this is bbc news. the headlines: pope francis has begun a six—day visit to canada, where he's expected to repeat a formal apology to indigenous survivors of abuse inflicted at roman catholic—run boarding schools. pope francis has described the visit as a "trip of penance". firefighters in california are warning that hot weather is hampering their efforts to contain a huge wildfire before it reaches yosemite national park. the blaze has already forced more than 6000 people from their homes since it began on friday. russia's foreign minister, sergei lavrov, has dismissed claims that his country has caused the global food crisis. moscow is facing widespread

criticism for firing missiles at the ukrainian port of 0desa on saturday, jeopardising a deal to allow grain to leave the city. now on bbc news, hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. in overturning roe v wade, the us supreme court rejected the argument that the us constitution guaranteed a woman's right to an abortion. now it's down to lawmakers in individual states to decide. a host of state legislatures have already acted to make abortion illegal. my guest today is marjorie dannenfelser, president of the susan b anthony pro—life america group, an activist organisation supporting anti—abortion politicians.

groups like hers are savouring a big victory, could it yet turn sour? marjorie dannenfelser in washington, dc, welcome to hardtalk. thank you so much, stephen. let me start with the human and healthcare aspects of this recent supreme court ruling. is there any reason to believe there will be fewer abortions in the united states because of the decision the supreme court came up with? i'm glad you begin there, because it's a fully human issue.

so far, we know there will be fewer abortions because many states have already passed either complete or partial limits on abortion. even just yesterday in the state of georgia, their heartbeat ban, which means there is a limit at the point at which there is a perceived... ..or there is a heartbeat of the baby. the courtjust lifted its injunction of that law and it went into effect. that means about 20,000 fewer abortions just in the state of georgia. you've immediately made the presumption that because something is illegal, it doesn't happen, but there is a mountain of evidence, not just from the united states, but from many other countries which have draconian abortion laws, which says those laws do not stop abortions happening, they simply happen underground. that's why your other part of the question about the care of women, about the healthcare piece of this, is vital and important.

in every state where there is a limit of any type, there is also companion legislation that addresses the needs of women and their unborn children, later born, at least in the first two years of life, providing a springboard, support and help in every way. when i say "every way", think of a woman who is unemployed, already has a child, doesn't have healthcare or a home. this is a moment in her life she actually can get help, hope and practical support at a point where she had not, where some of the fundamental issues that led to the place where she is are addressed, whether addiction or mental health care or finishing what the united states calls a gre, how you finish high—school education. the pro—life movement is a movement ofjustice and mercy, and that's exactly where we are right now. what you've just pointed to is the reality in america that abortion rates

are highest amongst women from disadvantaged, particularly from minority african american communities. listen to the words of terry mcgovern, columbia university mailman school of public health professor. he says, "these restrictions," that states are now imposing as a result of the supreme court ruling, "will harm those with the least economic resources "and those facing racism in everyday medical care." does that not worry you? it would worry me greatly if there were truth at the foundation of that statement. first, it is not true that women in need have more abortions than other. it is basically a flat graph that women who have resources have abortions at the same percentage across the board. it would be true if we were denying women healthcare. women in need, we're layering

over another problem for them that had nothing to do with the human rights of another human being. it would be racist, misogynist, unfair in every way. it would mean the pro—life movement was the stupidest movement that ever lived and we should go away. but that is not the reality. the reality is, every single time a woman is pregnant or in most rooms, people say, "congratulations," or, "what can i do to help?" or have a baby shower. in this instance, they're not treated as equal human beings with equal moral status, as you and i have. therefore, we're talking about the care of two human beings every single time. that's where the mercy and the compassion and justice of this movement comes from. you keep talking about care. i guess the people, the professionals most on the front line of care for pregnant women, they're medical professionals, they're doctors. doctors say that they fear that mortality rates amongst

pregnant women, maternal death rates, will rise as a result of what is happening in the us today. let me quote you one from texas, 0b—gyn professor drjesse munoz in san antonio. "doctors whose patients develop pregnancy complications now "are struggling to determine whether a woman is, quote, "�*sick enough�* to justify an abortion. "the art of medicine is lost and has actually "been replaced by fear." the art of medicine is enshrined in the hippocratic 0ath, which was changed just because pro—abortion activists in the late �*60s decided it should. the hippocratic 0ath is do no harm, provide no potion that would kill another human being. that is the origin, and that morality, that fundamental pillar of medicine is the same and hasn't changed, even if people's minds have changed about what is actually happening. when they see pregnant

women in deep trouble, in fear for their lives, facing death because of complications in pregnancy, the doctors have to pause now because they are so worried about the legal situation they find themselves two things. that is a ridiculous lie when it comes to an actual doctor. you say doctors worry. doctors are not monolithic. doctors who are true doctors are always looking to save the health and life of two people. there's that responsibility on the part of a physician. the other piece is doctors in the united states, certainly a portion of doctors who are aligning with the most extreme portions of this abortion fight on the left, are completely and fully vested in chaos right now. they want to make sure everyone feels confused, so there's a political reaction. the reality is, there is no confusion for a real doctor.

