bans knowingly spreading false information about the russian armed forces. and a majority of those people who have been charged under this law are in russia and have gone to prison for many years. this law provides for punishment of up to 15 years behind bars, and most people are getting between 6 and 9 years in prison. but i'm also one of several who are outside the country and obviously have no intention of going back into the country just to be arrested. i don't think i will have any issues with going to ukraine, at least not because of this particular search warrant that's coming out to get me. but the problem is that there are people who are arrested in absentia as i'm about to be, and later sentenced in absentia which i will surely also be. the problem is you always have to keep track of which countries have extradition treaties with russia. so for example, one conflict i have covered and that i would have liked to continue covering is the war between azerbaijan and armenia. a hugely important conflict in that part of the world. i don't think i'll be able to go back to either of those countries, certainly for the foreseeable future. and then there are places, weird places like indonesia, which has a new extradition treaty with russia. and on and on. many countries of the south will probably now be closed to me. >> right, and that is one of the things, we did a piece last week about the way the global south is sort of turning away from the west and in some cases toward china and toward russia. what do you make of the fact that they are being so aggressive about trying to tamp down stories like the ones we're reading, about soldiers, russian soldiers, their texts indicating they want out, they're disillusioned with the war, they don't believe in the cause, they're questioning why they're there. obviously, that is concerning to the kremlin because the truth doesn't help them. but is it an indication for you of their weakness? another friend of the show also jailed. i presume under the same law or something similar. is this a statement of weakness in your view in the kremlin's point of view? or in the kremlin's position. >> he's actually jailed, i think, a 20-year sentence for high treason. and he's in extremely poor health, having been poisoned by russia twice. so i think we're all very concerned for him. he's a dual british/russian national, but that has not kept him safe. he was arrested in russia. i don't see this as a sign of weakness. i don't think that the terror machine is particularly smart. i don't think it listens to what the heart or the mind of the country is telling it. it's not reacting to the state of the country. once it started, it just keeps rolling, and it keeps rolling over more and more people. that's the only way that political terror can work. that said, obviously, russian authorities are terrified of any kind of protest. i think disproportionately terrified, which unfortunately helps keep the regime stable because it overestimates any risk that comes at it from the inside. >> right, and there were protests in the early days of the ukraine invasion. you saw russians ing the streets getting arrested for protesting against the war. has that been sustained? and are you surprised at how durable the conflict has been in ukraine, given the fact it is clear they cannot conquer that country? >> well, there have been 20,000 arrests or almost 20,000 arrests for protesting the war in ukraine. so this doesn't include the people who i have mentioned who are in prison for high treason or for spreading supposedly false information. but just protests, is about 20,000 people. i'm amazed there are 20,000 people in russia who risk arrest, who risk years and years in jail, as for example, artists just sentenced to seven years in prison for this very artistic and very tiny protest. she changed out five little price tags in a food shop for tiny little informational flyers about the war in ukraine. so first of all, even though obviously it's not enough to stop the war, but i'm so impressed and so in awe of the people who keep protesting. >> go on. >> unfortunately, i'm not surprised russia has been able to maintain the war in ukraine. in part because putin has no way to turn back. but in part because he doesn't need to. because the value of human life in that country is nothing. because he can turn the entire population into cannon fodder if he wants to. and unfortunately, i don't think that there are any conditions under which he could leave resistance in turning people into cannon fodder. >> it is a terrifying reality, and the bravery of the russian people who have tried to stand up to is is remarkable. your bravery is remarkable as well. we value you so much and your voice. please stay safe. thank you. >> thank you. coming up, the texas supreme court hears arguments in a lawsuit challenging the state's draconian abortion ban. amanda zurauvsky, the lead plaintiff in that case, joins me next. ins me next - "best thing i've ever done." that's what freddie told me. - it was the best thing i've ever done, and- - really? - yes, without a doubt! - i don't have any anxiety about money anymore. - great people. different people, that's for sure, and all of them had different reasons for getting a reverse mortgage, but you know what, they all felt the same about two things: they all loved their home, and they all wanted to stay in that home. and they all wanted to stay in that home. - [announcer] if you're 62 or older and own your home, you could access your equity to improve your lifestyle. a reverse mortgage loan eliminates your monthly mortgage payments and puts tax-free cash in your pocket. call the number on your screen. - why don't you call aag... and find out what a reverse mortgage can mean for you? - [announcer] call right now to receive your free no-obligation info kit. call the number on your screen. ♪♪ we're not writers, but we help you shape your financial story. ♪♪ we're not an airline, but our network connects global businesses across nearly 160 markets. ♪♪ we're not a startup, but our innovation labs use new technologies to help keep your information secure. ♪♪ we're not architects, but we help build stronger communities. ♪♪ we're not just any bank. we are citi. ♪♪ heard arguments today on whether the state's abortion bans hurt women with complicated pregnancies. as part of an ongoing lawsuit filed by a group of texas women who say they were denied abortions despite grave risks to their own lives or to their fetuses. a lawyer for the center for reproductive rights which filed the suit on behalf of the women and two doctors say the bans have left doctors confused about what care they can provide. >> the abortion bans as they exist today subject physicians like my clients to the most extreme penalties imaginable. life in prison, and loss of their medical license. and while there is technically a medical exception to the bans, no one knows what it means, and the state won't tell us. >> in august, the lower court judge temporarily exempted women with medically complicated pregnancies from the state's abortion bans. texas attorney general ken paxton immediately appealed that decision. today, a prosecutor for the state argued that 20 women and 2 doctors suing the state lack the ability to seek clarity since it would only apply to hypothetical scenarios. but the attorney for the women said the women suing said the effects of the texas ban are already quite clear. citing the situation faced by the lead plaintiff, amanda