>> the senate foreign relations committee will take out several -- today. the u.s. ambassadors to ukraine and chad will take questions from committee members. the counterterrorism coordinator nominee from the state department will also testify. live, at 2:30 pm on c-span 3. online at c-span dot org or you can watch full coverage on c-span now, our free video app.

>> may 10th -- the senate starts to write a bill that if passed would run -- a bill, which will not get enough votes for passage will go tomorrow on c-span two, c-span.org on the c-span now app. this comes as many are watching to see most of the supreme court justices will hand out a decision that would overturn roe v. wade, after a draft opinion was leaked last week. in our first hour this morning, we want to hear from women only. on your view of roe v. wade and, particularly, its future. here's how you can call us and let us know. democratic women only, 202748 8000. republican, win a 202748 8001. -- you can text that 202748803, post reviews on our facebook at twitter pages and you can also follow the show on instagram.

washington post highlights what you might expect tomorrow, with this debate over this bill. they report that the majority leader took a key step to key up that vote, writing those abortion provisions that are federal law. as the supreme court appears poised to overturn its landmark roe v. wade decision, the effort by democrats seems destined to fail but will ensure that the issue remains fun front and center. again, following the lead draft opinion that has scrambled the upcoming midterm elections. on the floor yesterday, majority leader chuck schumer talking about the pending vote and the founding of klobuchar in the political ramifications. here's part of senator schumer's statement from yesterday. >> i want to be clear. this week's vote is not an abstract exercise. this is as real and as high stakes as it gets. and senate republicans will no longer be able to hide from the horror they've unleashed upon women in america. after spending years packing our courts with right-wing

judges and justices. you're changing the rules of the senate to push three rigidly conservative justices. after stealing the nomination of merrick garland. the time has come for republicans, this new maga republican party, to answer for their actions. if senate republicans allow the supreme court's decision to stand, it will be open season. open season on women's rights in america. a few days ago, leader mcconnell himself acknowledged that a federal ban on abortions is now possible. should the supreme court overturn roe and republicans take control of the senate. let me say that again, because it is so dreadful. in light of the supreme court's decision, upcoming decision, leader mcconnell acknowledged that a national ban on abortion is now possible without roe.

if republicans reclaim the majority. hear that, america? a total ban, a total national ban on abortions. stated by not any republican but by the republican leader. >> biden, you can watch that debate on wednesday on our c-span two channel. you can go to c-span dot org as you can also view it on our c-span now app. again, for women only, your view of roe v. wade in this hour. democrats, 202748 8000 the number to call. republicans, to a twosome 48 8001. and independents, 202748 8002. cbs news, along with you of, took a poll looking at the topic of abortion, in light of the league last week. it aims some of its questions directly at women. on this poll, among women when asked the question what should happen to roe v. wade, they did this by party, 90% of democratic women said it should be kept as it is versus 68% of

independents and 38% of republican women asked that. when it comes to the topic of overturning, it over only 10% of democratic women saying that should be done, 32% of independents and 62% of republican women. asked also, among women, the question of if it's impacted -- what's the impact of their lives would be if roe v. wade was overturned. among women generally, 54% of those responding say it would make life worse. 17% saying it would make life better. and then 29% from this cbs yougov poll saying there would not be much difference. again, that's just some of the things we'll show you during this hour, when it comes to roe v. wade generally and its future. women only in this hour. we'll start with marion in north carolina, on the line for

democrats. marion, your first up, go ahead. >> yes, good morning. well, i've been there all along, i will be 80 in august. i still have my copy of the washington post with the headline about roe v. wade passing. and it's packed away in a box somewhere. vote i have supported the abortion rights all along. my mother named me marianne for her mother, who died when my mother was two years old after giving birth to her seventh child in eight years. the baby died as well. this was a fact i learned as a young woman, when i was probably in high school. but also, just the fact of, you know, my body, my choice. and i am outraged at this supreme court opinion. well, actually, it's alito.

he's the one who yelled out of president obama. i never cared for him at all, we've got to perverts and they, what is she called? i forgot. -- >> you think the draft opinion that was released will be the actual opinion? >> well, i think it's, let's put it this way, the bottom line is that roe v. wade is going to be overturned. i don't know at the exact -- i think it will be change somewhat, but i just fear for our country. >> okay. let's go to paula and silver spring, maryland. republican line. paula, hello. >> hello, good morning. how are you? >> i'm fine, thank you. go ahead, please. >> so, the issue of abortion is what i have to say about it. it is way too personal for governments to be involved to that extent, right? this is the problem with people who are excessively political,

okay? republicans, for example, i'm 100 percent bullet republican. but if you can be pro-life in at the same time be pro death penalty, we get people -- political causes. in terms of abortion, i would assume that there is no woman who gets an abortion and feels our k. effectively emotionally damaging on women. no woman is excited about getting an abortion, government should not be involved. at the same time, here's what i have to say, though. the caveat is abortion should not be a form of birth control either. it's too important to be a form of birth control. i just think that there should be laws in place to regulate, a blanket law, on abortion. >> he said that government shouldn't be controlling, if it indeed gets turned back to the states do you think the states are the ones that should be making these decisions? >> no, i don't even think they

should have that authority. i don't think they should have that authority. it is excessively extreme. i don't know anything more personal than a woman then giving birth, having a family and stuff like that. it's excessively personal, governments should not be involved at all. at all! >> okay. >> to be pro life and pro -- here's the thing with religion, okay? people will say being protest penalty if you committed crimes, a know one big walking the streets is a saint. we all have in some way reform. if you're going to be pro-life or pro death penalty, you can't be pro-life when it comes to kids. >> okay, okay. that's paula, there. calling on a republican line. let's hear from lease on our independent line. again, women only in this hour. your view of roe v. wade. you can talk about a future where you might get future is. lisa in california, independent

line, high. >> hi, thank you. i must admit i'm conflicted on roe v. wade. i believe what they're trying to do is take power away from the federal government and giving it back to the states. they're looking at it as a constitutional effort. i would like to see a culture of adoption in this country. there's lots of people that want babies but, i believe we need to do a massive overhaul with regard to education. the woman that spoke earlier is absolutely true, i majority of the women that have abortions need psychological counseling after they have them. however, i do believe that it is important for women to be

able to have the choice over their bodies. there are many women that find themselves pregnant, that cannot be sustained pregnancy. are there in circumstances. they do not or cannot have a child. however, i think my bottom line is we need to re-educate, get a better situation with regard to our culture in america and i'd love to see more of a culture of adoption. because there are so many people that would love to have babies that can have them. thank you. >> okay, that's lisa in california. those are the reviews that you've heard. you can express yours as well during the course of the 50 minutes we have on this. again, for women only in this.

our democrats, -- . republicans, 202748 8001. independents, to a 2748 8002. this debate comes as protests are taking place among several members, a couple members of the supreme court justices homes. the new york post highlights in its pages this morning about activists abortion rights activists, as are described, outside of justice alito's home. that's just one of the pictures you saw, there. on twitter, if you go there, they're several videos. including one at a protests that took place out of justice brett kavanaugh's home recently. here's a bit of that. protest [inaudible] >> my choice! >> [inaudible] >> hands off!

>> our bodies! >> you are proud to stand here fully. >> you can find that video on politico's twitter feed, we will talk about that and we will put that into your comments this morning. if you esther in this hour. this all leads up to the debate that senator schumer was talking about concerning that effort that put federal abortion protections into law. that to be beginning wednesday, see that on c-span 2 is how you can monitor it there. also, when it comes to the topic of the supreme court justices themselves and protections they might need because of the story from last week. it was senate republican leader mitch mcconnell on the floor on

monday talking about those protests, and what congress should be doing. >> since the precedent setting leak of a draft opinion last week, the left has set out to arrest and intimidate sitting judges as they consider a pending case. we have seen angry crowds assemble at judges private family homes. activists published a map of their addresses. law enforcement as had to install a security fence around the supreme court itself. trying to scare federal judges into ruling a certain way as far outside the bounds of first amendment speech or protest. it is an attempt to replace the rule of law with the role of

mobs. it appears this may, possibly, the flat out illegal. there is a federal law on the books that criminalizes pickets or parades with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, wetness, or court officer at locations that include a judges residents. last year, attorney general garland at the justice department was quick to treat the concern parents of america like potential domestic terrorists, but curiously i have not heard any announcement about how the doj may handle these intimidation tactics aimed directly at federal judges. washington democrats have gone out of their way to feel the hysterical and potentially dangerous climate, the president's statement about the unprecedented leak did not