this is well researched by our own charlotte lozier institute, and physicians that are independent all across the country, there is never a real reason that requires the death of the child for the mother to live and have her own health. another symbolic case come to light in recent days, a ten—year—old girl who was raped in ohio. she could not get an abortion in ohio because since the supreme court ruling, they've changed the abortion laws. it would have been illegal. she had to be taken across state lines to indiana, where a doctor was legally able to give that ten—year—old child, who had been raped, an abortion, and a very important figure in the anti—abortion movement said that should not have happened. if he got his way,

she would have had the baby. "as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, "we would hope this child would understand "the reason she had to have the baby and ultimately "she would benefit from having the child." do you share that view? here's what we don't know. there is an exception in that state for medical necessity. we don't know the details of that, we may never know. but i want to point out something really important you said before — true care for the needs of people in dire situations. it's very possible she could have had that in that state. i honestly don't know, don't think you know, don't think anybody who has made a big issue of this also knows. i do know hard cases make terrible law and you don't base the laws of each state on a really horrible, heart—rending case. well... wait, let me just finish the part about actual need of a woman who's living down

by the river, in a van, with lots of kids already, she doesn't have a job, say she is underage. what are the needs she has? abortion is not the panacea for every single need in her life. her life isjust like everybody�*s life, and that is complicated. there are reasons she's gotten to this place, a reason a mother would ever think about taking the life of her unborn child. it's not because things are going well, it's because things are going badly. she needs that help, that concern and the giving of what the united states... i can't speak for the rest of the world, but i can say the abortion movement in the united states wants to give her a pill, an abortion, show her the door and say, "have a good life," because they don't think there's anything happening that matters during an abortion. it's the one thing you're not focusing on in this interview, what happens in an abortion

at any stage, because in our country, we weren't allowed until just recently for 50 years to pass a law that would protect a child at any stage under roe v wade, the privilege you and your country have of democracy and working that out amongst citizens and with leaders, elected representatives, we have not had for 50 years. and now we do. just to continue with this particular case of the ten—year—old girl who was raped and who was pregnant and who ultimately got an abortion... i hope you'll talk about her rapist. how about the creep that put her in that situation over and overagain? is he going to be part of this question as well, i hope? for all sorts of legal reasons, i'm not focused on him, i'm focused on the problem and what happened to the child. you say hard cases don't make for bad law. i'm telling you it seems to me this is a hard case because it raises very difficult questions about where you place priorities. where is your compassion, where is your morality? i think i'm right in saying, and forgive me for asking a personal question,

you are a mother, you have a daughter, is that right? i have three daughters. you have three daughters. god forbid, it's a difficult question to put, let alone answer, but if that sort of situation concerned one of your daughters, are you saying you absolutely would insist your daughter carried that child to term and gave birth? i bet if you have kids, you don't talk about them on the air. if you did, they probably told you, "please stop doing that." i'm not talking about my children. if somebody i knew had been raped, somebody i knew had deep needs, the first thing i would do is go after the creep that messed with her and forced her into a situation she did not invite. i would make sure she has the medical care she needs, the emotional care,

the therapist she needs, to get beyond this point. and we would discuss then with her, and not with you, what to do about the child in her womb. we would discuss that. here's what i'm saying. you say that aphorism that hard cases make bad law doesn't matter, because you're asking, where is my compassion? where is the compassion of the pro—life movement? the compassion of the pro—life movement in the united states has built almost 3,000 pregnancy centres around the country. the compassion of the pro—life movement in this country and every single state, even for 50 years when we weren't allowed any success, has built a tremendous institution to address the needs of women and unborn children at every level of care, that's where the compassion is. if you would ask one question about the humanity of the child at any stage during pregnancy, or if there's any point you would protect a child, where most people are having a baby shower, i think you'd be doing the world a favour, who watches this incredible show, to start thinking about the balance, or at least

acknowledging the two that need help in every single problem pregnancy. i'll ask you one more personal question, if i may, then i want to move on to the politics of all of this. the personal question is this — when you were a young woman, you were pro—choice. indeed, i think on your college campus, you were a leading voice in the republicans for choice movement. since then, you have made a 180—degree turn. you talk about the reasons and realities of what abortion means — for you, was it coming to a very devout catholic faith that led to your complete reversal of position on abortion? no, the first thing that happened was, i got into a really strong debate with somebody on the other side about the humanity of the child, what that thing is, what literally happens

