0 than 8500. fair to say, pam bozanich is not one of them. >> life in prison for those two is just fine. i hope they live a long, long life. this sunday, the fate of roe v. wade. >> life is so precious, and these babies have a chance now. >> the supreme court signals it's ready to allow an abortion ban at 15 weeks. is it going to weaken or overturn roe v. wade? >> is it really an issue about choice? why is 15 weeks not enough time? >> lawyers defending roe argue that fetal viability should remain the standard. >> mississippi's ban on abortion two months before viability is flatly unconstitutional under decades of precedent. >> and liberal justices warn of damage to the court's reputation. my guests this morning, democratic senator amy klobuchar and republican senator mike braun. plus omicron. >> we're going to fight this variant with science and speed, not chaos and confusion. >> new travel restrictions amid concerns about transmissibility and how effective vaccines will be. >> because of the number of mutations that are seen, the concern is vaccines won't work as well. >> i'll talk to the director of the national institutes of health, dr. francis collins. also, the parents of the boy accused of killing four high school classmates in michigan are themselves charged with involuntarily manslaughter. >> there was absolute reason to believe this individual was dangerous and disturbed. >> they are now in jail for hiding from authorities after failing to appear in court. the entire family behind bars. joining me for insight and analysis are "washington post" white house bureau chief ashley parker, playbook co-author eugene daniels, errin haynes, editor-at-large of the 19th and stephen hayes, founder of the dispatch. welcome to sunday, it's "meet the press." oomz welcome >> announcer: from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. a good sunday morning. we're going to take a look at the supreme court abortion case from two perspectives today, the practical and the political. what was clear from the arguments this past week is a six-vote majority is ready to uphold mississippi's abortion ban at 15 weeks before viability, but what's still at issue is will the court just weaken or fully overturn roe v. wade. more than half the states will make abortion illegal if it's a full overturn, unraveling 50 years of protection of abortion rights in the country. and abortion rights activists will see that the right to win back those votes can be counted in decades, not years. at the same time there are political consequences as well. the case could actually brighten what is a grim outlook right now for democrats in 2022. the court has long been an energizing issue for republican voters. could the neutering of roe now anger energizing democrats and women in general as we head toward the midterm elections? the abortion debate is perhaps the longest running example over an increasingly divided america. none of those divisive issues have the emotional power and relevance of abortion and none so rested on one election. all elections have consequences, but three of the justices ready to undo roe were appointed to the court by president trump, reminding us that the 2016 election will continue to have consequences in american law for decades to come. [ chanting-roe v. wade has got to go ] >> activists are bracing for a new battle over one of the nation's starkest political divides. >> this case is about whether the supreme court is going to adhere to an almost 50-year precedent of respecting the individual liberty to make decisions about pregnancy. >> unborn babies are human beings, and they should be protected as any human being would. >> in arguments on wednesday, chief justice john roberts signaled he might uphold the mississippi law without explicitly overturning roe. >> if it is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time. >> he appeared to be alone as other members of the court's conservative majority went much further. republican senator susan collins has defended her vote for justice brett kavanaugh. >> he noted repeatedly that roe had been upheld by planned parenthood versus casey describing it as precedent on precedent. >> i said that it's settled as a precedent of the supreme court, entitled respect under principles of stare decisis. >> but then -- >> if we think the prior precedents are seriously wrong, if that, why then doesn't the history of this court's practice with respect to those cases tell us that the right answer is actually a return to the position of neutrality? >> on wednesday the democratic appointees on the court tried to appeal to their colleagues' concerns about the court's political standing. >> if people actually believe that it's all political, how will we survive? how will the courts survive? >> a majority of americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. just 32% favor overturning roe. 58% oppose. if roe is overturned, 12 states have explicit trigger laws which would immediately ban abortion. experts say some two dozen states are either certain or very likely to make the procedure illegal, and more could do so. >> what would happen if the supreme court overturned roe for you? >> for us, that would mean that we would be closing within the next 30 days. >> with the future of roe in doubt, the consequences of the 2016 election loom even larger. >> we're going to appoint judges who will support, defend, and uphold the constitution. >> do we want him appointing our judges? >> donald trump cemented his legacy with three new supreme court justices. now the court's decision will come just months before the midterm elections and could reshape a political environment which now favors republicans. >> the reaction to the overturn will be thermonuclear. it is the foreseeable event that has the greatest chance of changing the trajectory of the midterms. >> if you want to see a revolution, go ahead, outlaw roe v. wade. >> joining me now is democratic senator of minnesota, amy klobuchar. you've been on the front lines of the judiciary committee of all the actors inside the supreme court. i want to start with -- i think from your perspective, two potential bad outcomes that may come out of this. i guess the question is which of the bad outcomes in your view would you prefer? a total overturn of roe or what chief justice roberts seems to be hinting at, something that keeps roe in name only or keeps some provision but still allows the 15-week ban. >> okay. first of all, i don't think that's going to happen. it appeared to me listening to that argument that the conservative justices were in a different place than justice roberts, that they clearly are headed toward overturning roe. in either case, even if you go with -- it's a mess. you literally are going to go back to a time if we don't do anything -- we'll get to that in a minute -- you're going to go back to a time of back alley abortions. people are going to be busing from one state to another. 