Skip to main content

tv   At This Hour With Kate Bolduan  CNN  May 3, 2022 8:00am-9:00am PDT

8:00 am
8:01 am
obtained by "politico" indicates the supreme court has voted to overturn the constitutional guarantee to abortion access, which has been in place for half a century. the final decision would lead to abortion bans in nearly half of u.s. states and present a seismic shift for americans. crowds are gathering outside the supreme court since the news broke last night, so let's begin our coverage with cnn's jeremy diamond who is live at the white house today. jeremy, the president making crystal clear where he stands on this issue this morning. >> reporter: no doubt about it, bianna, and listen, we know that president biden and the white house were -- learned about this news like everybody else, through this "politico" report, and the president making clear that there is a caveat at the top of this, which is that the white house does not know whether this is an authentic document and -- but nonetheless, the president making clear that he believes that this is a fundamental right that women have had in trying through roe versus wade writing in the statement, i believe that a woman's right to choose is
8:02 am
fundamental. roe has been the law of the land for almost 50 years and basic fairness and the stability of our law demand that it not be overturned. now, the president also talks about efforts that his government has made so far to assess the impact of these laws in various states where officials have been dismantling the right of women to choose in several states across the country, and the president then pivots to the midterms, saying if the court does overturn roe, it will fall on our nation's elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman's right to choose and it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this november. at the federal level, we will need more pro-choice senators and a pro-choice majority in the house to adopt legislation, which will i work to pass and sign into law. the last part of that is really the core of what you're seeing, first of all an acknowledgment that democrats do not currently have the numbers in the senate to be able to codify roe versus wade as the law of the land to make abortion legal through legislation.
8:03 am
but also that this is becoming a political fight. it will be a galvanizing cry for democrats heading into midterms where they are, as of now, expected to lose their majority in the house, perhaps lose their majority in the senate as well. democrats will certainly hope that this issue of abortion and this ruling from the supreme court if it comes down this summer, will be a motivating factor for democrats to push back on what was expected to be republican ganins in november. >> as mentioned we are expecting to hear from the president at any moment, as he leaves the white house for joint base andrews. we will take that when he speaks. thank you. at this hour, demonstrators are gathering outside the supreme court as americans learn that the landmark ruling roe v. wade could soon be a thing of the past. cnn's jessica schneider is live at the supreme court with details on the draft opinion. legal experts not only shocked by the leak itself, but at some of the language within this draft. >>. >> reporter: yeah, beeibianna, would be a monumental and consequential decision from this
8:04 am
court, if it is ultimately released in the weeks ahead. on the other side, this is really a stunning breach of secrecy of this court. i've covered it for five years. i know my colleagues have covered it for even longer. it's not -- it never happens that a leak happens of this magnitude from the court. the opinions are never indicated or released at any point before decision day. we're still waiting to hear if and when the supreme court might comment on this. we are outside the chief justice's home john roberts earlier this morning. he was asked if he had any comment about the leak, if there would be any investigation into the leak. he said nothing. so we'll wait to see if the court itself responds. but "politico" reporting this draft opinion is drafted by justice samuel alito. in it, if it were to go into effect, it would eliminate the constitutional right to abortion that was established by roe v. wade in 1973 and affirmed by planned parenthood versus casey in 1992. i'll read you from part of the
8:05 am
opinion here. justice alito writing, the constitution makes no reference to abortion and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision. roe was egregiously wrong from the start. it is time to heed the constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives. "politico" releasing this draft opinion, 98 pages from justice alito joined crucially by four conservative leaning justices and, bu aianna, if this ruling e to be issued officially, it would send a seismic wave all over this country. already we've seen republican-led states putting forth legislation that would roll back or completely eliminate the right to abortion. so they are ready act here, and we know that estimates are that about half of the states would immediately ban abortion if roe v. wade were to be overturned. >> would blow up 50 years of precedence, jessica schneider, thank you. joining me now is cnn chief political analyst gloria borger,
