Meet the Press – December 5, 2021

CHUCK TODD:

This Sunday, the fate of Roe v. Wade.

BECKY CURRIE:

Life is so precious and these babies have a chance now.

CHUCK TODD:

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?

JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS:

If it is really an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?

CHUCK TODD:

Lawyers defending Roe argue that fetal viability should remain the standard —

JULIE RIKELMAN:

Mississippi’s ban on abortion two months before viability is flatly unconstitutional under decades of precedent.

CHUCK TODD:

— 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.

PRES. JOE BIDEN:

I’m going to fight this variant with science and speed, not chaos and confusion.

CHUCK TODD:

New travel restrictions amid concerns about transmissibility — and how effective vaccines will be.

DR. RICHARD BESSER:

Because of the number of mutations that are seen the concern is vaccines won’t work as well.

CHUCK TODD:

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 involuntary manslaughter.

KAREN MCDONALD:

There was absolute reason to believe this individual was dangerous and disturbed.

CHUCK TODD:

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 Haines, editor-at-large of The 19th and Stephen Hayes, founder of The Dispatch. Welcome to Sunday. It’s Meet the Press.

ANNOUNCER:

From NBC News in Washington, the longest-running show in television history. This is Meet the Press with Chuck Todd.

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 that 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 will they fully overturn Roe v. Wade? Roughly half the states are certain or very likely to make abortion illegal if it’s a full overturn, and it unravels nearly 50 years of constitutionally protected abortion rights in the country. And abortion rights advocates concede the fight to win back those rights 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 energize angry Democrats and women in general as we head towards the midterm elections? The abortion debate is perhaps the longest-running example of an increasingly divided America, split over guns, voting rights, education, climate and, lately, vaccine requirements. But 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.

PROTESTERS:Hey hey ho ho. Roe v Wade has got to go.

PROTESTERS:

Hey hey ho ho. Abortion bans have got to go.

CHUCK TODD:

Activists are bracing for a new battle over one of the nation’s starkest political divides.

NANCY NORTHUP:

This case is about is whether the Supreme Court is going to adhere to an almost 50-year precedent of respecting the individual liberty to make decisions about pregnancy.

CAROL TOBIAS:

Unborn babies are human beings and they should be protected as any human being would.

CHUCK TODD:

In arguments on Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts signaled he might uphold the Mississippi law without explicitly overturning Roe.

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS:

If it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?

CHUCK TODD:

But 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.

SEN SUSAN COLLINS:

He noted repeatedly that Roe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, describing it as precedent on precedent.

JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH:

I said that it’s settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.

CHUCK TODD:

But now —

JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH:

If we think that 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?

CHUCK TODD:

On Wednesday, the Democratic appointees on the court tried to appeal to their colleagues’ concerns about the Court’s political standing.

JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR:

If people actually believe that it’s all political, how will we survive? How will the Court survive?

CHUCK TODD:

A majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Just 32% favor overturning Roe, 58% oppose it. 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.

KATE SNOW:

What would happen if the Supreme Court overturned Roe, for you?

SARAH HAEDER:

For us that would mean that we would be closing within the next 30 days.

CHUCK TODD:

With the future of Roe in doubt, the consequences of the 2016 election loom even larger.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

We’re going to appoint judges who will support, defend and uphold the constitution.

HILLARY CLINTON:

Do we want him appointing our judges?

CHUCK TODD:

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.

RICH LOWRY:

The reaction to an overturn will be thermonuclear. And it is the foreseeable event that has the greatest chance of changing the trajectory of the midterms.

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN:

If you want to see a revolution go ahead, outlaw Roe v. Wade.

CHUCK TODD:

Joining me now is Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. Senator Klobuchar, welcome back to Meet The Press.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR:

Thanks, Chuck. Great to be on again.

CHUCK TODD:

You’ve been on the front lines of the Judiciary Committee of all of these actors that were inside the Supreme Court. So, I want to start with there’s – I think, from your perspective – two potential bad outcomes that may come out of this. And 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?

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR:

Ok. 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. And in either case, even if you go with Justice Roberts’ idea, so 14 weeks, 13 weeks, 12 weeks, it’s a mess. You literally are going to go back to a time, if we don’t do anything — I’ll get to that in a minute — you’re going to go back to a time of back alley abortions. You’re going to go back to people – people are going to be busing from one state to another. 75% of Americans believe that 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 mores 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. And I would agree with your run up to this. This is going to be about Americans standing up to assert their rights.

CHUCK TODD:

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, is still legitimate – is still, is still relevant case law at that point?