condone it. his press secretary has repeatedly appeared to endorse rallies a judge's private family residences as long as they do not turn into outright violence. >> the hill reporting that the senate is moving quickly to try and pass legislation that would send security to family members of supreme court justices. among those protests there is a democrat of delaware and a republican of texas who allowed the supreme court the and the united states police to provide around the clock protection of family members such as what congressional officials get. two aides told the hill yesterday the senators of planning to pass the bill by unanimous consent. that would require the by end of every single one. one of the sources told the hill that the bill should pass the senate yesterday or today. this was reporting yesterday or today, look for that play out as well. washington d.c. republican line,

we will hear from maria. go ahead. >> yes, good morning, thank you for taking my call. i wanted to say, we never did that, the pro-choice people are wrong and misleading. another one, when we say that they can do whatever they want with their bodies, they are not being truthful because it is not their bodies. they are a baby, they have a different dna. it is not the same body, it is another body that is inside of their body to be protected, not to be killed. so when they say that the baby is not a tumor that is killing them, the baby is a human being with a heart beating, so it is not for women's health. in very few occasions in something similar it would be

something that needs to be for a woman's health, but that has to be one to 2%, i do not think it is going more than 5%. so, they are very misleading. in addition, as i heard the support the psychological and medical effects of having a abortion on the women are very large. but i think that i think we should focus on incentivizing adoption instead of abortion. i think that is the most important part that i wanted to say. >> okay, that is maria in washington, d.c., let's hear from linda and marks, mississippi, democrats line. good morning. >> good morning, it is very disappointing, it is a woman's body. she should be allowed to do what she wants with her body.

and, the supreme court and these republicans it is not just about abortion, it is about a contraceptive, contraception, and it is the way they are going it is about the civil rights. because, if they go badly the constitution, i am a black woman, we go to the constitution we as black people were not even mentioned in the constitution. we were acknowledged as property of the anglo-saxon. so, by the rate the supreme court is going it is not just about abortions, it is about a lot of things. this could change everything. and then, we as women should not, a man should not have to

tell us what we can do and what we cannot do, and how they can do it you know? and, republican women need to not just vote for parties that are looking down because they have daughters, granddaughters, and great granddaughters. >> okay, that is live in mississippi, let's hear from dan evans ville, indiana, republican line, hello? >> i, thank you for taking my call, this is the most passionate thing i feel about our politics. what is really frustrating is people taking something as pure and graceful as life and demoralizing it to the tagline my body my choice. i realize that there are the exceptions, they are really devastating when we talk about rape or incest. that is not an answer to rape and incest, it actually could be enabling rape and incest. how do i focus and look at the

purity of protecting, the innocent. to me, if someone is going to post a gender reveal. or a sauna graham, and we are also happy in that woman's body, and we say it is my body my choice to terminate it? i think there is just so much conflict, of what's fits my narrative for that day. my other struggle is, there are so many voices involved that may never have had an abortion. they may never have had a pregnancy. and, they are giving passionate, angry, violent responses to something that has never affected them at all. yes, i am pro-life, i think we have our medical advancement of my body my choice, if i'm going

to make a choice i should choose contraception, i should choose not to have sex, i should choose abstinence, i have other choices. >> okay, that is jacqueline evans ville, indiana, we will go to michelle in baltimore, maryland, life for democrats. >> good morning, thank you for taking my call, i would just like to point out how this government is providing more liberty protections for these justices than they are for the women out here who have to face difficult choices about whether they can, are able to afford, or just able to physically bring life into this world. they are concerned about people going to these justices homes, but what about the women making very personal choices about their health, their bodies,

their finances, etc? i really do blame this on the 53% of white women who voted for a president who said that he is going to put judges on the bench that will overturn roe v. wade. i find it very difficult to watch all of this demonstrative marching and empty displays that people are now upset when this has been coming down the pipeline for ages. and, basically a lot of these women who are in the streets did not care. elections have consequences, we are facing them now. you know, if you really thought that your husband, your sons were going to protect you, they hate you, they do not like you, that is the hard truth. >> michelle, in baltimore

maryland, we will continue on with these calls up until 8:00. again, women only off writing your thoughts on its future. 202748 8000 for democrats. 204748 8001 for a independence. usa has a look at his pages and online, it says more than half of abortions in the united states are done by pill. according to things this morning there are two pills involves taken two days apart. in many areas only a telemedicine visit is required to get them from a pharmacy. pills are cheaper and less invasive than a procedure abortion and when used in the first ten weeks of gestation they terminate 99.6% of pregnancies with a low complication rate, it looks statistically later on in the story about how much these pillows are used, this story added in 2001 where only 5% of

medications were medication, that was 29% by 2011. 39% by 2017. by 2020, the last year for which numbers are available, a full 50% of them were done by pill. that is according to a research group that supports abortion rights. find that usa today. let's hear from donna in fort worth, texas, on a republican line. donna, go ahead. >> hi, i am just wondering of all of these women who have called in, on any of the lines, have looked up the history of roe v. wade? i was alive and in school when it happened. the lady used the name jane roe to cover her true identity because of controversy like this. she filed a suit against a dallas county district attorney for the right to have an abortion.

by the time it got to the court she was already five months pregnant, it was too late. it did pass, as roe versus wade, her name was mcatee. her last name was mcatee,, it did pass but it was too late for her to have an abortion. she did deliver the child, it was adopted, and darren the 80s she did support the abortion clinics, volunteer, and help out. and then, in the 90s, the first time they went before supreme court to be overturned, was because she filed for it to be overturned. >> >> so, so, with that is with that history in, mind how do you think that impacts what's going on today as far as this debate? >> well, i think that a lot of women are really looking at the

facts. i don't think a woman that has been raped should be forced to have a child if it's going to cause her extreme emotional pain. someone then could probably do it and then others who are more fragile, emotionally, couldn't. rape, incest, i'm not for that either i. or a woman whose health would be in jeopardy and it could kill her, then that's a right to decide. >> okay. >> i've always been against abortion, in my opinion is you gave up the right to decide whether or not you're going to have a baby the second you decided to have sex. >> okay, let's hear from nancy. nancy in myrtle beach, south carolina. democrats line. good morning. >> good morning, thanks for taking my call. i am in support of roe v. wade.

what's republicans vote with it don't seem to understand with roe v. wade being overturned. instead of one live you're going to have more women and babies dying. because the women are desperate. people who spoke about the women will have if they have an abortion, imagine the effect a woman will have if they are forced to have a child they do not want or can't support. i worked in social services and, to see the amount of abused children taken from their families, the effect that the children have on them is unbelievable. and these people don't see that. no one has said, if you have a child, we are going to take

that child and support that child or even adopt that child. these people, these women who are forced to make these decisions, they're not easy. no one wants to have an abortion. but there are certain circumstances that it may happen. so, for people to say that a woman doesn't have the right to choose, not knowing the circumstances of that woman, is completely wrong. >> nancy there, in south carolina calling us this morning. bloomberg takes a look at how this issue could play out in the upcoming midterm elections. an analysis piece, saying suburban women could now tip the balance in the midterm elections. that will decide the control of congress. after that leaked draft opinion. their votes will help determine the winner and in the last two presidential contests. with the republicans had to seize it has on the senate, the race is not a shock and action those with the most at stake on an issue that has become a

fiercely contested partisan issue. the fight to win them over and get them to the bell box will be the most heated in the 24 states where bands would take immediate effect. but both republican a democrat strategist say the country is in uncharted territory on an issue where public policy has been relatively stable since a landmark decision almost five decades ago. it remains to be seen if a strong enough factor -- if it's a strong enough factor to influence key races and displace inflation, as the biggest worry among a slice of the population spiraling with the rising cost of living it ideologically slotted at the political center. that's on bloomberg, at their website. speaking of inflation, later on this morning president biden will address that topic. introducing plans and steps to take issue with it and to counter inflation. you can see that on our networks, in fact, if you go to our website for more information at c-span dot org, the president statement later this morning, you can find that

content there. don't forget the senate debate over this effort to codify abortion protections into law, that will be tomorrow. you can see the senators debate that on our c-span two channel. kathleen in los angeles, california. republican line. go ahead. >> good morning, it's early in the morning here. i always call him because i like to talk about the data. most people that call in, they just talk about their opinion and their rhetoric. the data is what matters. 19 million, and i can talk about black americans because i'm a black american, 19 million black babies have been aborted since roe. we this is absurd, absurd. in fact, our population, the black american population, would be double whiff not for roe. so, white liberals, they can

aboard their babies but black american women can't afford to buy their babies. because our population is going backwards, we are shrinking. we are now -- listen, if we had an aborted those 19 million babies we wouldn't be in the position we are in today. rolling with the democratic party, rolling with free -- for seven decades has destroyed black american families. if black men were able to make good money, which the democrats have precluded them from doing, they would marry -- they would have money, they would marry their women who got pregnant. >> okay, that's kathleen there, in los angeles, california. nancy, in oak, wisconsin. democrats line, hello. >> hello. >> hi. >> thank you, and i would like to say that i am definitely for roe v. wade. i would like to make one point

