Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal 05092022  CSPAN  May 9, 2022 6:59am-10:05am EDT

6:59 am
>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded to these television companies and more including cox. >> cox is committed to providing eligible families access to affordable internet through the connect to compete program. bridging the digital divide one connected student at a time. bringing us closer. >> cox supports c-span as a public service giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up live next, washington journal where -- with today's headlines in your phone calls. we talk with gerald seib on his career as a journalist i had of his retirement.
7:00 am
bloomberg supreme court record reporter will talk about the supreme court leak in the future of roe v. wade. join the conversation with you phone calls, text, facebook comments and tweets next on washington journal. ♪ >> a week ago today, politicos publication of a supreme court draft opinion the mississippi abortion case reignited the passions and protests on all sides of the issue, pushed the senate to vote this week on a bill to codify the legality of abortion and is brought the issue of abortion the likelihood of significant supreme court action on the roe v. wade decision front and center on the campaign trail. good morning and welcome to washington journal. we will start on the campaign trail, election 2022 and in particular ask you is abortion a
7:01 am
factor in your midterm election vote. here the lines to use. for republicans,, for democrats -- republicans 202-748-8001, for democrats 202-748-8000, for independents 202-748-8002. we are on facebook and we will look for your comments and posts on twitter and instagram at c-span wj. we will show you also some of the comments yesterday by several members of congress on the sunday shows on the networks over the weekend and as well look at the other news happening across the country and around the world. here's the front page of usa today. there washington bureau chief at the headline saying row ruling fuhrer could peter out by midterms. she writes democrats who hope in republicans who fear that the supreme court's draft decision overturning roe v. wade will
7:02 am
reshape the midterm elections may want to remember this, it is only may. history says there's plenty of time for developments on this and other fronts to upend the political landscape for november which is why strategists have dubbed the election your phenomenon in october surprise. those intervening events if they happen could involve the russian invasion of ukraine or a new covid-19 variant are some completely unexpected crisis or the abortion issue again. susan page writing the success of antiabortion activists in enacting trigger laws in 13 states means the impact of a court decision overturning abortion rights would no longer be speculative. the laws designed to instantly snap into effect and nine states have restrictive laws on the books that haven't been enforced since the decision was handed down in 1973. you can read more about that. is abortion a factor in your
7:03 am
2022 midterm election vote. democrats 202-748-8000, republicans 202-748-8001. for all others, 202-748-8002. from the hill they are reporting on the sunday shows their headline, senator graham says roe v. wade created constitutional right that did not exist. here he is on fox news sunday. >> if the opinion sticks, here's what's important, at least in february there were five votes that led to this draft opinion to repeal roe v. wade. i think he created a constitutional right that doesn't exist in the written constitution. it's created division from the first day it was decided until now. it -- if it does get repealed which i hope it will, the issue goes back to the states but congress will still stand off. democratic friends are trying to pass a law wednesday that allow abortion right up to the day before the baby is delivered, different states will take different approaches so the
7:04 am
abortion debate will not go away , it will be decided by the people, not a handful of judges. >> but will abortion now galvanize the left as it has for the right politically? do you fear that heading into the midterms? >> single issue voters seldom decide the outcome of elections. here's what i would say. elected officials elected by the people, that process will move forward. i don't believe it will change the outcome of the 2022 election at all. when you go to the grocery store and you go to a gas station, that's can remind you the incompetency of the biden administration. when you look at the southern border. this is not meant to peoples eyes off of rocket inflation, broken border, insecure america. host: our opening question is abortion a factor in the midterm election vote.
7:05 am
202-748-8000 free democrats, republicans 202-748-8001. independents and others, 202-748-8002. this is from the wall street journal this morning. their headline, stern clashing congress prayed this a the main item on the docket in the senate is a vote to take up legislation creating a federal statute that affirms health care providers ability to provide an abortion before the fetus is viable and that patient has a right to understand -- the vote has no stance -- chance of succeeding but democrats think disagreement with the republicans on the issue will help them at the polls. what do you think. let's hear from her independent line and in tucson it is eugene. good morning. caller: good morning. abortion is not a factor in my vote in the midterms. the biggest issue is the war in ukraine and a wanted everyone to know in january i went from
7:06 am
tucson, arizona to ukraine and i just came back home last month to tucson, arizona last month and i survived the war in ukraine. host: glad to hear that, thank you for calling in. we will go to lloyd on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i think this is a non-issue. because it's not addressed in the constitution. what is addressed, a life, the constitution was written for home, for the living. men and women. and the constitution says we are guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. and this is an issue for every body and it is addressed in the
7:07 am
constitution. a woman's right. the constitution was not written for the unborn. it was written for the living. it should have -- roe v. wade is right, to tell you at least women have the right to do what they want. so women have the right to do what they want with their bodies because it's addressed in the constitution that they have the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the pursuit of happiness of every woman to have the right to do what she wants with her body. >> what do you think might be the result of potentially overturning or certainly reducing the impact of roe v. wade if the justices go that way. caller: that's where this is an overstretch of the justice.
7:08 am
they should not be interfering with what was already addressed in the constitution. that the woman has this right to do what is right for her body and i think the republicans in those who say this much be addressed, they are trying to overrule what is already addressed in the constitution, though the woman has a right over her own body for happiness as his addressed in the constitution. host: our focus is how this may affect your vote in 2022. is the issue a factor in the midterm vote. 202-748-8000 the line for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and for independents, 202-748-8002. you can also send us a text at 202-748-8003. here is one from russ in california saying it's not an issue for me in the midterms. what matters most is crushing
7:09 am
inflation, gas still rising, rent and housing costs, biden continual spending of our money. an independent from washington, d.c., someone in the lgbtq plus community, candidates stance on roe is the major factor in how i consider voting. many of those in the queer community fear would overturning this ruling would mean for marriage equality and procedures such as ivf. as a residence dci do not get a voting member in congress so others exercise their right to help protect ours. from dave in maryland, inflation, the southern border, afghanistan then pro-life. from the hill, gillibrand says her colleagues plan to vote to codify roe v. wade. senator gillibrand was on state of the union yesterday on cnn. [video clip] >> the senate is going to vote on legislation that would codify roe v. wade.
7:10 am
as you know, democrats don't have the votes. you don't have 60 to get to a vote and i don't know if you have 50 to pass it because senator joe manchin opposes it. you and others have called on the senate to limited the filibuster. senate minority leader mitch mcconnell says this weekend he thinks a national abortion ban, not sending it back to the states just banning it everywhere, banding in new york and california, he said he thinks that is possible. is it not true that if you limited the filibuster to pass this and then republicans win control of congress down the road they could ban abortion nationwide with just 50 votes? >> the argument that if we take away the filibuster, mitch mcconnell and republicans across the country are going to do bad things, of those bad things are literally already happening. we have a supreme court that is
7:11 am
unrelated to the normal process of the american people. when those supreme court justices said precedent is the foundation of our legal system and said roe v. wade is precedent that's entitled to respect under the laws and implied to every person in america they have no agenda to overrule roe v. wade and then go ahead and do it. we changed what is protecting our rights and privileges in america in a way that no person imagined would happen and so i don't think the argument is which mcconnell will do bad things is persuasive at this point. they are already happening. host: to let you know some of the legislate of process on this, the senate on wednesday will vote whether to begin debate on a bill that would codify a woman's right to have an abortion into federal law. senator chuck schumer will file
7:12 am
cloture on that on monday on the women's health protection act. it's already passed in the house and sets up a vote for wednesday. 60 votes will be needed to advance the bill after the draft decision published last week in politico. live coverage on c-span2. on wednesday the senate is back in session today beginning at 3:00. and all of that over on c-span2. asking is abortion a factor in your midterm vote, we will go to shelley in massachusetts, republican line, good morning. caller: hello. host: you are on the line, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i don't think what mitch mcconnell said was right. i disagree. my only problem is that the protests in the catholic church.
7:13 am
i think that's awful. host: so some of the protests that have happened over the weekend at churches you're talking about? caller: yes. i'm a catholic. but i do believe -- i don't know, i am kind of conflicted. when they go so far to go into a catholic church and dress the way they do and say the things they do, i don't think that's right. host: did you see any protests at the church you attend? caller: no i haven't. host: appreciate the call. we will go to lewis in illinois. caller: good morning. caller: i think abortion will definitely make a difference in my vote. i grew up as an unwanted child. i was not loved, i was hit, i
7:14 am
was abused. it makes no sense to me to bring unwanted children into this world. the women of this country deserve the same freedoms that men have and i don't see anything like this happening to men. >> a prior caller mentioned the comments of mitch mcconnell the minority leader in the senate interviewed usa today over the weekend reporting on that. this is the hell paired mcconnell says national abortion ban possible. they write the senate minority leader said in an interview with usa today the national abortion ban is possible if roe v. wade gets overturned this summer. the leaked opinion -- if would begin the final opinion, the legislative bodies not only the state level but the federal level certainly could legislate in that area mcconnell told usa today when asked if the national
7:15 am
abortion ban is worthy of debate. saying and if this were the final decision, that was the point it should be resolved one way or another in the legislative process so yeah it's possible he concluded. yesterday, republican representative was asked about the use of abortion in cases of rape or in sask. here's what she had to say. [video clip] >> you are against abortion bubbly victims of rape and in sask should still have access to abortion. do you think those exceptions should be backed up with a federal law? >> absolutely. i am someone who is pro-life but i do support exceptions for rape. i'm a rape victim myself. when you realize what's happened and the trauma and emotional, mental and physical trauma and a woman's life, she should make that decision with her doctor
7:16 am
and it's between her and her god. i work to support those exceptions not only as a state lawmaker but now is a member of congress. a fetal heartbeat bill had those exceptions because i told my rape story. those stories are often missed. women are attacked when they are to -- when they tell those stories and that something of talked about extensively throughout the years as well. >> you can send us a tweet, a couple of comments on social media. if voters don't understand the erosion of women's rights to control their own bodies isn't an erosion of all rights than this country is not much left going for it. expand the court, federalize abortion right and shake back into consciousness gop voters. a text in new york, of course it will be but it's not about abortion, it's about a woman's right to make any decision about her body and life. lynn with this tweet saying absolutely and i hope it is for every woman in this country. we need to rise up and fight and
7:17 am
not let republicans take our rights away. is abortion a factor in your midterm vote? we will go to new york and hear from -- in flushing, new york, republik in line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am against abortion, a mother is a very privileged right to be and i don't think a woman has a right to take a life. women give life. >> have you known people, friends of yours or acquaintances who have had abortions in their life? >> that i know of, no. i don't have any friends or anybody i know who had abortions. but i feel that having an abortion -- it is something, for
7:18 am
me as a mother, i don't think that abortion is the right thing. host: two brooklyn, new york. caller: good -- hello. i am from africa so my contribution is this. if you want to have sex, why not use a condom. >> independent line, this is katrina, go ahead. >> good morning. i am not against completely abortion but i am against them. by the supreme court now -- the only thing they do -- let people vote. that's democracy.