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR:

Technically, yes. But in reality what we’ve seen with these states — I mean, in Texas, they’ve literally enacted a law that says that neighbors can spy on neighbors and can be bounty hunters going after women just for exercising their right for healthcare. That’s not the America that 80% of Americans want to see right now.

CHUCK TODD:

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? And I want to point something out. There’s really only three countries in the world that have abortion rights that were sort of given to them by the courts. It’s us, Canada, and Mexico.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR:

Pretty significant countries.

CHUCK TODD:

Most other – no doubt – most other countries, though, have done it either via their legislatures or via referendum. Should this be done that way? Has leaving it to the courts put us in a more vulnerable position on this?

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR:

I would turn this the other way. Fifty years of precedent, as Elena Kagan pointed out, fifty 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. And now they’re willing to just 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 some pro-choice Republicans that have signaled interest in doing that.

CHUCK TODD:

I want to put up the Minnesota law. And I’m just 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. That state directed counseling, followed by a 24-hour waiting period, parental notification for minors, and I believe it’s 24 – I hope I get that right – 24 weeks that you’re allowed to have an abortion. Is that a, is that what you think the federal baseline should be essentially?

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR:

Actually, I think the federal baseline is the bill that we’ve put together, the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would basically put Roe v. Wade into law. But Minnesota, I am glad that 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. 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 — based on 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 to uphold 50 years of precedent and the Court doing the right thing.

CHUCK TODD:

All right, this bill needs 60 votes in the Senate. Is there a way, besides getting rid of the filibuster, to lower that threshold? Could you, could you find a way with Medicaid or Medicare funding, different ways to make it a 50-vote threshold?

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR:

Well, as you know, we’re looking at the rules of the Senate right now, and in the context of the all-important issue of the Freedom to Vote Act, the bill I lead that has every Democrat in the Senate supporting it. And 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 carve-outs to the filibuster. The rules have changed over and over. Even Robert Byrd himself said that rules should change to fit the circumstances of their time.

CHUCK TODD:

So, how would you change the rule for codifying Roe?

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR:

Well, this would be some change to the Senate rules, and it most likely would not be this particular issue. Right now, we’re really focused on voting rights.

CHUCK TODD:

You think voting rights is the carve-out —

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR:

But it would be, it would be a standing filibuster, a way to actually 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 it does look at where we’re heading, the American 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 the political party that’s trampling on the freedom of women’s rights, trampling on the freedom to vote, will not vote to reduce prescription drug costs, will not be there for your childcare. There are going to be – all of this is going to be on the ballot in this election.

CHUCK TODD:

Let me ask you, though, some of the political ramifications. This is something you said during your presidential campaign about pro-life Democrats. Take a listen.

[BEGIN TAPE]

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR:

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.

[END TAPE]

CHUCK TODD:

You know, 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. And there was this sort of, you know, 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?

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR:

I don’t think so. We still have people — they 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 is clearly room in our party for pro-life Democrats. You also have people — many people — that is their personal view, but they don’t believe that they should impose it on other people, that people should be able to make their own choices. So, my view on that hasn’t changed. But what I think you’ve seen change is the Supreme Court in a very dramatic fashion, when raw politics got these last justices on and you see the raw political outcome.

CHUCK TODD:

Are you now more open to packing the Court?

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR:

I’ve always been open to looking at the numbers of justices on the Court, but I think the most sane route to get this done right now would be to bring this up before the U.S. Senate to codify Roe v. Wade into law.

CHUCK TODD:

Is that something that you think is a debate that’s going to happen sooner rather than later? Or do you have to wait until June?

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR:

Well, let’s see what the Court does first.

CHUCK TODD:

All right, Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat from Minnesota. It was good to see you.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR:

It was great to be on, Chuck. Thank you.

CHUCK TODD:

Thanks. Thanks very much. And joining me now, from the other side of the aisle, is Republican Senator Mike Braun of Indiana. Senator Braun, welcome back to Meet the Press, sir.

SEN. MIKE BRAUN:

Hey, my pleasure, Chuck.

CHUCK TODD:

Well, 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 restrictive from the perspective of a person seeking an abortion. But I want to put them down here as a baseline. In Indiana, there is state-directed, in-person counseling. You can’t do telemedicine. There’s an 18-hour waiting period. There’s a physical exam and an ultrasound. Parental consent for minors. And the ban begins at 22 weeks, two weeks shorter than in many other states that are at 24. You have said you are 100% pro-life. Is the law in Indiana, in your view, strong enough to support your pro-life position?