zarowski. >> we're not talking about hypothetical harms. these are real patients, many of whom are sitting in the courtroom today. and for example, ms. zarowski became septic while waiting to become sick enough to receive abortion care and she had multiple surgeries to reconstruct her uterus and now her fertility is compromised. >> joining me now is amanda zarowski. good to see you. the last time i saw you, there were five plaintiffs, now there are 20 plus 2 doctors. that is not surprising. that was the expected outcome that more women would be harmed. i want you to listen to one the arguments that was made, which to me was astounding. an attempt to deny that you and your 19 coplaintiffs have standing to bring this suit. take a listen. >> your position is that in order to seek the kind of clarity that these plaintiffs are seeking, you have to have a woman who has some -- who is pregnant, who has some health condition that she believes places her life at risk or impairment to a major bodily function, but her doctor says i don't think it does, and she has to then sue the doctor and maybe the attorney general. at that point, and then she would have standing? >> i don't know if that would be the only circumstance, but you would at least then know that the law is the problem and not the doctor refusing to perform an abortion. >> amanda, the judge seemed a bit confused by it, as am i. your thoughts on that argument. >> everyone was confused by this, right? the claim in and of itself, the audacity to say essentially that a pregnant patient would have to be in some sort of dire situation in the middle of this situation to have standing is just absurd. in my particular situation, what that would have meant is while my amniotic fluid was running down by leg, that's when i would have been able to pursue legal action, but in my case, i went septic hours later. so i would have died in court trying to fight. and that's what the state is saying i should have done? it doesn't make sense. >> it sounds like they're saying as you said, if you were in that catastrophic situation, which you could die from, you would have to take the time to first sue your doctor, and then only after that, you could sue over the law. that seems nonsensical, and it also sounds like the state of texas is saying that women need to come near to death before they can get relief. >> that's exactly what the sounds like they're saying. and it sounds to me like they would want me to essentially die trying before they'll admit that i was harmed. >> can you sort of sort through -- we're not trying you to be a psychiatrist for the men who run your state and i guess the woman who was part of the prosecution there, but it sounds as if the state >> you must attempt to give birth or die, and women don't have any other choice but that. no matter what the circumstance, you give birth or die, and they really won't allow any other option. am i over reading that? >> i can't begin to get into the minds of the lawmakers in my state. i certainly wouldn't want to. but i don't think you are overreaching. we have plaintiffs on the case who have nonviolent pregnancies or who had babies who were not going to survive, i do they still said that that is something that should have happened and they should have to carry to term, regardless of the outcome or the eventual outcome of that child's life. >> have you seen, in the state of texas, any sort of genuine political backlash? one of the things that has surprised me is the lack of political backlash in states like texas and georgia where they have six-week abortion bans or missouri where they have total abortion bans. whereas in states that are proposing the opportunity to protect abortion rights, there is an outgrowth of women from all political parties rushing out saying no, no, i want to protect myself. but the backlash piece in states that have already done it, do you see it in the state of texas? >> i think we are seeing it. i just think it's a long game. it's a hard battle to win and it's going to take a long time. i think we know that. but i think we see it happening. i think the midterm elections last year, we saw some of those margins shrink and we're just going to have chipping away. we know we're not gonna be able to change it overnight. overturning of roe was a 50-year war and hopefully this one won't be quite so long but we think it will take time. >> it is a cautionary tale that we must not give up our hired one writes easily simply by electing the wrong united states senators and presidents. it can take, as you say, decades to get them back. your fellow plaintiffs, how are they doing? how are people's spirits in terms of this lawsuit? >> it's a good question. i think we're all over the board in terms of where we are personally. i think as far as the lawsuit specifically, we are very encouraged. i think we're optimistic. i think we are very hopeful. no matter what happens with our lawsuit, i think it's a win-win situation because if the state of texas does not side with us, if the supreme court doesn't agree with us, i think all of that is going to do is going to create an enormous amount of outrage, which is just fuel for the fire and more motivation to keep fighting. if they do side with, us obviously a win is a win and that is great. i think we are very optimistic and we are seeing action similar to what is going on in texas going on in other states, and that's so encouraging. that's what it's going to take. we all have to fight on all fronts. >> women of america, control of your state legislature, control of the governorship, and deciding who is in the senate. it could be literally a matter of life and death and autonomy for you. amanda zurawski, you're very brave, and i'm so glad you're in this fight. wishing you the best of luck in your lawsuit. thank you. >> thank you. thanks for having me. >> cheers. and coming up, president biden, former president and first ladies gather and alleged to pay their respects to former first lady roslyn carter. that's next. lady roslyn carter that's next. >> >> today the life first lady rosalynn carter was honored a beautiful memorial service in atlanta. former president jimmy carter, who was 99 years old, and who has been in hospice for months, attended, as well as all the living first ladies and presidents biden and clinton. mrs. carter was remembered for her love of family enter tireless dedication to public service. >> my mother, rosalynn carter, was the first the most beautiful woman i've ever met, and pretty to look at as well. >> she did so much, worked so hard throughout her entire life. at the white house, and in the many years before and since, championing the rights of the underserved, coming into the aid of the most vulnerable, doing whatever she could to him prove the lives of others. without rosalynn carter i don't think there would've been a president carter. >> my grandmother doesn't need a eulogy, her life was a sermon. >> since her father wasn't able to speak, daughter amy carter read from a love letter he sand rosalynn 75 years ago while serving in the navy. >> my darling, every time i have ever been away from you i have been thrilled when i returned to discover just how wonderful you wire. while i am away, i try to convince myself that you are not, could not be a sweet and beautiful as i remember, but when i see you i fall in love with you all over again. does that seem strange to you? it doesn't to me? goodbye, darling. until tomorrow, jimmy. >> a love story