8:06 am
chief legal analyst, jeffrey toobin and supreme court biographer, joan pis cue bit. thank you for joining us on this very significant day. we're all anticipating the court perhaps chipping away at roe by not only its makeup, but by its decision to take the mississippi case in the first place. how shocking is this draft and the arguments that alito is making here? >> good morning, it's shocking in just about every way, how it would roll back a half century of reproductive rights for women. how it was disclosed to the american public late last night, and in terms of the substance that you ask about, bianna, it's justice alito's language in both tone and derision of roe v. wade and planned parenthood versus casey that jessica just referred to, is so sharp and so strong that i have to tell you the truth, that i can't imagine that what ultimately comes out from the court is as harshly worded. the sentiment will probably be there, but to have five justices
8:07 am
join what is such a strong statement against precedent, referring to abusive judicial authority by prior supreme courts in allowing abortion rights and also how sweepingly it goes. you know, what it does is it rolls back every -- every thread, every part, every element of roe v. wade, and then goes to some of the decisions that roe was founded on and casts some doubt on those, and in its entire approach to precedent and disregard for precedent, it can't help but make someone wonder what would be next. as you know, we've always thought, you know, because of the political scene, because of how long roe v. wade had been entrenched that the supreme court would not reverse it. that was obviously before donald trump put his three appointees on the court, but now there's nothing that i think of as off
8:08 am
limits. you know, i used to say they'd never reverse obergefell which was the 2015 case that made same-sex marriage a fundamental constitutional right, but now i have to say i'm never going to say never again. >> right. and as joan said, the language may change. the likelihood that the opinion, if this draft is indeed valid, likely won't change, right? and you say that this would be a seismic shift for the country. >> it was. and again, if this is the opinion or something close to it is the opinion, it's worth remembering what the basis of roe v. wade and the casey decisions were, which is the right to privacy, which these -- which the justices found imp implicit in various constitutional provisions. the right to privacy according to the court for decades has protected a right to purchase contraception. it is the right to have consensual sex with a person of
8:09 am
the same sex or a of a differen sex. it's related to the right to marriage of same sex or a different sex. if there is no more right to privacy in the constitution as this opinion seems to suggest, all those -- all those rules, all those existing precedents are also up for grabs. how much the government can regulate people's private lives is not just about abortion. this opinion suggests that there is no right to privacy in the constitution, and it is free rein for states and the federal government to regulate in what had previously been seen as a private realm. >> gloria, i'm curious to get your perspective on this because you have democrats who have argued that this president, that president biden has not focused enough on this issue. he hasn't even said the word abortion since taking office. how much does his approach to this issue now change?
8:10 am
>> 100%. you know, joe biden in the past has had some troubles with the issue of abortion. we know that he's a devout catholic. we know that he's shifted positions in the past, and so there have been some questions about what he was willing to do. i think those are now out the window. this is a category 5 hurricane, and he's got a midterm election coming up. you saw that they released a statement earlier. i fully expect at some point that he's going to answer questions about this, and i think we can also say in looking at the political situation we are in, the economy is very, very difficult for him right now, but also remember that cultural issues matter more in elections than they used to, and they have been raised very much in the run up to the midterm elections. this is a culture issuem the democrats will raise and the
8:11 am
suburban women voters who are not living on the edge, suburban women voters will react to this, whether it's going to be enough, who knows. >> yeah, i was just going to say because you had many democrats acknowledging that given the status of the economy and inflation that it would be very difficult for them to retain hold of the house come midterms. is this an issue that you think can change that. >> yeah, i do think that there will be more enthusiasm among democratic voters to come out and say, look, look at what is occurring. we don't want this to occur anymore. et cetera, et cetera. democratic base particularly women. it's hard to predict right now how many people will come out. i know that the democrats are going to be out there saying this is going to affect everything as jeffrey was just saying before. it's not just the question of abortion. it's the question of where else the court will go. will the court backtrack on gay marriage, for example, as joan was questioning.
