insurance companies refusing to cover mental health care, insurance companies refusing to cover maternity care. no free member grants, cancer screenings or birth control. insurance companies reinstating annual and lifetime caps and more than 20 million americans losing insurance at the worst possible time, again, in the midst ofa possible time, again, in the midst of a pandemic. possible time, again, in the midst ofa pandemic. including possible time, again, in the midst of a pandemic. including nearly 2 million texans, 6007000 north carolina inns, 288,000 south carolinians, 227,000 iowans, and 4.2 million californians. and the pain of losing these protections would disproportionately be felt among the 9 million african—american latino, asian and native americans who gained coverage under the affordable ca re gained coverage under the affordable care act. but this isn't about

statistics. this is about the millions of real people living real lives who deserve their government and its institutions to see them and to heat their call. and i know a republican member of this committee said earlier today that the people who will was health care are somehow not relevant to this hearing. i disagree. and i am here for people like felicia perez. and this is her. she now teaches at the university of nevada, reno. she has multiple pre—existing conditions, like a rare autoimmune disorder that causes tumours that have wrapped

around her optic nerve and part of her brain. her life depends on periodic cancer fighting infusions that cost $160,000 per year. felicia is terrified. she knows that without the aca, she could not afford ongoing treatment — a treatment she needs to stay alive. and here's exactly what she said, and i'll quote. "my life is in the hands of people i do not know, who do not know me, who are essentially telling me that i don't matter, that my life does not matter, that my health does not matter, that my health does not matter, that the day—to—day quality of my life doesn't matter. and that's really ha rd." matter. and that's really hard." tragically, felicia's story is not unique, herfears are shared by millions of americans, the affordable care act and its protections hinge on the supreme court. and the

outcome of this hearing. before being elected, donald trump promised that everyjust as he put forward would "do the right thing, unlike bill —— bush's appointee, john roberts, on 0bamacare."judge appointee, john roberts, on 0bamacare." judge barrett, 18 months later, you criticise the chief justice months later, you criticise the chiefjustice for months later, you criticise the chief justice for upholding the affordable care act when you concluded "chiefjustice roberts push the affordable ca re roberts push the affordable care act beyond its possible meaning to save the statute." my meaning to save the statute." my question is, how many months after you publish that article did donald trump nominate you to bea did donald trump nominate you to be a judge on the court of appeals? senator harris, i apologise, i don't member the timing of that on the mike article, i believe my nomination to the court of appeals was announced in may of

2017. that's correct. but i don't member when the article came out. the article was published in january came out. the article was published injanuary of came out. the article was published in january of 27 came out. the article was published injanuary of 27 —— january 2017, five months later. justice ginsburg, whose seed you are seeking to fill, provided the critical vote in the 5-4 provided the critical vote in the 5—4 decision that upheld the 5—4 decision that upheld the affordable care act. let's lay this out for everyone watching. as i've discussed previously, one, republicans have spent a decade trying to destroy the affordable care act. two, donald trump promised to namea act. two, donald trump promised to name a supreme courtjustice and justices who would tear down the affordable care act. three, donald trump is before the supreme court right now arguing that it be struck in its entirety. for, the supreme court could just be one vote away from overturning the affordable care act and all its protections, including for eve ryo ne protections, including for everyone who has a pre—existing

condition or make it a pre—existing condition. in other words, the affordable ca re other words, the affordable care act and all its protections hinge on this seat and the outcome of this hearing. and i believe it's very important that the american people understand the issues at stake and what's at play. judge barrett, the day after donald trump announced your nomination to the supreme court, he tweeted, "0bamacare will be replaced with a much better and far cheaper alternative if it is terminated in the supreme court." but in reality, there is no alternative that protects the millions of americans who depend on the affordable care act every day. the horrifying truth is that donald trump and the rest of the republicans in congress are taking health care weight from people in the middle of a pandemic. donald

trump has said he wants to protect american people's health care, but the reality is right now, he's asking the supreme court to take it away, period. senator klobuchar asked you earlier today but did not receive an answer prior to your nominee, her nomination, were you aware of donald trump cosmic statements committing to nominate judges cosmic statements committing to nominatejudges who will cosmic statements committing to nominate judges who will strike down the affordable care act? and i would appreciate a yes or no answer, please. iwant and i would appreciate a yes or no answer, please. i want to be very, very careful, and under oath. as i'm sitting here, i don't recall seeing those statements. i don't recall seeing or hearing those statements, but i don't really know what context they were in, so know what context they were in, sol know what context they were in, so i guess i can't really definitively give you a yes or no answer. what i'd like to say isi no answer. what i'd like to say is i don't recall hearing about or seeing such statements.” imagine you are surrounded by a tea m imagine you are surrounded by a team of folks who helped prepare you for this nomination