7:19 am
the republican supreme court is can it change the law. it doesn't. so the other thing is while the protests of the supreme court houses, that's not right. the democrats they think that with elections coming they have to do something to read to -- redirect the people's minds. that's what i think. host: line for democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans 202-748-8001. independents and others, 202-748-8002. pictures of protesters on the abortion issue after the leak last week by politico of the reported draft in one of the abortion cases prayed this is the headline paired activists take abortion right argument to
7:20 am
justice's per the leaked draft of the supreme court opinion that would overturn the constitutional right to abortion gave liberal activists a rare chance to change the minds of the high court's most conservative justices before final opinion is handed down. they quickly seized the opportunity and targeted the justices i personal level, publicizing the addresses of five justices who would overturn the landmark 1973 roe v. wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. the times assist supreme court experts say the protests are unlikely to alter the final ruling which is expected by june 27, justice clarence thomas declared he won't be "bullied by the left." liberal activists won't be dissuaded and plan to use the next seven weeks to pummel them without rage. with just one of the justices -- activist of the initial protest
7:21 am
that began on the steps of the supreme court and expanded them across the country. protestant marches are planned for the next two weeks and beyond. organizers for the washington times. next in pennsylvania, go ahead. republican line. caller: hello. host: you are on the air. caller: just one comment, maybe two. about what's going on with all the rioting. i believe you could shoot a cat and they could get 500 people within a half hour to riot. it's just time to take it all off the air. i think god will take care of these people, that's my only comment. host: anderson, south carolina, david. good morning. caller: good morning. my comment is a man has no
7:22 am
consequences in abortion at all, all this should be left to women. men have no consequences of whether woman has an abortion or not. i think they should leave the decision to them. thank you. host: from cnn, the headline tapper presses gop governor a potential abortion law. this is the mississippi governor who was on the program. [video clip] >> the snapback law passed in 2007 has no exception for incised. so assuming the supreme court overturns roe v. wade, the state of mississippi will force girls and women who are the victims of in sask to carry those child's to term. can you explain why that is going to be your law? >> that's good to be the law because in 2007 mississippi legislature -- i will tell you in this sort of speaks to how
7:23 am
far the democrats in washington avenue come on this issue. in 2007 when the trigger law was put in place, we had a democrat speaker the house and a democrat chairman of the public health committee and the mississippi house. >> why is it acceptable to force girls who are victims of insets to carry this child to term? >> as you know, jake, over 92% of all abortions in america are elective procedures. when you look at the number of those that actually are involved , in less than 1%. and if we need to have that conversation in the future about potential exemptions we can certainly do that. but the reality is that affects less than 1% of all abortions in america. >> ok but that is going to be the law of mississippi. >> showing you some of the comments of lawmakers on yesterday's programs.
7:24 am
the issue is a a factor in your midterm election vote, this is from the new york times this morning. senate democrats warn of gop effort to restrict abortion nationwide pay they write the democrats ring alarm bells on sunday about the likelihood republicans will try to restrict abortion nationwide afternoon to be with publishing which mitch mcconnell said a ban was possible if his party gained control. the sunday talk shows, democratic senator said republicans would not stop at letting the states decide the issue but would most likely push for federal restriction. that made it paramount they said the democratic party maintain control of the senate as it tries to codify abortion rights into federal law. to her independent line, stu's in flint, michigan. welcome. -- sue in flint, michigan. caller: hello.
7:25 am
my comment is this. i'm really not for abortion, but who am i to tell a woman what she can do with her body. and it should be between a woman, her doctor and her god. it's definite going to affect my vote. i think it's terrible especially with the red states are doing. the only thing i've got to say is elections have consequences. thank you. host: florida, we hear from victoria on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm from one of those mildly religious families and i endured sexual abuse for many years and had absolutely no idea what was happening to me or that it happened to anybody on the planet but me. and i just started having my periods at 12 in 1971 and at 13
7:26 am
in 1972, i was pregnant. and terrified and i lived in georgia and my mother secretly took me to alabama for an abortion and i have never had a child since then, i have gotten pregnant since then. good or bad, i don't know. and i have no answers about what this means and when life begins, i don't know. i don't understand. i guess it all belongs to each individual's choice and responsibility for what they do. thank you for taking my call. host: thank you for your story this morning. kevin is in washington on the democrats line. caller: good morning.
7:27 am
hearing the lady right before me , i give her a prayer. i am pro-choice and what i would like to know is what gives the men think about the ones that got the women pregnant. what did they say on the subject or are they silent? do they have a beer in the bar and laugh about it. these are all things for society to find out. i was 15, 1972, when it came out about the abortion rule and all catholic high school, i had to
7:28 am
listen to the teacher that wasn't part of the order but was a teacher, a layman if you will and he thought this was the end of the world, that god is going to smite us and then going to the next class, i listened to one of the brothers say listen, god gave us a conscience, let us not forget that, think about it and everybody else has a conscience. that's all i wanted to say. host: on the independent line it is tim in georgia. caller: good morning. first, that callers story was definitely a moving story and actually has me thinking.
7:29 am
i am against abortion, but it has actually put something in my mind i didn't think about. that's why watch c-span because you can change your political opinions at the drop of a dime. >> how do you think it might of changed your view on this or begun to think differently about the issue? caller: because -- i'm against abortion, but when she told the story i never took into consideration that you have someone, that when she said she had no clue, she thought she was the only person in the whole world that was happening too. i can imagine her feelings.
7:30 am
just think about she was being abused by assume a family member , her mother shouldn't have to sneak her into alabama to do an abortion. so when you take that, i was considering will abortion should be legalized but then that right there, why should you have to sneak someone as they were basically violated by their own family to correct something that shouldn't have happened in the first place. so now i'm thinking more of well maybe i am antiabortion, but it is still a woman's right to choose and nobody should have to go through what she went through just to get it. host: this is the opinion of crim -- host: kimberly straw saul. the headline was democrats blame their unpopularity on everything but their own failures. in that she writes this, no
7:31 am
question that abortion will now take a premier spot in races for the governorship in the legislature that could soon be re-crafted -- re-crafting state abortion laws. it's a bigger question whether the they can move voters place abortion the top of their federal priority list much less sustain outrage over the topic for another six months. your thoughts on the impact of abortion in your midterm vote. 202-748-8000 free democrats, -- four democrats -- for democrats, 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. caller: i am against abortion and i would like to say to my democratic friends out there to watch an abortion film as you should you go and vote for abortion after you see that
7:32 am
film, then you are a sick individual per that's all i have to say. thank you. host: laura is in, seattle, democrats line. caller: make sure -- host: make sure you mute your volume on your television. go ahead with your comments. caller: ok. i don't think a man should be even involved. 80's -- men get circumcised, i think that's cruel for a baby boy, but it should not be a political factor at all, it's really not a big deal and just leave women alone please. caller: we are from bill on the independent line. caller: good morning and thank
7:33 am
you for taking my call. i am pro-choice, i believe a woman should have the right to make a choice whether she wants to have a child or not, not the supreme court. it's not the supreme court or anyone else's responsibility but that one individual. i also think that if our democracy is going to be a democracy, we should have freedom to make choices. that's the whole purpose of having a democracy. i know that a lot of people sitting on the others either the aisle that want to play politics and they want to chisel away, but i want to remind all of your listeners out there, abortion is just the beginning. juergen a find of the rights will be taken away from you because you won't have an opportunity to express yourself and we are losing our whole cornerstone of this country and
7:34 am
so yes i am pro-choice, i stay by pro-choice and i stick with the decision that a woman should have every right to make her own choice and the religious right and all of these other religious organizations need to understand they are overstepping their bounds, they want to preach this , preach it but don't take away peoples's opportunities to make choice. host: about 25 minutes more on your phone calls. is abortion in effect -- a factor on your midterm vote. 202-748-8000 democrats. 202-748-8001 demo ash republicans. -- republicans. on face the nation, margaret brennan asked nancy pelosi if it was a mistake or not for
7:35 am
president obama not to push to codify abortion into federal law when democrats had control of congress. >> in 2009 we really did not have a pro-choice democratic party. i had to fight against some of the people who did not want to be the affordable care act because they were concerned that it might enable more freedom of choice. it did not go down that path. right now we do have a pro-choice democratic congress and we passed the law a month ago. >> you did in the house. >> the -- >> but the votes aren't there in the senate. >> you will have to talk to the senate about the senate. an urgency on what's happening in the election, one or two more senators could sweep back the filibuster for this purpose and
7:36 am
a woman to have the right to choose. this is about something so serious and personal and so disrespectful of women. here we are in mothers day, the court has slapped women in the face in terms of the disrespect with their judgments about the size and timing of their families. let's keep our eye on the ball. it's in the court of those justices, one of them police said over and over again that precedent has been established again and again on roe v. wade, so this decision is about being anti-precedent and anti-privacy and has serious ramifications as we go down this path, it has to be softened, i don't there's a good outcome but there's a better outcome as far as this is concerned. >> other news this morning, jill
7:37 am
biden makes rare war zone visit. the first lady cross the border into ukraine on sunday, traveling into an active war zone. biden entered the country from slovakia on mother's day, ukraine's first lady who had not appeared in public since the russian invasion began february 24. saying i want to come on mother's day for a closed-door meeting with the first lady. i thought it was important to show the ukrainian people that this war has to stop and this war has been brutal and the people of the united states stand with the people of ukraine. you can read more at washington yesterday was mother's day as well as v-e day celebrated here in the united states of the 77th anniversary for the end of world war ii and martin europe as well. that data is marked on may 9 in russia and the parade that happened earlier today, the reporting here from bloomberg
7:38 am
prayed russia celebrating what they call victory day in moscow this morning. and from reuters they say the speech by russian president vladimir putin evoke the memory of soviet heroism in world war ii. but acknowledge the cost of russian lives as he pledged to help the families of fallen soldiers. back to your comments on our topic this first hour. we will hear from homer in shreveport. >> women of the biggest voting block now, so maybe they can go ahead and vote what they want. that's what the republicans do. when they got control they used the control. women have the biggest voting block. >> do you think this will cause an increase of more women at the
7:39 am
polls and more women supporting pro-choice candidates? >> definitely. >> may be rational and it looks like it's their opportunity, that's just an observation really. >> we can get to all of it, but worth checking out, roe v. wade could up and these races looking at a number of the nevada senate race, the wisconsin senate race and the race for the house in the u.s. house, the democratic primary down here the first piece -- the first race to watch is three weeks away involving two democrats, one pro-abortion rights, the anti--- the other antiabortion rights. looking to unseat a long seat -- longtime representative went on
7:40 am
the attack medially after the release of the draft opinion. they are squared off in a democratic primary runoff after neither one of majority of the vote in the march 1 primary in the district that runs from east of san antonio to the u.s. mexico border. in kansas, it's diane on the republican line. good morning. diane, my fault. we will try that. there we go, go ahead. >> good morning. i am pro-life because i believe in the sanctity of human life. the reason i called in is i think i have a partial solution to this problem. i checked google yesterday and the contraceptive market is $5.8 billion. it's not a great deal of money in today's times, we spend way
7:41 am
more than that on lesser things and contraception. however, my idea is the government, the taxpayer provides funding, free funding for contraception. we have all kinds of good new contraception. birth control injections last for three months prayed we have the morning-after pill, we have great advances in iud's and if we can make this free, and i'm saying free. no cost at all, paid for by the government. i don't believe women want an abortion. i believe that it costs money to pay for some of these contraceptions and if we can reduce -- first of all we already know that contraception has reduced abortions over the
7:42 am
years from what it was initially and this might save a lot of lives, it would not cost an exorbitant amount of money and hopefully our lawmakers might think about this as something that would help everybody. >> do you think that is enough, providing free to change what is personal behavior. people ought be wanting and willing to use contraceptive. >> that is true but people don't want, i don't believe women -- most women want to have abortions either. for whatever reason, they are not ready for children or -- i don't think they go out seeking an abortion for no reason. they don't want the child for whatever reason at this point in time in their life and if they
7:43 am
can prevent that, medical procedures cost per there's a lot of things that i think would help people reconsider paying for this. as far as the government. i would be happy as a republican, as a taxpayer, to do my part to pay for preventive care for everybody, all the women in the united states who wanted. >> thank you for that. we will go to glenda in hanover, pennsylvania. democrats line. >> yes it will factor into my decision for voting. a few other comments. conservative republicans and some democrats want the child to be born but they vote no and
7:44 am
congress every time on things that would help the child after it is born but affordable health care, affordable childcare, helping with food insufficiencies, child tax credit and then this puts them into foster care programs for years where many of them are abused. remember women, it takes two to make a baby, so women start saying no to men and -- since everything falls on the woman. >> new york times reporting in pennsylvania -- in pennsylvania. they write the pennsylvania is one of a handful of states were abortion access hangs in the balance with midterm elections this year. a test case of the political power of the issue in a post-roe world. offering a look at whether it will motivate party bases or can
7:45 am
be a wedge for suburban independence -- independents. republicans downplayed the issue, shifting attention instead to the leak itself away from the substance. they also argued voters attentions were fleeting and abortion was hardly silver bullet for democratic apathy and more present issues are -- had already cast the midterm die. the democrats, at this time really is different. "these are terrifying times" said nancy patton mills. >> there were so many people -- "there were sony people who thought this could never happen. " good morning. caller: good morning, can you hear me ok? host: sure can, go ahead. caller: i'm pro-life but i think their reasons for some women to get abortions.