and that is that, if this were really about the babies widow, then why do we have such a high infant death mortality rate? right now, we are number 33 in the list of infidel mortality rates. which means there are 32 rich nations that have a lower rate than we do. if republicans want to save the baby's, they should start with the babies that are already born. it's a shameful, shameful data. thank you. >> that's nancy and wisconsin. mary is up next. mary, in georgia, rock, mark georgia. republican line. >> yes, i would like to say, if

a baby is not a baby and is not alive, how can it grow? if they survive incur than it is alive, it is a human being. these women saying they have a right to do what they want to let their body, well it's not their bodies that they're killing their killing their baby's body. that's all i have to say. >> mary in georgia there. there's a couple other stories that are taking place outside of the discussions of abortion that are taking place nationwide. primaries in nebraska and west virginia today. the ap, associated press, taking a look at it saying roads, bridges and former president donald trump will be on west virginia nebraska voters minds of these congressional candidates in tuesday's republican primaries. to encompass gop congressman who've taken dramatically different approaches to their time and office are facing off in west virginia's second congressional district, one of the most watched u.s. house primaries on the day's ballot. reps david mckinley and trump backed alex modi were pitted against each other after west virginia lost a congressional seat based on the results of the 2020 u.s. census. this adding that west

virginia's election is the first five primaries in which to incumbent house members will face off. it will be followed by similar contents in georgia, michigan and into illinois districts. nebraska voters will nominate candidates on tuesday to fill the seat abandoned by u.s. representative jeff fortenberry, a republican who resigned from office and ended his reelection bid after he was convicted of lying to federal authorities about and an illegal campaign contribution. his name was still appear on the ballot for the first congressional district, because he withdrew after the deadline. but senator mike flood, a former speaker of the nebraska legislature, appears that the advantage over five other republican candidates. again, you can see that play out today in those states. also, when it comes to the topic of money and support for ukraine, roll call reporting the presidential biden and top democrats have agreed to a republican demand to disentangle a stalled covid-19 response package from a separate supplemental requests for military and humanitarian aid to ukraine. at the same, time has and

senate democrats have up the price tag on a package by 6.8 billion above biden's initial 13 billion request. democrats proposed including an additional 1.4 billion for food, aid 3.4 billion to replace u.s. military equipment sent to ukraine, according to a source familiar with the offer. again, you can see that at roll call on its website. let's go to martha and hempstead, north carolina, democrats line. go ahead. >> good morning, thank you for taking my call. i am definitely pro-choice. i'm very sorry that the abortion issue has become political, because it really is a medical issue. and pregnancy is very complicated. women should have the choice to handle their medical issues. i think, if the legal part of

our country was in charge of males reproductive-y and telling them what they could and could not do, this would be a very different issue. i was a school nurse for many years, i've seen six and seventh graders pregnant, and children should not be having children. the people who our pro birth, not antiabortion. because we have at least, i think, one edge of every four or five children in this country go to bed hungry every night. we need to be taking care of the children we already have. and i think that's about it. >> okay. ruth from missouri, independent line. >> yes.

i've been trying to get through since mother's day, there was a man on there that was really rude and crude and called women that go out and act, his exact words, and i quote, that women go out and act like rich dogs in a barnyard. we'll >> go to connie. from days ago, that was then. what do you think about the issue of roe v. wade now? >> well, i personally would not have an abortion. that is not what i should push on anyone else. but i don't think that men should sit around and talk about women in the way that man did. on mother's day. >> okay, okay. that is lou, in houston,

missouri. let's hear from senator mazy her on, she was on the house floor yesterday. , again this as the debate over in the senate later on this week. we will hear from her in a bit. let's hear from connie, though. connie in pennsylvania, republican line. >> yes, good morning. thanks so much, this is a great, great topic and i appreciate that women are able to call in. i have a couple points. first being, when a woman gets pregnant, there is a another life inside of you. it is not your life that you are considering to dispose of. and, despite having the child needing to go into some kind of government run home or what have you, if the women cannot take care of the child, you shouldn't does dispose of a life.

it's interesting, if a pregnant woman gets murdered she is charged -- or the person that kills a woman is charged with two murders. so, i think it's ironic that it's okay to aboard a child but if a pregnant woman gets murdered the killer is charged with two murders. also, i'd like to consider the man's point of view. this is the child was not created alone, it takes to. so, you are a boarding that child and think the other party is aware of it or not. here in pennsylvania, we have a candidate i, capybara. it she is a black candidate for the senate and running in

pennsylvania and she was created out of a rape. her mother was 11 years old and, thank god, her mother regret being 11 years old, she did not aboard that child. and now, she is running for state senate and it's just phenomenal. >> okay, okay. that's county, there in pennsylvania. we will now hear from democratic senator from white mazy her on a on the floor of the senate yesterday. i am proud that why was the first in the country to decriminalize abortion. regardless of the supreme court decision, women's reproductive freedom in hawaii will be protected. but, for how long? so many women across the country do not live in states like hawaii that protect the right to an abortion. barriers to abortion access

have always existed. barriers like finding childcare, taking time off of work, and travel in transportation, and more. the number of women dealing with the obstacles to get the essential health care they need will skyrocket if roe is overturned. and, we know who is going to be harmed the most. people who cannot travel, including people with low incomes. people with disabilities, and, due to systemic barriers and this country's legacy of racism, and discrimination, black, latino, indigenous, asian people, asian americans and pacific islanders, and other people of color, disproportionately feel the effects. of abortion bans and restrictions. we know this is true, because we have seen it play out in texas. already, women in texas have to

travel hundreds of miles to seek abortion services. many women in texas to not have a means or a opportunity. when you read justice alito's draft opinion it is quite clear that this justice has a harbored a desire to overturn roe for the 16 years he has been on the supreme court. and now, thanks to the three trump justices his radical opinion on abortion is no longer dissent of the majority opinion. >> another viewpoint from national reviews catherine lopez, which you can find online at their website. she writes in a recent op-ed should role be reversed, in the same country, we will ban together, whatever a views on abortion and give women choices. there are couples who long for babies who cannot have biologically, abortion is not

the only way, women deserve better than abortion and women who have had abortions deserve better than people screaming at each other, lying, and forgetting we are talking about, mothers, children, and real human pain. that is national view as catherine lopez. if you want to read more of that online. we are taking calls from women only for the next 20 minutes or so. joanne in maine, south portland, wine for democrats. hello? >> hi there, i am just calling him to say i support roe v. wade, i am really glad to see that there were protesters out in front of the supreme court judges home. they are wanting to take the right to privacy of women away, and so it is good for them to experience what it is like to have your privacy interrupted for them. my other, starting on c-span this morning and seeing mitch mcconnell speak, i do not think any republican should have a

voice to express any issue with demonstrations, because they had an insurrection, they were trying to take down our democracy. and, they supported a big lie, they continue to support a big lie, and they continue to be against democracy. >> so what do you think, about your state senator susan collins role in all of this? >> i have never voted for her, i think senator collins, it is shocking to me that we voted her back in because we cannot see the real picture of susan collins. she says one thing, does another. she says i am just going to pass this person through the committee and then she will turn around to that person gets ignored, and then turn around and say, oh well i voted against that person but she helped getting that person to where they are. i have never supported her, never will support her. i wish leaders would wake up

and see, i think a lot of maine residents have woken up, especially now. with kavanaugh, i mean, it was clear to women, it was clear that he does not support roe v. wade. for her to turn around and say, oh while he is disingenuous. it is like, really? so. she plays out, she is just not truthful. >> okay, that is joanne in maine, news like picking up on a story about a protest of sorts from senator collins home. saying police attended the senators home after a pro abortion method was written in sidewalk on the state of maine. police arrived in the senator's home. according to the daily news the message was no longer visible by monday afternoon. they chalked writing said suzie

please, they want the protection act cleat. clean up your mess, in some of the stories there is a picture of that chalk drying outside of the home, that newsweek story is still available and you can pick it up in the banger daily news. let's hear from wray. ray in washington d.c., independent line, high? >> hi, good morning, i just wanted to call. the first thing i wanted to say is to remind people is that why women are not predominantly impacted by this, as someone with a trans partner, anyone with a uterus can get pregnant and this could very much impact them. but also, as someone, myself, who hopes to carry a pregnancy at some point, i fear about the medical interventions that will not be able to save pregnant women's lives if abortion were to be a light band, including cases of viable pregnancies. a medical intervention might be necessary to save a woman's

life, or a person's life, there is another layer to this that i do not think is being discussed enough. what the potential president this might set for a future cases. other issues that have impacted the right to privacy such as marriage equality, or choices about contraceptives, i think this is a little more alarming than just peoples wives. people who choose to get pregnant, so, that is just something i wanted to share, just a reminder, especially for those in the queer community who see those long stretching consequences of this beyond individual health care. >> that is wray in washington, d.c., here is the bangalore daily news about the chalk drying outside of the monitor colin sound. this is what it looked like, apologies for our radio listeners this morning who cannot see that. you can find on the website as

well. in oklahoma, republican line, this is anna. >> good morning, how are you? >> i will, thank you, how about yourself? >> i am just fine, chugging along almost 88 years of age. >> you are now, go ahead with your comments >> okay, i am the mother of five grown children, in my view i believe it to be roe v. wade has no constitutional basis. and, i also believe in the laws of the land, murder is a crime. and, abortion is the killing of an innocent baby is a crime. it should not happen. my children, my son and his wife have seven biological children. they have adopted three children who needed homes. one was a newborn, and my granddaughters. i have two granddaughters who have adopted children, and made homes for these children.