hearing... let me finish, if you don't mind. did they inform you don't mind. did they inform you of... booing had my had my calls with senators, it came up many of the democratic senators wa nted many of the democratic senators wanted to know about the affordable care act and to satisfy themselves that i had not made any pre—commitments to the present about it. so you became aware of the president cosmic statement, is that correct? in the context of these conversations, i can't member whether senators framed these in the context of trump ozment comments. from my perspective, i think the most important thing to say is i have never made a commitment, i've never been to make a commitment, andl i've never been to make a commitment, and i hope that the committee will trust in my integrity to not even entertain such an idea, and that i

wouldn't violate my oath if confirmed and heard that case. so just unclear, and we can move on, are you saying that you are now, before i said it, aware or not aware that donald trump made these comments about who he would nominate to the united states supreme court? senator harris, what i was saying, i thought you initially framed the question is whether i was aware before this nomination process began.” askedif nomination process began.” asked if you were aware before this hearing began. so you're asking me know whether i was aware before the hearing began? asa aware before the hearing began? as a follow—up question, yes. and what i said was when i had my calls with democratic senators, this question came up andl senators, this question came up and i don't recall, but it may well have been they referenced those comments in the course of those comments in the course of those calls. even if so, that wasn't something i heard or saw directly by reading it myself.

senator leahy asked you earlier, but i think it bears repeating, do you think it is important for the american people to believe that supreme court justices are people to believe that supreme courtjustices are independent and fair, and impartial? that's and fair, and impartial? that's a yes or no answer. yes, senator harris. a number of my collea g u es senator harris. a number of my colleagues have asked you today whether you would recuse yourself from cases on the affordable care act. you did not directly answer their questions, and instead described a process by which that would work or happen. is it true that at the end of that process , it true that at the end of that process, it would be you who ultimately made the decision about whether or not you would recuse yourself? that is true, i can't have an illicit commitment from me about whether i would make that decision in advance, that would be wrong. i ask if that is the process that ultimately would be you and you alone that would make the decision about whether

you would be recused. you've already opined on the constitutionality of the affordable care act, and that position satisfied the president cosmic promise to only nominatejudges who president cosmic promise to only nominate judges who would tear down the affordable care act and senate republicans rush this process so you could rule on this very case. the reasonable question about your impartiality will undoubtedly hang over this court's ultimate decision in the affordable care act case, if you refuse to recuse yourself, i strongly believe that. supreme court justices routinely consider the consequences of their decisions on people's lives. earlier this year, the supreme court ruled against donald trump's efforts to repeal doc protections for dreamers. children who have of course arrived in the united states many before who they could talk or walk. chief g roves could talk or walk. chief groves dummett roberts wrote

the opinion that included the crucial vote of justice the opinion that included the crucial vote ofjustice ruth bader ginsburg. the trump's demonstration attempted and protections for dreamers, chief justice roberts said they had not taken into consideration the fact that many dreamers relied on those protections when they started their careers and businesses, when they served in the military, and the united states when they bought homes and when they started families. the senator asked whether it was appropriate for a supreme court justice whether it was appropriate for a supreme courtjustice to consider real—world impacts. but you're a sitting judge now, so the decision about whether to call government action, do you currently consider the consequences on the rulings of people's lives? senator harris, that's part of the decision of every case. so you do? every

case has consequences in people's lives, so of course i do in every case, it's part of the judicial decision—making process. and would you do that if you were actually voting on the united states supreme court, would you do that? senator, considering how the resolution of a dispute will affect parties will affect people as part of the judicial decision—making process, and i will continue engaging in that process to the best of my ability. so if the aca is struck down, more than a million americans with pre—existing conditions like heart disease, diabetes and cancer would pay more for insurance or be denied coverage entirely. more than 20 million americans could lose their health coverage entirely, including nearly 3 million black americans and over 5 million latino americans who received access to health insurance because of the aca.

insurers will once again be able to discriminate against more than 50% of african—americans and more than 50% of african—america ns and nearly more than 50% of african—americans and nearly a0 percent of latino americans with pre—existing conditions. they'll. .. with with pre—existing conditions. they'll... with conditions like diabetes, heart disease and cancer. all of this in the midst of a pandemic that's not going away anytime soon. a pandemic that, when age is taken into account, has been three times as deadly for black, latino, pacific islander and native americans. a pandemic that has killed approximately one and 1000 black americans, one in 1200 native americans, and one in 1500 latino americans. judge barrett, would you consider the 135 million people who gained protections under the affordable care act when

