tv PBS News Hour PBS May 3, 2022 3:00pm-4:00pm PDT
judy: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on the "newshour" tonight, reversing course. a leaked opinion shows the majority of the supreme court would overturn roe versus wade, a move that would trigger widespread restrictions on american women's reproductive rights. then, the potential impact. lawmakers in blue and red states respond to the supreme court's expected ruling on abortion and discuss what it means for their residents. and the invasion grinds on. fighting persists in eastern ukraine and on a visit to an alabama weapons factory, president biden reaffirms his commitment to ukrainian victory. this, as civilians continue to bear the heavy burdens of war. >> it's scary and i don't
understand why. what did we do? we had a normal life before the war. now, nobody knows what's going to happen tomorrow. or even tonight. judy: all that and more on tonight's "pbs newshour." ♪ >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by -- >> the landscape h changed, not for the last time. the rules of business are being reinvented with a more flexible workforce, by embracing innovation, by looking not only at current opportunities, but ahead to future ones. resilience is the ability to pivot again and again for whatever happens next. >> people who know know bdo. >> for 25 years, consumer
cellular has been offering no contra wireless plans to help people do more of what they like. our u.s.-based customer service team can help nd a plan that fits you. to learn more, visit consumercellular data tv >> the john s and kate foundation, more at kf.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions. this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by
contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. judy: an early draft of a coming supreme court decision, leaked to the public late yesterday, suggests that by this summer, a majority of the justices will overturn roe v. wade. the landmark decision of 50 years ago that established a constitutional right to abortion. as john yang reports, the news sent shockwaves through the court and through both sides of the abortion rights debate. john: demonstrators on both sides of the abortion divide converged on the supreme court today. >> abortion saves lives! abortion saves lives! >> abortion is violence! abortion is oppression! >> 80% of young people want to vote on abortion. they want it to go back to the states where they have a right to vote on it. let the people speak. supreme court let the people speak. >> we are! we are speaking.
i would have died without this law. just so you know. you are sacrificing the mother for the children. john: this follows a politico report that the justices are poised to overturn the right to abortion that the court established nearly a half-century ago. as president biden departed for a planned trip to alabama, he said that outcome could have wide-reaching implications beyond abortion. pres. biden: it would mean that every other decision related to the notion of privacy is thrown into question. if this decision holds, it is really quite a radical decision. it is a fundamental shift in american jurisprudence. john: in a statement, chief justice john roberts said the draft opinion in the politico report is authentic, but cautioned, it does not represent a decision by the court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case. he ordered an investigation into the leak, which has no precedent in recent memory. the document, marked first draft
and dated february 10, was written by justice samuel alito, one of the court's most conservative members and frequent critic of roe v wade. he wrote "roe was egregiously wrong from the start. its reasoning was exceptionally weak and the decision has had damaging consequences. we now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives. -- representatives." the political report said shortly after the court heard oral arguments about a mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks, five republican nominated justices voted to overturn roe. that would be a seismic shift both legally and politically. 26 states are certain or likely to outlaw abortion according to to the guttmacher institute, which supports abortion rights. michigan is one them. but today, the state's attorney general said she would not enforce the law. >> what i see happening is just
basically not having any abortion providers at all in the state of michigan. and my grave concern is that you are gonna have women who are going to die for aumber of different reasons. john: in the capitol, senate majority leader chuck schumer vowed to hold a vote on a federal law protecting abortion rights. >> the republican appointed justices reported votes to overturn roe v. wade will go down as an abomination. one of the worst, most damaging decisions in modern history. john: republican senator lindsay graham of south carolina praised the news of the draft opinion. >> repealing the -- repealing roe v. wade, in my opinion, is the right constitutional answer. i thought roe v wade was a constitutional overstep, so we'll be back into the business that we were before 1973 allowing each state to decide what to do. john: but republican senator lisa murkowski of alaska, an abortion rights supporter and
key confirmation vote for recent conservative justices, lamented the report. >> if it goes in the direction that this leaked copy has indicated, i will just tell you that it rocks my confidence in the court right now. john: while overturning roe could well be the last word on the constitutional question, the front lines in the abortion battle would shift to the state legislatures. for the pbs newshour, i am john lovett -- john yang. judy: for more on the impact, both inside the court and around the country, i'm joined by marcia coyle, chief washington correspondent for the national law journal. and mary ziegler, a florida state university law professor and the author of "abortion and the law in america." welcome back to the newshour for both of you. let me start with you, marcia. given the sense of the status of