so, there are people who want to adopt children. and, there are homes for these children. and, i just hope that everyone out there we'll see that giving these babies the choice of living is the best that we had. and, the choice of giving them a is wonderful and viable for everyone. that is all that i had to say, i hope you have a wonderful morning and let the babies live. >> that is anna in oklahoma, let's hear from evelyn in baltimore, maryland. democrats line. >> good morning, pedro, i have been sitting here listening, i am an older woman. i am 72. i hear all of these older women calling in about abortion. i am pro-choice, i feel that a woman should have a right to choose.

women have been second-class citizens in this country forever. practically all over the world, now if you flip the script and man are not taking care of their children, they start giving them the mass ex to me so they no longer can have children. the federal government forced that on them, that would be a different story. you'll have a nice day. >> if you look at axios's website this morning they look at polling, particularly among groups when it comes to this topic. they say the republicans are deeply split on their abortion strategy. top officials pushing restraint or silence, while activists republican candidates are demanding it all out campaign for a national ban and harsher penalties. republicans comp confidence in wind side victories invigorates their base, but rattles many swing voters.

the house republican leaders say their polling shows in races that matter say they are not ready for this kind of seismic change. adviser said lawmakers are asking for guidance on how to talk about issues like abortion on cases of rape or incest. knowing a hard-line view is wildly unpopular. more there at the axios website if you want to check that out. b is in washington d.c., independent line. hello? >> good morning to all, and thank you c-span, it is d.c. and washington d.c.. i support and agree with the school nurse caller from north carolina. this is a serious medical and individualized choice that should be available as a healthy option. and, it should not be politicized. i disagree with the caller from california who specifically indicated african american women should abstain from abortion, while she was correct that institutionalized discrimination and racism is prevalent, she did understand that means the lives of

children, born or unborn, are impacted significantly. it is a personal or medical choice, each one should support the lawmakers in establishing a federal protections for reproductive rights. may we continue to heal as a nation, holding ourselves and each other accountable. have a great day, pedro. >> jeanne is next in livingston louisiana, republican line. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> yeah, i just called about this abortion thing, i have been hearing this since i was young, that is when the contraceptive was becoming a thing with the pill and everything. personally i do not agree with abortion. okay? that is not my decision to make, but, i think women need to stop being so irresponsible. a lot of them are. they are irresponsible, they run around getting pregnant. there are all kinds of contraceptives and no excuse for it. they get pregnant and do not

want it, they are using abortion like birth control. they do not want to take the pills because they make them gain weight or this, or that, it is just ridiculous, they need to quit this. overturning roe is only going to return the decision to the people in the state. that is not making it illegal. >> go ahead and finish, jeanne. >> that is it, thank you, that is johnny in louisiana, one of the topics also talked about in washington, d.c., was regarding ukraine, john kirby talking about ukrainian citizens being taken and held against their well into russia. just a response from the press secretary on that topic. >> and, the ukrainian government says that 1.2 million ukrainians have now been deported to russia and are in these camps, do you have evidence of that? do you see these camps? are these concentration camps? >> i cannot assert to the

number, we certainly have seen indications that ukrainians are being moved from ukraine into russia. i cannot speak to how many camps, or what they look like. i do not think we have that level of detail, but we do have indications that ukrainians are being taken against their well into russia. unconscionable, not the behavior of a responsible power. certainly another indication that he simply will not accept and respect ukrainian sovereignty. they are citizens of another nature. >> isn't it ethnic cleansing if you take 1.2 million people from a country and move them to camps? >> that is not a determination that is best coming from the u.s. defense department. we have long talked about the fact that we do believe russian soldiers continue to conduct war crimes, but beyond that i believe it is better not for the defense department to make

that kind of determination. there is a process for that that does not reside in the pentagon. again, you do not have to look very far to see evidence of russian brutality continue. we are on day 75, which means 75 days of brutalizing the nation of ukraine, and the ukrainian people. every time you think they just cannot fall to a new low, they prove you wrong. >> this is lorraine in green junction, colorado. independent line. >> yes, good morning, i wanted to give you my personal story of someone who had to have an abortion for a personal reason. i was pregnant, my first pregnancy my child was born one month prematurely. my second child was born two months prematurely and spent

several months in the hospital. i, unfortunately, became pregnant and was told that i was going to be expecting twins. my doctor advised the fact that if i continued with that pregnancy, that i would have to be on continual bed rest and possibly would not be able to carry those babies to term, i am in catholic, i did not believe in abortions, for personal contraception me. to prevent me or just to have an abortion. my husband and i had to make the difficult decision to have that abortion, and what we were thinking of was the fact that how would i be able to care for my other two children, because of my condition, i would not be able to do so. my husband and i decided that abortion was best. he, therefore, after that head of the secretary.

i just feel like there are a lot of medical reasons, and personal reasons that people have to go in that direction. and, i am very much opposed to roe v. wade being overturned. thank you. >> >> lorraine, and colorado. this is lisa infield, brook california. democrats line. >> i, i want to say god bless the people in the ukraine. i feel so bad for them. i've been doing a little bit of research on the terms deeply rooted in history and tradition, as far as abortion goes. actually, before 1820, one there were zero laws in america against abortion. it was actually used by women of influence for the purpose of -- children. in 1880, one connecticut passed the first law in the nation banning abortion after quickening, just when they first feel the baby. 1840, 70 american medalist medical association established,

was established, and went under criminalize abortion, get the midwives out of the picture. in 1850 california makes abortion legal except in the case of a brutalize woman. but then comstock went to congress to abortion and birth control federal obscenity legislation. and then laws in all states prohibited abortion. so, abortion is deeply rooted in history in tradition. thank you very much. >> one more call. this will be from kathleen in riverside, rhode island. republican line. >> yes. i'd like to weigh in on the subject. first of all, i think we should listen to the decision. second of all, roe v. wade is a different creature from what it was in 1973. the governments in virginia, in new york, we can have the baby

is born, the baby is koepka trouble, the baby will be suctioned if the mother allows another mother and doctor we'll talk about whether the baby lives. that's roe v. wade. secondly, i am dying to vote in a presidential election and a congressional election where roe v. wade is not a litmus test. it's not part of the constitution, but it is definitely part of state rights in the states should be responsible for this. and what makes it even more suitable is that more women and men will be able to vote at the federal government, state level is where it belongs. >> okay, thank you. that's kathleen, finishing off this hour calls for women only. we appreciate all of you that participated. if you don't have a chance to do so today, we'll take this up later on in the program. a couple of gas during assert the course of the morning, up next we'll be joined by the new york times -- they're going to discuss their book this will not pass, trump, biden is a battle for american democracy. looking at the events before

and after january six, 2021. later on in the program, we'll talk with washington times opinion editor cheryl chummy about her book, lockdown, the socialist plan to take away your freedom. those conversations coming up on washington journal.

