Rep. Jayapal: We Must 'Enshrine' Women's Right To Choose As Federal Law 1

Rep. Jayapal: We Must ‘Enshrine’ Women’s Right To Choose As Federal Law

The Texas abortion law and countering it with federal legislation that protects women's right to choose is discussed by Rep. Pramila Jayapal. Politics expert Matthew Dowd also joins Joy Reid adding, ‘We should not ever let Republicans have the words pro-life come out of their mouths. They're not pro-life.’
» Subscribe to MSNBC:

MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Meet the Press Daily, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com:
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter: …
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:

#MSNBC #Texas #WomensRights

73 comments

    1. economics 101 don’t be robbing peter to pay paul. seem to me texas is putting an end to this practice by stopping abortions

  1. why don’t we enshrine the separation of government and economy? Giving up that right costs us 40% of every paycheck

    1. @MrHazelJ just keep in mind we gave taliban more weapons than even a massive wall that spans all of our mexican border would cost. sounds pretty impeachable to me but i guess biden didnt do something really nasty like call up ukraine for the TRUTH about Hunter Biden.

    2. @PlumCrazy I have plenty of friends that work in construction and a lot longer than you. Union jobs like this would keep undocumented immigrants from getting the jobs unless you know of a union that hir s undocumented immigrants because I don’t

  2. Congress had 50 years to codify it as law. Now Democrats want to pick and chose which laws have to go through the court system and which they can jump to the Supreme Court.

    1. @Logan White aborting a fetus that’s unviable outside the womb isn’t murder no matter what your twisted logic tells you. You’re removing an organ at that point

      And why are you so nosey about other people’s privacy? Butt out. If you don’t want an abortion don’t get one simple as that.

    2. @1ocean515 but you’re not educated on this subject at all that’s why I’m saying and if you feel attacked for that then that’s on you not me

      Now why is that you pro lifers have circular logic?

      Women’s top reason for not having the child is because they’re not financially prepared

      So now Texas is forcing women to have babies then you guys go back nad say “you shouldn’t have a kid if you’re not ready!””

      Lol it’s dumb and also I don’t see you all stepping up for adoption of these kids nor are you all for universal healthcare or a better welfare state which will help these kids and does in other countries

      Stop me when I’m wrong

    3. @Logan White you can leave a two year alone you’re being obtuse about this. A two and three year old is a child it isn’t a fetus that’s not viable outside the womb.

    4. @MrHazelJ I’m very well educated on the subject, hence my previous specific comments. Your emotionalism towards the issue carries no weight, nor does it address the specific legal/constitutional questions that have remained in place since the original SCOTUS decision was handed down in 1973. As you wish to remain ignorant of the facts, and only apply appeals to emotion, I’ll leave you to your own.

    5. @1ocean515 so now that I poked holes in your beliefs you think what you says is some sort of fact in constitutional rights? How is saying a fetus being aborted before 21 weeks not murder a flawed argument?

      Point out the flaw. I’m not emotional I’m just looking. Holes in your beliefs and you don’t like it

      Furthermore your invading private rights and autonomous rights as well

      So explain how that’s an emotional argument and not a constitutional one

      And explain exactly what is flawed about the 1973 SCOTUS decision

    1. @D RiteMoLawzBks beep boop anyone who disagrees with the Democrats or points out their dementia riddled leader is a piece of crap is a Russian bot. Do you remember when the Democrats said that the Hunter Laptop story was Russian disinformation, and then it was shown to be true? Pepperidge Farms remembers.

    2. @Herbie Husker None of the Russian Cyrillic characters show up on my phone. I’m going assume you’re trying to send Kremlin propaganda about NATO.

    3. @Booqueefious I hear they vaccinate themselves several times a day Hunters also such a good boy he always picks up all of the crumbs off the carpet

    1. @Garrett H. Middleton Haha best comment ever. Every Democrat should be forced to have abortion just like every American is forced to take the vaccines by Democrats.

    2. @Duy L Then they have the choice to place the kid for adoption!
      Defend the life of the unborn babies !
      Science has proven that is life … Terminating it, is criminal !
      I’m not religious …by the way … Changed my position when I saw the unborn fight for their life .

    3. @Duy L If inability… then place kid for adoption !
      I’m sure there are many willing people to raise a child that cannot bear children…. They probably can cover costs of any inconvenience.