SEN. MIKE BRAUN:

Chuck, I think it begs the question, in general, whether our state is where it needs to be, whether Mississippi’s, whether 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 to 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 of these different ideas. And 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, we’ve gone 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 of 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.

CHUCK TODD:

So, should — when do you believe abortion should be available? Because you’re going to have to vote on these issues now. Every elected official in the country is going to have to state very specifically now. You know, a lot of times elected officials have been able to hide behind Roe. Either you’re for it or against it. But now you’ve got to get to specifics. So, in your view, when should abortion be legal or be available?

SEN. MIKE BRAUN:

So, in my case, when you believe in the sanctity of life, you want abortions to be eliminated from the landscape if you can. You also, in the context of reasonability, and the fact is, regardless of what any one individual, maybe with the point-of-view of mine or of Amy’s, you’re not going to settle it in a homogenized way. And that needs to reflect itself throughout states. And whatever one’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. And on something as contentious as this, it seems like it would make common sense, it would be practical and 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., it takes it to another place.

CHUCK TODD:

Well, I understand it. You don’t believe, though, there should be a baseline protection of a woman being able to get — have access to abortion? You don’t believe there should be any baseline protection for that?

SEN. MIKE BRAUN:

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, you know, that was a judicial ruling. And 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.

CHUCK TODD:

All right, so you want to see a ban on abortion. How would you enforce a ban on abortion?

SEN. MIKE BRAUN:

You’re going to let that up to the individual states. And 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. And maybe you find that happy medium, that place where more people are going to say —

CHUCK TODD:

What’s your place? What’s your idea? What’s your idea?

SEN. MIKE BRAUN:

My idea is, with what’s happened with technology and when you look at all the things that we know now about the unborn, it needs to be different. It needs to be different from where it is. And 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.

CHUCK TODD:

It sounds like you’re uncomfortable with figuring out how you would enforce the ban because I think that’s a question. Do you criminalize abortion? Would you criminalize it?

SEN. MIKE BRAUN:

I’m perfectly comfortable with doing it, just not at the level where everybody’s got to live with the same thing. And 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. And this applies to many other issues as well.

CHUCK TODD:

Well, I want to ask, because one of the issues, look, I originally invited you on to talk about the vaccine mandate. And you’re a vigorous opponent of the federal government’s private sector vaccine mandate. And you’re worried about the liberty of the unvaccinated. What about the liberty of the 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.

SEN. MIKE BRAUN:

You might try to create that as an issue of equivalency; I don’t. In this case of a vaccine mandate — and I think clearly the turf I chose to pursue would be doing it through the Congressional Review Act. That was set up for the intended purpose of an executive branch that got into overdrive. And I chose to go that route and got all other Republican senators on board quickly. Now, it’s bipartisan. Joe Manchin decided to come on and not do it tacitly, to where he’s going to be outspoken about it. To me, that is different. And if you try to make those equivalent, I think you’re going to get into that current paradigm we’re in, to where you’re arguing about things that just divide us. In this case, it does go to — and when you couch it — and just a moment, when you couch it as getting the vaccine or lose your job, and we talked about it the other day. Well, you’ve got the ability to be tested weekly. In certain parts of the country, those are one and the same, along with the ultimatum that goes along with how this was done through OSHA. In what other issue does this draw us into down the road unrelated to where you have the heavy hand of government? Here, I’m saying on the abortion issue, take it back to the states where I think the Constitution intended it to be.

CHUCK TODD:

Finally, though, on the vaccine mandate front, you are worried about forcing the unvaccinated in that situation. What about protecting the vaccinated? What about the freedom of the vaccinated to get through this pandemic? And the only way we’re going to get through it is if we get more people vaccinated. And the mandates have worked. I know you don’t like them, but they’ve worked.

SEN. MIKE BRAUN:

Well, the mandates have worked if you think that — in my case, when I look at how this all started back in March of 2020 and we had that heavy hand, even at many local levels, of you’re an essential business, you’re not. I was clear upfront, lucky we’ve got a vaccination, of course there were arguments about who was going to orchestrate it. We got it out quickly. And transmission, itself, and everything we’ve learned about Covid, it is a formidable foe. Businesses took it seriously from the get-go, small, medium, and large. They wanted to protect their customers, wanted to keep their employees safe. Again, it comes back to do you want things orchestrated at the federal level, where we don’t create results that are sustainable, or do you want to bring this back to a lower level of authority? And that has nothing to do with what you think about the vaccine or the disease and how you fight it.

CHUCK TODD:

Senator Braun, I appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective, a reminder that there is still a sort of basic divide in this country, more government versus less government. I appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective with us, sir.