this, this is an opinion that was written some ti ago. it is subject to being changed, before the court actually issues an opinion. help us understand what we have here. marcia: ok, duty. the first thing i looked at when i saw the draft opinion was that it was marked first draft. it also said on the first page of the opinion that it had been circulated to all of the justices on february 10, the court held oral arguments in this abortion case out of mississippi in december. so this is obviously, as a first draft, a very early opinion. it does not mean that it may not last until the final decision. but i will tell you this, that during the supreme court's deliberative process, first drafts often go through multiple drafts, not unusual for 20
drafts or more, and much can change during the drafting process. so we really will not know what the court is actually going to say until the final decision comes out. judy: and mary, let's step back a moment. remind us how many people get abortions in this country every year, who are they, and how could that be affected if this is the decision the court hands down? mary: the abortion rate has been declining, but it is still roughly, estimates about one in four people of reproductive age have abortions in their lifetime, is -- which is a lot of people. we estimate between 26 states will outlaw most or all abortions of the supreme crt reverses roe. there are a combination of what we called trigger laws which has some kind of provision that will make the law automatically go into effect if roe is gone. and there are zombie laws, laws
that were criminal on the books before roe that have been kept on the books and could spring back to life if roe is gone. that will affect people across the mwest. we know that people of color have abortions at disproportionately high rates and we would imagine criminal abortion laws, if they are enforced against patients and doctors, would disproportionately be enforced against people of color because those are people in the most heavily policed communities. judy: continuing with that line ofhought, you have done work looking at what would happen on the first day after the supreme court were to hand down a decision like this. according to the pro-abortion rights group, the good mocker institute, they say there are 26 states poised to restrict abortion right away. what would that look like? mary: there is the messy process of who is going to certify that roe v. wade has been certified. if it resembles whate see in the draft, it will take a genius
to figure out that roe has been overturned. some states require the attorney general to certify there has been an overturning before a trigger lock and go into effect. in other places, the process will be messier. there is a state constitutional litigation in michigan, for example. there may be back before criminal laws go into effect. we imagine if the court is this direct as it seems to be in this draft, that there will be little drama in most places that abortions will be criminal in short order. judy: as we know, a lot of politics here. this is a deeply divisive and political issue. i just want to cite the latest pbs newshour r marist poll. this was last -- from last week. it shows americans by an 11 point margin that democrats do a better job handling the issue of abortion. we would remind everyone that back in february, 3% of people said this should be the top issue.
can we project ahead to what difference this could make in elections this year? mary: i think it is reconciling those two poles. we have reason to believe that large numbers of independents and republicans don't want to roe v. wade overturned. they may not be comfortle with the morality of abortion, they are not excited about the prospect of roe being overturned. the question for democrats is whether they can translate that into votes and whether voters make abortion a priority. that 3% number is probably lower than it would be in a world with no roe v. wade, whether it is high enough to translate into anything concrete for democrats in 22 or 2024 remains to be seen. judy: i want to come back with you to the justices who sided with justice alito in this early draft of the opinion. they were all trump appointees. they voted with him, again, an
early draft, which would in effect overturn roe. let's go back and listen to what these three justices, that is just as amy coney barrett, justice kavanaugh, and justice gorsuch, said when they were going through their confirmation hearings. >> judges cannot just wake up one day and say i have an agenda, i like guns, i hate guns. >> one of the important things to keep in mind about roe v. wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years. >> that's the law of the land. i accept the law of the land, senator. judy: listening to that, how does that square with what you see here? marcia: i think every supreme court nominee who goes before the senate judiciary committee claims that roe and kc are settled law. i think it is time that we all realize that that is meaningless. yes, they are settled law, and
so are many other supreme court decisions. but it does not mean that they can't be overruled. they are a constitutional based decision would -- which gives the court more liberty in terms of overturning advange does a statutory decision. settled law, timmy, means nothing -- to me, means nothing. judy: in the last question for you, marcia, the very fact, the astonishing fact of this leak. this is rare. it does not happen very often. what do you think it means and what do you think it means for the court going forward? marcia: that is a good question. i think there are two things that we can look at here. one is what does it mean for the court going forward? i think the leak itself probably means the court is going to be doing some internal rethinking about its processes, to ensure greater secrecy. and how that aects other
ability to deliberate and communicate with eacother, i don't know. we wl have to wait and see. but it also is a question of how the ultimate decision of -- affects the public's perception of the court's legitimacy, which you know a number of the justices recently have been very concerned about the court's legitimacy in the eyes of the public. in the court's approval rating has been declining. if it stands, this is a decision that overrules precedence that the majority of americans say don't overrule. that has to have some kind of impact, and we will just have to wait and see what that means for the court itself. judy: on this today when we are digesting a big piece of information, we want to thank both of you, marcia coyle, mary zigler, thank you. mary: thanks for having us. marcia: thank you, judy. judy: now we take a look at how a potential undoing of roe is viewed on capitol hill.
