superstar, caitlin clark. just after becoming the highest scoring women's basketball player ball time, she is now the highest selling college athlete man or woman on the sports apparel site fanatic. nike has even put up a massive billboard of clark, right in the heart of new york city next to madison square garden. so, congratulations to caitlin and beyonci on their history making achievement. we see you. we appreciate you. and we are grateful for all of your hard work and showing your supreme talent with all of us. and on that note, i wish you a very, very good night. from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news, thanks for staying up late with me. i'll see you at the end of tomorrow. you at the end of tomorrow. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> so if you've been following the news at all over the last

few days, you may be surprised to learn that the effort to impeach joe biden is still happening, considering basically the whole thing effectively revolved around one guy. his name was alexander smirnoff, and he's the guy a bunch of leading republicans in right-wing media, by the way, insisted was their unimpeachable star witness, who was going to blow the whistle on all of the supposed corruption the president was getting himself up to in ukraine a decade ago. >> house oversight chairman james comer says he and his colleagues plan to drop a bombshell. >> it's gonna be judgment day tomorrow for the white house. >> the confidential fbi informant, who is basically saying that joe biden took $5 million from burisma. >> informant was a highly valued human source for the fbi. >> a trusted, highly credible informant. >> a trusted, confidential informant. >> a credible source. one of the good sources. >> their most credible paid fbi

informant. >> we had determined that he's extremely credible. >> details come from an fbi informant who is very trusted. >> the highly reliable informant is always checked out all the information. >> it confidential human sources that had been reliable previously to the fbi, the confidential human source gave credible information. >> this after hughton 23 is damning. i do applaud case relays a week, vertical ted cruz. the prior cast has gone into the details. >> this is a crucial piece of our investigation. >> well? as it turns out, that guy, the extremely credible whistleblower, that ted cruz is barely making the time to podcast repeatedly and extensively about, was indicted last thursday on charges of lying to the fbi because he made it all up. so awkward. but doesn't even end there. because yesterday he was apparently getting fed those lies by, wait for it, russian

intelligence officers. as prosecutor noted in a 28- page filing, smirnoff was talking to the russians as recently as december of last year, just a few months ago, including, quote, contact with the russian intelligence service operative and a top russian representative to a third country. a russian operative we should know that smear enough described as quote the son of a former high ranking government official, someone who purportedly controls to groups of individuals taxed with carrying out assassination efforts in a third-party country. so just a pause here again, because sometimes the facts sound almost like fiction, and those almost two. basically the guy was dictating the entire impeachment argument, both to leading house and senate republicans and two fox news, who is being fed his disinformation from russian spies. what's more, prosecutors say he wasn't done. they say he was planning to

spread more lies and more propaganda ahead of this year's election. of course he was. the whole goal here, the whole point, is to influence american politics. that's what the kremlin is up to. in fact, prosecutors are so worried about this guy that today the special counsel, who indicted him in the first place, and who, by the way, was nominated by donald trump, asked a federal judge to send him out back to jail after a las vegas let him out awaiting trial yesterday. why? because they are worried that he will flee. he has extensive foreign ties to resettle outside the united states ahead of this trial. we don't know yet how that federal judge will respond to

his request. in fact there's a lot we don't know about alexander smirnoff. as far as we, know there's this is the only confirmed vehicle out there, the fraudulent fbi informant hiding, by the way, his appearance, as he left court yesterday, is the case he made up about president biden, based on disinformation from russian officials, implodes all around him. of course we have seen this playbook from russian agents before. and we should know how serious russia's intentions, are what they opt, or what they want. they've already tried to intervene in our elections many times before, including when they conducted an elaborate criminal scheme with the goal of electing donald trump back in 2016. the public is far more aware now of the evils of vladimir putin. it just look at the last couple of years of ukraine, and the

continued disinformation. and they are very familiar with the disinformation apparatus of a kremlin at this point than they were eight years ago. much more familiar. if you're sitting at home right now thinking, this is going to be awfully hired. i mean really hard for republicans to explain this all away. you would be right. >> the f t 10:23 is appropriate. it's ancillary from the topic. we were already investigating the biden family that we knew about the existence of the 10:20. three >> at the end of the day my girl was get the truth out there in hold people accountable for on wrongdoing. if it may encompass -- >> 14 years they've been paying this guy. and he's a trusted source and then we found out he isn't. it doesn't change the fundamental fat. >> you see it doesn't mean the facts. it does change the facts.