SEN. MIKE BRAUN:

I’d agree with that. Thank you, Chuck.

CHUCK TODD:

When we come back, I’m going to talk to Dr. Francis Collins, he’s head of the NIH, about the new variant. How soon before we know how dangerous omicron really is?

CHUCK TODD:

Welcome back. The new Omicron coronavirus variant has now been identified in 16 states across the country, as scientists try to learn how transmissible and dangerous it actually is. A new study says Omicron may have picked up some genetic material from the virus that causes the common cold. And that could create greater transmissibility, but perhaps it makes the variant less likely to cause severe symptoms. It’s a question. One result of Omicron’s emergence? A surge in demand for vaccines, including a six-month high on Thursday. Joining me now is the Director of the National Institutes of Health. It’s Dr. Francis Collins. Dr. Collins, good to see you, sir.

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS:

Nice to be with you, Chuck.

CHUCK TODD:

Let me start with what researchers are learning. Every day, it seems like we learn a little something new about Omicron. So, this development, this idea that it is fused with the common cold, it — it, I can’t believe I’m saying this, could this be good news, weirdly enough?

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS:

Well, it’s a bit of a stretch.

CHUCK TODD:

Yeah.

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS:

Yeah. Okay, I’ll take good news right now. But I’m not sure I can claim that this is going to be reliable. It is a bit of a stretch to look at the letters of the instruction book, the genome, of this Omicron variant and try to predict how it’s going to behave when it infects people around the globe. But it is interesting. It looks as if this is a recombinant that has both part of the SARS-CoV-2 that’s undergone a lot of mutations, and maybe also it’s crossed over and picked up a bit of another virus. I’m not sure everybody buys this particular conclusion that popped out in a pre-print. But it’s an interesting observation. Much more important, though, is to find out what’s really happening. In the real world, does this in fact turn out to be less dangerous? And how good are our vaccines and our boosters in providing protection? Because we think they’re probably going to be useful, but just how useful? That’s an answer everybody wants. The scientists are all over this. We were kind of expecting that this would come along at some point. People are hard at work, 24/7, to get those answers.

CHUCK TODD:

It seems that a lot of scientists seem to be surprised at how much this virus is mutate — or how fast this virus has mutated. So, I guess what’s your sense of where we’re headed? You know — look, our — I know we need to be vaccinated more around the world. But realistically, are we — should we expect essentially a new dominant variant every six months? I mean, we got Delta. Before that, I mean, are we in that kind of pattern here?

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS:

It’s certainly possible that this is not the last emerging variant that will attract a lot of attention and a lot of concern. This one does have the largest number of mutations that we’ve seen so far, Omicron, with about 50 mutations, compared to the original Wuhan virus. And it looks as if they probably arose in an immunocompromised individual, this is a hypothesis but it seems plausible, who wasn’t able to completely fight off the virus. And so, it remained in the system, maybe for months, in that person until they finally got over it. And that is, of course, a perfect situation for the virus to be able to pick up additional mutations along the way. To the extent that that’s going to keep happening if we don’t have adequate immune protection across the globe, yeah, we’re probably going to see something and we’ll have to use some of the other letters in the Greek alphabet.

CHUCK TODD:

We are approaching obviously an extraordinarily busy travel season. Given the variant and given the fact that we have a Delta surge in the north, I should show some headlines here to our viewers. I know you’re fully aware of it. This week alone on the Delta surge, Michigan hit a new record for hospitalizations. They ran out of beds at a hospital in Boston. We’re at our third federal team to assist Minnesota hospitals with Covid-19. There’s clearly, we’ve got a Delta issue. Is there anything about our travel over the next four weeks that has you concerned? And would you advise folks to maybe rethink their travel plans?

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS:

Well, I think people need to pay close attention to all those recommendations that maybe we’ve gotten a little sloppy about. In terms of domestic air travel, I think with masks required on all travel conveyances, whether it’s air or whether it’s taxis or trains, that’s going to be a very important thing to stick to. But I think it’s more where you’re going to be when you travel and what kind of gatherings are going to happen. And here’s where the CDC’s recommendations, which are still in place for 80%-plus of counties, is that if you’re indoors, you should be wearing a mask with other people who may or may not be vaccinated. That’s the best way to protect yourself. We had a little holiday party on my cul-de-sac last night. And the people who organized it said you’re not coming to our house unless you prove you’re vaccinated and you got a test that day. So, yes, here’s my test. I’m glad to say I was negative.

CHUCK TODD:

Well —

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS:

That is maybe the kind of thing for holiday gatherings we should be doing more of as well.