8:12 am
so i think the democrats are going to raise these issues. i think biden's going to raise these issues, and how people react remains to be seen. >> joan, i know you have reporting on where chief justice roberts stands on this issue. we know that the supreme court in its reputation and where it stands within the country right now given the hyperpolarization is very important for him to protect. >> you know, that's just -- that's right. rarely does he write an opinion or give a speech that he doesn't somehow infuse it with the importance of the institutional regard for the court and this time and how he likes to stress that the court is not like, you know, not nine politicians in robes, and he has been so self-conscious about the court's standing in america that he himself has been edging to the left just because of his fears about how far this court has been lurching right ward, and this is exhibit a for the court lurching right ward, and what i knew from reporting before this
8:13 am
"politico" bomb shell that came nowhere near to discovering something like this, an actual draft opinion from samuel alito was that i had learned that the chief had been trying to convince colleagues to not go so far. he has been a long-time opponent of abortion rights dating to his work for the reagan administration in the 1980s. he's voted against abortion rights and voted to uphold abortion restrictions. but he has started to hedge on that and from everything i know, he did not want to join the canine okind of opinion that samuel alito was writing. he was willing, however, as i understand it, to say that the mississippi law in dispute that would prevent abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, that that could stand, which would already undermine part of roe v. wade, but it wouldn't -- it would at least leave part of that landmark behind. and what i had learned was that
8:14 am
he had made no headway with key justices to try to pick them off, the two most likely would have been justices kavanaugh and barrett, the most recent justices and they were not budging according to my reporting up to now. >> joaif we do hear from the president, we'll have you back. democrats are vowing to fight back as the supreme court appears ready to overturn roe v. wade. so what can lawmakers do to protect abortion rights. senator elizabeth warren joins me next. under budget too! and i get seven days to love it or my money back... i love it! [laughs] we'll drive you happy at carvana.
8:15 am
if your moderate to severe crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis symptoms are stopping you in your tracks... choose stelara® from the start... and move toward relief after the first dose... with injections every two months. stelara® may increase your risk of infections, some serious, and cancer. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection, flu-like symptoms, sores, new skin growths, have had cancer, or if you need a vaccine. pres, a rare, potentially fatal brain condition,
8:16 am
may be possible. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. feel unstoppable. ask your doctor how lasting remission can start with stelara®. janssen can help you explore cost support options. wayfair has everything i need to make my home totally me. sometimes, i'm a homebody. so cozy. sometimes, i'm all business. and yeah, i'm not a chef- perfect. but thanks to wayfair, i do love my kitchen. yes!
8:17 am
it's started. somewhere between a cuddle and a struggle, it's...the side hug. tween milestones like this may start at age 9. hpv vaccination - a type of cancer prevention against certain hpv-related cancers, can start then too. for most, hpv clears on its own. but for others, it can cause certain cancers later in life. you're welcome! now, as the "dad cab", it's my cue to help protect them. embrace this phase. help protect them in the next. ask their doctor about hpv vaccination today.
8:18 am
. in a written statement, president biden says a woman's right to choose is fundamental, and that lawmakers need to
8:19 am
protect it if roe v. wade is overturned. moments ago, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell reacted to the news but only focused on the leak of the draft opinion. take a listen. >> one of the court's most essential and sacred features was smashed just about the outrage industrial complex a few extra days to scream nonsense about what the court might rule. this lawless action should be investigated, and punished to the fullest extent possible. >> joining me now is democratic senator elizabeth warren. senator, welcome to the program. we are just getting breaking news in the form of a statement from chief justice roberts, and i'd like to read it to you and then get you to respond. it goes as follows, although the document described in yesterday's report is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the court or the final
8:20 am
position of any member on the issues in the case. to the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. the work of the court will not be affected in any way. we at the court are blessed to have a work force, employees and law clerks alike intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law. he goes on to say that i have directed the marshal of the court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak. clearly his focus is on the integrity of the court and the unprecedented nature of this leak. just wanting to get you to respond to the first statement, and that is that the document in yesterday's report is authentic. >> yes, the document is authentic, and this is a conversation about the integrity of this court. this is about the integrity of justice who is said in open public rule of law and respecting the rule of law means this precedent that has been there for nearly 50 years.