he

>> washington journal continues. >> joining us now is jonathan martha, the co-owner of this will not pass, trump, biden the battle for american democracy. oh so joined by alexander burns, coauthor of the same book. both of them work for the new york times. gentlemen, thanks for giving us your time today. >> thanks for having us. >> i suppose that you initially had a goal to start the book and ended up with a different kind of product when you finished it. jonathan, what was the goal starting at what did you end up in the end? >> thanks for having us, it's a real treat. i think we began with the idea of doing more of a traditional campaign book, pedro. the thought, was this is going

to be a fascinating campaign, covid made it more interesting. and then the campaign never ended! trump never conceded the election, and the january six took place, right there. so, it occurred to us, we're living through a historic moment in american politics, my goodness. we should go bigger, let's capture the full scope of this tumultuous era. so, we decided to do what we hope will be the first draft of american history, 2020 and 2021. yes, trump, but also the first year of joe biden. we think that we've offered a pretty rich account, filled with insight behind the scenes stories and anecdotes about how both parties try to govern in this period. >> alex burns, same question to you. >> sure. i think what jonathan said about starting it is a traditional campaign narrative and then morphing into something else really captures it. i think that what we have here is really a political history

of a period. and i think that one of the conventions of political journalism, and of a political book writing, that we really discarded here is this notion that there is a right line distinction between politics and campaigning, which happens over here, and governing and policy, which happens over here. to, us they are indistinguishable. particularly in a period where you're dealing with a global pandemic, a national reckoning on race, an incumbent president who is attacked in the outcome of an election. the boundary between politics and government has never been so permeable. >> you write, in this book, already a couple lines i get a comment on it. saying, the country after all did not collapse, it would be a strong man was defeated. the transfer from a power from one white house to the next did happen. a new yet familiar president assad to be the leader of all americans in a way his president never feigned. the two parties have negotiated across the island and attempted privilege to their constituents. but the triumphant narrative is not only an important vantage point of this period, alongside those encouraging events

another timeline has unfolded in a dark parallel. alex byrne, what is that timeline? >> look, i think, to both of, us it's important to look at the last two years as, in a balanced way and put it in the larger perspective of american history. this is not the darkest period that our country has experienced, not even the darkest period that our country has experienced in the last half century. we've had presidents and civil rights leaders assassinated, we've had whole sections of the country enslaved or burned. we've had civil wars. so, i think that, you know, to us it's important a step back from the grimness of right now ed look at the reality that the country was put to a pretty significant stress test in a whole bunch of different ways. and the system didn't thrive, but it didn't totally collapse on itself either. in, fact far from it. the fact we are sitting here today it most of the criticism of president biden's administration is mismanaging inflation and not adequately managing to forge bipartisan

compromise. those are pretty familiar problems in the united states, right? if you told people when the pandemic struck that that's where we'd be today, i think they would feel sort of relieved at that prospect. at the same time, when you look at the high hopes for this new administration and when you look at the way in which president trump defied all american convention with his behavior after the election. i think it's also important to be pollyannaish about this, we have a government that have been shaken and shaken again. i don't think you can look at the last year since trump left office and see that america's roaring back, that we want some tough lessons during covid during the trump era and that we're adapting and coming together again. that's obviously not happening. >> and we have two political parties that, obviously, have big tents to the point of stretching beyond any reasonable boundaries. there is increasingly little coherence in the two coalitions,

but for contempt for the other coalition. and that sort of the animating force and politics today, and that is organizing your party around not really a sort of agreed upon set of policies but mostly fear and or disdain for the opposition. not totally new in american history, but also not very healthy, politically. >> our guest with us, if you want to ask them questions to a 2748 8000 for democrats, republicans to a 2748 8001, and in about 8002. you could texas questions are comes at 202748 8003. the book, this will not pass, trump, biden and the battle for american democracy. the minority leader kevin mccarthy plays a key figure in her book. last, week he made some news for the tape. people know that, but what do you think the intent of was when those tapes came out? >> in that moment we kept in the book, i think readers will be fascinated by this because it's based entirely as folks

now know on primary source documentation. i.e., those audiotapes. kevin mccarthy is grasping with two major challenges. one is the immediate physical threat to himself and his members and the possibility of more violence in the u.s. capital. he's worried his own members may incite more violence. the other challenges grappling with his a political one. it is how do i rescue my party from what is obviously going to be a huge challenge to us going forward? namely, our outgoing president being blamed for an insurrection. you hear in his voice him, in realtime, trying to grapple with both of those threats. and, in doing so, he's throwing it all kinds of ideas. including, is there a way we can get the president removed from office before january 20th? does that mean having him resign, does that mean invoking the 25th amendment, does that mean impeachment and conviction?

how do we get this done? it's a window into the panic, pedro, in those hours and days after january six that so many republicans are feeling. >> let's play a portion of some of that audio conversation that kevin mccarthy had, five days after january 6th. and then alex burns, will get your comment on it as well. let's play that. >> later, after this call, i'm going to get another briefing from the fbi. and it doesn't matter which side of the position you were, i respect it, i respect why you did what you did. but what we are saying on television, when we say members name, when we incite or we, in our hearts, maybe we think we are doing it. if you go back to last for years, everybody has done something. this is not the moment in time to do it. the briefings that i'm getting, you can incite something else. the country is very divided as we know this. let's not put any member, i don't care who they are, republican, democrat or any

person not even in congress. watch our words closely. i get these reports on a weekly basis, i've seen something i haven't seen before. so, i'm asking all of, you have called some of you personally, and i want you to know what i'm hearing. be careful, all i know you want to defend your vote, you want to defend your position. sometimes we get emotional about that. part of our defenses we explain where somebody else was at, that brings damage. so, alex burns those are the words. one is the minority leader trying to do their? >> and that moment he is speaking not just to a handful of republican leaders and congress, he is speaking to the entire republican conference. this is after he has had private meetings with his leadership team where he is talking about a real fear that a couple of members including people from florida and alabama could incite additional violence against their fellow members of congress. what you hear, there, is a somewhat more measured can mccarthy than in some of the

earlier recordings. he is trying to hold his parties together. he has got this unruly caucus of a couple of hundred folks. most of whom voted to object to certifying a 2020 elective and have been spinning up anger about a stolen election. a whole lot of others who are terribly shaken by what happened on january 6th. they fear for their own safety, think their colleagues are being responsible and banging away at camp mccarthy to do something about it. in that clip i think you hear kevin mccarthy blood was his own conference as a whole. in talking about the dangers of their behavior, as we have ever heard him. what you also hear, there, is a kevin mccarthy that is not going to stand up to his conference and repudiate what they all did in casting doubt on the 2020 election. he's saying over and over again, whichever side of the issue you are gone, i respect it and just watch awards. the issue is talking about is

whether 2020 was an illegitimate, free, and fair vote. >> it is fascinating, pedro, to listen to that tape of mccarthy speaking to the entire conference. because, as alex notes, he is trying to walk that high-wire of not offending a hard-liners who truly believe that the election was rigged. but also, he is trying to placate the more pragmatic members of his conference who were appalled in this moment as to what has happened on january 6th. you can hear him carefully, prudently, raining from his talking points which is so different from the audio we have a couple of days earlier. it's just a small group of house gop leaders and is a bit more defiant. about trump and about the far-right figures in the house. people like matt gates. he is much more condemning them as well. >> let's hear from allen in brooklyn, new york. you are on with jonathan martin and alex burns. >> good morning, a member of your interviews in the last few

days and i am impressed by the thoroughness of your work. you mentioned the unhealthy situation and the parties identify more with what they are against and what they are for. and, i believe that spilled over to the end of the fairness doctrine. people identifying with the station with no opposing viewpoint since the mid 80s. and, the effect that has on our jury system. i have not heard very much openly discussed by judges about whether or not the jury pool is affected by endemic bias and we cannot really get fair juries anymore. do you believe that is affecting the readiness of people like bragg or garland to put forward indictments. for fear that even though there is merit there the jury pool will no longer find it? >> appreciate the question, glad you are interested in our work. look, prosecuting a former

president would be an enormous legal and political challenge and anytime. fairness doctrine or no fairness doctrine, no matter what the media culture is everybody knows the president and has an opinion of some kind about the president. so, i cannot speak to whether garland or brag specifically would be thinking about that. one of the big challenges that we tried to reckon with in our book is how to tell and integrated story about the entire political system. around the failures of both political parties. the parties are not identical, this is not a hashtag yet both sides narrative about how everybody is equally to blame. everybody is not equally sublime. some people are considerably more culpable than others and the crisis of american democracy. but, one of the challenges we worried about is if we tell an unsparing story about the republican party, it's culpability, and the rise of donald trump, and we tell an unsparing story about how difficult democrats have found it to hang together as a party,

and actually govern now that they have power and deliver on the promises that they made to the american people, are people going to embrace the truth of that narrative? for, are people only going to want to consume the part that is a fun dessert reading for them? it is easy to read about how the other side is screwed up. we have been very gratified so far to say that they're very much is a big community of readers out there who do want the truth, they want the truth matter who it touches. >> some of the negro 38 when they read certain chapters, but we hope they are still raining those chapters. real fast, pedro, i would add that we have a bit of this in the book, the moment where trump leaves office in disgrace is so different from when nixon did. i think that captures what the caller is getting at. that is the difference in the political and media culture in the nearly 50 years between those two moments. and, the fact is that trump did not face the shunning from his

own party in the way nixon did. the idea of the republican lawmakers in the capital going to st. clementa and visiting nixon in the first months after he resigned and kissing his reign would have been unthinkable. he was a president forced to resign after this terribly tawdry and shameful corruption episode. that was recognized widely by the american people in his own party. he was persona non grata in a way the people with trump just moved on. people like kevin mccarthy are happy to go to mar-a-lago. why? because their voters do not care. >> from our public land in iowa, this is jim, i. >> how are you doing, guys? i can applaud c-span for having these people on. the more you talk the more trump supporters your creating.