CHUCK TODD:

Well, let me tell you — ask you about testing. I put together a mash of all the promises we’ve been made about rapid, fast testing that was going to be available. Let me play a little bit of it for you.

[BEGIN TAPE]

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

The FDA approved the first at-home Covid-19 test kit.

VICE PRES. MIKE PENCE:

And we continue to approve new tests, including an at-home test.

PRES. JOE BIDEN:

I’ll use the Defense Production Act to increase production of rapid tests, including those that you can use at home. This winter, we’re going to make free at-home tests more available to Americans than ever before.

[END TAPE]

CHUCK TODD:

Look, testing has been — I feel like it’s, it’s, you know, the anchor that we’ve been dragging from the very beginning here. But what has made it so difficult to fulfill that promise?

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS:

Well, we have come a long way, let’s be fair, Chuck. And NIH has been in this in a big way. There are now eight home tests that are out there, approved by FDA, available. Go to your pharmacy. You’ll see them on the shelves. And those are pretty easy —

CHUCK TODD:

Pretty pricey.

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS:

— like the one I just showed you. Fifteen minutes and you get an answer. They are pricey and that’s one of the things the president’s trying to do about this right now; announcing this week that basically if you get one of these home tests, you can file with your insurance company and get reimbursed for it. And if you don’t have that kind of coverage, some 50 million tests being distributed out in places like food banks and community health centers to make it possible for people to have access to them for free. We at NIH, we’re running pilot tests in seven states to see what happens if you just make it possible for people to order these for free from Amazon. We’ll see how that plays out. I get it. We ought to have testing as easily accessible as possible and as cheap as possible, because it is a good way to protect yourself.

CHUCK TODD:

And I want to ask you about the issue of international travel versus domestic travel. If someone flies to Washington, D.C., over the holidays, it’s a popular tourist destination, from Singapore where 96% of the eligible population is vaccinated, that person has to show proof of vaccination and a negative test. But someone flying to D.C. from Idaho, where less than half of the population is fully vaccinated, doesn’t have to do either. How is that at all logical about protecting our community?

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS:

Well, you know, I think, Chuck, we’re trying to be practical here. If you tried to impose those kinds of restrictions on domestic air travel, that would be extremely onerous for people who are trying to get around the country for things like holidays. And I don’t know how much we’d gain by it. If we’re worried about whether you’re trying to protect some community from Delta, well, Delta’s all over the place right now. There’s not some chance that you’re going to see it spread by air travel that’s not happening already in communities. So, I think we’ve got it about right. I do think we have an investment in making sure people aren’t bringing new cases, especially when we have things like Omicron to worry about. Hence, the importance of requiring international travelers to be vaccinated and to show they’ve had a negative test. I think that’s the right balance.

CHUCK TODD:

Dr. Francis Collins, really appreciate you coming out and sharing your expertise with us, sir.

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS:

Glad to be with you, Chuck. Thanks for getting the word out there. Everybody, get vaccinated. And if you are already vaccinated, get boosted. It’s time.

CHUCK TODD:

Please listen to him. He’s a doctor. Thank you, Dr. Collins. When we come back, back to the abortion case. Could overturning Roe overturn our assumptions about the midterm elections? Panel is next.

CHUCK TODD:

Welcome back. Panel is here: Washington Post White House Bureau Chief Ashley Parker, Playbook co-author Eugene Daniels, Stephen Hayes, founder of The Dispatch and Errin Haines, editor-at-large of The 19th. And if you don’t know about The 19th, you should, but it is an independent news organization dedicated to covering women in politics. Welcome to all of you. I want to start with the Senator Braun interview because – and Steve, I’m going to start on the right side of the aisle on this. What I sensed from Senator Braun was a discomfort on the issue as a whole. He is, he is 100% pro-life. He campaigned on it as a senator. But he did seem uncomfortable being definitive. What does that tell us about the concern on the right about the politics of this?

STEPHEN HAYES:

Yeah. I agree with you that he did seem uncomfortable talking about it. I don’t know that that necessarily represents a broader lack of willingness or eagerness among conservatives to talk about it. When you look at the polling on the issue, look at Gallup Polling from May, 48% of the country describes itself as pro-life, 49% as pro-choice. You’ve got Republicans and conservatives who have been making the case for this moment, for the challenging of Roe v. Wade, because they believe that Roe v. Wade is bad law, that these are made up rights, and are perfectly willing to have that argument. I think when you get into some of the details of the questioning and what comes next in a post-Roe world is where Republican policy makers are less comfortable talking about it.