deciding a case that challenges that law. senator harris, ifi we re that law. senator harris, ifi were to be confirmed and conclude that i was able to sit on that case pursuant to the recusal statute and if i heard the case and decided the case, i would consider all the protections that congress put in place. and as i said earlier during this hearing, the question would be figuring out whether congress, assuming that the mandate is unconstitutional now, whether that, consistent with your intent — this is congress's law — would permit this act to stand or the flawed portion of it could just be excised out. and that is a question not of what judges want, not for the supreme court, but a question of what congress wanted in the statute. and that is the statute that you enacted and extended this

health care coverage to millions of americans. what weight would you give the fact that 135 million americans with pre—existing conditions are reliant on the protections of the aca? as i mentioned to senator hirano, it takes reliance into account because asi reliance into account because as i said before, it's about keeping civility in the law. so the law often takes into accounts — i can often say sitting here how they would interplay in this case because that's part of the legal calculus of the case. sol can't really give you the kind of commitment or pre—commitment that you're asking from me of how i would be factors or structure my decision—making process. i would ask you to consider if you are confirmed onto the court the benefit of the aca and the obstruction of

its protections would have a devastating impact on hundreds of millions of americans. judge barrett, you testified yesterday that justice ruth bader ginsburg opened the door for many women in law. and i certainly believe and know that to be true as a personal matter. she was a trailblazer for women's equality and gender equity. as a law student, as a teacher, as a civil rights lawyer and a second woman to ever sit on the supreme court, justice ginsburg broke many barriers from women across the country. i believe we all fondly remember her as a person who had the patience, the will, and the vision to make our country a more equal place, and a morejust place. and one of the things she fought for was the things she fought for was the right for a woman to control her own body and make decisions about her own body

and health care, and reproductive choices. the constitution of the united states protects a woman's right to choose whether or when to become a parent. and it protects a woman's right to choose abortion. women of colour, immigrant women, women with low income and women in rural areas face significant barriers when trying to access birth control, cancer screenings income competence of reproductive health care. moreover, anti—choice activists and politicians have been working for decades to pass laws and file lawsuits designed to overturn roe and the precedents that followed. the threat the choice israel. just last year, the court was given an opportunity to revisit and overturn its abortion precedent ina overturn its abortion precedent in a case called jude medical services. the supreme court

struck down a medically unnecessary restriction that would have closed all but one abortion clinic in louisiana. chiefjustice roberts agreed with the court's for liberal members, that the court was bound by its own precedent to strike down the louisiana law because it was virtually identical to a texas law that the court ruled unconstitutional in 2016. as a result, women in the state were able to receive the full range of reproductive care. but chief justice roberts wrote his own separate opinion in the case to make it clear that in the future, he could not be counted on to uphold a woman's right to choose. justice ginsburg provided the critical fifth vote to strike down the unconstitutional abortion restriction in june medical services. so we must be honest about the impact of her passing and the impact it will have on

the court's decisions in cases regarding women's access to reproductive health care. now my republican colleagues have said that there is a minimal chance that the supreme court will overturn roe. but back in january, 39 republican senators, including ten members of this very committee signed their names to a supreme court brief that asked the court to "take brief that asked the court to "ta ke up the brief that asked the court to "take up the issue of whether roe should be reconsidered and, if appropriate, overruled." so let's not make any mistake about it — allowing donald trump to determine who fills the seat of ruth bader ginsburg, a champion for women's rights and a critical vote in so many decisions that sustained the right to choose, poses a threat to safe and legal abortion in our country.

after all, donald trump said that overturning roe v wade will "happen automatically in my opinion because i am putting pro—life justices on the court." judge pro—life justices on the court."judge barrett, several times today, you have quoted justice ginsburg's testimony about not making predictions in future cases. however, she was far more forthcoming at her confirmation hearing about the essential rights of women. in 1993, justice ginsburg's confirmation hearing shows that she testified that "the decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her well—being, and dignity. it is a decision she must make for herself. when government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less then a fully

aduu treated as less then a fully adult human responsible for her own choices." then, john skidded —— judge ginsburg own choices." then, john skidded ——judge ginsburg went on to say, "it is essential to women's equality with men that she be the decision—maker, that her choice be controlling. if you impose choices that restrict your choices, you are restricting her because of her sex." nowjustice ginsburg did not tell the committee how she would vote in any particular case, but she did freely discuss how she viewed a woman's right to choose. but judge barrett, your record clearly shows you hold a different view. in 2006, you signed your name to an advertisement published in the south bend tribune describing roe v wade as "an exercise of rawjudicial power, a call for

putting an end to the barbaric legacy of roe v wade." you signed a similar add in 2013 that described roe as "infamous" and expressed opposition to abortion. also in 2013, you wrote an article about supreme court precedent in which you excluded breaux from a list of well—settled cases that you said "no justice would overrule even if she disagrees," suggesting that you believe roe is susceptible to being overturned. 0n the a0th anniversary of roe, you delivered a speech in which you said that the court's recognition of the right to choose was" created through judicialfiat choose was" created through judicial fiat rather than grounded in the constitution." and during your tenure on the seventh circuit court of appeals, you have been willing to reconsider abortion