the fact they are still trying to pretend that the election was not stolen is simply amazing to me. there is evidence, video evidence all over the place. the stephen k. bannon show, for one, we'll show video evidence of people stuffing rocks into their backpack after backpack full of ballots. we have video evidence of a mother and daughter team in polk county, georgia, after the people were kicked out because of the quote unquote water leak, taking the same batch of ballots, running him through the machine over and over again. >> with all that said because we're limited on time with our guests, what do you want them to address specifically, collar? >> i understand they are very frustrated, they have lost their narrative, longer to the american people get their news from abc, nbc, cbs, cnn, msnbc,

they have moved on. it is just so blatant. these people here, bless their hearts, i understand the frustration, they are liberals, but the people have moved on. >> thanks, color. >> the beauty of c-span's in this back to back calls, when a country. in all seriousness, i think people will actually do better to watch more c-span because that is the unfiltered view of where voters are. that call and the calm before capture our journalistic careers enshrines right about a country lip is so divided. basically, pedro, they live in parallel realities. as we just heard, that is a real challenge for our journalism. i think that calls for more journalism, more journalism that is unsparing, deeply reported, and fair. it does not take sides, even objective. >> i think what the caller's perspective shows is that there are obviously people who are

just deeply attached to this notion of a solo action, and the facts be. if there was a mother and daughter team that had run thousands of ballots through over and over again and there is video for all of the world to see, i think president trump would've edge of that and evidence in a court. the district attorney would have prosecuted it. they would cover in the new york times and all of those terrible networks that were mentioned. i just think the reality is that part of the reason why president trump's hold on the republican party has been so tenacious is because he has captured the imaginations of a lot of people, and captured a block of the media of the right that is willing to nurture this environment where these total fancies at about a stolen election continue to persist. even this week, republican members of the senate were quoted in politico talking

about their former colleague david perdue. he is running for governor of georgia saying it is a stolen election. his own colleagues saying i do not know what that guy is after? >> as the caller makes clear, this is a demand side issue. the supply is there but the supply is there from the likes of steve bannon because the demand is there, pedro. >> as far as the fracturing within the party, and the differences there. back to kevin mccarthy, he is still having to deal in the days after that like the representatives like marjorie taylor greene. how is he dealing with those people specifically? where are they as a party as a whole because of that? >> sure, and the days right after january six he has at least conversations with matt gates. he said could you please stop naming specific people in the rhetoric. that is clearly a reference to his attack on liz cheney and adam cans ear. he was out after that talking about them as an anti trump cabal.

a republican party in a way that mccarthy and others thought was very dangerous. others say they never really heard from mccarthy. that when we were getting ready to report the news story version of our reporting about mccarthy's concerns about the far-right, i reached out to bellbrook's. i talked to him about his comment and it is dismissive of what's mccarthy had to say. i asked him if mccarthy ever spoke to him about that? it just goes to show how reluctant mccarthy is to take on that faction, even in those days after january 6th. >> you both write in the book about reference floated by kevin mccarthy about censure, versus an impeachment after the events of january 6th. can you elaborate? >> sure, he and his lieutenants in the house gop were grasping for any kind of alternative that would give them some cover. because they knew there was an appetite, both in their ranks and clearly among the american people, to tell trump that what he did was wrong. obviously some people wanted to go to force him into resign. other wanted to impeach him,

others yet wanted to stop short of that but offers some sanctions. and, at some point in the days after the six they were grappling with can we do a censure resolution? will that be enough for house democrats? there was even talk about going to trump himself and saying can you accept censure? which, itself, pedro captures how captive these members are to president trump to the idea of having to go to a president after he incited a mob to storm the u.s. capital. say, would it be okay, sir, if we did a censure resolution against you? would you not get really mad and just kind of get sort of fake man? that tells you everything you need to know about the mindset of his party. >> charles on the independent line you are on with our guest. >> hi, good morning, gentlemen. it is kind of strange, for four years we said do not take trump

seriously. or, do not take him literally, take him seriously. and, the other side, they said that i kind of agree with is don't take him literally, just take him seriously. and, my mindset lost out for three years and 11 months. and, it turned out the jig was up, and everybody took him seriously and literally it with all of his henchmen. when you compare what trump had around him, the low lifes around him compared to nixon, who in retrospect was like a shining night on a hill. a beautiful guide, g gordon levy.

>> but at the point, charles, thank you very much. president trump's influence over the party and how he has taken. alex burns. >> i think the colors point, colourfully delivered, it is a reoccurring theme in our book. is that, look nixon was a disgraced president as well. but, he was also a pretty conventional politician in a lot of ways, it was pretty serious about government, cared about policy, had an agenda, and was aggressive but implementing it. president trump, we are real this in our book, another book at this week that underlines and even his final month of president he was throwing out ideas for policy that bears no resemblance to the basic capacities of the federal government. it is amazing that it is only two years ago but the president of the united states was suggesting injecting bleach as

a response to the coronavirus pandemic. and then he is surrounded by people, yes, there were serious people in the trump administration who are trying to keep things on course. but, who is also surrounded by a ton of enables. those who really do believe the most foreign stuff in the world were whispering in his ear. >> there has been and there still is this core, pedro, of republicans in both government and the media who will try to pretend that trump is something he is not. they will try to act like he was a more conventional figure than he actually was. and, go so far to try to normalize him. trump makes clear every turn that he is not a normal, conventional politician. he is calling for protesters to be shot in the streets of america. he is talking about lobbing cruise missiles into mexico to intervene in the drug train. it goes on and on and on, it underlines the effort to

normalize. here we are, you still hear this effort around the republicans to normalize this fellow who defies that attempt at every turn. >> you characterize it this way, republicans have stepped on the line and more memorable ways they usually found themselves defeated, driven into retirement, or pleading for forgiveness. you could be on team trump with a modest guarantee a political safety or you could be against the president. that, in donald trump's mind, was the meaning of reciprocity. >> that is from chapter about a desperate attempt from a series of governors to get aid for their states to the height of the coronavirus pandemic. figures like ned le mans from connecticut are going to trump, and trump is responding not by saying, what does your state need, what are the actual challenges of your population. it is pure politics and self interest, trump is saying well if you want this you have to ask me nicely. quite literally, that is what he said to net le mans, governor of connecticut.

once again, it captures how trump is so far from a conventional president. like, every white house has politics shape it. we are naive about that. but, trump takes it to such an extreme because he has no grounding in american history, norms, or traditions. he does not understand what is or is not important appropriate or he doesn't care. >> i think jonathan said it very well, the protection racket model. it extends to every element of donald trump's worldview, the way he talks about our foreign allies needing to ante up more for nato if they want to be under the american security umbrella. you can drive a full straight line between that and dry and telling roy cooper in june of 2020 that, man, i gave you a whole lot of ventilators in this pandemic, don't you think you should accommodate me for the republican convention in charlotte on my terms? this is extraordinary stuff and people should not be desensitized to it just because it is such a familiar theme. >> these are the authors of

this will not pass, trump, biden, and the battle for american democracy. this is john from pennsylvania, republican line, high? >> hi, good morning, good show. i would just like to add to comments if maybe your guests can address these topics. the one is that joe biden has flip-flopped on the abortion issue. a 2006 video joe biden on earth by cnn shows the than senator said he does not see abortion as a choice and a right. then, in 2020 joe biden said in an interview with texas monthly, i think it is always listen focusing on how to limit the number of abortions. that is on the abortion issue, joe biden has been shown to flip flop on the issue. the second one would be to

address the southern border, we are being invaded. congress is stepping up at this point, but the dhs person in charge mayorkas does not seem to be upholding his responsibilities to protect american citizens and protect the border. we are allowing many millions of people and representatives and senators. i have called them and expressed concern, up in pennsylvania. the problem is the trickle down effect. all of these people go on welfare, they are going to cause the among american taxpayer. >> john, we will later therefore matters of time. how does issue shape this white house and politics overall, particularly as the midterms come up. >> the colors extremely astute in tracking biden's evolution on abortion. i do think, in fairness to joe biden, although maybe not really, or at least not in terms of him. i am not sure he has