  3. “It doesn’t affect anyone else.”? What would the baby say about that? Did you tell the father? Did you tell anyone?

    1. @Duy L the government is not telling women what they can or cannot do. They are defining when life begins and in doing so are giving that person their rights.

    2. Ok. It doesn’t affect you. It doesn’t affect anyone as much as it does the woman making the decision, and no one is better able to make that decision than the woman in question and her doctor.

    3. @Rachel K i have to disagree with you completely. The one most affected by the careless actions of a woman is the baby being killed.

  4. On top of guaranteeing women’s rights in Afghanistan, now you want the Biden team toe “enshrine” the same rights here? Wow! Such ambition!

    1. @Melanin Magdalene you cant say women any more they are mensural or birthing people the dems took that language out of the voters rights they hate women.

    2. Let’s argue over semantics. That is fun. Let’s codify rigid gendering, that certainly hasn’t contributed to this mess that women are facing.

    3. @Rachel K Problem: “Gender is a social construct”

      Solution: Socially construct people into not knowing the difference between male and female.

      Can we also socially construct people to have christian values and not murder babies?

    4. @Kathryn Elizabeth Lol the left is allowing biological men to go to women’s bathrooms, restroom and locker room. So STFU.
      Signed, a protective man.

  5. Joy with a solid 6k views after being posted for two plus hours… oh joy…get a life. There are you tubers that are 5 years old getting 100x the views you are. People don’t want to hear your garbage any longer.

    1. @John Delfino yeah it’s definitely a valid argument, anyone that takes Joy Reid seriously most likely has a Low IQ

  6. No one has taken the right for an abortion away. Just the window of opportunity has narrowed. This entire “conversation” is intellectually disingenuous.

    1. You’re correct they haven’t taken the RIGHT, however the various states who love to legislate morality make it impossible to have right to an abortion. Laws that you’ll notice are made by a bunch of old white men who haven’t a clue, what is disingenuous is how this will stop abortion, and that’s bull. If semantic have the right as you say then open abortion clinic that offer healthcare for disadvantaged women to include abortion. Let’s see how that flys in your red states.

    2. @Gregg Zillges you contradict yourself in your own statement. You admit the right to have an abortion is still there. Yet the next line you say it’s impossible to get an abortion. I get its hyperbole. But what are you talking about? Are there a bunch of Republicans with sticks keeping people from entering clinics? You are perpetuating the soft bigotry of low expectations. By insinuating that women of lesser means cannot be responsible for their own bodies. If there is that much fear of being in a red state. Move to a blue one.

    3. @Gregg Zillges The word “musket” doesn’t appear in the Constitution. Also, slavery and Jim Crow were once legal. They were evil too. Legality is a poor metric to use to judge morality.

    1. @Brian Williams Yeah, but at least THEY got to make that decision and not some irresponsible girl whose vagina has an enter and exit lane.

    1. No what divides us is our differences. Men think children shouldnt be killed and that they shouldnt be forced to pay for child support. Women think children should be killed and that they should be paid for the babies they actually want to keep by fathers that never wanted the kid. Oh hey would you look at that currently women have it any way they want it and men have no options either their kid dies or their wages are garnished into dust. A rational person says pick one either the child is worthless therefore it doesnt need support or the child is valued and should be protected while in the womb and be financially supported by fathers who have the earning power to do so.

  7. Roe v Wade was decided in 1973.
    You’ve had 48 years to “enshrine women’s right to choose as federal law”.
    Why didn’t you?

    1. You say so much by putting person in quotes, you don’t think women are people. Which is exactly why we are going to enshrine abortion rights, so people like you stop thinking you are entitled to have any voice in another person’s reproductive choices.

    2. @Rachel K if you can push COVID jabs, then I can control your abortion and if we are going to allow you to have access to health care. This crazy stuff flows both ways, just watch. Dems control over this country is about to expire.

  8. P.s. did anyone tell Reid that she didn’t fix her hair from where she slept in her -kilowatt the night before? She looks a mess.

  9. This reminds me of the landmark Dread Scott v Stanford decision where it was the Supreme Court that determined people of African decent was property and had no constitutional rights, fulfilling the “my slave, my choice” narrative. Question is does an unborn child have constitutional protections? If someone can be charged for the murder of a mother and the unborn child, it seems like the unborn have constitutional protections.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.