7:46 am
my question is i don't understand how people are making such a big deal saying this is women's rights. the last few months of her there's no such thing as a woman. somebody answer me that because that's all i've heard on c-span and other stations, this elevated mother's day. i celebrated it because i'm a mother. all these other people said there's no such thing as a mother or father. it's he or she or them. these people need to start thinking what are you actually for prayed are you for women or you for the it's. host: michigan, next up we will hear on the independent line. >> good morning. i just want to say i feel that a woman's right to choose is a personal decision. i don't think anyone should be able to make that decision for you. and i find it ironic we had
7:47 am
murders that took place over individuals during a massive pandemic we recently had where we lost thousands of lives and individuals felt that their rights were being treaded upon and how invasive it can be for someone to tell you that you don't have a right to your own body to make decisions for your own body. that will have an impact on me going to the polls definitely. host: thank you. to jerry and livingston, tennessee. democrats line, go ahead. caller: this is not about abortion, it's about taking women's rights away. if it keeps going this way, women won't have any rights. that's about what this is coming too.
7:48 am
we've got a get off of this stuff. women have rights too. they are human beings. there weren't -- thank you. >> from the sunday shows yesterday, senator pearson jell-o brand from new york when asked about governor gavin newsom's comments saying democratic leaders weren't doing enough on the issue of abortion. here's what she said. >> everyone of us is standing up, speaking out, rallying, marching, talking to our constituents, lifting up their voices and stories. this is the biggest fight of a generation and if america's people, america's women and men who love them do not fight right now we will lose the basic right to make decisions to have bodily attire and amine and to decide
7:49 am
what our futures look like. this is a fundamental moment for advocacy and for not giving up. so what i am doing and what many of my colleagues are doing is pushing for a vote next week. we will be aggressive with our colleagues and our republican allies to vote for codifying roe v. wade. we are not giving up, we will never give in and we will keep fighting. this issue will also be on the ballot in november. we need to make sure every single voter understands the republican party and mitch mcconnell does not believe that their daughters, their mothers, their sisters have rights to make fundamental life-and-death decisions. we are half citizens under this ruling and if this puts into law it changes the foundation of america. >> senator gillibrand talked about the vote coming up this week. it will be wednesday in the u.s. senate. the senate comes in, the majority will file cloture today
7:50 am
on the legislation. it would codify into law a woman's right to have an abortion and on wednesday the vote whether to begin the debate , is a 50-50 senate and we will have live coverage of that boat as we do all of senate average. over on our companion network. this ended gavels and this afternoon at 3:00 eastern to begin their legislative week. comments on social media and text, this one from michelle in illinois saying most abortions are performed by a pill. reversal and abortions could reverse rulings on contraception in the states prayed i'm not for treating women who seek abortions like barbarians. if overturning of roe v. wade happens in the next 10 years we are looking at an influx in those numbers and further strain on an already broken system.
7:51 am
david in new york, you do not have the right to kill someone at any age. it's called murder so why do something it's ok to kill an unborn child? god says thou shall not kill. susie says is a not right to make it a political hot potato. why support a woman's right to choose i cannot condone late term abortions or minors seeking abortion without counseling and/or family support. on the republican line, paul is up next. good morning. in maryland, are you with us? caller: yes sir. host: are you driving right now? are you on speakerphone? caller: yeah i have bluetooth. this is a tough subject for people because it's very personal. and no disrespect to anybody, this is not exactly a democratic republican -- it can affect
7:52 am
anybody at any time. everybody is to quit labeling the other side. we've got to be better with this. i am kind of pro-life but i understand the situation and the fact that there are women that are raped, all kinds of things that happen. but everybody, women are like it doesn't affect men, yes it does. there are women out there that get pregnant on purpose via some guy, put holes in condoms, all kinds of things. and it affects that guy because he has to pay child support or you might have a guy that actually lost a child -- wants to have a child and that choice taken from him 100%. this thing is a lot broader than people want to make out. host: glad you got through, it's a little bit noisy but thank you
7:53 am
for your opinion. ashton, west virginia. republican line. caller: i called in on the independent line. host: i'm sorry, it is on the independent line. go ahead. caller: ok. i'm not really for late-term abortions, but i do think it should be a choice, but i think that choice should be given to both the mother and the father because it takes two to have or to create these children that's being aborted. and i think if once the child -- then that person should be responsible for medical bills, for the mother, all bills as far as pertaining to carrying that child.
7:54 am
now as far as in zest and rape goes, no -- incest and rape goes, no. i also think if the women are going to be given a choice, where was the same choice when women -- it's a woman's right, where was the choice when women didn't have a choice to keep their jobs are not when that was a medical decision that had to be made? they were fired from their jobs because they did not want to take a vaccine. and nobody said a thing. host: this is from reuters this morning, the headline, a wisconsin antiabortion center targeted by arson police say. there write the office of a
7:55 am
conservative wisconsin antiabortion group was set on fire on sunday. days after the word supreme court is poised to reverse a landmark decision ensuring abortion rights nationwide. graffiti saying if abortions aren't safe then you aren't either was also left behind at the -- the family actions office blamed a leftist anarchist group for the attack. the madison police department said it was investigating the sunday morning fire is arson. democrats line this time. caller: good morning c-span. the lady from west virginia she kind of hit the nail on the head and took a few of my comments i'd like to make. i am pro-life. i don't think these kids should be killed in the womb you could say. but if it's a medical problem, true. if it's a rape problem, true. we have too many preventative
7:56 am
things when these people want to get out and have fun, the man has stuff, the woman has the little pill. there should be no abortions because of this. you get out and want to play games, protect yourself. these children you can say and back condition with medical reasons or things like that or even the gentleman, protect yourself. you got things to do that stop all this abortion stuff, but i'm -- if the kid -- birth that child and adopted out to someone who really wants a kid wants a child to raise. host: chico, california, a betty on the republican line. caller: i have a question about chuck schumer. chuck schumer and the democrats when they say they're going to
7:57 am
codify roe v. wade and that that's going to cure the whole problem, if that's been a cure the whole problem, why didn't they do that 40 years ago instead of waiting at every election and having this be dominant in every election for so many voters and every other issue is just beside the point. i do not understand that, so that's my comment. host: manchester township on the independent line. >> i am i am not extremely religious but i do believe we are dealing with the human being and if you want to go out and kill your neighbor, they say why
7:58 am
shouldn't you be able to do what you want to do with your body. if you want to go out and kill your neighbor, you would be punished and this is a human being. it may not be complete, but it is a human being. and you are killing it in a cruel way. host: we will go to tj in providence, rhode island. independent line. your thoughts on the 2022 election and the issue of abortion. caller: good morning. the first thing is it's not going to impact my vote at all, not at all. the economy is number one. i'm going to the market and fill up the gas tank and amaury about that -- and i am worried about that. number two, the judge, the new supreme court judge we just
7:59 am
nominated, she couldn't define a woman. i kinda find that hard to believe. you're out there where -- yelling woman's rights, my body, my choice. why can't they define what a woman is. i find it amusing. host: appreciate your call this morning. wall street journal executive editor is set to retire at the end of this week after 45 year career in journalism at the journal. you talked with us next about political issues of the day. supreme -- bloomberg supreme court reporter will be here to talk about the supreme court leak and the future of roe v. wade. ♪
8:00 am
♪ >> c-span's the weekly podcast brings you more than 40 years of audio recordings from our video library. politico reported on the leak early draft of the supreme court decision in a major abortion case that some observers say posted the biggest challenge ever to roe v. wade. on the latest episode of the podcast, here are how members of the supreme court answered questions about roe v. wade during their supreme court hearings. >> roberts said roe v. wade is the settled law of the lane -- land. you believe it is the law of the land? >> roe v. wade is an important president of the supreme court. it was decided in 1970 three.
8:01 am
it has been challenged on a number of occasions, i discussed those yesterday. the supreme court has reaffirmed the decision, sometimes on the merits, sam -- sometimes based on star a decisive. >> is ro settled law? >> >> that is the president -- president of the court and in terms of the holding of the court. >> you can find the weekly on c-span now, our free mobile video app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> now available at the c-span shop, c-span's 2022 congressional directory. go there to order a copy of the
8:02 am
congressional directory. this book is your guide to the federal government, with contract -- contact information for everyone. order your copy today at every c-span shop purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit organization. >> only at c-span, do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered. unbiased. word for word. it happens here, or here, or anywhere that matters. america is watching on c-span, powered by cable.
8:03 am
>> "washington journal" continues. >> we welcome back the wall street journal's executive washington editor, gerald seib, who is returning -- retiring at the end of this week. in any business, especially in journalism, 45 years is a good run. what is the secret sauce? what has kept you coming back to your desk each day? guest: what kept me coming back as a couple of things. i love the "washington journal" it has got -- it has been good to me. i worked in dallas, washington, cairo, i got to run the washington bureau. i got to write a column. the "washington journal" has been good to me. it is a place where people can be nice and civil and still do
8:04 am
good journalism. that is the culture of "the journal" that has kept me around. host: where did the interests in journalism start for you? guest: my dad was a printer at a hometown newspaper in kansas. i spent a lot of time in the office, i was a newspaper boy. it came in the blood. i was really interested in current affairs, politics, the world and journalism seemed to be a route to move into that space. it was. host: was it your voice? was it your voice to get to washington and report? guest: i always wanted to come to washington. my last semester in college, i spent in the office of gillis long. i got the fever by spending a
8:05 am
few months here. i always wanted to come to washington. it is the mecca of journalism. spending time in washington got my fever going. host: what has changed in your career in terms of the business of journalism, the most significant changes you have seen? what has changed in reporting in this city in your career? guest: a lot is changed. the time i got here in 1980, i arrived in washington. it was the era of legacy media. big newspapers who were flush with cash and spending a lot of money to do newsgathering. it was easy in a business sense. the business strains created by the internet have changed the media landscape. the news organizations have struggled, some have come out on the other end.