flip-flopped in his views on abortion. he used to talk about legal, safe, and rare. he used to say things publicly about every abortion being a tragedy. he has not have repudiated that he is, but he has emphasized the official policy stance of his administration. the stances defend the women's right to medically termite a part of the pregnancy. he is a deeply religious catholic who has been very forthright about other points in his career about his personal ambivalence about abortion. but, since becoming president he has been very deferential to the prevailing culture of his party. which is to say, and you redirect the stigmatizes abortions the democrats should not be engaging in that. i think it is created a real political dilemma for him and democrats. ahead of this big battle about reproductive rights. a lot of democrats, i think rightly, look at the president with some wariness about how it can be trusted to carry the message. >> it is fascinating, if you

talk to democrats in politics privately it does not take very long for them to express frustration about biden's message on abortion rights. they know he has never been a champion of the cause. even today, as alex says, he has largely embraced the current approach on the issue with his party. that is to not stigmatize the issue, which is to drop the rare from the leak, safe, legal, and rare. he still catches flak, why? because he will not say the word abortion very often, he will refer to more illegal acidic issues like the robert bore confirmation. he is just more comfortable talking about that than the actual procedure itself, obviously. he has great personal problems with that. the other issue the caller mentioned's immigration. we have a series of memos from

biden's top pollster who warned early on in the spring of 2021 that joe biden is facing grave political challenges on issues like immigration, and crime, that would eventually become major, major issues. at the time we were not giving a lot of attention. but, his pollster flag those issues and the biden white house did not come up with a coherent approach. or, has not yet at least. that, to this day, is now dogging democrats. >> let me ask you this, as far as you write the book. you have seen critics and some pieces about holding on to the cabin mccarthy tapes for a book versus putting them on the public when you know about these things. how do you respond to this? >> would not talk about sourcing generally as a rule, but whether it is our book or somebody else's book, or somebody else's journalism, i think when it comes to the process of reporting the idea

that people are going to be open with you for something that is going to appear at the next day or the next week is pretty farfetched. when you are talking to people, pedro, for history. they know they are talking to you for history. obviously it easier for them to open up. that was certainly the case time and time again in our experience. secondly, people who are watching this who have worked in journalism, who have worked on historic projects, know these things do not come easy. the idea that all of this material comes wrapped up with a bell is just not the case. it does take time and effort to gather this material, so it is a much more complicated question than it is presented. i think anybody who has done a work of history will appreciate that, you hear things, you

track things down, you try to confirm manners. it is not done in a day, the week, or a month. >> i think jonathan really covered it but i also think there is this and a lot of this embedded premise. reporters are deliberately stiffing their readers in order to hoard material and then sell it in the form of a book. look, if those kind of mccarthy tapes had been accessible and reportable the second that he said that stuff then that is the career making newspapers story. even if you believe reporters are overwhelmingly reported by venal purposes. which is not the case. but, even if you do believe that that is an extraordinary scoop. anybody would be tripping over themselves to get that in front of the public as quickly as possible. as jonathan said, we are not going to get the mechanical details of timing and conditions. under which differences

cooperate with us and different materials were unchanged. but, for anybody who has been a journalist or knows a journalist the notion that you would willingly set on a story of a lifetime for a very long and in order to horrid that material from my book is a fundamental misunderstanding of what drives returning. >> both of our guesswork for the new york times and our co-authors of this will not pass, trump, biden, and the battle for american democracy. thank you for your time today. coming up, we will return to the question we started off this morning. women only for our next phone period talking about your views of roe v. wade. 202748 8000 for democrats. republicans 20274 8001. and independents to a 274 8002. we will take those calls from women when washington journal continues.

>> book tv, every sunday on c-span2, leading others discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 2:00 p.m. eastern, a professor of history at the university of dayton talks about abraham lincoln, grover cleveland, theater roosevelt, jfk, ronald reagan, and donald trump. at 10:00 p.m. eastern, steve forbes shares his thoughts on what is causing inflation in the u.s. and how to fix it, interviewed by "new york times" economic reporter gina smiley. watch big tv every sunday on c-span2 or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine, the latest from the president and other white house officials, the pentagon, and estate

department as well as congress -- and the state department, as well as congress. all on c-span networks, the c-span now free mobile app, and c-span.org/ukraine, our web resource page where you can watch the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. >> c-span brings you when unfiltered view of government. our newsletter recaps the day for you, from the halls of congress to daily press briefings remarks from the president. and the qr code at the right bottom to sign up for the email and stay up on date with what is happening in washington. visit the qr code or visit c-span.org/connect to subscribe anytime. "washington journal" continues. host: until 9:15, women-only,

your thoughts again, until 9:15 we will hear from women only. your thoughts and views on roe versus wade, particularly its future for democrats in the audience who want to call to a 274 8000. republicans, to have to set up seven point 8001. independence, 202, seven for eight, 8002. you can always post thoughts on our social media site like facebook.com, or a twitter sites slash washington journal. also following the show on instagram. one of the comments made yesterday about protests taking place outside of some justices of the supreme court came from the white house. it was yesterday that jen psaki, the white house press secretary talked about these protests, the white house's response to that. here is a portion from yesterday. >> as you know, there are also some allies who are protesting outside of justices homes, including brett kavanaugh who if there is any compromise conservative who would presume

all of row he could be part of that. my question is, it's appropriate to protest outside people's homes and is a productive? >> i would say in terms of the productive question that is not for me to speak to. obviously, these justices make decisions as an independent body. how they are influenced or if they are influenced is not for me to make a determination of. we do believe in peaceful protest and we do not believe or support any intimidation of any kind. obviously the violation or breaking of any law as somebody raised before. or, threats or intimidation of any individual. what we do support people peacefully protesting, and they do that in a range of places. >> that is from the white house yesterday, expect to hear more from legislators this week, particularly as of tomorrow. debates start on an effort in the senate to codify law or federal abortion protections into law. that legislation is not expected to pass, but you can see the debate tomorrow on our c-span two network.

that covers the senate, also keep an eye on c-span.org and our c-span now app for more information. when it comes to other aspects of this debate, the washington post highlighting that it's early public opinion polling showing little evidence of a massive spring against republicans on a threat zero. according to a cnn survey taken in the immediate aftermath of the leak that americans favored keeping roe intact by 2 to 1. republicans still enjoyed a seven point advantage over democrats when voters were asked about their midterm presidents. a margin that would swing both chambers to the gop. democrats insist that will change of the draft really becomes official and let's get some groups start spending their massive campaign war chest on advertising that highlights the threat to reproductive rights. and, top party leaders believe the issue will have some special residents and some of the lip midterm election's top battlegrounds us again, you can talk about how that particularly might affect your voter even the midterms, when you tell us about your view of roe v. wade.

again, we humbly only women only for this phone segment. we start with barbara and blacks bergh, virginia. line for democrats. barbara, go ahead, you're next. >> good morning, pedro. thank you so much for taking my call. i am a 77 year old woman and when my husband and i decided to start a family, we had been married three years. we decided before we conceived that i would go off the birth control pill. for a year, i just used conventional birth control. but i abstained totally from liquor, coffee, tea, chocolate, steak tartare, which was a popular holiday treat in our family.

and that's what's the most important decision in our lives that we are making, and that's why i stop -- why we took the year to cleanse my system. something i was totally unprepared for was, after giving birth, postpartum depression. during this time, i kept thinking about young women who got pregnant quite by accident, had no plan or anything and trying to imagine what was going on in their lives. it's still something that, and spoken with friends, many of us have gone through it, it's just not something you can be

prepared for. and that certainly no man can ever imagine, what it's like. >> okay, okay. let's hear from wendy, washington, d.c., republican line. when day in washington, d.c.. hello. >> good morning, thank you. i can appreciate what barbara just said i but, as a civilized, rich country, surely we have the resources to support young mothers. surely we can emphasize the value of human life. we have an understanding as a result of technology today that was not in place when roe v. wade was passed. i mean, we understand so much more about the development of a child in the womb. we deliver baby so much earlier,

viably. and the only difference here, really, and this is coming from someone who's had more than one abortion as a republican christian, i get it. i understand both sides of the argument. the only distinction is between wanted and unwanted. if i don't want a child i can terminate what can otherwise be the birth of a baby. okay? if you do not have an abortion, it ends in the birth of a child. now, i understand there must be reasons to keep the law in the book in some form. i'm not saying it has to be all or nothing. but the wall street journal yesterday had a wonderful brief synopsis of european law, and it varies, country to country, based on the will of the people and the morals of that region. i never let you have the most

expansive access to abortion, where italy is the most limited, for example, at 90 days. the first 90 days. if we get rid of roe v. wade, where just kicking it back to the states to decide. >> okay, okay. we will go to emily and aspirin, virginia. independent line. >> hi, good morning. >> morning. >> i just, i think this is a very complicated issue. because you have two lives that are being impacted. you have the life of this unborn child, which the previous caller mentioned is viable a lot earlier then was evident at the time that the law was passed, and you have the life of the mother, who is killing the child. and i think maybe one of the few people, from what i can tell, who doesn't really, i kind of see it from both sides.