8:21 am
look, i feel really angry about this, and what i feel angry about is that an extremist supreme court is going to impose their views on the rest of america, and do you know who this is going to fall hardest on? it's not going to fall hardest on well to do women. they can afford to get on a plane and go to another state where abortion is legal. they can afford to leave the country. who this is going to fall hardest on is going to be on poor women. it's going to fall hardest on those who have been molested, it's going to fall hardest on women who have been raped. it's going to fall hardest on the woman who's already working two jobs to try to take care of the children she has. and this supreme court has said they don't care. they don't care about those women. what they care about is imposing their extremist view on the rest of the country. that's what the republicans have been building toward, and it looks like they have about arrived there.
8:22 am
>> let me ask you about the president himself who put out a statement and if we do hear from him, we'll take it, but put out a statement this morning obviously highlighting his support in the defense of roe v. wade and also what his administration has done in defending it in court. i'm curious given what our -- we discussed in our previous segment about him not even mentioning the word abortion thus far in his term as president, do you think that he and his administration have done enough publicly to highlight the significance of this issue? >> look, we're past the time when we can look in the rearview mirror. we just don't have the luxury of that. the question is what are we going to do now? what are we going to do today and tomorrow and the next day and the next day and the next day. remember, the supreme court is not the ones that will get the final word on roe versus wade. it is congress that gets the final word. we have the capacity to keep roe versus wade as the law of the land, and if we act, then we can
8:23 am
do that. so to me, this is all about the focus on what we're going to do in congress, and how the president is going to help us do that, how people all across this country are going to help us do that. we can put that vote on the floor now. we can get everybody on record on where they stand on roe versus wade, where they stand on a woman's right to an boabortio after she's been raped, where they stand on the right to an abortion for a 14-year-old who's been the victim of abuse. where they stand on the right to an abortion for some woman who can't support the children she has and is desperately trying to keep her family together. let's get them on the record voting on that, and if we don't have enough votes to pass it now, we get everybody on the record and then we take that to the public in november. we've got less than 200 days until election day, roe versus wade, in that sense is on the
8:24 am
ballot. >> i know you have been in favor of blowing up and eliminating the filibuster so has your colleague, bernie sanders. i'm just curious, do you have any sense that other democrats, joe manchin, who doesn't support abortion rights to begin with or kyrsten sinema would on this issue in particular? >> i think that it's one thing for them to talk about this in the abstract. you'd have to ask them how they feel about it now that we know what's happened with roe versus wade. but again, keep in mind we can keep everybody voting. we can make them go on the record, and if we need more democrats to change the rules, that's what happens in november. >> senator, senator, we're just going to -- we're just going to break in and listen to the president for a second. >> a call saying that it's been announced that it is a real draft, but it doesn't represent who's going to vote for it yet. i hope there are not enough votes for it. that's the main reason why i worked so hard to keep robert
8:25 am
b boruk off the court, it reflects his view almost -- anyway. look, the idea that concerns me a great deal that we're going to after 50 years decide a woman does not have a right to choose within the limits of supreme court decision. but even more equally profound is the rationale used, and it would mean that every other decision made in the notion of privacy is thrown into question. i realize this goes back a long way, but one of the debates i had with robert boruk whether on griswold versus connecticut should stand as law. the state of connecticut said that the privacy of your bedroom, a husband and wife could not choose to use contraception. the use of contraception is a
8:26 am
violation of law. if the rationale were to be sustained, a whole range of rights are in question. a whole range of rights. and the idea we're letting the states make their decision would be a fundamental shift in what we've done. so it goes far beyond, in my view, if it becomes a law and if what is written is what remains, it goes far beyond the concern of whether or not there is the right to choose. it goes to other basic rights, the right to marry, the right to determine a whole range of things because one of the issues that this court and many members of the court, or a number of members of the court have not acknowledged that there is a right to privacy in our constitution. i strongly believe there is. i think the decision in griswold was correct in overruling. i think the decision in roe was correct because there's a right to privacy. there can be limitations on it,
8:27 am