to help us understand how lawmakers are preparing, i am joined by lisa desjardins. you have been spending today looking at this. does congress have the ability in any way to affect abortion across the country? lisa: absolutely. congress makes the law of this country. congress could pass a law protecting what advocates call abortion rights. keeping abortion legal. democrats have been working on that. let me update people on where we are and what the problem is for demo -- democrats. democrats in the house, which they control, did pass a law in september, the women's health protection act that would essentially codify roe v. wade, essentially saying that abortion is legal in this country. however, that has to go to the senate, where it needs 60 votes, as our viewers well now. the senate did take a test vote on that concept in february. just 48 votes supported that bill.
notably, among them, not every democrat expressed support for it. joe manchin, senator from west virginia, was a no vote. watching joe manchin now, he is speaking about this today, he is someone who has said he supports women's rights in general, women's health rights, but he felt that bill went too far. there is discussion about whether he and another senator, bob casey, who had some discomfort with the original bill, whether they could get on board where -- when there is a bill that could get their support. senator susan collins and lisa murkowski of alaska, who also support legal abortion, they have a bill that they are floating. senator collins told me today she thinks joe manchin will get on board. that is a lot of explanation to say there is a bill that perhaps could get 52 votes in the senate to keep abortion legal in this country in every state. but i don't see any way that it could get 60 at this time. you have to train it -- have to
change the filibuster, joe manchin said he would not do that over abortion. judy: even if you got senator manchin's vote, we are still not at 60. lisa: senatoranchin is not willing to break the filibuster. judy: thank you very much. lisa: you're welcome. judy: with decisions on abortion, potentially moving into the hands of state governments, none of us talks with two leaders on opposite sides of the debate about what this means for their residence. amna: this decision would mean states can determine who can get an abortion, when, and under what circumstances for the first time in nearly 50 years. some states will effectively ban abortions, while others are -- just today, oklahoma's governor signed a bill that banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. while others are working to expand and codify access. we'll get the perspective on both sides. first, i'm joined by leslie rutledge. arkansas is one of 13 states with a trigger lock which
wittily -- which would immediately ban abortions. welcome to the newshour. thank you for making the time. i want to begin by asking you about access in your state. it is heavily restricted in arkansas. . if roe is overturned, on that day, who would be able to get then a abortion in arkansas? >> thank you so much for having me on. this is a historic moment and we anxiously anticipate the final decision by the u.s. supreme court. in arkansas, we are prepared to save lives of unborn children. we put a law in place in 2019 that we are essentially calling a trigger lock, which will go into effect in the event that the court does in fact overturn roe v. wade in the casey decision. the trigger law essentially says in arkansas, as the attorney general for the state, i will certify that that is what the supreme court of the united
states has done, overturn roe v. wade and casey, which would allow us to have a total ban on abortions in effect. a total ban except to save the life of a mother in a medical emergency. amna: only in case of life endangerment, not in the cases if a minor is raped and impregnated, that person cannot legally get an abortion, correct? >> correct. the total ban is for saving the life of the mother in a medical emergency we are. -- we were prepared in 2019 when we passed this law in the event that the court did, like so many americans, we are hopeful and prayerful. many of us fought for the last -- thought for the last 50 years we would never see this day. amna: i know your time is limited, we have seen medication abortions increasing. how would your state view that? could win have medication abortion -- medications for abortion mailed to them? >> no.
the total ban would apply to any and all forms of abortion, except for those to save the life of a mother in a medical emergency. other states are looking to us, there are 12 other states across the country who have also had a trigger law in place. weant to be prepared on day one to begin saving lives of unborn, innocent children. amna: let me ask you about what resulted in experts say unwanted pregnancies. what about those kids? kids in arkansas, one in five, live in poverty. the foster care system is already overwhelmed after the last two years. . what is the state plan for those kids? >> we are going to love those kids and we will give them great educational opportunities. amna: but how will you care for them? >> i had a woman earlier who thanked me for my stand on the supreme court issue. she said she and her husband were able to adopt four children many years ago whose parents did not want them.