restrictions that other republican appointed judges found unconstitutional. as the senate considers filling the seat ofjustice ruth bader ginsburg, who was straightforward enough in her confirmation hearing to say that the right to choose is "essential to woman's equality" i would suggest that we not pretend that we don't know how this nominee views a woman's right to choose and make her own health care decisions. mr chairman, iask own health care decisions. mr chairman, i ask unanimous content, or consent of the following three documents be entered into the record— a letter enclosing judge ba rrett‘s letter enclosing judge barrett's nomination from the acp, a statement opposing judge ba rrett‘s acp, a statement opposing judge barrett's nomination from the planned parenthood federation of america and planned parenthood action fund, and a report opposing judge barrett's nomination from the naacp

labelled defence and educationalfund. labelled defence and educational fund. without objection. thank you very much, senator. senator kennedy. mr chairman... very strong criticism of amy coney barrett by kamala harris, the vice presidential candidate for the democratic party, pointing out ina democratic party, pointing out in a series of questions and state m e nts in a series of questions and statements comments by ruth bader ginsburg, the predecessor on the supreme court, the supreme courtjudge who died recently who donald trump is keen to replace as quickly as possible with amy kony barrett —— amy coney barrett. kamala harris taking judge barrett through the affordable care act, 0bamacare as it's known, then to roe v wade. in terms of

then to roe v wade. in terms of the questioning, fewer questions and perhaps other senators, more statements, i thought? yes, it was quite something. at some points it was so testy. it was one of a couple exchanges over the course of the day that has basically been the senatorjust setting out their point of view. there were moments where she was asked questions, and my goodness those exchanges were very tense. so yes on the issue of the aca, harris asked judge barrett if she was aware of donald trump's views about wanting to get a justice onto the court that would overturn that. she said, "i can't recall." very, very testy also on the issue of abortion, whether she agreed with the woman's right to choose. lebo

diseko, thanks very much. more announcements on harris's state m e nts announcements on harris's statements tojudge barrett in the next few hours here on bbc. hello. some sunshine on the way for the majority of us today albeit with some showers coming in from the east as the day pans out. it will be quite a chilly breeze as well again coming in from the north—east and that is what will drive the showers a little bit further westwards through the course of the day, but overall what we're looking at in terms of our weather pattern for the next few days is high pressure coming to dominate. so, it will become increasingly quiet through the end of the week and into the weekend. first thing wednesday, a little bit more in the way of persistent rain with stubborn cloud across southern scotland. it should get brighter here for the afternoon. but you can see the showers here pushing into eastern england on the north—easterly breeze even through the morning and then it will get far away westwards come the afternoon. that north—easterly breeze a notable feature to the weather.

this is the sustained wind speed, gusts could reach up to 30mph at times in some more exposed spots. best of the shelter in the west will give us the best of the temperatures — 15 or 16 degrees. in the east, 13 or 1a just about covers it. we tend to see those showers clearing though as we head overnight wednesday into the small hours of thursday. could be a few still lingering across east anglia and the south—east of england. some more general cloud speeding towards the north of scotland. 0vernight lows, 6—8 celsius, perhaps a little bit closer to freezing towards the far north of scotland. and then for thursday daytime, we're talking about an essentially dry day as that high pressure establishes itself. i can't promise you though wall—to—wall sunshine. it looks like we will pull in quite a bit of cloud from the north sea into some eastern and eventually central areas. temperatures, 12—13 celsius. stuck under the thicker cloud, it will feel chillier though with the effect of the breeze. and towards the end of the week, some of the nights will start to get colder. that could leave us with some chilly starts and some

stubborn fog by day. so, our temperatures widely on friday, 11—12 celsius, but in a few spots if we do get lingering fog, they could struggle at the low—end single figures. and then that ridge of high pressure is going to stay with us all the way through the weekend. so, a very similar story for saturday and sunday to that of thursday and friday. it will take until the beginning of next week, i think, for us to see something a little bit wetter and more windy moving its way in from the atlantic. so, a lot of fine weather to come for the weekend, some on the chilly side for the time of year, and some rather stubborn cloud.

hello you are watching bbc news with me tim willcox. the headlines. president trump's supreme court nominee amy coney barrett has been questioned by the vice president a candidate kamala harris on the second day for her senate confirmation hearing. she also if they do questions put to her earlier in the hearing about 0bama care and abortion. president trump is in pennsylvania for his second campaign rally since his covid—19 diagnosis. police are patrolling the spanish capital madrid as a state of emergency is declared there. they are trying to stop people leaving their neighbourhoods as the coronavirus cases remain high. those are the headlines on bbc news.

time now for