CHUCK TODD:

You know, Errin, I got the sense, like you’re describing – what he’s hoping for, I’m, like, « You’re kind of describing what Roe has allowed for, » this uneasy peace that we have on this issue.

ERRIN HAINES:

Yeah. The thing is, watching that interview, yes, knowing where the rest of the country is on this issue, I mean, you have that polling showing that, you know, the majority of Americans feel like there should be, you know, abortion should be allowed, with some exceptions. That, you know, it should not be illegal, or illegal with few exceptions. Most people are not in favor of that. And so when you have that, I think that may be perhaps what some of his hesitancy is on being more vocal about it. But it’s not so much what Republicans are saying, it’s what they’re doing, right? This is what conservatives have been pushing for. This was the long game on abortion, that is absolutely what their voters, you know, use their voice at the ballot box to push for, and what the former president pushed for. And what we’re seeing now is kind of the fruition of that.

ASHLEY PARKER:

And the Braun interview is fascinating, but in some ways, a more interesting case study is someone like Senator Susan Collins, right, who voted to approve Justice Kavanaugh, said she believed his promises when – promises, of course, when he was trying to earn a Supreme Court seat, and will say what the senators want to hear, that Roe was settled law. Then when she was asked about the oral arguments of the Court, she said she didn’t see them, which sort of feels like the version of, « I didn’t see the tweet, » the Supreme Court version of that. And now, she has come out and said she believes in Roe, she believes it should be codified. She does not sign on to support a Democratic bill which would do just that because it goes too far. But she has said she is working for other bipartisan options. She will introduce her own legislation. But the way Congress is divided right now, that legislation – bipartisan, her own – does not have the votes to pass.

CHUCK TODD:

I’m guessing she’s glad that she’s up in ’20 and wasn’t up in ’22.

ERRIN HAINES:

I mean, and you saw, when she was up, what does she do? She votes against Amy Coney Barrett, which is absolutely an issue in her Senate rate.

CHUCK TODD:

You know, Eugene, the thing that interests me about a post-Roe world is how many elected officials got to duck their position on abortion for basically my entire lifetime. They got to basically say they’re for Roe or against Roe. Now, you have to find out he didn’t want to – well, do you criminalize it? You know, it’s when you start to get at – I didn’t get to the morning after pill. I didn’t have time to get to that in the interview, but you start to go into the specifics of reproductive rights law. This is where I think you start to open the Pandora’s Box.

EUGENE DANIELS:

Right. And that’s why it’s so complicated. The place where he was most uncomfortable when you guys were talking was what happens next. And that is exactly what people have been talking about who are abortion advocates, is that, okay, so you don’t back Roe v. Wade, what happens after that? And what does the country look like? It looks bifurcated. You look in one state where you can get an abortion, and another where a woman could be arrested for getting an abortion. There’s also the question that’s even more complicated than it was in the ’90s when Roe seemed like it might be on the chopping block, which is the abortion pill, right? You can mail an abortion pill to women. So if a woman gets an abortion pill in a state that doesn’t allow abortion, who’s going to look in that mail and say, « Oh, this is a problem? » And for folks like conservatives who’ve talked a lot about, you know, not having a police state, I talked to some abortion advocates over this week, they say, « Well, isn’t that exactly what they say they’re against, a police state where people are checking the mail for abortion pills? »

STEPHEN HAYES:

But I don’t think the politics of this are that clear. I mean, look at what happened in Virginia, right? Look at the election there, the gubernatorial election there. You had Terry McAuliffe run a ton of ads, expensive ads, spent a lot of money making abortion a big issue. He said it was going to be one of the number one issues. I would argue that he mischaracterized Glenn Youngkin’s position quite a bit. He makes this argument. Exit polls suggest that only 8% of Virginia voters thought it was the most important issue when they cast their ballots. 59% of those voted for Glenn Youngkin. This was in the context of a big discussion of the Texas abortion ruling. This is in the context of what we knew was going to be this case coming up. I’m not sure it’s as cut and dry or pro-Democrat–

CHUCK TODD:

But see–

STEPHEN HAYES:

– or not.

CHUCK TODD:

– what this brings up, Errin, is that what we’ve seen is the right is motivated.

ERRIN HAINES:

Absolutely.

CHUCK TODD:

The left hasn’t been. What is it going to take to motivate the left on this issue? The actual overturn itself?

ERRIN HAINES:

Yeah, that’s a really good question, Chuck, because to your point, I think that Democrats were lulled into this kind of false sense of security because you didn’t have a conservative Court for so long. They thought that this was settled law, thought that this was precedent.