and had abortion been available, those children wld not have been living and thriving. we are going to take care of the children in the state of arkansas. amna: if i may, from a resources standpoint, your system is overwhelmed. you had a 14% increase in the last two years of kids in the foster care system. not enough families to take them in. is there a plan in place? >> certainly there is. that is why i am serving as the attorney general and running to be the next lieutenant governor of arkansas and supporting my dear friend, sarah huckabee sanders, is the next governor. we will have the resources necessary to take care of our kids and give them the education they need, to make sure that we take care of those in foster care. i have worked in the foster care system. what those children need our love. what they don't need is someone putting a price tag on their life. what is their life worth to them? absolutely everything. what is it worth to god?
absolutely everything. god intended for that life to begin at consumption -- conception. put on that child's head from some liberal who says it costs too much. amna: you made it clear that you believe roe was wrongly decided. what about other cases? we heard president biden express this concern. what about other cases similarly decided on this constitutional right to privacy? same-sex marriage, for example. you disagree with that decision as well. would you move to outlaw same-sex marriage? >> our focus right now is on the decision and whether or not it does overturn roe v. wade. when the failed decision came down and i was the sitting attorney general, i immediately set -- and sent out a memo explaining this was not the law of the land in the united states to ensure state agencies and
those conducting marriage ceremonies adhere to the law. i think that is important for arkansans and americans to understand. we must respect and uphold the law and defend the law. what the supreme court did or rather, what we are hoping the supreme court has done in this decision is to adhere to the constitution of the united states and return this power back to the states where it belongs, and to allow states to have the public policy discussions and make those decisions among the respective states rather than having those policy decisions made at the u.s. supreme court. amna: you don't believe if the court were to overturn roe, that would undermine the right to privacy basis for other decisions like same-sex marriage? >> ihink those are conversations that will be had at a later date. i'm not going to allow those who want to undermine the impact of this decision to say -- to use scare tactics to say, those who
disagree with all of these other decisions will simply use it as an avenue to undo the decision or other decisions. what we must focus on is saving the lives of innocent children, millions of which we have lost over the last 50 years, from january 22, 1973, that the supreme court has got it wrong. which child -- which innocent life was lost that perhaps have the cure for cancer? which child was lost but have the cure for alzheimer's? which child was lost that could have stopped some domestic violence case? we will never know because the supreme court got it wrong 50 years ago. amna: one last question. what about what other states are doing? i understand how your state is preparing if this were to be overturned. other states have worked to codify and welcome people who are seeking abortion care services into their states. would you go after arkansas
residents who go to other states to get those same kind of abortion services? >> we will have to look at whether or not those states allow those practices. i'm appalled when i seen of ada and new york and there not -- their attorneys general saying, abortions are going to be on demand and our state. we are ready to take care of a pregnant person. as the mother of a three-year-old, there is no such thing as a pregnant person. only women get pregnant. i am appalled that they are advertising that they are going to be alive and well. but that is a public policy discussion to be had in those states. that is what this decision is about, whether or not we will adhere to the constitution and put the power back to the respective states. amna: that is the attorney general for the state of arkansas joining us tonight. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. amna: now for a democratic point of view, i am joined by connecticut's governor, ned
lamont. welcome to the newshour. i want to begin by asking the same question i put to the attorney general about abortion access in your state, if roe is overturned. what would be the impact, in the state of connecticut, what would abortion access look like? gov. lamont: first of all, the supreme court leak took us by surprise. we thought this was settled law. about five years ago, we did pass a statute that said a woman's right to choose would not be breached in the state of connecticut, no matter what the feds do. that could be changed by another legislature going forward. right now, folks are nervous and cannot believe the politicians are getting back into this. amna: you have pledged to sign into law a bill that expands abortion access by broadening not only the types of providers who can offer those, but protecting pviders and patients who travel to your ste for those services from other states where it has been outlawed. our other states calling you because they want to do