8:06 am
there has been a thinning of the legacy media and a proliferation of online news organizations. it is a different landscape. i do not think reporting in washington has changed much. the basics are the same. report honestly, report fairly, right objectively. the sourcing is pretty much the same. you spend a lot of time getting to know people, working sources, getting wired in the city. the longer you do that, the easier it becomes. i do not think the basics have changed, the way journalism has -- is sent out has changed. host: last monday felt like a throwback when the politico story, the leak of the reported draft opinion in the supreme court case, the supreme court voted to overturn abortion rights return -- reporting shows, what were your thoughts when that story broke last week? guest: if you've been around in town for a long time, it was
8:07 am
amazement. supreme court decisions do not leak. it is a rare occurrence. the second thing i thought, which is the way your mind works when you are a washington journalist, who did it? it is interesting to see leaks, they come because somebody has a motivation to leak. the guessing game began, who leaked this and what was their goal? i do not know the answer to those questions. i theories have changed over the last few days. host: what has made them change? guest: i thought, perhaps somebody was only pro-choice side, was angry, leak the decision to create a firestorm. the more i thought about it, the more i thought, the effect of this leak was to lock into place the five justices who supported justice alito in this decision. once it becomes public, it is hard to change places. i started to think, maybe it is more likely this came from
8:08 am
somebody on the pro-life side who wanted to create a public spectacle so as to lock in the five justices, so they couldn't move in deliberation. host: how well do you think the chief justice responded to this? guest: he responded well, what could he do? i think more interesting, the way that justice roberts has tried to make the court less politicized in an era in which washington is become more politicized. i think his effort to insulate the judiciary and supreme court from some of the political forces that are swirling around, the partisanship, is admirable. i do not think it is succeeding, but that is not his fault. host: some of the major stories we have found our because of leaks. he pentagon papers, this sound
8:09 am
-- the pentagon papers, this and many others. how did you approach stories that came to you from leaks from other sources like that? host: i think leaks are a legitimate way of informing the public. a leak can mean a lot of different things. mostly, what it means is somebody on the inside wanting the world to know what is going on on the inside. i think that is what journalism is about. you welcome leaks. what some people think our leaks is really good reporting. sometimes, leaks are mischaracterized in that sense. the only leak that, in my time as a news executive, have caused any heartburn were leaks that were in the national security space. you do have to ask yourself questions about whether lives may be in danger, military operations may be at risk if you publish something. that is a rare occurrence.
8:10 am
it happens, but it is not often. host: in those occasions, do the sources say, do not publicize this because of the potential security risk? guest: what more often happens, they will say, write this story, but keep these details out, because don't might risk the lives of servicemen or intelligence operations or sources could be put in danger. often, it is less what you write, but the detail that you put into a story that is debated with national security officials. that is a rare occurrence. host: gary cb, wall street journal executive washington editor. we welcome your calls at (202) 748-8000 free democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us, (202) 748-8003.
8:11 am
we spent the first hour talking about whether the issue will be a factor in their 2022 vote. if you are writing your capital journal column on the potential impact of the abortion of the leak and story of the 2022 campaign, what would you say? guest: there has been a parlor game in washington going on for a while. trying to figure out which side would be more motivated by whatever it is the supreme court did this summer on abortion, this ruling was coming. my conclusion would be that, in the way it has come out, it probably has the potential to motivate the left, the democratic base more than the republican base. first of all, the stark nature of the opinion, if in fact the draft becomes the real opinion, doesn't leave wiggle room. it says, we are going to take down roe v. wade.
8:12 am
that is a rallying cry for the left. that means there motivation to get the grassroots mobilized is higher because they have a black-and-white issue in which to do it. on the pro-life side, the republican side, those are locked into their position. they think they have succeeded. the motivation, the energizing potential is more on the democratic side than republicans. guest: they've got to keep that energy up through election day. host: five months, six months away. guest: five months in the political cycles we live in now is a lifetime. how many things could change between now and then to move attention away from this particular issue? as we speak today, it is going to energize people in both bases, but more so on the
8:13 am
democratic side. i have to conscience -- caution, this is not a real thing. this is a draft opinion. the court has not ruled. let's see what it looks like when it comes. host: you have been on this network, you are moderating the debate. probably 100 or more so times. let me take you back to your first appearance on this program. our founder, brian lamb in 1983 talking about what was in early debut of your capital journal column. let's take a look. [video clip] >> this is your editorial page, it says u.s. shouldn't play solo, first of all, before i it into details, how can you be in two places at one time? >> the confusion question,
8:14 am
actually, on our paper in particular and in most papers, you have to sting wish between the day-to-day spot news stories and the broader, long-term feature stories. what recently happens is, you go to a place like nicaragua, you produce two or three broad feature stories, some of which will run when you are there, some of which will run in camp for a few days. that is what happened in this case. >> when did you leave? >> last friday. >> i bet you wished you would have left earlier in the week. >> i missed it by a few days. >> i want to talk about that in a second. let me ask you about this particular piece. say the u.s. shouldn't play solo. you wrote in this piece, is it a commentary piece? >> as a news analysis, it is an op-ed spot on our editorial. it is not in editorial, it is an
8:15 am
analysis of the news and presenting a point of view. it is not my point of you, i am relating -- were laying what people in nicaragua told me. it is not news about nicaragua, but analysis of what people in nicaragua say. host: to the way back machine there. you are talking about the genesis of your column, your news alumnus is -- analysis column. guest: in those days, the capital journal column i started didn't exist. a variation of it was, analysis pieces written by reporters that ran on the editorial page of the journal. that doesn't happen so much anymore. what i was describing their was essentially what i tried to do over the years with the capital journal column, which was to present an analysis and reflect where things are going without being partisan or opinionated. in other words, to reflect a point of view, but not a
8:16 am
partisan or ideological point of view. that is the tricky point of writing in a column for the news pages of the journal. host: do you think other publications and organizations have gone more in the direction of opinion these days? guest: i worry so, to some extent. it is a fine line, being analytical and opinionated our close cousins. you -- in every time i write, you have to keep in mind the thin line between these things. stay on the side of analyzing events, which is, me talking to you and telling you what i think the events mean, as opposed to telling you what i think should happen. that is not a role of the columnist -- a columnist. that is a fine line in staying on what i consider to be staying on the right line -- right side. host: you source from a range of people, from think tanks,
8:17 am
officials in government, in and out of government, surely there opinion has biases built in well? guest: you are right, i try to talk to people across the spectrum. one of the advantages of being around for a long time, you know a lot of people across the spectrum. you have to keep in mind, they do have a point of view and bias. what i try to do is balance what i write i reflecting multiplicity of views, not just one in most cases. what -- for example, i wrote a column this morning about the nuclear risks coming from ukraine. i talked to people in academia, republicans, democratic's -- democrats. to reflect the cogent and meaningful use in that spectrum, that is what you can do in a column. host: we want to hear more about
8:18 am
your thoughts in the ukraine war. we have collars waiting. (202) 748-8000, the democrats line. (202) 748-8001, the republicans line. tom, republican line. go ahead. caller: i think what surprised me about the conversation so far is, neither you nor the guy from c-span has released the issue of what is happening with the russian collusion story. i am roughly your age, mr. cb, -- mr. seib, this is a felony story that the justice department pursued against mr. trump. i do not understand, why doesn't it register on some of the most important things, reflecting on your career, why hasn't this come up in the conversation?
8:19 am
that gentleman, why don't you guys address this? host: that is why i open up these calls. guest: the russian collusion story is complicated. the russian collusion narrative didn't materialize out of cloth, -- pursuing the belief that there was collusion between the trump campaign and russian intelligence or russian forces of some kind. i think the people in my business track that story because there was a general federal investigation underway. in the end, it didn't serialize. i think that was reported. i do not think it is our job to decide the beginning of a story, whether it is going to pan out or if investigation leads to point x or point why. you can make the point, the
8:20 am
collapse of the collusion theory , maybe it should have gotten more attention. i do not think there is any doubt in reporting the collusion investigation was an obvious thing to do, it was a responsibility. host: do you think there are issues coming up with whatever the dunham report comes out? guest: i think there are going to be changes in the way these things are handled inside the federal machinery as a result of that. that is the way it should work at one of the things that happens in a democracy is, you've got a vigorous debate, people get angry, people step back. congress in particular, make adjustments and side, we have seen flaws in the system as a result of this episode. here is what we should do about it and that is the way it should work. host: the headline, january 6
8:21 am
attack probe enters new phrase. democratic led committee, a full report on the investigation is expected in the fall. what do you think that report will reveal? guest: it is clear the time table report is riven by the midterm election schedule. the people on the committee would prefer to have a few more months to do this, but they realize whatever they do has to get done before the midterm elections. control of the houses likely to switch. the future of the committee would be in serious doubt. they are working on a artificial timetable. i think what the report will chronicle is some of the public statements, some of the leaks have told you, there is a more concerted effort on the part of various people around the president to change the results of the 2020 election then was thought previously. that effort led to the challenge to the counting of the electoral votes on january 6.
8:22 am
i think they will try to draw a straight line from the election disputes to what happened on january 6. i think the key question is, the responsibility that the report will lay at the feet of donald trump himself. host: what are your most prominent recollections of january 6? guest: we were in covid lockdown. i was watching this from home. i listened to the speech that president trump and others made at the other end of pennsylvania avenue i thought this would unfold in a predictable fashion, there would be protesters around the capitol and we would hear noise, but the process would proceed according to plan. my first recollection is seeing on c-span, the doors being breached at the capitol. my first feeling was one of
8:23 am
disbelief. if you have lived and reported in this town for a long time, the idea that would actually happen in broad daylight, in full view, defied belief. it took a while to absorb what that really meant. it didn't compute. you could not say to yourself, this is like what happened, x. i remember when something like this happened in y. there was no parallel, no precedent to this. host: bonnie is next in iowa. go ahead. guest: congratulations on your long tenure. i appreciate the accuracy and timeliness and what your newspaper does its reporting. i have been a professional journalist since the age of 14. i believe you can use something that neither the ncaa, nor the recent supreme court nominee could do, and that is this.
8:24 am
please define what is a woman. guest: [laughter] tough question. i think that is beyond my level of expertise. host: a question from stephen in michigan. bringing back the fairness doctrine would help eliminate the political dilemma by -- of divide in the country. guest: i have my doubts. i think forcing with regulations or legislation into the political divide is probably a fools errand. i think the political divide in sin this country -- the political divide ends in this country when they are brought together, and when voters reward
8:25 am
non-divisiveness of behavior. the end of political divide has to be an organic solution. the fairness doctrine in the media climate we are in now would be enormously difficult to enforce. the impulses right, but i think the solution has to be more from the ground up. host: you spoke in august 2020, we should have seen it coming, the path of the republican party, pretty much ronald reagan through president trump, ends there before the election. if you were to write an addendum to the book, what would you add? guest: after the election, i spent a lot of time trying to figure out, what did it mean? the story i tried to tell was my reporting career in washington, which began in 1980, the year
8:26 am
ronald reagan was elected, and ran through the 2016 election. how did the republican party make this transformation from reagan conservatism to trump populism and nationalism? we should have seen it coming, there were a lot of signs along the way, even though a lot of people were surprised. i think what the 120 election showed was -- what the 2020 election showed was, the country is not settled on the populist, nationals theme. in the end, donald trump lost. the republican party cannot snap back into place and become what it was before donald trump. that is my main conclusion from the election. 70 plus million people voted for trump after he served in the white house for four years. he is now in many ways in control of the republican party. one of my questions was, when trump exited the white house, if the republicans could go back to where it was before.