in an abortion. is it the same as an appendectomy? is it the same as a tonsillectomy? is there a chance that that is a human being with equal moral standing as yourself, at any stage during pregnancy? if there is a stage, think about when that is and what that thing is in there. my first thought was, i cannot, should not, no—one should take the chance this is, just like my friend standing here in the room with me, someone with equal moral standing who deserves protection. just like i wouldn't go into a darkened room and spray bullets around, wondering if there was a person in there, you'd never do that, it's too important a decision. that debate was not primarily catholic or theological. i became a philosophy major after being pre—med at duke. it had a lot more to do with the intellectual arguments from many places. later, yes, my faith did come. part of it was, i realised i didn't know everything

and needed to maybe search a little bit more. but the first was the science and philosophy behind it. let's talk politics now. the susan b anthony organisation is committed to trying to achieve a political win for the anti—abortion movement on every level, from state to national politics. as a result of the supreme court ruling, perhaps up to 20 states will severely limit or completely ban abortion. but there are many other states that, for the moment at least, are intent on keeping abortion legal. is it your and your movement's intention to fight until abortion becomes entirely illegal across the united states ? and are you seeking to change federal law to get there? yes, we intend to fight until it's unnecessary and unthinkable in this country, we will always seek

to, every single time there is a problem pregnancy, there are two that need their lives protected and two that perhaps have needs that need to be addressed. so on the state level, you're right about your analysis. there are also 20 states that right now it is very hard to see moving for a very long time, i think california, vermont, connecticut, illinois, places like that. so very clearly, there is a federal role. we've had many votes on the federal level in the united states about a 20—week limit, at least limit it at 20 weeks. we're one of only seven nations in the world that fails to do that. we're in the company of north korea, china, vietnam and others. we always get a majority vote, but even if that were passed, it would not have allowed to go into law because of roe v wade. there will be a limit that makes sense, that is consensus in every single state.

there will be a national consensus as well. there probably won't be, is the reality. it means america is profoundly and deeply polarised on this issue. abortion has become one of the most divisive political issues in your nation. do you think it's healthy, partly thanks to millions of dollars you've ploughed into republican campaigns, that it is now impossible to be a pro—choice republican politician? it is simply impossible now. impossible to be a pro—choice republican politician? i hope so. that is our goal, for sure. let me point out, for 50 years, we have not had the blessing of democracy to help form consensus in this nation because of the roe v wade decision. you've had that, every country in europe has had that, not the united states. there is going to be a little bit of work to make up for 50

years of our opinion meaning nothing, state by state. it is absolutely true that there will be consensus. in each state there will be consensus, and consensus on the national level. likely not exactly everything i want, likely not everything the pro—abortion movement wants, either. it will be somewhere in the middle. consensus is a fruit of democracy we have not had the privilege of engaging in for almost 50 years, and that is not to be underestimated, what that has done to the moral fabric and the civility in this country, so now we're just getting started. a few years back on this show, we interviewed rob schenck, an evangelical pastor who, going back decades, was one of the most extreme anti—abortion campaigners, picketing those abortion clinics, intimidating doctors and nurses working inside. he is now ashamed of the anti—abortion movement. he points to all sorts of different ways he's ashamed — the violence and intimidation, cynical manoeuvres like paying norma mccorvey, the real

jane roe, to renounce her view that abortion was legitimate. she then, near death, said that she only said that because of the money given by the opposition movement. mr schenck says even the way in which the christian anti—abortion movement signed a sort of faustian pact with donald trump, he said that was shaming, too. do you have any sense of shame? well, you'll notice that i am not he, and i'm not a pastor. i'm not somebody who went from pro—life to pro—choice. perhaps because he was engaged in those things, that's all he saw. i don't know, i never knew him. i can say my own conversion came for authentic reasons, and out of love and justice, not because i want to manipulate or anything. wilberforce, in your own country, had similar motives of many people in the pro—life movement here, in the midst of all sorts of discrimination, and all sorts of refusing

to see that speaking the truth to power is an important thing to do. so in the case of donald trump, the same. the idea that... are you putting your money behind donald trump running in 202a? you backed him in 2016. i'm still answering the previous question because i think it goes at the heart of what people who don't know pro—life people think. they think there's no way they can have an authentic opinion, no way you can actually think there are two people in every problem abortion, you actually believe in democracy and its ability to form consensus, allow that consensus to make its way into the law, to save children, and to address the needs of women. but that is the case. that's why it's an organic and growing movement in the united states and all over the world. you call it an organic, growing movement. i'm not talking about... for all the millions you've spent on us political action. very legal in this country.