but it cannot be denied. >> irdo you think that this has irreparably -- the court? we've never seen this happen before. >> if this decision holds, it's really quite a radical decision. and again, young the underlying premise, i've not had a chance to thoroughly read the decision. it basically says all the decisions relating to your private life, who you marry, whether or not you decide to conceive a child or not, whether or not you can have a abortion, a range of other decisions, how you raise your child. what does this do and does this mean that in florida they can decide they're going to pass a law saying that same-sex marriage is not permissible? it's against the law in florida? so it's a fundamental shift in
8:28 am
american jurisprudence. >> mr. president, do away with the filibuster to codify roe? >> i'm not prepared to make those judgments now about, but you know, i think the codification of roe makes a lot of sense. look, think what roe says. roe says what all basic main mainstream religions have historically concluded, that the existence of a human life and being is a question, is it at the moment of conception? is it six months? is it six weeks? is it quickening like aquinus argued? the idea that we're going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to abort a child based on a decision by the supreme court i think goes way
8:29 am
overboard. >> thank you. thank you, guys. >> the midterms, what does this mean for the democrats' argument in the midterms? >> i haven't thought that through yet. >> do changes need to be made to the court in light of this, if this decision holds? >> i beg your pardon. >> do changes need to be made to the court in light of this? >> we just have to choose t titi -- look, they refuse to acknowledge that there's a ninth amendment. thi they refuse to acknowledge there's a right to privacy. there's so many fundamental rights that are affected by that. i'm not prepared to leave that to the whims and the -- of the public at the moment in local areas. thank you so much. >> thank you, guys. come on, guys. >> there you heard the president answering questions saying that if overturning roe does, in fact, happen, if this decision holds, it is a radical decision in his words. he also went on to say that he supports codification, codifying the rule making it a lot of
8:30 am
sense in his opinion but would not weigh in on the filibuster. i want to bring back in senator elizabeth warren to get her to respond to what we just heard from the president, specifically on the fact that codifying roe makes a lot of sense but not delving deeper into the filibuster. >> look, i've been on the record for a very long time that we need to get rid of the filibuster, and roe is just exhibit a for the reason for that. the latest data suggests that about 69% of americans, and that's americans everywhere, not just democrats, 69% of americans, red states and blue states, young people, old people want to see roe preserved as the law of the land. when 69% of americans in a democracy want to see something happen, you'd think we'd be able, at least, to get a vote on the floor of the senate on that question. but the filibuster prevents us
8:31 am
from doing that in the same way that historically the filibuster was used to prevent us from getting to the civil rights laws, to prevent us from getting to anti-luncynching laws. it prevents us from having a vote on the fundamental question of whether or not a woman has a right to seek an abortion in america. and so for me that is the gat gateway. we have to deal with the filibuster head on because until we do that, we have handed the republicans just a veto over anything we want to get done and understand, this is not, oh, but what happens when the republicans come back and if they're in power, wouldn't the shoe be on the other foot? understand this, the republicans have had two things that they've been beating a drum now for years. one, cut taxes for rich people and number two, get an extremist
8:32 am
supreme court in place to accomplish things like overturning roe. they've gotten what they wanted. on the democratic side, listen, we got to get serious and we got to get tough, and that means we've got to get rid of the filibuster and protect a woman's right to an abortion. >> doesn't that begin, though, with the president supporting getting rid of the filibuster, which he wouldn't do here? i mean, is he enough of an ally to the party on this issue? >> look, i think this is where all democrats should be. i've made this argument, i've been making this argument for years. in a democracy, it makes no sense, it is antidemocratic to let a minority continue to control the united states senate. the filibuster's not in the constitution. this is a rule that was developed by the senate, and that means the senate can get
8:33 am
rid of it, and that's exactly what we need to do. we need to get rid of the filibuster and then affirm what two-thirds of america wants us to do, and that is protect a woman's right to access to an abortion. >> senator elizabeth warren, thank you as always for your time. >> thank you. >> i want to bring back our panel, jeremy diamond, jeffrey to toobin, gloria borger,. >> what i thought was interesting was he was speaking in a bit of insider code as a former member of the senate and former chair of the senate judiciary committee. he talked about in 1987 when he was chair of the committee and robert boruk was nominated to the court by president reagan, and he was defeated in large part because he would not acknowledge that there is a right to privacy in the constitution, and that's why biden voted against him. that's why biden led the fight against him. it was a 58-42 vote against robert bork.