those are not facts. are not true. >> i mean, congressman jordan, it doesn't change the fundamental facts? that's actually exactly what it does. because the fact, it turns out, or lies. now that the source of this entire charade, the highly credible witness, has been exposed as far from credible, james comer and his fellow maga house republicans are desperately trying to pivot. they were trying to sloppily cover their tracks in a race on smirnoff, their star witness, for the official impeachment documents. you might be sitting there thinking, but things have gotten kind of embarrassing for the republicans on this committee. they might be ready to pack this all up, quietly wind this impeachment jury. down after, all -- again, when your star witness seems like he might be a russian asset, kind

of feels hard to keep plowing forward. but crazily enough, that's exactly what they seem to be doing. there's still going at it. at least the guy talking to the russian agents, there he is, and the decency to hide his face in shame when his scheme was made public. we'll give him that. but republicans are still out there today making a big show of their impeachment theater. today republicans on the house oversight committee grilled president joe biden's brother james biden behind closed doors for eight hours. eight hours. as part of the same sham impeachment inquiry, foolish part by russian disinformation. as a side note, it's not like james biden was a particularly helpful source for the crack james comer investigation unit.

the president's brother inserted in his opening statement, i've had a 50 year career in a number of business ventures. joe biden has not had any interest in those activities were involvement. none. so after watching all of this the last couple of days, weeks, people in the kremlin might have gone to bed saying the jig is up. get a new. plan get a new white board. now that the roller disinformation plot has been exposed. the guys not only has been indicted but also spilled the beans on his connection with all of them. they must have been pretty happy when they woke up this morning and learned that their allies, their friends in the

united states congress, whether waiting or unwitting, don't seem to care, and they are sticking with the plan. joining me now, congressman jasmine crockett, oversight committee member and democratic texas, who made a pretty good point on twitter today when she said, quote, seems like we should spend less time talking about hundreds junk and wertheim digging into oh, say, russia's attrition of the republican party. exactly. so let me start with the obvious. you have been working with these committee members. you've been in these meetings. it seems to me, and i just outlined, this james comer and his group of top-notch investigators here are just continuing to plow forward

impeachment inquiry into president biden. i guess it's embarrassing for them to shut it down now, embarrassing to keep going, but what is going on here? and what do you think is going to happen? >> listen, you've got a laugh to keep from crying. we know what putin just did with alex navalny. these are real serious threats. and what i had said before, that has defended so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that we not only are supposed to swear to fight those enemies that our domestic but also foreign. but it is weird when it seems like a lot of the domestic enemies are right here serving in the house with us. that's what we have. everyone should be ashamed. everyone should be appalled but they have been peddling russian propaganda. and if we go back a few months,

if we go back to the summer, you will recall that james comer was going on and on about his star witness, who turned out to be a chinese asset. so we've got one of our enemies, when we talk about russia, one of our enemies, when we talk about china, all we need is iran to jump in this and will be a whole trifecta that the republican party has decided that it wants to embrace. it's shameful and it's dangerous. not just for our elections but for our security in this country. >> i had almost but not quite forgotten about the last asset of a foreign authoritarian government that had pushed forward is a star witness. thank you for the reminder to everybody. one of your colleagues on the oversight committee, dan goldman, outspoken as you are, you some of the strongest language to date about this entire situation. he said house republicans have been asking's house assets for vladimir putin. what do you think? >> i agree. they simply are putin's puppets at this point. we know that putin definitely doesn't want us to support