75% of americans believe this decision should be made between a woman and her doctor, 75% of americans. this wasn't a case where the court was going with the changing morays of society. no, they are on their own there. raw political power pushed those new justices onto the court, and this is going to be the outcome. i would agree with your run-up to this. this is going to be about americans standing up to assert their rights. >> you don't believe if they keep -- if they allow the mississippi law to stand within the framework of roe, do you believe that means roe is still relevant case law at that point? >> technically, yes. but in reality what we've seen with these states -- in texas they've literally enacted a law that says neighbors can spy on neighbors and be bounty hunters, going after women for exercising their right for health care. that's not the america that 80% of americans want to see. >> what do you make of justice kavanaugh's argument that the court should be neutral on abortion and essentially saying it should be up to the politicians? i want to point something out. there's really only three countries in the world that have abortion rights that were given to them by the courts. it's us, canada, and mexico. >> pretty significant countries. >> no doubt. most other countries have done it either via their legislatures or via referendum. should this be done that way? does leaving it to the courts put us in a more vulnerable position on this? >> i would turn it the other way. 50 years of precedent, as elena kagan pointed out, 50 years of decisions and court decisions, part of the very fabric of women's existence in this country. this is how our country protected rights. now they're willing to flip it on its head. and so what is the answer? the answer may well be doing it through the political process now. i don't think that's the right thing to do, but it may be the way to do it, and i think the best way to do it is not a patchwork of state laws but to put it -- codify roe v. wade, put it into law, and we even have pro-choice republicans who have signaled interest in doing that. >> i want to put up the minnesota law. i'm curious if you think this is a way to start as a baseline. the restrictions that are most notable in minnesota, which has, i think, the state constitution guarantees a right to abortion in minnesota. state-directed counseling, followed by a 24-hour waiting period, parental notification for minors, and i believe, if i get it right, 24 weeks that you're allowed to have an abortion. is that what you think the federal baseline should be essentially? >> actually i think the federal baseline is the bill we put together, the women's health protection act, which would put roe v. wade into law. minnesota, i'm glad that is in our law. i think we have long believed that people have the choice. we have one of the highest rates of international adoption. that's one choice. another choice is being a mom. an another choice is actually making a decision with your doctor that you're going to terminate a pregnancy. those are choices in our state. but i don't think that having state by state by state, and literally you know very well, chuck, by what we've seen out of texas and alabama, that a huge swath of the country, women are going to be denied that right to make their own choice, and i don't think that's the answer. i think the answer is putting it into federal law. of course, the ultimate answer would be uphold 50g years of precedent and the court doing the right thing. >> all right. this bill needs 60 votes in the senate. is there a way besides getting rid of the filibuster to lower the threshold? could you find a way with medicaid or medicare funding, different ways to make it a 50-vote threshold. >> as you know, we're looking at the rules of the senate right now. in the context of the freedom to vote ability, the bill i lead that has every democrat in the senate supporting it. one of the things we've realized is that -- i would abolish the filibuster. but even if you keep the filibuster in place, over time there have been 160-some carveouts to the filibuster. even robert byrd himself said -- >> how would you change the rule for codifying roe? >> this would be some change to the senate rules and most likely not this particular issue. right now we're really focused on voting rights. it would be a way to put this out there for the american public so that people would be required to be in the chamber and actually debate things and come up with an outcome at some point. because right now, if the republicans want to go into this election, which i think does look at where we're heading, the america people are going to decide do, they want to go with a political party that has gotten them through this pandemic, that has gotten the vaccines out, that believes in science over misinformation on facebook, or are they going to go with a political party that's trampling on the freedom of women's rights, trampling on the freedom to vote, will not reduce to reduce prescription drug costs, will not be there for your child care? there are going to be -- all of this is going to be on the ballot in this election. >> let me ask you about the political ramifications. this is something you said in your campaign about pro-life democrats. take a listen. >> i believe we're a big tent party, and there are pro-life democrats and they are part of our party, and i think we need to build a big tent. i think we need to bring people in instead of shutting them out. >> i think one of the reasons why we had stability on this issue is that in the '70s and '80s, a third of democrats were pro-life, a third of republicans were pro-choice. there was this sort of freeze, if you will. now there's a pretty stark partisan divide. does that make it harder to have pro-life democrats in the party? >> i don't think so. we still have people that come up to me all the time in my state saying i don't agree with you on that issue, but i agree with you on this issue. i still think there's clearly room in our party for pro-life democrats. you also have many people where that is their personal view, but they don't believe they should impose it on other people, that people should make their own choices. my view hasn't