8:34 am
i think what this -- what the draft opinion illustrates is how much the republican party has shifted in recent years because it used to be that there was a very significant core in the republican party of pro-abortion rights, pro-right to privacy. but that right is eliminated in this draft opinion. the president, i don't think he was particularly clear about it but i think he was saying that the right to privacy is not just about abortion rights but it's about contraception. it's about sexual relations, it's about marriage, and all of that is in jeopardy with an opinion like this one. >> and joan, let's not lose sight of just how extraordinary it is to hear the president confirm what we heard from the chief justice just moments ago, and that is the document described in yesterday's report is authentic, but does not represent a decision by the court or the final position of any member on the issues in the
8:35 am
case. >> you know, this is just one more extraordinary thing that's happened in the last 24 hours for the chief justice to issue this kind of statement is really remarkable, and to say the court is saying outright this document that "politico" obtained is authentic, but the chief is rightly reinforcing the idea that we don't know what kinds of changes are going to be made to this first draft. i actually suspect that many changes have already been made to it since it was dated february 10th, so that -- that part is true. he also suggested that maybe, you know, votes -- it might not reflect the true votes from everything i've picked up, you know, i think there is a solid five-justice majority at this point to reverse roe, but maybe that can change, and that's one thing that our audience and we should all keep in mind, that maybe this will not be the ultimate result. it looks like it's certainly headed that way, but that's one caution the court wanted to put on it. finally, bianna, the chief says
8:36 am
in his statement that was just issued about the leak, he reinforces the idea that the permanent employees at the court, the law clerks, the justices that they are all intensely loyal and there was almost a suggestion that they wouldn't have done this. there must be someone else who's done it, and he says that he is enlisting the marshal of the court who -- the marshal's office works essentially for the chief and for the other justices to investigate the source of this disclosure, how it came about, and you know, we'll see if they're successful. >> the statement ends with him directing the marshal of the court to launch an investigation into this leak. let's talk about some of the language we heard from the president, gloria, calling the decision, if it holds, radical. >> right. yeah, i think that was a carefully chosen word. head talked about abouthe underg premise of all this, relating to
8:37 am
the entirety of your private life. and i think what biden is trying to do here is to kind of enlarge this and say, look, this is just not about women who seek an abortion. this is about what goes on in your bedroom. this is about whom you want to marry and so you have to take a look at this in its entirety and say do we want to go back there when there was no gay marriage, when there was no interracial marriage, and do we want to go back to that after 50 years of women having a right and now it is being taken away. so if you ever needed any hint about what the democrats intend to do with this and how joe biden intends to approach this, it is to broaden this to as much of the american public as they possibly can and portray it as
8:38 am
something radical that is going backwards and not forward. >> can i just ask, i was actually struck by -- and gloria, tell me if i'm wrong, i thought the president -- >> always. >> -- seems -- seems uncomfortable talking about abortion. >> he is. >> i thought he was -- he was trying to talk about other things as opposed to what this decision is really about. this decision is about whether women can get abortions. you know, yes, there are implications for other issues down the line, but the day this opinion comes out means abortion rights will be cut off for millions and millions of women. >> right. and that he just -- you know, he comes out of a tradition -- >> he's never -- >> he's never been comfortable with it. he's a devout catholic. he has been on both sides of the issue as you know, and his history as you pointed out is
8:39 am
with robert bork, and he's much more comfortable talking about robert bork and how he defeated that nomination on the question of privacy, and that is what the question of abortion became, and so that's his terra firma, not
8:40 am
8:41 am
8:42 am
8:43 am
one gram of sugar, and nutrients to support immune health.