something similar? gov. lamont: we are getting some inquiries. you listen to what is going on in texas. it was going to be enforced by lawsuits like vigilante justice. a number of women maybe want to come to connecticut to exercise their reproductive rights. i don't want texas judges going after them. we are going to protect our folks providing services, protect the clinics and the women. amna: all of the states that have surrounded you -- all the states surrounding you, have you seen other states from other states traveling to connecticut for those services? gov. lamont: not so much. we are just ready. amna: but you anticipate that could happen? gov. lamont: i do. look at the nghboring states of texas right now. i see a l of women have to travel out of state to get their reproductive rights. amna: you are protecting people who are essentially breaking the law in other states. would you do that for any other law? whatould you say to that? gov. lamont: i would say we are
protecting people's rights here in the state of connecticut, we are enacting the rights that we have right here. i don't have to sit around and 24 other states, each of which has probably a very different reproductive log going forward. i don't know what they are going to do. i don't know what they will do on rape or incensed. i know what we are going to do in connecticut, which is protect women's rights. amna: what about this concern from president biden. because roe was decided on the basis of constitutional right to privacy, it undermines other cases that were similarly decided. do you have that concern? gov. lamont: i would not know that. amna: if these kind of steps were not taken by you and your state legislature, we know other states are making similar moves, what do you worry what happen in the state of connecticut and the surrounding region? gov. lamont: we had a couple of protesters outside the capital a few weeks ago. there is a pack here in the state of connecticut that wants
to outlaw women's rights to choose. we have to be vigilant here, given the changing political climate. the majority of the states take away a woman's right to choose and we will not let that happen in connecticut. amna: we have less than one minute left. i wonder if you can offer a big picture take here? many people are worried if roe is overturned, what we will end up with is a patchwork of abortion rights access depending on where you live. what role do you see connecticut playing if that is the future of this country? gov. lamont: i think state -- i think keep the politicians out. working with my neighboring states like we do to make sure as a region, what your rights are going forward, and you hope to god the supreme court or even better, congress can pass legislation that does not interfere with a woman's right to choose. amna: that is governor ned lamont, democrat from connecticut joining us tonight. thank you so much. gov. lamont: thank you. judy: speaking of congress, back
now to the national perspective on this issue. let's turn to the highest ranking female democrat in the senate, patty murray of washington state. she is the chair of the senate health, education, labor, and pensions committee. thank you for joining us. you said earlier today if the supreme court comes forward with a decision, anything like what we have seen, it is a five-alarm fire. what did you mean by that? sen. murray: i and all of my -- i in all of my adult life have live -- has lived in a land where roving wade was the law of the land. that if you made a decision about whether or not to have a child, it was your decision along with your spouse or your partner. your own faith determined on what your doctor was telling you was right for you, your economic decision, your health decision. and all of a sudden, we see that right being ripped away. and now we are going to have
potentially a generation of women who will not have that right. even in the case of rape and incensed. that is going to change the economic and health dynamic for millions of women in this country, and i just am appalled. judy: we just heard governor lamont say he could look to washington for some remedy here, but we know it was two months ago, the senate failed to pass, a democratic majority in the senate, close, but still a majority, failed to pass a law that would codify women's rights to an abortion. if you could not pass it then, how can you pass it now? sen. murray: obviously, what we are going to do next week is have a vote on this so everyone in the country knows where their senator stands. who is your voice, what are they saying? so that when this -- this fall, we will have elections, and people will have an opportunity to know where their election -- their elected officials stand.
i'm calling for our country to wake up and essay if you want to make sure this is your decision, not a politician's decision, and when it is your health care at stake, it is your decision. when it is your economic family values at stake, it is your decision. then you need to look at who you are voting on in the coming fall elections so that we can have a pro-choice, even a pro-choice majority. that we can have a pro-choice house, so that we can put in place a codification of roe v. wade so it is the law of the land and the supreme court cannot take it away from us. judy: sounds like you are saying that right now, what this would mean is, you said voters would know where their senators stand. you may not get it passed this year? sen. murray: people need to know where their senators are. right now. and i think this has become an