CHUCK TODD:

Well, you had people like Kennedy to uphold it. You know, it looked like —

ERRIN HAINES:

Absolutely.

CHUCK TODD:

– it was bipartisan. And those – by the way, that was in the era of a third of Democrats were pro-life in the elected Congress and a third of Republicans were pro-choice in the elected Congress.

ERRIN HAINES:

Yeah. And that’s the thing, right? I mean, elections have consequences. I think Republicans certainly understand that. Democrats are kind of beginning to understand what that means, especially around the Supreme Court, whether you’re talking about abortion, whether you’re talking about issues like voting rights, whether you’re talking about gun rights. Democrats are starting to see that when you have, you know, a Court that is more conservative, that is absolutely going to challenge some of these things that they thought were kind of settled law.

CHUCK TODD:

Look, I’m a little long, so I’m not going to play the bite. But Justice Kagan’s argument about overturning precedent was – she was saying, « There has to be a groundswell, and that’s missing here. » And she’s worried about the politicizing of the Court. At the same time, the left is now panicked that Justice Breyer is going to not retire, right? That conversation doesn’t help the politicizing issue, does it?

ASHLEY PARKER:

It sure doesn’t. And the Court has been politicized from former President Trump, talking about « My justices, » very clearly making the argument that he wanted the 2020 election to get kicked to the Supreme Court because his justices would hand it to him.

CHUCK TODD:

His justices.

ASHLEY PARKER:

His justices would hand it to him. So whether or not the Court is politicized, you saw the justices in oral arguments raise that concern. You see polling that shows the public believe it. At a certain point, it’s something like the Court perception is reality.

ERRIN HAINES:

Absolutely.

CHUCK TODD:

Yeah. You know what? The minute you allowed a president to appoint Supreme Court justices, you politicized the Court. It’s kind of our Founders sort of decided that. Anyway, when we come back, why do more than half of younger Americans think our democracy has failed or is in trouble? Stay with us.

CHUCK TODD:

Welcome back. Data Download time and a look at our country’s future as seen by the folks that will shape it, younger Americans. Harvard’s Kennedy School released a poll of 18 to 29-year-olds this week. Let’s just say there was not a lot of youthful optimism to be found. Look at their views on democracy. Is democracy working well? Only 24%, one in four young Americans, believe that is true. 64% disagree with that statement. As for the U.S. democracy in particular, is it healthy and somewhat functioning? Just 34% of voters under 30 think that. Is it failed or in trouble? A majority of young folks think that’s the case in the U.S. democracy. I’m guessing a lot of you out there may agree with them. As for President Biden approval rating, this is where we can show you that, even among voters under 30, there is an education divide like there is all across the electorate. If you have a college degree or you’re in college, you have a net positive rating on the president. By the way, this 54-44 isn’t a great number for the president, but it’s a net positive among young voters with a college degree. If you have no college degree, you disapprove of this president 57%, very similarly to older parts of the electorate. There is a mild branding problem here for the Republican Party. When you look at this whole group of voters, more are comfortable identifying as conservative than they are as Republican, an eight point difference there. President Trump, by the way, not very popular among anybody in this age group. If you look down on the left side of the electorate here, 39% identify as liberal, 39% as Democrat. A little more of cohesion there. There is one issue that cuts across ideological lines and it appears to be the issue of climate change, and is it going to impact some of the decisions you make in your life. Among all 18 to 29-year-olds, 70% of college degrees say it, 57% of folks in college, and a majority of folks not — who don’t have a college degree also say climate change is going to impact some of the decisions that they make. So there, a bit of unanimity. When we come back, a mass shooting at a high school. The parents of the alleged shooter charged with involuntary manslaughter. We’re going to discuss this sad case and a rare prosecution next. Stay with us.

[BEGIN TAPE

KAREN MCDONALD:

While the shooter was the one who entered the high school and pulled the trigger, there are other individuals who contributed to the events on November 30th. And it’s my intention to hold them accountable as well.

[END TAPE]

CHUCK TODD:

Welcome back. That was Karen McDonald, the Oakland County, Michigan prosecutor who charged the parents of the boy accused of shooting and killing four students with involuntary manslaughter. You know, Ashley, it’s interesting here with this school shooting. There’s always been talk of, you know, should parents be held accountable for when kids get a hold of guns. This prosecutor feels like she found enough evidence to actually do it. But we’ve not seen something like this. This feels like we are entering new territory.