ukraine. so what has happened? they have foiled every single attempt that has been made in a bipartisan way to make sure that we can do our part in a supplemental. they don't want to happen. and it's all because trump said he doesn't want it to happen. the fact that navalny was killed the week after trump said he doesn't really care what putin does to our nato allies if they don't pay up. that is a problem. the fact that people are still considering putting this man back into the white house is absolutely scary. i need people to take this seriously. you are not voting for your best friend or who you think has the coolest new gold shoes. you are voting for someone to actually run our country, keep us safe, as well as protect and look out for democracy abroad. >> the gold shoes has been cool. it's quite generous.

but yes, your point is well taken about what is at stake. i did want to ask, does the star witness, maybe a russian asset, he's been pushing this disinformation for years. it has been echoed for years. do you have any, i mean, there's a lot to dig in here, a lot we still don't know. are there any red flags here about how long it took doj to indict him? i mean how many years? >> i always take issue with it. it took too long to finally start trying to indict donald trump in the first place. i mean, he had the first part of the season and now it's the find out part of the season. we know that it has taken a long time for the chickens to come home to roost in general. but what i will say is that when it comes to it, if people don't start to say doj to your job, do this, asteroid officiant lee then we are going to be in a world of hurt. we know on this issue that it was giuliani who went over to ukraine and started trying to chase down or whether this was true or not and giuliani came back and said he could not find anything to support these allegations. so what did they do? they said to him we have tried

and oversight we said hey, why don't we bring giuliani in, because he already investigated and determined that it was false. so why is it at the took the doj so much time after that had already been this preliminary investigation? it's still very confusing to me. i guess they went on to make sure that they don't miss step on really big issues like this, but honestly if they would have waited any longer, we could've been looking at an impeached president for no reason. no other reason than that is what vladimir putin wants. >> exactly what he would love to see. but probably would also love to see that ukraine funding isn't moving forward. one of the leading presidential candidate is talking about all things i'm sure he's clapping about of the kremlin. congresswoman jasmine crockett, a lot to dig into with the timeline. i'm sure we'll be hearing. more thank you for joining me this evening. i wish appreciate your

insights. and still ahead, the millions of dollars troubles new york in how the prosecutors eyeing trump tower to collect if needed. plus, i will break down the dangerous ruling in alabama that is already threatening access to an important fertility treatment. and finally, some good news for democrats in 2024. one of my favorite former bosses will join me to discuss. it's all coming up. stay with us. with us.

when i was your age, we never had anything like this. what? wifi? wifi that works all over the house, even the basement. the basement. so i can finally throw that party... and invite shannon barnes. dream do come true. xfinity gives you reliable wifi with wall-to-wall coverage on all your devices, even when everyone is online. maybe we'll even get married one day. i wonder what i will be doing? probably still living here with mom and dad. fast reliable speeds right where you need them.

that's wall-to-wall wifi on the xfinity 10g network. >> if he does not have funds to pay off the judgment, then we will seek judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to seize his assets. >> new york attorney general letitia james telling donald trump in no uncertain terms, pay up. the ex president is on the hook for roughly half a billion dollars after a civil fraud case, and every day it goes unpaid trump loses an extra $87,500 in interest. wow. and in addition trump owes

writer e. jean carroll $83 million for defamation. i asked for one of carole's attorneys what happens if he doesn't pay. >> we can take steps to enforce the judgment. which means go into the court and asking for an order for us to start attaching assets. this money has to be paid. if he's not able to secure bond or pay the full abound amount of the court, and we will take steps to make sure that the judgments and forced. >> as 80 james told the court, if you want something done, go to a woman. it seems like these women are willing to do what's necessary to get trump to pay what he owes. neal katyal at served as acting solicitor general for the united states where he argued dozens of cases before the supreme court. he joins me now. i know timeline wise trump has a couple more weeks, early march, here to pay what he owes in these cases. what were the process of seizing trump's assets if it came to that actually look like? when would it happen? how would you do james r. robbie kaplan, how do they go