issue of reel to people. it was not a few weeks ago. it was not a year ago. i think a lot of people thought this will never happen. it is happening. and it is your body, your decision, and it is about to be taken away from you, and you need to make your voice heard. judy:judy: do you believe that you and other democrats need to go along with a modified version of the legislation that was o before the senata couple months ago? my colleague was reporting that senator collins, senator murkowski are looking at an alternative version of this. sen. murray: that is two additional senators. that is great. right now, we needed 60 senators. what we are going to do is allow next week for everyone to put their voice on the line. do you support the -- a woman's right to mak her own health care choices, or do you want politicians to make that choice? that vote will be in front of the senate next week. judy: we often hear it said that even though the american people
through public opinion polls show a majority are in favor of roe v. wade, we have seen polling in the last weeks and months that show that, still, it seems to be the antiabortion rights groups that are better organized but seemed to get their people out. they seem to have a greater impact on the passage of legislation, state-by-state, getting people elected who agree with them. what is your sense of why democrats have not been able, frankly, politically to transform that public support intoomething that can bolster your view of lake -- your view legislatively? sen. murray: i think part of it is people felt it was not a threat. this is something they have grown up, lived with, expected, known it has been thrown around by politicians, but never expected to be taken away. . and that is now reality from millions of women in this country. judy: i hear you saying that you
hope people get it now. but how do you plan to transform it if right now, don't have the votes, how do you plan to change it? sen. murray: what we do know is there is an election this fall. people will be able to go to the ballot box and decide who is going to be their voice and their vote on critical decisions like this and many other decisions. and i believe very strongly that a lot of young people never expected this to be on the line for them. they just simply assumed that they would be able to get access to an abortion in case of rape or in sask, or for personal decisions, a health care decision of their own. i don't think they expected to take this away. we are aware that this is just the first step. we have people here in the senate, across the country, you have seen the laws being placed -- being put in place in states across our country that take
away a woman's right to even have her own health care choices in terms of family planning. we are seeing people's right to be able to make health care choices when they are a victim of rape or insist -- inc est. i think people are waking up, they realize it, and it will make a difference when they go to the polls. something is really at stake, and that is your right to make your own health care decisions. judy: senator patty murray of washington state, thank you very much. sen. murray: thank you. ♪ judy: tonight russian forces are besieging the azovstal steel plant, the final holdout of ukrainian soldiers and civilians in the city of mariupol. and earlier today, ukraine's top prosecutor unveiled the preliminary results of her
investigation into war crimes in the kyiv suburb of irpin, next to bucha, where nick schifrin is tonight. reporter: outside kyiv there was so much death, only now are they planning for its permanence. 35-year-old volodymyr stefiyenko measures out a future fence and headstone to replace his brother dmitrio's temporary grave. their mother says goodbye to her son, shot in the head by russian forces and dumped in a mass grave 6 weeks ago. >> i don't want his grave to be disturbed. all of these graves have fences. it's a tradition. and there will also be a table and bench so we can commemorate the dead. sit down, talk to them, maybe plant some flowers. say our goodbyes. reporter: the oldest victim of russian occupation on this row, 93. the youngest, 23.
the family who buried their son, so quickly, the name is written in pen. just one row of victims, in one city, in a country fighting a war with no end in sight. >> they have done here murders. they have done their tortures. reporter: down the road, ukraine's top prosecutor, iryna venediktova, today concluded her and her team's initial war crimes investigation in neighboring irpin. they displayed weapons and accused russia of using them to target civilians, indiscriminately. they said russian forces executed seven civilians, fired on civilians as they fled, and starved other residents to death. >> it means someone killed them, and we fill find these people. -- we will find these people. reporter: we spoke about one month ago. how much progress have you made? >> we have first suspects, and we start to prosecute concrete individuals from russian army, and we understand concrete war crimes, with concrete victims, with concrete war criminals. if maybe one month ago we have 5 -- 5000 cases, i don't remember. now more than 9,000 cases. and
unfortunately it is not the end. reporter: last week she accused 10 soldiers in russia's mechanized infantry brigade of 64th committing atrocities in bucha. the week before, they had received awards for heroism and courage, from russian president vladimir putin. reporter: across the street, and other atrocities nor broken windows prevent some families from returning. mikola tyshkevych arrived here last night for the first time in two months. he first fled downstairs to the basement, and then to his family down south. the calendar, still stuck on the last month they lived here. he and his wife svetlana, are determined to stay. despite the cold coming through the broken window. >> we get on the bed, cover ourselves, and that is how we live. where else should we go? we have nowhere to go. it'setter to be here than on the street.