ASHLEY PARKER:

That’s right. It’s incredibly rare. I think an important point is she did not charge them simply because they were the parents of the shooter. She charged them because there was a whole litany of evidence, from buying him that gun for Christmas, taking him to the shooting range, when he got caught looking at ammo and guns at school, the mother texting him basically saying, « LOL. I’m not mad at you. Just don’t get caught next time. » But you’re right. The overall point remains, which is this will be incredibly closely followed because, regardless, even if this is a rare instance, it will send such a message either way, depending on what that final outcome is.

CHUCK TODD:

A school shooting that gets a lot of attention, Eugene, gets at least some new rhetoric on the Hill to do something. I’m going to guess the Safe Gun Protection Law might be about the one place that you could get somewhere, right?

EUGENE DANIELS:

No, absolutely, because you’ve talked about, like, responsible gun owners, right? That is the place in which Republicans and Democrats can find some common ground. It’s still hard to see how you have a conversation about gun control or gun safety with this current Congress and to go anywhere, especially in the Senate. But the lack of federal gun legislation has forced prosecutors, like in this case and others, to try to figure out ways to make people be more responsible, figure out ways to have some type of run-around on the lack of gun —

CHUCK TODD:

Well, in Michigan, there is no safe keeping law. That’s why —

EUGENE DANIELS:

That’s right.

CHUCK TODD:

— they had to do involuntary —

EUGENE DANIELS:

Exactly.

CHUCK TODD:

— manslaughter. Steve, I want to put up with Congressman Thomas Massie put up yesterday. The timing couldn’t have felt worse, couldn’t have felt more ill-timed. This is — it’s gotten a lot of social media attention, Thomas Massie and his family all holding their gun of choice there and saying, « P.S., Santa, bring more ammo. » Is gun culture sort of — are we at a bad place? Are we too celebratory of gun ownership on the right, Steve —

STEPHEN HAYES:

So I don’t think that represents gun culture. I mean, Thomas Massie gave an interview a couple years ago in which he said that his election and the rise of Rand Paul and Ron Paul actually signaled this rise of sort of a Libertarian-style Republican Party. And he later said the election of Donald Trump suggested that the craziest person is going to win. I think that’s what you’re seeing here. I think he’s playing to the crazy people there.

CHUCK TODD:

He’s not serious about this, but he’s playing to the crazies, is what you’re saying?

STEPHEN HAYES:

Yeah, it’s a troll. He’s trying to get attention for doing it. I think most responsible gun owners wouldn’t want this kind of gun fetish display, just as most responsible gun owners, I think, would condemn the way that the parents handled the use of the gun and the lack of safe keeping. It sort of violates everything that responsible gun owners believe.

ERRIN HAINES:

And I think hearing responsible gun owners really pushing back in this moment and rejecting things like, you know, the tweet that Thomas Massie posted, which by the way, is at 60,000 likes and counting on Twitter, and yes, I know that Twitter is not America. We do know that.

STEPHEN HAYES:

Thank goodness actually.

CHUCK TODD:

Yeah, imagine if it were.

ERRIN HAINES:

Absolutely. But no, there is an audience for this. And it just needs to be kind of underscored that for gun owners and for folks that are in gun culture who are, like, « No, this is not who we are, » hearing some of those voices in this conversation I think is going to be important too.

CHUCK TODD:

Look, there’s another part of this, Ashley. It’s what the school did and did not do. And, look, I have family that is in — works in school systems. The pressure school administrators are feeling from parents. And this set of parents said, « Don’t take my kid out of school. » And administrators are afraid. You know, parents are angry. They’re in a tough place too.

ASHLEY PARKER:

They absolutely are. They’ve already ordered up an investigation of what’s happened. My understanding is that, as rare as it is to charge parents, it is incredibly rare for a school to actually be held accountable. Now, that doesn’t mean there won’t be lawsuits and other —

CHUCK TODD:

Maybe individuals get held accountable —

ASHLEY PARKER:

Yes. Yes.

CHUCK TODD:

— right? Yeah.

ASHLEY PARKER:

And other steps against them. But it is an incredibly tricky position. And you also find that schools, that parents, that all of these things in the margins are coming under question because the big issue, which is should kids who are mentally troubled have access to guns, Congress simply can’t address that.

ERRIN HAINES:

But teachers are also in a tricky position too, right? What about the teacher, you know, that said, « Oh, Ethan Crumbley is monitoring ammo on his phone »? She tried to raise the alarm. That didn’t —

CHUCK TODD:

Not enough —

ERRIN HAINES:

— yes, go anywhere.

CHUCK TODD:

— people listened. Well, we had a lot of light subjects for you today: abortion, guns, and Covid. But thank you for being here. Thank you for watching. We’ll be back next week because if it’s Sunday, it’s Meet the Press.