8:27 am
2020 taught me, that is not happening. host: vance won the republican primary there. there is a primary covering -- coming up tomorrow, one of the republican governors running is a trump ally. nebraska opens a feud with the gop in that state. it is early, but the president's record so far, good with ohio. how do you think he will do this election year in supporting candidates? guest: you can't look at the ohio results and say they illustrate anything more than trump's influence at the republican base. vance won relatively comfortably in the end. you have to believe it is a cause-and-effect relationship. there are other tests yet to come. the real test is not merely
8:28 am
whether donald trump has influence within the republican party as we will see in the primary season, but whether the people he has singled out can actually win in general elections. that is going to be tested in ohio, where republicans have increasingly dominated the state. if tim ryan, democrat from youngstown can win the general election against j.d. vance, that is a different donald trump scenario then if vance wins the general election. same thing is true in georgia, where you have a trump candidate for senate race who may win the primary, but the real test comes in the fall. can he hold and flip that seat for republicans in the general election against rafael warnock? host: men while in denver, colorado. democrats line. go ahead. guest: i would like to ask you -- caller: i would like to ask you, what do you think about the medias deception, trump won the
8:29 am
election and there was fraud? if you are right wing media outlets responsibility to see that lie is cleared up so we can move on. guest: it is a reasonable question. i can't imagine what more the people could have done in covering the story, except what has been done to point out, that is not what happened. the newspapers, we were up front in saying, there is no evidence this election was stolen. not only have we reported that repeatedly on the news pages, our editorial page, which is conservative by outlook has said the election is over and joe biden one. the fact that people choose to believe that is because they haven't heard evidence to the contrary, they choose to believe that. i do not think that is the fault of anybody in the media, i think
8:30 am
it is one people have chosen to believe because they believe in donald trump. host: you have continued to write for the wall street journal at all? guest: i hope to write some, i am interested in writing for a saturday review section, a place where longer form essays can appear. i have done that last few years. it is a great section. i hope to do that and writing in other places. host: gaithersburg cama -- gaithersburg, maryland. caller: one thing i am concerned about is that there is a significant portion of the country of trump voters who do not understand that there are americans at the end of 80
8:31 am
million votes, 70 million more than for trump. americans whose votes where someone attempted to negate, a bunch of someone's. there are members of congress right now, still to this day, who will say, "biden's president, but." there is a, but, in there. that is troubling. that is where people are coming to believe what they want to believe, they do not believe for americans. they do not know how angry we are. we are really angry. my group of people do not get angry easily. we go and protest, but we do not get this kind of angry. we are. we are furious. this has to be dealt with.
8:32 am
the members of congress who are out there, they have to be stripped. the media has to show who they are. guest: there is a lot of anger. i think the caller makes a good point. the one thing nobody disputes about the 2020 election, joe biden won the popular vote by a fair marriage and -- by a fair margin. 80 million votes, that is -- there was a time we thought nobody could get those votes. the dispute is about the electoral college vote, and full estates within that electoral college. i think the number of people, even the republicans in congress who continue to assert that the election was incorrectly decided
8:33 am
is a small minority for republicans. most republicans have acknowledged that joe biden won the election, the election -- electoral count was fair. that doesn't mean 100%, but most have. one of the things republicans have said is that the way voting processes and procedures were changed airing the covid crisis was improper, it was not done in an orderly fashion. that shows we need to tighten up voting procedures. that is a different issue then saying that joe biden is an illegitimate president. some people say that, but not many. a lot of republicans say the former, that is an issue in which i would like to think that two parties can come together and say, these are the rules of the road for conducting federal elections. we can agree, let's agree on that, move the issue of election legitimacy off the table and get
8:34 am
onto the debate about what we do. host: let's hear from bill in new hampshire. caller: i have three questions. one, i would like to know how the lie of 2016 about trump not winning for four years was put along. also about why it had to be put out that trumps dossier was being investigated, but they had to show the hunter laptops. i'm curious, how come it is murder if the husband or boyfriend of the woman makes her lose the baby somehow, that is murder. if she kills the baby, that is not murder. that does not make sense. i do not know why brain, beijing bidens keep doing what they do to the country, but -- >> several things there. guest: the reality of 2016, hillary clinton conceded the day after the election.
8:35 am
it was an attempt to contest electoral count, joe biden, then the vice president, gaveled it away and said it was over. i don't think there were questions about the legitimacy of donald trump's victory, it was acknowledged by republicans and the two leading democrats in the country at the time. should the democrats have moved into donald trump twice, that is a different question. that is different than saying the 2016 election wasn't legitimate. the trump dossier, look. we have spent time at the wall street journal investigating the trump dossier, we didn't report it because we couldn't substantiate a lot of things in there at the time. it became public, and the debate about it began. i think a lot of those issues, questions, assertions in the
8:36 am
dossier have been adjudicated in the court of public discourse, and have been discredited. i am not sure it lives on anymore. i think it has had its day in court. on the third point, the caller articulates the central debate about abortion in this country. what i find interesting about that is, i have been doing this for 40 plus years. a lot of views of social issues have changed. views on contraception have changed, there is a consensus. on abortion, it doesn't happen. this is a question today as much as when roe v. wade was decided in 1973. host: in the saratoga springs, margaret on the independent line. caller: hello.
8:37 am
congratulations on your career. i would like to hear more about cairo, egypt. when you were there, what you are doing, i was a postgraduate student at the american university in cairo at the end of the 1970's. i was there during the signing of the peace treaty, so i would like to hear that. i'm going to hang up now. thank you. guest: thank you for the kind words. we -- my wife and i, she has been on this program. she was a reporter at the time, the two of us had an apartment in a part of town, spent a lot of time near the american university in cairo. what we did, we covered the entire middle east. we covered everything from north africa through oman at the end of the persian gulf, including
8:38 am
israel and jordan, egypt. it was a great life experience. i think what was happening, the two big things that were happening in the region at the time, and cairo was a good listening post for these things. the a ran-iraq war was underway, a vicious war -- iran-iraq war was underway. the second big story was the very beginnings of the palestinian divide, the uprising. it was getting started in those days. there was that tension, as well. thirdly, in terms of egypt itself, egypt was a much different country then it is now. it was relatively calm, there was an islamic fundamentalist current underway in society, but it didn't reach the point in which the islamic brotherhood became the elected government in egypt. it was more stable and tranquil,
8:39 am
more friendlier than now. host: had the wall street journal had a bureau before? guest: the bureau had been located in lebanon. by the time my wife and i went, lebanon was not safe enough to operate from. we had to find a different base of operations. we considered various places, but cairo made the most sense. i'm glad we picked it, egypt was and is a great story, not just a good place from which to move around the region. host: general seib was once told -- once held prisoner, tell our audience about the time you were taken prisoner in iran. host: one of the -- guest: iran-iraq war was still
8:40 am
raging. i got visas to visit iran. they were making progress in the war against iraq, and wanted western journalists there to progress -- to document progress. we went down to the warfront, sour the iranians had advanced into iraq -- saw where the iranians had advanced into iraq. the iranians took my passport, would not return it to me, would not tell me why. i spent a few days with the spool -- swiss double mat trying to figure out why i was being barred from leaving the country. at the end of one of those days, i was arrested in the parking lot of the hotel where i was staying, taken to prison, blindfolded, accused of being a spy. that went on for four days, interrogations and accusations.
8:41 am
i was a spy, not a journalist, and israeli spy, and americans by working for the israelis. host: did you think you might be in there for a while? guest: i didn't think i would die in prison, i did think i would be there for a while. that was the street, jason from the washington post was in there for four days. i was in there for four days. making clear to the world, i was what i said i was, which was a journalist. host: you must have a pang anyone is taken prisoner over there. guest: you are helpless in those situations. i was helpless except for the fact that it worked for a very big and relatively powerful news organization that can move the conversation and make the point, rallied to my side. it worked in my case. it happens a lot, more than it
8:42 am
should. it still happens in iraq. host: let's hear from michael on the democrats line in miami. i am sorry about that, there you are. go ahead. caller: congrats on your retirement. a prisoner in iran can speak to its power. we in florida are forced to choose between martin luther king or desantis. you probably heard of the don't say gay bill, if you days ago, we had a don't say mlk bill. he has literally said as part of an anti-woke effort, let me quote. my question is, what is your opinion? i'm going to read a quote from mlk. it is clear that no teacher in florida can say that they are inspired by these words. if they say they are inspired, they could be sued.
8:43 am
that is exact with the bill says. this is an opinion, this is law of today. here is a quote, if it helps you at all. hold on a second. he literally says, capitalism is on the bags of protestant arms and crimes of black people in the court. that applies overseas. those words can be sent by our teachers, what is your opinion of banning of mlk in our classrooms and inability to say the word? it seems like we are going backwards. guest: it is an example of what is really fascinating and difficult phenomenon, which is the extent to which political debates have devolved into debates about education schools.
8:44 am
i think that is a post-covid development, we haven't seen it run its course yet. i have to say, as a journalist, anything that attempts to restrict freedom of speech has got to be troubling. i think that applies to journalists, citizens, to teachers. i am woe to cease -- freedom of speech restricted in anyway. in this case, the question of what schools can and cannot include in their curriculum has become an issue that is explosive. it is happening all over the country. i think there are going to be excesses and some debates before people settle in to an acknowledgment to what is always been true, there is a lot of local control over schools. that is probably the way it should be. there are going to be heated
8:45 am
debates in this country over the next couple of years. what happened in covid, the question of schools should reopen or not, it was parents that realized they have the ability to insert themselves into the operation of their schools in a bigger way than they thought they did, and they are going to exercise that power. host: california, republican line. kim. go ahead. caller: good morning. i was wondering if you had an opinion on the documentary, 2000 mules, which evidence -- which has evidence of voter fraud, there is another documentary written in 2020, wanted to know what your opinion of those. is that fake, or is there validity to any of that? guest: i have not seen the documentary. i have to acknowledge that upfront. i have had a look, there is a
8:46 am
lot of documentary material that has been assembled in pursuit of the 2020 election fraud argument. i have to say, most of it does not hold up under close investigation, close inspection. a lot of the examples and anecdotes used in those cases have been disproven. in some cases, things that happened that were part of the normal course of events have been given an evil cast. there were things that happened in 2020, i referred to this earlier, specifically because there was an election held during a covert crisis and national lockdown. steps were taken that were not normal. the question of whether those steps were decided upon in the proper fashion or not is reasonable grounds for debate. that is different from saying the election was stolen.
8:47 am
i think the associated press did a marvelous service months ago, it went through the whole list of most prominent assertions of election fraud and election theft, that dispassionately took them apart and didn't find much of it. host: a picture of the french president on the 77th anniversary of world war ii. being celebrated in russia, the russian president, vladimir putin harkening back to the soviet win over the nazis in 1945. what is your thought on what the ultimate outcome in ukraine is? what happens to the geopolitical war and europe and the u.s. influence in that area? guest: i got up early this morning to see what putin said on the occasion of victory day.
8:48 am
his speech was closely watched because people are afraid he might declare new escalation in ukraine, might try to justify weapons of mass destruction. my challenge -- none of that happen. he gave a speech in which he lamed the u.s. and nato for being responsible for the conflict in ukraine by giving the ukrainians too much help, providing military equipment, military advisers. that alone constituted a threat to russia. that is a stretch, it is not a plausible argument. in the short-term, that is a relief, that nothing worse happened today in moscow at the big parade. i think what happens in ukraine now, nobody knows. the great fear is that, if the russian military, it does appear
8:49 am
to be losing, or it is hopelessly bogged down, they will turn to weapons of mass destruction. chemical or nuclear weapons. i have to say, the u.s. officials do not see any sign of that now. i think that specter is out there. i think the more likely outcome is, this will evolve into a long, bloody fight over the eastern third of ukraine and the southern tier along the black sea coast. what i suspect, what putin would tell you, his aims have been reduced to taking control of that eastern part of ukraine and coastal line so that ukrainian state that is left is smaller and does not have access to the black sea, which would hurts -- hurt its economy. if putin would achieve that, he would stop there. whether that will happen or not, i do not know. the ukrainians are not in a mood
8:50 am
to concede an inch of territory to the russians. the bottom line, this looks right now to be the formula for a long-term, protracted struggle that will be ugly and not over soon. host: next up is mississippi, james on the independent line. go ahead. caller: i appreciate -- hello? host: we hear you. go ahead. caller: when you were younger, you looked pretty good on there. i wanted to let you know, i appreciate you being a journalist, or whatever you are. your character, your attitude is not biased. going back to the voting, whatever you want call it. when president biden was called
8:51 am
to win the presidency, it came across fox news first on sean hannity's show. let's get this straight. it came on sean hannity's show. he was the first one that announced that president ryden had won this presidency, and immediately after that, sean hannity called this person, they said they had that on there. sean hannity did everything he could to get him to denounce that. that man would not do it. now, here you are now, sean hannity and fox news is still trying to say that it was stolen. i do not blame the people that voted for president trump, i voted for president trump over hillary, regardless of people think about me as an african-american, i did it because i thought he was going
8:52 am
to change and tone it down. because he listen to people around him, the thing about it, it is -- this 2022 election coming up, i do not care about 2024. i care about the selection, the house and the senate. what you did a few minutes ago, the congressman, those people that are lying and protecting's president, that is not on him and the people voting for him. it is a shame, senator cheney, a woman, stood up for all these men, here we are talking about abortion, a woman's right, they disrespected ms. cheney because she stood up for the american people, not just republicans, but democrat, anybody. we are not holding these politicians accountable.