even though it's cold both here and outside, it is like we are on the street. reporter: just outside these windows here in irpin, and down the road in bucha, what do you think the russians did? >> it's scary. and i don't understand why. what did we do? we had a normal life. before the war. now, nobody knows what's going to happen tomorrow. or even tonight. you see, everything is shattered. reporter: perhaps russia's single worst war crime here behind st. andrew's church, a mass grave of more than 100 people. today inside that church, a requiem for the dead. surrounded by the images of atrocities, and of the memories this community can never forget. the russian strikes that produced shrapnel big enough to pierce this fence, many of tm,
ll next to children's playgrounds. in total, 75% of all residential buildings here in irpin were damaged or destroyed. irpin held. ukrainian soldiers here prevented russians from going down the road, only about 15 miles to central kyiv. and that was in large part thanks to american weapons. and today president biden highlighted those weapons 5500 miles away, in a javelin missile factory in troy, alabama. like the trojans of antiquity, the ukrainians have used stealth and deception and thousands of javelins to destroy their enemy's armor. but it has not been enough to save the port city of mariupol, two women killed who thought they were about to escape. more than 100 civilians were allowed to leave, and today finally reached ukrainian-held territory, including 54-year old yelena tsybulchenko. >> every night we went to sleep and thought about whether we would survive and wakep it was possible that we wouldn't wake
up at all. the red cross's pascal hundt helped oversee the evacuation. >> we would have hoped that much more people would be able to join the convoy and to get out of hell. reporter: hello for -- hell for mariupol's residence and so many of this war's victims. judy: and a note, our coverage of the war in ukraine is supported in partnership with the pulitzer center. in the day's other news, the biden administration has formally declared that russia is wrongfully detaining pro basketball star brittney griner. she's been held in moscow since february on a drug possession charge. reports today said the u.s. state department will now negotiate aggressively for her release. this was primary day in ohio and indiana.
in ohio, j.d. vance had former president trump's backing in a republican fight to succeed retiring u.s. senator rob portman. incumbent republican governor mike dewine appeared set to fend off 3 far-right challengers. meanwhile, top republicans in the indiana state house also faced conservative opponents. across india, rolling blackouts are cutting electrical power to swaths of the country, which is under extreme heat that's sent temperatures to 120 degrees. the outages are a result of power plants running low on cold. business owners in new delhi and elsewhere say they're feeling the effects firsthand. >> before, the power would go for maybe about one hour in a whole week, but now it's regular. it's gone for at least one hour. and how will there be any business? if there is no light, who will come and sit here in the heat? reporter: --
judy: march in india was the hottest month since 1901. and, in april, average temperatures in some areas were the highest in 122 years. back in this country, former president trump's augural committee and business will pay $750,000 to settle allegations involving his washington d.c. hotel. the city had accused the committee of overpaying for hotel events to enrich the trump family. if a judge agrees, the payments -- democratic lawmakers in 16 states called today for offering legal refuge to transgender youths and their families. it's a response to efforts to ban gender-affirming care in some republican-run states. the democrats will introduce refuge bills, similar to measures in california, new york and minnesota. on wall street today, the dow jones industrial average gained 67 points to close at 33,128.
the nasdaq rose 27 points. the s&p 500 added 20. >> this is the pbs newshour from weta studios in washington and in the west from the walter kwok -- walter cronkite school. judy: evenefore it was published today, a new book has been making waves in washington with its revelations about the fallout from the january 6th insurrection, lingering tensions within the republican party and the first year of the biden administration. the authors are new york times reporters jothan martin and alexander burns and their book is athis will not pass: trump, biden and the battle for america's future. congratulations on this book. so much reporting here. so much to ask you about. i do want to start with e news that has come out today. this extraordinary leaked
opinion from the supreme court, the both of you have done so much political reporting over your careers. let me start with you, what do you see, assuming this is where the court ends up, what do you see is the political follow-up from this, especially from the midterm election? >> it is going to galvanize democratic activists, who allowed people -- who a lot of people were concerned and were not excited about this midterm election. there has not been enthusiasm from younger voters and from some people of color for democratic candidates this year. obviously, this potential decision offers democrats the chance to turn the narrative around. judy: we will see where that goes. i do want to ask you about the book. you document how much power
former president trump wields over the republican party. my question is how he does that. there has already been a lot of rerting about what you found out about kevin mccarthy and what he said in the immediate aftermath of january 6, and what he did. so few republicans are able to stand up to former president trump. why is that? >> this is one of the central themes we have chronicled, in this will not pass. and that is the grip, the iron grip that president trump has had on the republican party, since he first arrived on the political scenento 15. we get into depth with a lot of inside stories, about how he controls the party. and even in his exile, in the weeks and months aer january 6, that period where for a few
days it was unclear if he was going to be the dominating force in the party. sort of why and how he was able to reclaim the control that he has to this day over the gop and why people like kevin mccarthy came back to his embrace. i think the short answer is that he simply has great popularity among rank-and-file voters. being a political leader, you can try to lead your voters and steer them in a direction you think is best for the country or for your party, or you can follow them and bow to their preferences, real or perceived. that is what a lot of gop leaders and congress have done with trump. they believe he is popular among their voters and it is not more complicated than that. judy: picking up on what john just said, this relationship that trump has with the republican leadership and congress, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell on the one hand, you have him basically doing what donald ump wanted.