let me just finish this last point. the public opinion polls consistently, and still after the supreme court ruling, show a clear majority of americans disapprove of criminalising abortion. amongst women, the disapproval is at its highest, 67%. two thirds of women do not want to see abortion banned. does that give you pause? no, i'm giddy that you asked that question because the polling you described says nothing about where the consensus and majorities are. making this statement about what women do and don't want in this country gives no credence to the idea that women, even more than men, want to stop abortion around 15 weeks. women, more than men, pro—choice women, think it shouldn't be allowed after the first trimester. when you say they wanted to preserve roe v wade,

it means there was a complete misunderstanding for a very long time about what it was. roe disallowed laws... before we end, i wonder whether you ever worry that you have to be careful what you wish for. you've made this abortion issue front and centre in the forthcoming midterm elections, probably in the presidential election of 202a. if the polls continue to tell you americans do not want to see roe v wade overturned, and want to see the right to abortion maintained in america, you may suffer the consequences. they don't! if that were true, i would be super—worried. it's literally not true. poll after poll after poll, harvard pew poll a couple of weeks ago. 10% agree with the position the united states has had for the last 50 years. that means abortion up into the end, paid for by taxpayers. 72% believe there should be a limit somewhere along of the spectrum, in most after the first trimester.

that is not getting everything i want, it certainly isn't what the pro—choice movement wants. it means now we can finally get to a place where we agree. in the meantime, we will serve many women, we will save the lives of many children. again, does it worry me? it would only worry me if what you're saying is true. the good news is, we have a great political moment to avail ourselves of in elections and in legislatures all over the country, on the state and federal level, and it's good news. marjorie dannenfelser, we have to end there. thank you very much forjoining me on hardtalk. thank you.

hello. sunday was another hot day in south east england and east anglia, temperatures up to 32 celsius in norfolk. you know in scotland and northern ireland, it's been a weekend of torrential downpours in places and it will for monday be quite a few showers out there in what's going to be a blustery day. the area of low pressure has brought some rain over the weekend, it is moving on toward scandinavia. as it moves away, around it, we're bringing a cooler, and fresher northwesterly flow into the uk. where it has been hot, temperatures have been set to come down. it will still be quite a warm and humid start towards that southern and eastern parts, particularly as monday begins. we've got some rain in northern scotland, that's going to sink right through southwards, through scotland as the day goes on, riding up behind it in the north with a few showers and in the afternoon the cloudier skies, the chance of rain pushes into northern england. elsewhere, it's a story of scattered showers, a good deal of cloud during the first, after the tending to brighten up into the afternoon and some places will become dry and fine to end the day.

it will feel cooler, temperatures up to ten degrees and lower in eastern scotland compared to sunday, talking mid 20s in east anglia but that's a long way down for where we were on sunday. now, we continue with a few showers around going into monday evening but a lot of them are going to die out, as we go through the night and into tuesday morning, because we've got a ridge of high pressure just starting to edge in from the west. we've also got some lower temperatures overnight as well, actually, tuesday night will be even cooler still. on tuesday, there will be a few sunny spells around, quite a bit of cloud, although we've got an area of high pressurejust nudging in from the west. they'll still be showers out there, scotland, northern ireland, perhaps down the eastern side of england and nowhere immune from catching a shower. but notice how much temperatures have come down for belfast, for manchester, for glasgow. these temperatures are below average for the time of year. now the area of high pressure will move in across the uk for wednesday to thursday, a weak disturbance heading in from the southwest, it's here on wednesday, there could be one or two showers and always a chance

for the odd shower here and there. but the emphasis will be on a lot of dry weather. starting with some sunny spells, the clouds tending to build during the day, although it should brighten up again as we go towards sunset, very similar temperatures. towards the end of the week, we will see a wetter weather system moving in to scotland and for northern ireland. for england and wales, it looks mainly dry, and in fact, going into next weekend, it will be turning warmer, for a time.

this is bbc news — i'm ben boulos with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. a pilgrimage of penance — pope francis is in canada to apologise for the abuse suffered by indigenous children at catholic boarding schools. everyone has the right to know the truth of what happened, and this was the darkest, saddest, most unknown chapter in canadian history. as firefighters in california struggle to contain the latest huge wildfire, the us considers declaring a national climate emergency. shut the doors, lower the air—con and turn off the lights or face a hefty fine — a warning from the french government to retailers. the king of the mountains — denmark's jonas vingegaard secures his first tour de

france victory as hollywood takes up the story of the young thai footballers