about doing it? >> yes so first of all donald trump is facing about 500 and $50 million when you add up the two judgments and the interest that has to be paid. assuming that he doesn't pay that with in the next couple of weeks either to the court but assuming he doesn't do that than the attorney general james can go to the court and seek judgment enforcement mechanisms in court so that would be basically look he owes 450 million as a result of this judgment. he's not paying it. so we're gonna force you, the court, to seize these properties, sell them, and give us the money. and assume similarly the process for jean carroll would work in the same way. it's unlikely that we will get to that stage because one way or another trump will get the money to be put up to avoid that for seizure of his assets. >> that's interesting. because the question is really, then, how will he get the

money? how will trump get this money? because of course the ruling says he cannot seek loans from new york lenders. he can of course go out of state. is that what he has to do in order to pay this up? >> he's got basically two options. one is, he pays the judgment himself either through his cash assets for his assets that he can sell and liquidate. but that's about 530, 500 and $50 million. that's gonna be tough for him to do in a short period of time. so in reality he's going to have to get what is called a bond. a bond means that he's not going to have to pay the full amount right away. often bonds are only 10% down and 90% is landed to you and you've got to have collateral. 10% is the -- with someone with a normal track record of paying debts and being responsible

business person. obviously the allegations here make that pretty tough. in addition to the 10% you also have to pay bond fees, which here are gonna be about $20 million. you're right, the judge in this case banned donald trump from making dealings with any financial institution license to new york, which means any bank in the. like thousands of institutions are out for him to get this bond. but there may be other people out there, maybe a hedge fund, maybe an individual, maybe elon musk or putin or someone because even though trump's not good for it he is known as a grifter and if you lend her money will probably get some benefit in return. >> can you get the money from him? i know from putin? i know you say it is a joke,

crazy things are happening this week solutions for all options. could putin, could authoritarian leader or government land him this money? is that legal? >> yeah, well, i assume putin could because it would be no russian sanction. but the saudis? others? >> right so someone else could. there is no legal prohibition against someone else pager trump have someone else, and particularly when you have a grifter like trump that may be attractive investment for someone even though they know trump is not good for the 550 million. he may be good in other ways and so this is something really to watch. it's really striking that we have had salacious testimony about fani willis and possibly getting vacation trips for 50 bucks or thousand dollars or whatever and yet we are talking about this massive amount of debt that this presidential candidate mayo. that seems a far more serious concern to be worrying about. >> the plot of homeland is thickening. trump, no surprise to you or me or anyone watching that he waited on this last night. he just happened, of course, this is a pride that the little questionable, to have a copy of the eighth amendment on him.

so take a listen. >> when you give up one of your properties to settle this? >> you know i wrote this not because it was so grave. i just looked at it. people, are your friends and lawyers call up and say it's the most egregious punishment anybody has ever seen. tim scott knows that. he sees it. the eighth amendment, excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed no cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. that the eighth amendment. >> so i think it is fair to say it's not exactly constitutional expert. you are in the minute you have left, neal, is this excessive? >> no. not even close. donald trump i think knows a lot about colin unusual punishment, how he doled out when he was president. this one he's absolutely wrong. this is a fine well within new york's tradition. the federal tradition in the state tradition. the reason why it is so large it is because he committed such a large crime. that will be served in court

and i don't expect trump to -- >> turns out when you do a crime, year there are going to be consequences, when our legal system is working well is it in this case. neal katyal as always for explaining all this to us. still ahead, are democrats awaiting when it comes to issues voters say they carry care about. but first a supreme smackdown from our marjorie taylor greene. it wasn't pretty. that's coming up next. up next. do you have a life insurance policy you no longer need? now you can sell your policy - even

a term policy - for an immediate cash payment. call coventry direct to learn more. we thought we had planned carefully for our retirement. but we quickly realized we needed a way to supplement our income. our friend sold their policy to help pay their medical bills, and that got me thinking. maybe selling our policy could help with our retirement. i'm skeptical, so i did some research and called coventry direct. they explained life insurance is a valuable asset that can be sold. we learned we could sell all of our policy, or keep part of it with no future payments. who knew? we sold our policy. now we can relax and enjoy our retirement as we had planned. if you have $100,000 or more of life insurance, you may qualify to sell your policy. don't cancel or let your policy lapse without finding out what it's worth. visit coventrydirect.com to find out if your policy qualifies. or call the number on your screen. coventry direct, redefining insurance.