8:44 am
mission control, we are go for launch. um, she's eating the rocket. ♪ lunchables! built to be eaten.
8:45 am
8:46 am
now to the latest on the war in ukraine. the first group of evacuees from the city of mariupol have reached safety in zaporizhzhia. but countless others remain trapped in mariupol's steel plant facing more shelling by russian forces. joining me now is the chief diplomatic adviser to ukraine's president zelenskyy. thank you for taking the time to join us. what can you tell us about the status of the evacuations from both the city of mariupol and that steel plant? as i noted, there is reporting that russia is once again launching a powerful assault against that plant. >> that's true, just immediately
8:47 am
after the d as long as before yesterday. those 156 people who managed to arrive to the city of zaporizhzhia only today, started evacuation the day before, the day before yesterday. but immediately today they resumed the assault operation, and now they are severely shelling the steel plant with all possible means by artillery, by missiles, by air strikes, and unfortunately there are reported several dead people because, yes, there are still civilians left in the steel plant as well as ukrainian wounded soldiers are left there. i would remind you that we proposed to exchange the wounded ukrainian soldiers with wounded russian soldiers. we didn't receive any clear answer from the russian federation.
8:48 am
we hope the evacuation of civilian will continue from the steel plant and from the city itself, more than 100,000 civilians are left in the city itself. unfortunately, no possibility for them to evacuate. >> igor, do you know how many civilians are left there at that steel plant, specifically children? >> well, according to our estimations about 200 civilians. i cannot tell you the exact number of the children, but certainly the children are still left there unfortunately. >> i know so much of the focus now turns to may 9th, the victory day in russia and what vladimir putin will do to try to claim some sort of victory at this point. cnn is now reporting that western officials believe he could formally declare war on ukraine, clearly what we've been seeing the past few months is indeed war. but there's also concern about an attempt to take over moldova, do you have any indication about what the kremlin plans to do between now and next monday? >> definitely i don't have exact kremlin plans, and as far as declare and not declare,
8:49 am
absolutely, you are right. having the open war since 24th of february this year, and the aggressive war, which started in 2014, and started to capture ukrainian crimea and ukrainian do donbas. as far as moldova is, everyone heard the official statements that some human rights are -- in moldova. anything can happen with russia, especially right you are before the 9th of may, they have to give some victory to their population, so they have to show them that something good happened on the ground for them, something positive. the the events today are connected to capturing the city. there are other forcible actions by them showing people how victorious there are. >> how concerned are you there could be a quote, unquote, sham in the regions there?
8:50 am
you had u.s. officials warning of intelligence suggesting just that. >> well, any fake referendums indefinitely, you cannot have anything else but fake referendums in kherson, occupied areas orvi villages or cities. it was clear saying in case of any referendum will take place in any occupied territory, ukraine will immediately refuse officially from the negotiations with russian federation. >> interesting. we have vladimir putin say today despite everything in his conversation with macron, that he's still open to negotiating with ukraine. we'll see if that will impact that at all. thank you. we appreciate your time. and coming up, voters head to the polls in two states today. as the prospect of roe v. wade being overturned dominates
8:51 am
headlines. will it impact the polls? we'll have a report next. earn big time with chase freedom unlimited with no annual fee. how do you cashback? chase. make more of what's yours. i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85,
8:52 am
call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information.