8:53 am
talking about congresswoman -- host: talking about congress merman -- congresswoman liz cheney. she decided she would be the republican who was foremost in saying, the election was not stolen, it was not decided illegally. it was won by joe biden. what happened on january 6 at the capital was wrong and dangerous for democracy, and needs to be investigated. those responsible need to be held to account. that is a republican saying that. that is noteworthy. there is an important undercurrent to what the caller was talking about, which is, this is the silver lining in this dark cloud of the contested 2020 election and january 6 violence. the american institution held, let's were member that.
8:54 am
the courts have adjudicated the old claims of the 2020 election over and over again, and have made decisions that up the outcome. in the end, despite what happened on january 6, the house and senate did validate and confirm the results of the 2020 election. the courts are, the justice department and courts are going through what they should be going through, which is deciding who should be held to account for the right on january 6 at the capital. amidst the debate, it is important term to the institutions of democracy held up against enormous amounts of pressure and and and norma's amount of buffeting, they have done -- and an enormous amount of buffeting. they have done their job. host: you have moderated several presidential debates, the republican party recently saying they are not going to participate in those debates hosted by the commissioner.
8:55 am
guest: the debate commission is one of the institutions that serve the country well. it took the business the process of general election debates between the democrat, republican and occasionally independent, put them in a nonpartisan realm. i think it has served the country very well. it is important to remember the fact republican party says, they will not participate in presidential election commission debate, it is interesting, but it is not the final word. the candidates decide. presidential candidates are in charge of their campaigns and their fate, they make decisions based on what they think is right and proper for them and their campaign, and what the party thinks two years ahead of time is not really relevant. we will see, when there is a republican nominee in 2024, what they say. host: let's hear from charles
8:56 am
and charlotte, north carolina. caller: you have watched administration for years. i had high hopes that president biden would bring everybody together. i think one of the things that raised my eyebrows was when eric garland said he was going to investigate parents at school boards. if you watch how the fbi, the justice department, what their priorities are, it seems to me like, when you bring a swat team into arrest roger stone but ignore the hunter biden laptop and do not make a comment about it. the recent, that president biden made about mega people, which i think, some mega people, for who they are, they believe in closed borders, good economy, certain things. to say they are the most extreme political organization in the history of america, have you
8:57 am
ever heard of a president he so divisive? i think this president has not fallen through with trying to unite the country. i want to hear your thoughts. guest: i think a lot of people did have a hope that joe biden could be a unifying figure. you have to admit, that has not been the case. a lot of reasons for that. maybe nobody can be a unifying figure right now. it hasn't worked out that way. i think it is a problem, one of the pre--- reasons the president's approval rating is low now, there were things baked into the idea of joe biden as president. one, he could be a unifying figure, bring republicans and democrats together in congress. the other problem he has, he said, i know how the world works. i will make the u.s. role in the world substantial and
8:58 am
regularized again. i think the withdrawal from afghanistan, as messy as it was, undercut that message. there is an investigation into hunter biden, it doesn't get as much attention. it is not being shoved under the rug. it is being looked at. host: cedar city, utah is next. we hear from robert on the independent line. caller: joe, you are the best host c-span has. i'm going to try not to attack, you seem cavalier about what is going on from the 2016 elections. people dropped from from day one, our intelligent community was in the democratic party,
8:59 am
with what is going on with the durham probe, that is what i mean about being cavalier. it was within the democratic parties pocket with hillary clinton paying for it. you have the intelligent community of jim comey, all of them gotten fired from the guy. there is names from the cia i cannot remember. i know it is old news, i think that is why the american people are so upset with so-called maga . host: do you want to add anything further? guest: nobody's cavalier about this. my point is that, what happened in 2016, like what happened in 2020, it has been investigated and adjudicated.
9:00 am
the parts of the 2016 dossier that didn't hold up and were tossed out, we didn't report on it because we couldn't substantiate it. that is what you do as a journalist. the role of the intelligence community and the role of the fbi have examined. -- have been examined and are going to continue to be examined. i think the durham probe, let us see what actually happens when
9:01 am
it's completely finished. host: i have heard you talk a number of times about kansas. he mentioned you are from hays, kansas. he went to high school there. -- e.u. went to high school there. -- you mentioned you are from hays, kansas. you went to high school there. -- caller: particularly in this town, my roots are not in the east coast. they are in flyover country if you will. it's real america. i'm hokey enough to have come to washington kind of in all of this place. the first time i walked into the white house, i was amazed that i was there. i'm still amazed every time i walk into the white house. if you are not in all of the institutions we cover, you are missing the point. i think a background in middle
9:02 am
america gives you a kind of grounding that's useful when you move into a place like this. as long as you don't forget where you are actually from. host: congratulations and thanks for being here this morning. still ahead, we will talk to greg stohr about the leak of the supreme court draft decision in the future of roe v. wade i had on the program. -- ahead on the program. >> this week on c-span. both chambers are incessant -- in session.
9:03 am
this is in response to the leap supreme court draft opinion suggesting roe v. wade may be overturned. treasury secretary janet yellen testifies before the senate committee on an annual report about the stability of u.s. financial markets. life on c-span3, the senate foreign relations committee holds a hearing for executive nominees including the next u.s. ambassador to ukraine. wednesday, dr. anthony fauci and other health officials appear before a house appropriations subcommittee on budget requests for the national institutes of health. at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3, defense secretary lloyd austin and mark milley testify on the defense department's budget. watch this week live on the c-span networks.
9:04 am
also head over to for scheduling information or to stream video live or on-demand any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter word for word recaps the day for you from the halls of congress to daily press briefings to remarks from the president. scan the qr code to sign up for this email and stay up-to-date on everything happening in washington each day. subscribe today using the qr code or visit to subscribe at any time. >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. here many of those conversations on c-span's new podcast, presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on the
9:05 am
presidency of lyndon johnson. you will hear about the civil rights act, the presidential campaign, the gulf of tonkin incident. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries knew because they were tasked with transcribing those conversations. they were the ones who made sure the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> he will hear some blunt talk. >> i want report of the number of people assigned to kennedy the day he died, the numbers assigned to me now. if i can't ever go to the bathroom, i won't go. i will stay right behind these black gates. >> presidential recordings. find it on the c-span now mobile app.
9:06 am
washington journal continues. host: greg stohr is with us. he is the supreme court reporter for bloomberg here to talk about the future of roe v. wade in the wake of the leaked draft. when you heard the news of that leak and saw that draft decision come out, what were your initial thoughts? >> i was driving so my initial thought was that i better pull over or i might hit somebody. it was stunning in many ways. nothing like this has ever happened in my time in the court. for leaked draft to come out. the result of it perhaps wasn't that surprising given the way the argument went. it was certainly a possibility that the court might say we are going to overturn roe v. wade.
9:07 am
the fact that it came out like this was stunning. host: in terms of covering the court, it's a very insular institution. you don't get to talk to the justices. for information to come out like this, it's never really happened before. >> we have seen a few examples in recent years about the deliberations getting leaked out and we have seen other examples after the fact of reporters who have learned some of some of the maneuvering that went on behind-the-scenes in a case. the sort of thing where the entire draft opinion comes out, nothing has come close to it. host: this is a draft opinion reportedly written back in february and the mississippi abortion case. >> that's right. host: what does the mississippi law do?
9:08 am
>> the law would ban abortion. mississippi asked the court to take up the case and after justice barrett was confirmed to the court, mississippi asked the court go even further and explicitly overturn roe. host: has the court ruled on any of the abortion cases it has heard? >> it has ruled on that texas case about whether abortion is a constitutional right's. whether this texas law, there was a way to challenge that and block it before it went into effect. the court dealt with that on an emergency basis and they essentially said there is not a way you can challenge that law. there was another kentucky case
9:09 am
that was even more of the procedural question regarding whether the attorney general could take over the state's defense of its abortion law. host: could the justices decide to completely overturn roe v. wade? >> if all they do is uphold the mississippi law, at a minimum they're going to cut the basis of road which said up until the point of fetal viability, states can't restrict abortion or place an undue burden on abortion. there's really no way they can uphold the mississippi law without undercutting the basis of rental and cases -- casey.
9:10 am
host: future of road tests the cloud of roberts. how has the makeup of the court and the dynamics of the court with no six conservative justices including the chief justice, how has chief justice roberts role changed with the newer addition of those justices? >> it has changed dramatically. there was a period where john roberts was both the chief justice and the median judges for the cases that divide the court along ideological lines. he really controlled almost everything. once justice where it took justice ginsburg's seat, that shifted the balance to the right and the median justice is now somebody other than john roberts depending on the case. it may be neil gorsuch in some cases and that has meant that the chief justice prefers a bit of an incremental approach to the law. the idea that you might not go
9:11 am
all the way in overturn roe in this case is consistent with what he might do. but if there are five justices that want to go further than he does, then he doesn't control that decision. host: greg stohr covers the supreme court for bloomberg. we are talking about the leak of that draft decision and the future of roe v. wade. here are the lines. democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. all others (202) 748-8002. the court affirmed that it was an early draft decision but also initiated an investigation. what will that investigation look like? >> some people have been calling for the fbi to start investigating. the chief asked the marshal of the supreme court who is basically in charge of security at the court to do an
9:12 am
investigation and so that keeps it at least for now internal. we don't know a whole lot about that investigation. the marshal could perhaps call in some outside help with that investigation and we don't even know for certain that we will hear the results of it. all we know is he has asked her to do that investigation. host: does that mean reporters are asked questions by the marshal? >> it certainly could. obviously there is some precedent for reporters being asked about their sources and that is troubling for a lot of journalists from a first amendment perspective. i would imagine that the marshal would start internally talking to the people. there's a few dozen people on the court who might have had access to this opinion and that would at least be the place she would start.
9:13 am
if that doesn't produce fruit, maybe something broader than that. host: one of your pieces is about the abortion rights protesters march in between the houses of cavanaugh and roberts. that's also unprecedented. have those justices received extra security because of this? >> on saturday night there was a very big police presence at both their houses. they knew that it was coming and there were a number of uniformed offices in cars and the like. the court itself, there is now the same fencing that they had around the capital complex after the january 6 attack. the coat has -- the court has clearly taken some extra
9:14 am
security precautions. host: once they hear a case, this is a draft decision. how did they come to a consensus on the decision or decide a case? >> the argument in this case was held on december 1. after the argument, they have a private conference where they take an initial vote. within a week or two after that, the senior justice and the majority gets to assign the opinion to someone. other justices at various points may start writing concurrences. host: there's a headline in the washington times that says the leaders thinking on abortion law, writing a more in-depth look at some of what is written in that draft.