>> tonight we are still waiting for the supreme court to rule on two pretty big cases. there's the effort to disqualify donald trump from appearing on the ballot in colorado based on the 14th amendment and trump's incitement of an insurrection in 2020. the court is also considering trump's claim that he's immune from being prosecuted in the federal elections case brought by special counsel jack smith. but while we watch and wait for action on those major cases, you get one satisfying ruling

from the court today. a decisive loss for congresswoman marjorie taylor greene. a court rejected the georgia republicans case, trying to overturn the hefty fine she incurred for repeatedly refusing to wear a mask on the house floor during the pandemic. that's right. marjorie taylor greene took her covid conspiracies all the way to the highest court in the land. of course she did. you may remember congresswoman greene and some of her maga colleagues floated the rules over and over and over again. even while sheltering in place during the january 6th insurrection, by the way. it's thousands of people died of covid every day across the country. marjorie taylor greene boasted about her total disregard for others health and safety. >> i refuse to wear a mask and i have to tell you something

else. i'm not vaccinated. i will be standing strong, standing up for the people across this country that refused to get vaccinated. >> eventually it caught up with her. financially. as the hill notes, house rules fine lawmakers $500 for the first infraction with a mask mandate and 20 $500 for subsequent breaches. the second one really hurts. to be withdrawn from there really pay. green racked up more than $100,000 in fines. that's a lot of times refusing to wear a mask. that's well over half of her annual salary. so the congresswoman into every colleagues, thomas massie of kentucky and ralph norman of south carolina, brought a lawsuit. of course they did. against and speaker nancy pelosi and other house staffers. they argued basically that the fines amounted to an illegal reduction of their salary. they last in front of the district court. again at the u.s. court of appeals and now the supreme court has refused the case altogether. allowing the lower court ruling

to stand. so as it turns out the rules apply to you to, marjorie taylor greene. mask up or pay up. more or greene. mask up or pay up. more

detect this: living with hiv, robert learned he can stay undetectable with fewer medicines. that's why he switched to dovato. dovato is a complete hiv treatment for some adults. no other complete hiv pill uses fewer medicines to help keep you undetectable than dovato. detect this: marnina learned that most hiv pills contain 3 or 4 medicines. dovato is as effective with just 2. if you have hepatitis b, don't stop dovato without talking to your doctor. don't take dovato if you're allergic to its ingredients or taking dofetilide. this can cause serious or life-threatening side effects. if you have a rash or allergic reaction symptoms, stop dovato and get medical help right away. serious or life-threatening lactic acid buildup and liver problems can occur. tell your doctor if you have kidney or liver problems, or if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or considering pregnancy. dovato may harm an unborn baby. most common side effects are headache, nausea, diarrhea, trouble sleeping, tiredness, and anxiety. detect this: you could stay undetectable with fewer medicines. ask your doctor about dovato.