8:53 am
it's time to get outdoorsy. it's hot! and wayfair has got just what you need. we need a rug. that's the one. yeah. yeah we're getting outdoorsy. save on outdoorsy furniture, decor, and more. you're so outdoorsy honey. what are you... spend less on everything outdoorsy at wayfair. ♪ wayfair you've got just what i need ♪
8:54 am
8:55 am
happening now, the polls are open in two key states for key primaries ahead of the midterm elections. in ohio a crowded republican primary to replace rob portman. voters are heading to the polls with the news that the u.s. supreme court could soon strike down roe v. wade. joining me now is david chalian. let's talk about the impact of this decision, possibly coming as soon as next month, and how this will impact today's vote in ohio. >> it's a good question. the impact is likely going to be felt much more in a general
8:56 am
election context come november with the midterms happening all across the country. when you have democrats and republicans running against each other inside the these primaries. inside the republican primary, there's near unanimity in a position here. so it's hard to see what the immediate impact today for these voters will be. as you noted, one of the things we are watching starting today in this marquee race in the ohio republican senate primary and continuing throughout the month of may are the series of tests donald trump has sort of set up for himself to position himself as the king maker. the one witof the midas touch. a question that goes to his continued power and sway in the gop, donald trump, that is. what we see in today's news with the court opinion, the draft court opinion that is out there is clearly donald trump's power in the party, in the country, in the past. the question today as we look at the vote returns, does he still have that kind of power inside his party?
8:57 am
>> of course, one of the reasons why the president has made so many choices. right? and picks throughout this campaign. is that he can say listen, the numbers are in my favor. when you make so many predictions. let me ask in terms of what we see whether it's j.d. vance or whether it's mandel, how does that square against tim ryan? >> tim ryan is running as a real populous. he's running his campaign kind of against china as much as he's running it against a republican opponent. and what's interesting is that you see a similar populous trend in the trump era of the republican party. so it's not sort of a classic chamber of commerce conservative republican versus a progressive liberal. it is these two different versions of this economic populism that we've seen out there, and of course, add into that a lot of the culture wars we've talked about that has been
8:58 am
animating american politics. whether it is mandel or vance, i think the culture war and who has the upper hand on the economic populism, it's big themes given the state of our economy going forward? >> let's go back to the headline story. that's the possible overturning of roe that could happen. give whan you heard earlier from senator warren and saying this is the time now, right, to really go at it in terms of what democrats are going to focus on, is this an issue that you think can get democrats to the polls? given that the majority in this country, not just democrats, the majority of republican and democrats, there you see are not in favor of overturning roe. >> yeah. no. certainly this opinion sort of represents a 30% slice of the american public, but it has been the animating life force of the republican party for the last 50 years. this has driven republicans to the polls. so your question about will it
8:59 am
now that it seems to be on the precipice of being overturned, animate democrats. democrats are going to lean into it. you heard it from the president. you heard it from senator warren. they're looking beyond abortion, saying what does this mean for your right to contraception, interracial marriage, so they're going to try to get their base jazzed up about this. we're going to see if it works. we know right now republicans have had an enthusiasm advantage in the polling related to the midterms. democrats less enthused about turning out. we'll watch to see does this news now change that a bit? obviously there are still the major issues of inflation, the economy, the president's overall standing that hang over the midterm. but this is one democrats are hoping they can use to enliven and awaken their voters. >> yeah. the president saying that he supports codifying it. that makes sense. he wouldn't say where he is on the filibuster, that was an interesting thing of note today. david, thank you, as always. >> thanks. thank you so much for
9:00 am
watching. "inside politics" starts right now. this is cnn breaking news. hello. welcome to "inside politics". thank you for sharing your time with us on this monumental news day. a supreme court shock wave. the justices are prepared to strike down roe v. wade. president biden telling reporters leaked information is wrong and more. >> it concerns me a great deal we're going to after 50 years decide a woman does not have a right to choose. if this decision holds, it's a radical decision. it's a fundamental shift in american jurisprudence. >> just last hour the high court confirming the document that leaked last night is authentic. the court


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on