but then having a very frosty relationship with him, right after january 6, he was upset too, then he ended up not voting to impeach. how do you explain the trump-mcconnell dynamic? >> frosty is an understatement in terms of the antipathy between those two republican leaders. they still have not spoken since december of 2020 after mitch mcconnell publicly recognized joe biden as the legitimate winner of the 2020 election. they had a hostile phone call that day, trump raised his voice at mcconnell and the two men have not spoken since then. mcconnell has not exactly waged all-out war on trump, despite in that brief window after january 6 when he sounded like he was prepared to purge donald trump from the republican party and the political system. that has not happened at all. the reason is an electoral politics. mitch mcconnell go -- mitch mcconnell sees that donald trump
has been a more enduring politicafigure than he expected him to be. he said on the night of january 6, trump had finally discredited himself. he acknowledged to his colleagues months later that things had not turned out as he expected they would. for mitch mcconnell, the paramount political goal is retaking control of the senate in 2022. he has decided, and it is really the symbol, to subordinate his genuine moral outrage about the way trump behaved around january 6, to the short-term political imperative to not have conflict in the party. judy: the two of you, if not just republicans, you have a lot of fresh reporting about president biden during the election and the year and a half since. the ups and downs of his first year, including what turned out to be someone who ran as a centrist when he ran for president, but then appeared to be catering to the progressives in the democratic party for the
longest time. how did that happen? how much debate was there inside the biden circle? >> i think joe biden his inner circle, after he got elected, saw a reckoning taking place on matters of race, they obviously saw a public health crisis going on, and they still to this day believe that there was a climate crisis. they wanted to use that opening to try tdo big things and create an enduring legacy. there was always this tension, we talk about it in the book, biden's imperative of running as not to trump. the imperative of biden wanting to unify the country, and biden wanted to do big sweeping progressive things as president, and obviously, those two goals have come into conflict.
i think there's something else at play that we talk about in the book. biden's possibility as a one term president. he is obviously going to be 80 years old later this year, he may serve one term, he wants to have a big legacy. he sought this job for 40 years, he finally has it and he wants to create an enduring moment for himself as a consequential american president. and one who could be more consequential than the president he served with. yes, barack obama. judy: i want to come to something you reported, part of what so much of what you reported about was what happened with the pullout from afghanistan. as we now know, this is seen as one of the moments in the biden presidency that has hurt him politically. you reporting is that the president was blaming it on bad information from the people around him. explain that. >> that's right. joe biden went out early in the
summer and said, this is not going to be like vietnam. it is not like our allies invite -- in afghanistan are going to be overrun by the enemy. that is exactly what happened a few weeks later. for all the americans out there who watched that unfold and thought, that is not what i was told was going to happen here, the president was with them on that. he has not gone out in public and blamed his advisors, blamed the intelligence community, but he definitely felt he had not been well served by the people briefing him, and the people around him, his political advisers and allies on capitol hill really look back at that moment last summer as a turning point politically for his presidency. he came into office saying he was going to be -- we would put the adults back in the white house, the experts would be back in charge, all of the amateur, corrupt government under trump would be gone. after the afghanistan pullout, it is clear that a whole swath of the american people start to
question the basic competence of the administration. when he tries to pivot out of afghanistan and go back to selling his domestic agenda,, he is never quite able to regain his footing. judy: jonathan martin, alex burns, the book is "this will not pass: trump, biden, and the battle for america's future." thank you both. we appreciate it. >> thanks, judy. judy: that is the newshour for tonight. i am judy woodruff. join us online and tomorrow evening, for all of us at the pbs newshour. thank you. please stay safe and we'll see you soon. >> age or funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by. >> architect. beekeeper. mentor. financial advisor taylor's advice to help you live your life. life well planned.
>> carnegie corporation of new york. supporting innovations in an bit -- in democtic engagement and the advancement of security at carnegie.org. the target foundation, committed to advancing racial equity and creating the change required to shift systems and accelerate equitable economic opportunity. and with the ongoing support of these institutions. this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.]
. . ♪ hello, everyone, and welcome to "amanpour & company." here's what's coming up. >> i can't believe it. two months of darkness. we did not see any sunlight. >> the state from mariupol. some finally see the light of day as putin presses on with his brutal invasion. i speak to russian propaganda expert peter pomerantsev about kremlin strategy and how best to