choose advil liqui-gels for faster, stronger and longer-lasting relief than tylenol rapid release gels because advil targets pain at the source of inflammation. so for faster pain relief, advil the pain away. only sleep number smart beds let you each choose your individual firmness and comfort. because advil targets pain at the source of inflammation. your sleep number setting. and actively cools and warms up to 13 degrees on either side. now, save 50% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed. plus 10% off all bases. ends monday. only at sleep number >> i think it is safe to say there is kind of sense of doom and gloom among democrats lately as we barrel towards a rematch between donald trump and joe biden in november. not all democrats, but far too many. but while there are real valid concerns, i mean everybody needs to be focused on the threat to democracy in this election, but democrats also have some reasons to be optimistic. so stick with me. look at the most recent fund

raising numbers. president biden's own campaign is outpacing trump's, ending with $56 million in the bank printed donald trump's 30 million. that's a big gap. of course trump is also facing a huge drain on his finances that joe biden has not. as his legal bills just keep growing. a new poll out today, the president maintain a small lead, but 49% of registered voters supported him versus 45% backing trump. so all important things to talk about. i have one of my favorite bosses here to break it down. robert gibbs served as the white house press secretary for president obama and senior strategist for the 2012 obama campaign. so, gibbs, you and i have lived for so many campaigns. we know polls aren't perfect. there are snapshot in time. one of the things that struck me as 70% of respondents said biden is too old, but then he is still leading by four points overall. what does that tell you?

>> it tells me that they are worried about the alternative. that's what this president has to make this election about. he is getting voters to approve of him and to vote for him say he is too old. because they understand the alternative is risky, chaotic, all the messiness that we watched for four years and even in the campaign before that. i think it's important for the white house, for the campaign to continue to press that case and use that advantage. this election is going to be decided by a very small number of people. >> in half a dozen states. >> so you don't have to change many minds. but keeping on pressing that

case and putting in front of people what those decisions would be the joe biden would make versus what donald trump would make on all the issues that are important i think that's what the campaign in the white house are working on. i think that's what we'll see for the remainder. >> there were some things in the poll they prefer biden's personality and temperament, they think trump is more mentally fit, that's a whole for another block at some point, but what are they focused on? there are also a couple of things in terms of what they cared about, what voters cared about. 21% ranked preserving democracy is a top issue followed by the economy, immigration, and gun violence. as you and i know it's strategy meetings, you have to kind of decide. what's your best attack line? what's your best proactive line? which policies should you be lifting? up what should you leave to others? what do they do a data like this? >> exactly what you talked about.

whenever they need to press their advantages, clearly on things like democracy, where do they need to make sure they are competitive on the economy? making sure that what we've seen in the uptick on consumer confidence numbers translates into people feeling better about the economy and thinking better about the presidents prospects around it. what do you need to shore up and play defense on? clearly some of the immigration challenges have been problematic. we saw in a special election in new york there's a way to deal with that. >> like diving right into. it >> dive right into it. talk about what you're going to do. use what the republicans decided not to do. when the border patrol union that endorsed donald trump

supported what donald trump opposed because of the resources it would bring to bear on the battle at the border, that was important. that dexterity forcing that choice in the campaign, the president putting that in front of people is going to be important. >> immigration, because you brought this, up is an important one. here of all these issues, it seems to be the one that was kind of in the top five that is a horror for biden and democrats and there was this border deal that fell apart because republicans destroyed it because trump wanted them to. there was news that broke. politico now reporting that biden is mulling new executive actions to deal with the migrant crisis including, quote, using a section of the immigration and nationality act from seeking asylum at u.s. ports of entry and ways to make it hard for migrants to pass the screening for asylum

seekers. i think it's important to preface here. this is something that is number of democrats will hate and will speak out against, including key voters in the electorate of the democratic party. but it's also an issue on the minds of voters. so is this the right political move? is there is the right move, in your view? >> i think those stories with you and i both read, the president is still thinking about this. this is what happens in that process. it may be a trial balloon, and maybe somebody who's not happy with the policy. but look, i think this president has to get caught trying really hard, as he did,