changed. what you see changed is the supreme court in a dramatic fashion. when raw politics got these justices on and you see the raw political outcome. >> i've always been open to looking at the numbers of justices on the court, but i think the most sane route would be to bring this up before the u.s. senate to codify roe v. wade into law. >> is that something you think is a debate that will happen sooner rather than later or wait until june? >> let's see what the court does first. >> senator amy klobuchar. democrat from minnesota. >> it was great to be on, chuck. thank you. >> thanks very much. joining me from the other side of the aisle is senator mike braun of indiana. welcome back to "meet the press," sir. >> my pleasure, chuck. >> let me start -- i'm going to start with the abortion laws in your home state. some of the most -- some would argue some are somewhat restrict irv from the perspective of someone seeking an abortion. in indiana there's state-directed in-person counseling, no tell medicine, a one-hour waiting period, physical exam, and ultrasound, parental consent for minors, the ban begins at 22 weeks, two weeks shorter than many other states that are at 4. you said you're 100% pro-life. is the law in indiana in your view strong enough to support your pro-life position? >> chuck, i think it begs the question in general whether our state is where it needs to be, whether mississippi, new york, illinois. you hit it on the head earlier, political or practical. when it comes to issues like this that divide our country in a way to where we're never going to get the 60 votes on any of this stuff, i think the practical solution is, when it's not enumerated, return it to the states. the beauty of our system is that it's federal. it's got all these different ideas. when you try to nationalize, federalize the way the other side of the aisle is doing on more than just this, i think you're constantly in that area of contention, and when i got here three years ago, of course, we've gone through two impeachments, through the biggest health care crisis. a lot of these issues don't even get discussed like the high cost of health care, maybe climate, maybe budgeting, how do we pay for all this? when it comes to things like abortion, i think it's clear it's time to turn it back to the states, let the diversity of this country show forth. it eliminates a lot of the contention to where we become the hatfields and mccoys on many of these issues. >> when do you believe abortion should be available? you're going to have to vote on these issues. every elected official in this country is going to have to state very specifically -- a lot of times elected officials have been able to hind behind row, either you're for it or against it. so in your view, when should abortion be legal or be available? >> in my case when you believe in the sanctity of life, you want abortions to be eliminated from the landscape if you can. you're also in the context of reasonability. the fact is, regardless of any one individual, maybe in the point of view of mine or amy's, you're not going to settle it in a homogenized way. that needs to reflect itself throughout the states -- what everyone's opinion is, whatever you're trying to do politically, why try to do it at the national level? we generally don't do things well here anyway. on something as contentious as this, it seems like it would make common sense, it would be practical, not political, to send it back to the states and let every state do what they want to do and live with it, and if you don't like it, then go to work within those legislatures. it was never enumerated in the constitution that this would be something that would be done at the federal level. and it takes the decibel level, the caustic nature of politics as we see it here in d.c., takes it to another place. >> i understand. you don't believe, though, this should be a baseline protection of a woman being able to have access to abortion. you don't believe there should be any baseline protection for that. >> i think it's a difference, again, without the specificity of this issue, is when you come down to things like this, why you want to nationalize that in, say, your bill of rights, so to speak. it was never intended. when you have a judicial ruling like occurred back in '73 and '92, that was a judicial ruling. now it's being said to be constitutional. and that's where you get into the contention, into the highly vitriolic nature of politics, and i think that ought to be the domain of the states. that's the way the constitution intended it to be. >> so you want to see a ban on abortion. how would you enforce a ban on abortion? >> you're going to leave that up to the individual states. you might find that right mix. i'm not saying we got it right in indiana. i'm saying it's not right in new york. maybe you find that happy medium, that place -- >> what's your idea? >> -- where more people will say -- >> what's your idea? >> my idea is with what's happened with technology, when you look at all the things we know now about the unborn, it needs to be different, different from where it is. i don't have the silver bullet. i don't intend to put it out there. i just think you've got a better idea of getting where you need to be, not trying to homogenize it at the national level. >> it sounds like you're uncomfortable figuring out how to enforce the ban. i think that's the question, would you criminalize abortion? >> i'm perfectly comfortable with doing it, just not at the level where everybody has got to live with the same thing. when you talk about criminalizing it, then all you're doing is taking this to a logical extreme that you'll never get to anyway. we just need to take it off of where it is, send it back to the states. let's find that right way to address it. this applies to many other issues as well. >> well, i want to ask -- one of the issues -- look, i originally invited you on to talk about the vaccine mandate. you're a vigorous opponent of the federal government's private sector vaccine mandate. you're worried about the liberty of the unvaccinated. what about the liberty of a woman who doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term? why should the government force that? you don't want the government to force people to get a vaccine. you're essentially advocating for the government to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term that she may not want to do. >> you might try to create that as an issue of equivalency. i don't. in this case of a vaccine mandate -- i think clearly the turf i chose to pursue would be doin