9:15 am
did the decision comport to what you heard from justice alito in particular? the questions he may have asked during that mississippi case in the oral argument. >> matches what he has said on the bench and his opinions and speeches over the years, where he wants to look at the constitution from an originalist perspective. he looks at it in terms of the history and tradition that would have surrounded that. there were parts of the opinion where you could see he kind of nodded towards another justice like justice barrett who had in the argument raised the idea that the safe haven laws that let a woman who gives birth leave the baby somewhere and not be prosecuted for that. that was something she raised the argument and something he mentioned as an aside. you could see pieces of the
9:16 am
opinion where he may have been trying to attract the support of the other justices. host: do you think the final decision will be written by justice alito? >> the dynamics seems to be that the chief justice has been and still is trying to convince one of the other justices may be somebody like cavanaugh or barrett to join him in a narrower decision. we might end up with not an opinion for the court but rather two different camps and the majority one that will go farther and the other one that is narrower. host: first call is from betty in stockton, california. democrat line.
9:17 am
caller: good morning. i'm a baptist minister in boston. on our currency says in god we trust. i think that if they would wait until marriage before they engage in sexual activities, i think that would not need to be an abortion. i think it's murder when you take a fetus and end its life. i just think it's a travesty to america. we murder so many people before birth and after break. so i'm just totally against roe v. wade i wish it was overturned. host: what are some of the other highlights from the draft the justice wrote? >> his basic framework was abortion is not a right that is mentioned in the constitution. and it can be protected only if it's deeply rooted in the nation's history. he spent a lot of time talking
9:18 am
about english common law and laws that were in place throughout american history including around the time of the 14th amendment when it was enacted after the civil war. and so that seemed to be a real core of the decision and people on the other side of the issue were pushing back on his analysis. host: the women's health protection act, the majority leader in the senate, chuck schumer filing cloture on that today. live coverage will be over on c-span two. mike is up next in st. louis. democrat line. go ahead mike. we were on the air. -- you are on the air. caller: good morning.
9:19 am
thanks for taking my call. it's a complex issue. i'm going to read from page 65 of the draft. roe and casey must be overruled and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned -- ok. never mind. my computer patient just went off. i apologize. i'll start over. roe and casey must be overruled and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives. i live in missouri and we've got the trigger law and a lot of state legislatures didn't know how they would rule and they thought they would go back to the states which is kind of true, but if the five justices wanted to go back to the state legislatures, they should have said that. they said returned to the people and their elected representatives and i hope the
9:20 am
people get to vote on this. and i will point out, i think viable fetuses have a right to life. i know they don't say that in roe v. wade specifically. but viable fetuses have a right to life. and these five justices when they said roe v. wade should be dismissed, they did away with that right. host: he mentions the term trigger law. >> 13 states have laws that say if the supreme court overturns a row, automatically abortion will be banned in our states. there is some overlap, that there are other states that have pre-existing bands on abortion, some dating back more than a hundred years. that would potentially kick in as well. so we are probably talking about at least two dozen states ultimately that would be banning
9:21 am
or almost completely banning abortion if the court overturned row. host: what does the term stare decisis mean? >> that's the notion that the supreme court will stand by its precedent absent some compelling reason. every justice on the court agrees there are some circumstances where you can overrule a past ruling but they disagree on the right factors in the right time. justice alito spent a lot of time talking about when you can overrule a ruling and why this is an appropriate time to do that. host: how often has the court overturned its previous president? >> it's been maybe once a year during the roberts court time, but the number has increased in recent years and there are certainly signs that the number could increase a lot more going forward because you have a lot of individual justices who have suggested we should overturned
9:22 am
such and such ruling. host: would and overturning of roe v. wade open the door for states to reconsider their contraceptive laws? contractually -- potentially overturning the court's decision on gay marriage. >> justice alito says no. he says abortion is different because there's a potential human life involved there. not entirely clear based on his legal analysis why that would be the stopping point and certainly the mississippi governor was on meet the press refusing to rule out the idea that mississippi might ban contraception. there's a supreme court ruling called griswold that is the underpinning of row from a legal analysis standpoint. it establishes the right to privacy that road depended on. that is a decision that some
9:23 am
justices when they are testifying for the senate have said -- exactly why that would be settled law when row isn't this a little hard to say at this point. host: and let's hear from ralph in johnson city, tennessee. independent line. caller: good morning. your guests are very good. what i would like to say is that the u.s. flags over the usa seemed to be broken or out of line. i know the wind is blowing hard. i'm a vietnam veteran. i just can't understand why the flags are not flying correctly. host: at the u.s. capitol? caller: yes. host: they seem to be flying -- it's hard for us to turn around and look at the capitol, but i think they're doing ok. elise is in springfield,
9:24 am
virginia. independent line. go ahead. you're on with greg stohr. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air. go ahead. caller: i'm here. hello? host: go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i'm going to be really calm and level about this. i have been listening to this concern about this draft since it came out. i'm a nurse. my working experience has been in obstetrics. i have to tell you, i have been on the side of watching history take place. i was there before my degree in massachusetts before this law was passed and i remember the young girls. there was one in particular who hung herself because she was vilified for being pregnant. for the pastor from stockton, i want to remind him that it's not
9:25 am
just that ladies have to wait until they get married. i want to remind him about the gentleman. i think his name was brock turner. and how he raped a young woman who was unconscious. i want to remind him about the institutions that have been put in place to protect young girls and women from harm that have been failing them miserably. there was a case of a football team in ohio who went and party. they drugged the girls at the party and gang raped them, videotaped it and the coaches knew about it and did nothing. we've got larry nasser. we have the guy sandusky from penn state. we are being told that the girls have to control themselves when we have young men and men who claim to be part of a group called in cells who feel that
9:26 am
women's bodies are theirs. as a nurse doing a community vaccination at a high school -- actually a middle school here in virginia. i saw a 14-year-old boy who was a basketball player sexually harassed one of his classmates. but that was ok. those kinds of behaviors are dismissed as they are just boys. there is a new case now in south carolina of three young women who were raped by a 19-year-old and the court let him off with probation. he doesn't have to register as a sex offender. we've got warren jeffs, the head of a religious group out in utah and around the united states i gather who felt it was ok to take 12-year-olds as brides. host: a lot there. obviously greg stohr, a real hard and difficult social issue that the justices are grappling with here.
9:27 am
caller: -- >> it is. part of what justice alito said in his draft opinion is that we want the court to be out of this and that sort of debate to be happening among the people and their elected representatives, not totally clear that that will happen. these issues that the color was talking about are going to come back at the court if this draft opinion becomes finalized. some states will ban abortion in cases of rape and incense. we have new challenges to those laws as well as various others. host: when will the decision come down in this case? >> a big decision like this has been tending to come out near the term in recent years. host: let's hear from billy in brooklyn. caller: i just wanted to make
9:28 am
mention of you introduction to this program. the future of roe v. wade. i've got news for you. roe v. wade ain't got no future. two dozen states have trigger laws. how bad are the outcomes going to get in the states that have trigger laws. neither question is why would a leader or the supreme court not go after hormonal birth control or iud or plan b? life in the sense of fairly flinched human person begins at the moment of fertilization, plan b is murder and you should be locked up trump was saying i think there should be some form of punishment for the woman who
9:29 am
has a terminated pregnancy. they are prosecuting miscarriages in texas these days. these radical anti-choice forced by the proponents -- you want to reduce number of abortions, why not make contraception more acceptable -- more accessible. host: what is the status of the texas law? >> the law is in effect now. the supreme court refused to block it. they left a small avenue for a challenge to go forward against it. the lower courts said that avenue doesn't exist. people can file lawsuits in texas against anybody who helps facilitate an abortion before six weeks and abortion hasn't totally stopped in texas as i understand it.
9:30 am
it is significantly reduced. host: collins says cavanaugh and gorsuch possibly broken promise on roe v. wade. she said if this leaked draft opinion is the final decision on the reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what judge gorsuch and cavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office. we won't know what each justices decision and reasoning until the supreme court officially announces its opinion in this case. that's a statement from her office. these are in conversations prior to their nomination hearings. >> she said in conversations that she had with them privately and in the public testimony. the public testimony was they
9:31 am
both said that roe's precedent. host: settled law. >> they didn't say settled law. they said it's a president of the court which is potentially a different thing and that it was entitled to respect as a president of the court. people talked about casey being a precedent on how to look at star displaces -- started this isis story decisive stare decisis. host: republican line. go ahead. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i sympathize with girls and women that have been abused or even raped and they have all kinds of -- or are in poverty and so on. but two wrongs never make a
9:32 am
right. and we have to respect life. if we can murder a child in the womb, why would anyone respect life in america or anyplace else that condones abortion? once the child is conceived, it has a right to be respected and loved and cherished and supported. and there are groups out there that will support women who are in need of help with their pregnancies. host: does justice alito get into those issues that all of when life begins, when a fetus is considered viable? >> he said we are not going to decide that. but he did recognize a lot of what the caller was saying, that there is an interest on the
9:33 am
stateside and she articulated what that interest is that many people do believe it is a human being. that was part of the reason justice alito said we should not be involved in this. host: richard in florida, you are on the air. >> i would like to know how it's possible under the texas law allowing anybody to sue the doctors or the providers for an abortion after six weeks's. how they can have standing in the court. you have no relation, no knowledge of the person you are suing. don't you have to have some standing before the court to allow you to collect civil damages? a doesn't seem to make any sense
9:34 am
and the fact that the federal courts haven't thrown it out seems amazing to me. it seems like it's such an vigilante form of justice that it's very scary. >> that's a great question. this will be standing in the texas state courts. it's not u.s. constitutional standard. the point of the texas law is that that argument can still be made, but it requires -- providers are now at risk of massive liability if they rely on an argument like that, go ahead and perform abortions and then get sued. have to count on the texas courts to agree with them and say yes indeed, you are right.
9:35 am
this law -- the person suing you doesn't have standing or for some other reason the person can't win their lawsuit and so it's set up in a way to dissuade the clinics from ever performing the abortion and to test those arguments. host: have any cases come up so far? >> very few in court. certainly not one that has allowed the clinics to start performing abortions after six weeks. host: greg stohr covers the supreme court from hamburg thanks for being with us. -- bloomberg. thanks for being with us. we are going to continue talking about abortion as an issue. is it a factor in your midterm election votes? here are the lines. (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans.
9:36 am
independents (202) 748-8002. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine. bring you the latest from the president. the pentagon and the state department. we also have international perspective and statements from foreign leaders all on the c-span networks. the c-span no free mobile app and our web resource page where you can watch the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. >> now available in the c-span shop. order a copy of the
9:37 am
congressional directory. your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress including bios and committee assignments. order your copy today at c-span or scan the code with her smart phone. every suspension purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit operation. >> there are a lot of places to get political information but only at c-span to get it straight from the source. c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased. word for word. america is watching on c-span. powered by cable.