is he empowered the senate negotiators to come to a deal from the democrats perspective that was scuttled by former president donald trump. press that advantage. use that. i think they're gonna have to weigh heavily doing something there to show action, to demonstrate that they understand the severity of this. this is a problem, as you remember, the environment minister -- >> because immigration is outdated. >> it has bedeviled the biden administration as well so i think getting caught trying to do something is probably a bigger political winner than not. >> so meeting whether or not this is right, and you and i have been through many variations, he probably has to do something because there's not going to be a legislative path forward here. >> no. the republicans took that off the table with donald trump. i think using that though, there's a big moment coming up in early march in the state of -- not far from where we're sitting, the president has to use that another moments to press this idea that he wanted to do something, that he tried to do something, and only one reason though that didn't happen and that's donald trump. and i think that is, again, what they have to put in front of voters every day. >> in the moments we have left here, and i can't believe i have to ask you this, but is there any scenario, because this is what everyone asks, that don't joe biden is not the nominee? >> another i can think of. >> importhesthe nomi thgogeneel >> thgoing to who are nominees going to be and we've got to n embryos is threnquick

shhh... [ achoo ] [ flatulence ]

>> so, this is a story that has made me rachel day today. today, an alabama, a state university health system paused all ivf treatments. not because they wanted to, i am not mad at them, but because they are afraid of getting prosecuted for it. that is because on friday, the alabama supreme court ruled that frozen embryos have the same legal status as children. a ruling which, as one descending judge points out, quote, almost certainly and the creation of a frozen embryos through in vitro fertilization, ivf, in alabama. and we are seeing that play out already. just remember, ivf is for people who desperately want a family. and can't do it any other way. according to the cdc, about 2.

3% of all babies born every year in the u. s. were conceived through ivf, or similar technologies. in 2021 alone, there were over 97, 000 such babies born in the united states. in alabama alone, that same year, 437 babies were conceived through ivf, or similar technologies. but after the ruling came down on friday, the university of alabama and birmingham health system, which includes the largest hospital in the state, paused all of its ivf treatments. saying in a statement, quote, we must evaluate the potential that our patients and our physicians could be prosecuted criminally or face punitive damages for following the standard of care for ivf

treatments. every other fertility clinging to an alabama's going to have to make that same assessment, which is left hope for parents in a tailspin. people like gabriel and spencer, who have been trying to have a baby for years. and they've been diagnosed with unexplained genetic fertility. they just started ivf in alabama, but they don't know whether they will be allowed to continue now, with alabama's court decision. >> we really want a family. we have known since we got married that we wanted children. and this is our best shot. >> i think it is just a thoughtless decision. being so committed to this idea of being pro-life that they are not thinking about how a decision like this affects people trying to start families. >> this is the president and ceo of reproductive freedom for all formally known as pro-choice america. she is a professor of constitutional law at the nyu school of law. when i was reading all of this coverage this morning you are exactly the two people i wanted to talk to so thank you so much for joining me this evening. let me start with you, because

later imports that these states chief justice suggests in his opinion, quote, even if the alabama legislator wanted to legalize ivf us it is currently practiced, the state constitution would prohibit it from doing so. help us unpack that, also, is ivf basically a thing of the past in alabama at this point? >> so, i wouldn't really stress that this opinion is limited. so this is a suit brought by three couples for the inadvertent destruction of their embryos on the final suit under the wrongful death statute. there is a statute in alabama that allows for individuals to sue for the negligent death of a child. and in a sense, also to children who aren't born. so it has a fetal personhood forward element to it. this, coupled with the fact that the alabama state

constitution also has the sanctity of life amendment, which is also fetal personhood forward. so that sort of sets the conditions here. so, the court has reminded this case back to the lower courts with the view that this couple can bring the suit against the clinic, and there will be a whole trial to determine if the clinic is negligent for the destruction of those embryos. but, although it is a relatively limited decision. it's logic has sweeping implications, as you said for ivf through the country and in alabama, because it is essentially saying that this technology, assisted reproductive technology provides immune for families to have children, will be basically off of the table because it often requires the destruction of embryos in order to bring a viable pregnancy to term. >> to melissa's point, i think it is so important to understand the practical impact. we saw a story earlier today, women and alabama have frozen embryos store, and maybe they know that they may need to

rely, or try ivf to have children. this is something, you know, heartbreaking for many people. talk to us a little bit about the practical implications right now. >> yes. as melissa said, what we understand now, both from the university's actions, and what we are reading on the ground, is that effectively, ivf in alabama has stopped. it has become, it is too risky as the university in alabama said. they are worried about this prosecution of their doctors, their providers, and then they have the cost. the other things that we've noted are the cost for the procedure is going to skyrocket. this is effectively shutting down ivf in alabama. and this is so much, like everything that you've been reading about post-dobbs. doctors are feeling intimidated, a culture of a climate of chaos for providers, folks not being able to get the care they need when they needed, and it is all by the sign that it is all connected.

>> so, this is why it is important to talk about because it is important to be eyes wide open about the impact here. melissa, you mentioned that it could have implications beyond alabama. is it because there are other states that are considering things like this? how could that work? what is next, here? >> this is essentially an opening bid for fetal personhood in alabama. a state that already had the seats for that to flourish. and again, this is all happening in the wake of dobbs as many said. we saw in dobson justice alito wrote the majority opinion. there were a lot of elements of fetal personhood. he speaks of unborn children throughout the opinion. there was a case in texas where there was a wrongful death suit under texas law filed against a woman who had helped another woman seek a medication abortion. the idea was that these women contributed to the negligent death of a person. as a homicide. we have already seen that the fight that is state supreme court has done this, it really opens the door wide. we are now at the point where

the window is wide open, and we are normalizing the prospect of fetal personhood. and that was always the endgame for the pro-life movement. this settlement, state-by-state settlement, that dobbs created was never a lasting stadelman. because if you believe that abortion is murder, as many in the pro-life movement do, you cannot be okay with some states deciding that it is fine and other states being opposed to it. so fetal personhood was always the next candidate, it is here, it is now. >> are there other states, just -- where you are seeing this kind of thing could happen? where else are you tracking efforts like this by the anti- choice movement to put in place greater limitations like this? >> it is everywhere. every state with an abortion ban, we have to be able to look

out for. this every state with a supermajority of extremist gop leadership. we have to look for this. to melissa's key point, this is so important, this has been the endgame of the antiabortion movement, from the beginning. they have always been rapidly going towards fetal personhood, as the defining endgame for their movement, but it is also important to note that it is not just a bunch of extremists in alabama, today, nikki haley said that she agreed, essentially, with the decision. and you have, over 100 plus house republicans, who have signed on to legislation including speaker, mike johnson, who effectively does the same thing at the federal level. so, yes, we've got to track every state, but we have to be very, very careful about making sure we stop this in its tracks. because the implication at the national level is profound, and dangerous. you have mainstream, so-called moderates, like nikki haley, who already believe in this theology, if you will.

this philosophy, of personhood. it is everywhere. it is not limited to the extreme. it is mainstream in this gop. >> i'm so thrilled you raised that. we do have this i want to play, in case people have not seen, it she is described as the moderate in the republican primaries. let's play that. >> embryos, to me, our babies. when you talk about an embryo, you are talking about, to me, that is a life. so, i do see where that is coming from when they talk about that. >> i mean, it is so important to hear that, because it is important to remember. what you have both said. what the objective is here, what the objective is here. so, before we wrap up here, let me just go to you. one of the things that i think those of us who are not legal experts, and don't track this as close, does this land and

the supreme court? and if so, how? and what is your assessment of that? >> this really turned on a lot of questions of alabama state law, and alabama state constitutional law. so there may be a very limited path here. of course, this is going back to the lower court in alabama to determine whether or not the clinic is liable. but the seeds of this were already planted at the supreme court with the dobbs opinion, with justice alito writing that opinion, removing the question of abortion from the boards and sending it back to the states. i just want to emphasize for your listeners, you know, the court is up on the ballot and this election cycle. justice alito is in the 70s, justice thomas is in his 70s. if the republican president is elected they will be hello, my. you know what always shocks the conscience is beyond the sort of general ethical principles at