9:38 am
>> washington journal continues. host: for the remainder of the program, we want to ask you about abortion. will it be a factor in your midterm election vote. the lines are for democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. independents and others (202) 748-8002. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003 and tell us your name and where you are texting from. senator lindsey graham of south carolina was on fox news sunday talked about how the issue of abortion, the decision by the court may affect the 2022 elections. >> what will happen if the opinion sticks and here's what's important. at least in february there were five votes that led to this draft opinion to repeal roe v. wade. roe v. wade created a constitutional right that
9:39 am
doesn't exist in the written constitution. it has created division from the first day it was decided until now. if it does get repealed which i hope it will, the issue goes back to the states but congress will still stay involved. my democratic friends are trying to pass a law wednesday that will allow abortion right up until the day the baby is delivered. different states will take different approaches. the abortion debate will not go away in the country. it will be size of the people -- be decided by the people. not a handful of judges. >> will abortion galvanize the left as it has the right politically? do you fear that heading into the midterms? >> single issue voters seldom decide the outcome of an election. here's what i would say. elected officials elected by the people now have a say about abortion the first time since 1973. i don't believe it's going to change the outcome of the 2022
9:40 am
elections at all. when you go to the grocery store or the gas station, that is going to remind you of the incompetency of the biden administration. this is not going to take peoples eyes off of rocket inflation, broken border, insecure america. host: let's hear what you have to think. will it be a factor in your vote. kelly's first stop in alexandria, virginia. caller: good morning. how are you today? thank you for having me. absolutely it is going to be a factor in my building. unfortunately i never thought abortion should be a political issue but it's been made a political issue from both sides. to think this isn't going to rally women yet again. in the state of virginia, i am reading the laws here. it shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the board of medicine to perform a
9:41 am
vasectomy or any other surgical sexual sterilization procedure on any person 18 years of age or older who has capacity to give informed consent. so any young man in the age of 18 can readily go in and get a vasectomy. i at 48 still cannot get a hysterectomy. i at 21 with my first child could not get a tubal ligation and it was after three children and three cesareans that i was actually allowed to have a tubal ligation. this is beyond abortion issue. this is reproductive rights and i'm telling you as soon as this is overturned which i have a bad feeling it is, they are going to start going after contraceptive laws and we are going to take women back to the draconian days. this i believe has woken up a lot of women and people, what i've been saying for years. you better wake up. you better go out to the polls. i think lindsay is wrong. this has become a single issue just like governor youngkin run
9:42 am
this -- won this one state of virginia on one platform and that was parents rights in schools. this is a single platform and it can overturn a current election or rally the people out to vote that's my personal opinion. host: new york times writes about a potential change in the road decision. -- roe decision. when the supreme court heard arguments over the fate of the right to abortion, it was already clear that other rights could be at risk. the logic of that legal earthquake would produce a jurisprudential tsunami that could sweep away other precedents. the questions on the broader consequences of a decision eliminating the right to
9:43 am
abortion or probing but abstract and conditional. -- has made those questions are urgent and concrete. next up is nancy in lakewood, new york. republican line. go ahead. caller: the left has always swung so far over good when new york state allowed abortion up until the time of birth, i wonder what comes next. i always have to go a step further. what if you 2-year-old is giving you a really hard time. time to put him down. it's nonsense and its homicide in my view. they always have to just get rid
9:44 am
of this and get rid of that. it's going to take it back to the states where the majority of people can vote. it's not going to get rid of abortion. they want to raise their hands to the sky and shake and say that's all, that is what's coming next. that's not what's happening. host: judith on the independent line. caller: i think all women ought to wake up. if you have no right over your own body autonomy, you have no rights. they just put a link in the chain and they will yank it. if you want actually to term in your own life, you have to have autonomy over your body. this bit of sanctity of life, i hesitate to say that most republicans and people in power in the republican states, they don't care about the sanctity of life. it's all about power. and it's all about control. and that's what it's about.
9:45 am
and people who look at it differently, fine. you go ahead and look at it differently. being told that you don't have any rights, i am sure the other insurance companies would like to say once you are past reproductive age, we don't need to take care of any of your cancers because you've been reduced to a reproductive unit and a slave. think it over. and then remember, if you can't vote them out, maybe there's other ways you can get rid of them. host: surely on the democrats line. caller: good morning c-span. it will not have a factor on my mid term election vote in any way and i would like to say something to lindsey graham. he don't need to be up there talking about no abortion or anything else that concerns women because he is gay. and i just can't stand listening to him.
9:46 am
that's all i have to say and i think that women should do whatever they want to do. why can't they do something with the man and let him have part of the situation? it takes two to tango. host: bradenton, florida. we hear from kathy. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have listened to the last few colors and one side women ought to wake up. i think women should have started waking up a long time ago when they took away parents rights in school and the biological males being able to compete in women's sports. that women way back. so there's a lot of issues here. i for one even though i'm a republican and pro-choice, but i don't want them to be able to
9:47 am
have a full term birth and murder a child. but i do believe that women should have a choice. everybody's right. the women do need to pick up here. i don't know what happened to the #metoo movement. they got shut down with biden. it's ridiculous the way this country is going with our open borders. all of the chaos going on around the world that he's got his hands in. host: this is from the washington examiner this morning. a south texas has democratic primary involving a rare antiabortion democratic member of congress is taking on a new level of urgency for backers of both candidates. in texas is 28 congressional
9:48 am
districts, health democratic leadership is backing -- house democratic leadership is backing henry cuellar. -- return the issue to the states. she is making the topic of abortion the fodder for her campaign ahead of the runoff. independent line, this is jennifer. go ahead. caller: good morning. it's not going to change my midterm vote at all. if anything i was so happy to hear this is what's going to happen that they are going to send the rulings back to the states because right now government is in our business with everything, and the fact that we can send it back to the states for the people to actually vote on, that is
9:49 am
democracy. these people are called in, they don't know the facts of what it is. it's being sent back to the states. they are overturning. if they want to murder babies in the belly or whatever, it should be something maybe they can set up clinics and that who can do it and it's an elective procedure so it's not going to be covered by insurance. you have to pay for it things like that. host: senator kyrsten sinema brian was asked by jake tapper whether she would support using the filibuster to pass legislation in congress supporting the rights of women to have abortions. >> the senate is going to vote wednesday on legislation that would codify roe v. wade. democrats don't have the votes.
9:50 am
you don't have 60 to get to a vote and i don't even know if you have 50 to pass it. you and others have called on the senate to eliminate the filibuster. mitch mcconnell said this weekend he thinks that a national abortion ban. so not sending it back to the states just bending it everywhere. mcconnell said he thinks the national abortion ban is possible. they can ban abortion nationwide with just 50 votes? >> look, jake. the argument that if we take away the filibuster, mitch mcconnell and republicans across the country going to do bad things, those bad things are already happening. we have a supreme court that is unrelated to the normal process of the american people.
9:51 am
when those supreme court justices said that precedent is the foundation of our legal system and said roe v. wade is precedent that's entitled to respect under the laws of stare decisis -- that they have no agenda to overrule roe v. wade and then go ahead and do it, we have changed what is protecting our rights and privileges in america in a way that no person imagined would happen. so i don't think the argument that mitch mcconnell will do bad things is persuasive at this point. they are already happening. host: the majority leader chuck schumer will file for cloture on the legislation today in the senate and on wednesday. setting up a vote for wednesday beginning debate on that abortion bill. the women's health protection act already passed by the u.s.
9:52 am
house. watch live coverage of that debate when it gets under way all coverage of the u.s. senate on our companion network, c-span2. indiana. democrat line. this is daniel. caller: good morning. my statement is, i feel like we should take this roe v. wade thing out of the courts, out of the senate, out of the congress and have a across-the-board national election come november. have an election to find out what we the people want. that's my statement. youngsville, louisiana. republican line.
9:53 am
>> i was calling about schumer trying to intimidate the supreme court. he did it already. he did it again. why isn't he being arrested? why aren't people protesting at his mansion? he's calling for violence. the lady that called about five phone calls ago actually called and said that you can take the republicans and conservatives out another way. in other words: for murder and harm to the people. host: next up is donna in hampton, virginia. caller: i am an 81-year-old lady and i've been listening to this on every channel. i think it's just a distraction. don't tell me we've got to listen to this until june 27.
9:54 am
the supreme court is going to rule by the law. if they overrule it, fine. it goes back to the states. why are people so upset about this. they are still going to have a right in their own state through their own representatives and it's really going to get on my last word if we have to have this day in and day out again until the supreme court rules. host: here is the headline. white house arches peaceful protest, support for judges. white house press secretary jen psaki said the demonstrations should not involve violence and expressed president biden's support for judges. that should never include violence, threats or vandalism.
9:55 am
judges perform an incredibly important to function in our society and must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety. dozens of protesters chanted outside brett kavanaugh and john roberts homes in the d.c. area over the weekend. protests are also planned. independent line. caller: i feel this whole thing is such a distraction to get away from critical issues. when i don't understand is why we are trying to encourage more medical surgical issues versus contraceptive methods that are now available that weren't available when this originally was instituted.
9:56 am
it doesn't make sense to me. why aren't we trying to educate people on methods and ways to avoid pregnancy rather than try to kill a baby and especially late-term. there's nothing more disgusting as a nurse if you want to see how horrifying that is, the new spend a day -- then you spend a day and a surgical center where someone is delivering a baby and then they're going to abort it. the wrong way that this country is going, that is totally disgusting. host: pat in crystal lake, illinois. caller: good morning. hello? host: you are on the air. go ahead. caller: i was wondering what's going to happen with all these young kids who go to parties and the girls get drunk.
9:57 am
what's going to happen when they come up pregnant and they can't get an abortion? the people with low incomes, it's going to be so difficult for them. host: stan in staten island, new york. >> -- caller: i have several questions. number one, exactly what is the law. basically chuck schumer wants to codify in roe v. wade the other thing is i would really be fascinated and what is the percentage of abortions since roe v. wade based on the health, rape or insist as well as a
9:58 am
breakdown on how many abortions in first, second and third trimester. i would love to get an honest answer. is chuck schumer basically saying the woman would have a right to abortion up until the actual birth? host: we touched on this earlier. it's an article in today's usa today. roe v. wade could append these races. this is a focus on the nevada senate race. nevada is among the states where democrats are playing defense. senator catherine cortez masto will take on one of several republicans seeking the party's nomination. democrats believe abortion rights is an issue that could help swing her to victory in a
9:59 am
race that polling has shown will likely be close. next to mike in new haven, connecticut. republican line. meet your volume and then go ahead with your comment. we've got feedback here. caller: i'm a christian. people are spiritually blind. god said to jeremiah, i knew you before you were formed. god is not happy with abortion and god is angry with it. people that come abortions are dimming themselves to hell. the doctors are going to go to hell. abortion is not against the constitution, it's against god >> as in the bible, it is stated
10:00 am
that a child, until it takes its first breath, is not considered anything except part of the mother. this thing about denying women the right to decide how their lives will be impacted by something that they may not be able to not take care of, but could ruin or destroy their lives. a personal thing from a friend of mine whose daughter was a teacher of children that had down syndrome. she got pregnant, was married, decided she didn't care about what the child would be, if it had down syndrome, whatever. she found out that the child was terribly deformed, would not be able to live outside of her, if it did live at all.
10:01 am
it would be in the horrible pain , and by carrying it to term, she could possibly lose her ability to have other children. this was horrifying for her to make this choice. either terminate the pregnancy or have to live with possibly a dead child, deformed child, whatever. she lived in a state that allows her to do so in her third trimester, i believe it was. she then proceeded to have two wonderful, healthy children. i do not believe anybody has the right to decide for anybody else what a woman should do or is capable of doing for themselves. host: appreciate your comment, and all of your comments and calls this morning on the program. we are back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on "washington journal." have a great day.
10:02 am
♪ >> this afternoon, president biden will outline efforts to lower the cost of high-speed internet. he will be joined by kamala harris. you can watch live coverage at 1:30 eastern on c-span. the ongoing russian invasion of ukraine ahead, u.s. foreign policy, during a conference hosted by the national q&a institute. you can see these events live on c-span or at, or in our video up. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to
10:03 am
russia's invasion of ukraine. here the latest from u.s. officials, as well as congress. we have international perspectives from the united nations, and statements from foreign leaders. the c-span now free mobile app, and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to >> the house takes up a bill this week to allow its staff to form unions. it would set the minimum salary for housestaff at $45,000 and the maximum salary at close to $204,000.
10:04 am
>> next to hearing, on whether federal tax payer dollars should go to companies who violate labor laws and prevent workers from unionizing. among those testifying was amazon's union labor president, who says amazons practices come into question.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on