i wish there were more support for the mother who is making the decision, as far as the options available. i feel like abortion is an option that is available, but i'm just imagining from this mother's point of view and how scary that would be a. and it just seems like, i mean, i think abortion could be an option, it is seems like there's so many people would love to adopt. it just seems like it would be nice if we provided more support to the mother, to be able to have more options on the table and not feel like they're so alone in that decision-making process. >> that's emily there, in

virginia. given your thoughts on our independent line. you can continue on for about a half hour more. again, on the lines, 202748 8000 for democrats, so to a twosome 48 8001 for republicans, for independents, seven for eight 8002. one of the people putting their opinions on paper is gretchen whitmer, talking about her states experience and they're preparing for matters if roe v. wade is overturned. she writes in the op-ed of the new york times saying, many of us for this day would come, which is why last month i filed a lawsuit and, drawing on authority granted me as governor, asked the michigan supreme court to immediately resolve whether our state constitution includes the right to gain access to abortion. my argument is predicated on the due process and equal protection clauses in our state constitution. the due process clause of the michigan constitution protects the right to abortion in the same way that the united states constitution does perot, and the equal protection clause prohibits estate from adopting was based on paternalistic

justifications and and over broad generalizations about the role of women in the workforce and at home. i hope that my novel lawsuit can offer a course of action for others to follow. again, the website of the new york times, you can read it there. let's hear from our line from democrats, in texas, man field, texas. this is melanie. >> good morning. i just want to show you that one thing i did learn from the covid situation is that having a choices important. i am a democrat, i am pro-life as well. the problem i had with roe v. wade going away is that there are not any options for women. and there has to be exceptions, because there is not a one size fits all for any scenario that we have. so, i do agree that, if you have a teenager, 14-year-old kid who gets pregnant, it's going to take care of that baby? you know?

you may have a 52-year-old woman who still has reproductive cells and she gets pregnant. does she want to do that? i just think we need more options. thank you. >> on our independent line, this is jan in cincinnati, ohio. good morning. >> good morning, how are you today? >> i'm fine, thank you. >> so, i think i am pro-choice. and i believe that it should be everybody's decision, every woman should have a decision of what to make. i personally decided that it was in my best interest in the best interest of my family to have a child. but i think that, so often, this argument comes down to, it's mischaracterized as either being pro abortion or antiabortion. and body autonomy. when the definition of wife, as far as our laws tend to go, seems to come down on religious

definitions of when life begins. like some religious practices believe life begins at conception, others don't. and so, i think, above all, the due process clauses in the body autonomy arguments and all that, it's also freedom of religion issues. because which religious background gets to choose when life begins? the argument that they say about viability happening much earlier, i don't believe viability if you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep up prematurely born baby on life support and all these extreme medical measures, in order to keep a baby alive that would not be able to survive outside of the womb before then. anyway, those types of things. so, thank you. >> another viewer from cincinnati, ohio. this is mary, republican line. >> i am totally not pro-choice.

you don't have a choice when you have made the choice already to have sex. and you know the consequences. so, you should be prepared. we do need to get it so there is a place for many places that can go, because we can't have this overturned if you're going to resort back to the 50s, 40s, where women had to go to back alleys and doctors there. no. we can't have any of that. we have to, first, get it understood, like the commercial. there is a commercial on television about a woman with her children coming into a house, given to her, so that she can be a part of maintaining this planet. thank you very much. >> marion cincinnati, ohio. the washington post this morning takes a look at the topic from the debates on the protests taking place at certain justices homes. earlier in the program, we

showed you some of those protests taking place outside of justice kavanaugh's home. the washington post highlights in their editorial, leave the justices alone at home. here's the argument they make. to pick a judges home is especially problematic, it tries to bring direct public pressure to bear on the decision-making process that must be controlled, evidence-based and rational affairs to be any hope of an independent judiciary. critics of reversing roe maintain, defensively, that to overturn specialized any president would have self-isolate cordial principles. yet, if basic social consensus and the rule of law or to be sustained, the protesters which to maximize our own persuasiveness, demonstration against even what many might regard as a legitimate rulings must respect the rights of others and they must be lawful. again, the washington post editors making their argument in this morning paper. you can read it online. from florida, independent line, this is natalie. go ahead. >> good morning, and thank you for taking my call.

i am a daughter of parents who were in europe during the second world war. and my mother watched as fascism rose, and she said it started with taking away rights. when you start taking away rights from women, and they're not just taking away abortion, they are passing laws to even outlaw contraception. and then, when they deem that you are not fit to raise a child, they start taking away the children. my mother said that fascism took over because they went to the children. and let's not forget, there are many laws on the books right now that cement republicans taking over. even though those laws are constitutional, we have to

wonder how this court will judge on those laws. >> natalie in florida, giving her thoughts. again, we've asked women only in this time to give that a thoughts on roe v. wade. particularly, you can also share your thoughts on the future of roe v. wade, considering the news of the last week or so. call on the lines that best represent to you. you send us a text though if you wish, -- . everybody can pass on our social media site at c-span dot com and you can also follow the show on instagram, to. this is least up next, lisa is in washington, d.c.. democrats, line hello. >> hi, thank you for having me. i have a few points to make. you just mentioned about people protesting outside of kavanaugh's house. i think if they allow protesters to protest outside of clinics and intimidate women who go in there for whatever health services they want, they

don't all go in there for an abortion, then it's the same kind of thing. i know he's there for -- he should have the same right, everybody should have the same right to protest in front of his home as they do in the clinics. i want to say that alito's argument about not being in the constitution, the right, there's a lot of things that are not in the constitution. it was written by and for rich white man and one of those is the freedom to own slaves. it's like, well, are they going to give that back to the states to decide about slavery and all that? that's kind of crazy. all these freedoms that we have, the civil rights freedoms that were not in the constitution. i mean, that's just a poor argument. he should be intelligent enough to know that that argument goes flat. one of the statement i wanted to say is that no one is pro

abortion, those words shouldn't come out of anybody's lips. pro-choice was not prohibition. pro-choice means stay off the woman, let her choose. it doesn't mean they want her to have an abortion, or anybody wants to have an abortion. one more thing i want to, say one more thing. >> quickly, please. >> rape, if a woman is appreciative from rape and forced to give birth to that child it's like a triple punishment on are. >> it's your front door is a peach tree city, georgia. republican line. hi hi. this is my first time calling. and i just want to say that this situation should not be complicated. the states should not be legislating peoples bodies. it should not be in the hands of politicians. it's a personal choice. and what we need to do is educate the american people,

and they can make their own decisions regarding their own bodies. thank you. >> that is adores there impeach the city, georgia, calling in on a republican line. again, we'll do this till about 9:15, thought, and if you want to call in you can do so on the lines. a couple of other news items to share with you. this is from the wall street street vernal's from -- the wall street journal this morning about dolley tax refunds. saying they're paying billions for that as far as interest. seeing the 40% rate for individuals for being late took effect in april. that's a percentage point from the park with a. the red for large corporate grievances 4.5% up from 0.5%. generally, the internal revenue service has 45 days to process a tax return and pay refined. after that, interest starts to queuing in a month tied to the short-term federal interest rates and adjusted in each quadrant. those interest payments have real cause for the public and

fiscal year 2021. the irs paid 3.3 billion interest to tax violence, more than triple what it paid in 2015, according to a government accountability report. we have more of that in the wall street journal this morning. a couple of months to share with you that are taking place in our networks today. at 9:30 this morning, and about half hour from now, hearing on threats facing the united states. it will feature national intelligence directory -- director -- avalanche and director of federal intelligence agency general scott barry. while tells to buy about global threats facing the u.s.. you can see that in front of the senate armed service committee. that will be at 9:30 on c-span 3, online at c-span.org, and a full coverage will be at our video app, c-span now. 9:45 this morning, treasury secretary janet yellen will talk about u.s. financial stability. so give an update on that. that will be in front of the senate banking committee this morning at 10:00 eastern again, at c-span dot org, and follow

along with our free c-span app there as well. story is next. dory, in sport cain, washington, independent line. >> yes, hello. i agree with all three ladies who have spoken. they are all correct. the government has no right to be in this area at all. this is an individual right. this is a -- one thing, though, is if they are going to have any part of it, they should require the men to pay for the resulting child. >> tina is in alabama, republican line. >> good morning. >> morning. >> [inaudible] supreme court is the [inaudible] and that is we are free to choose but there are consequences in our tries, and that's what i want to say. and i encourage everyone, not a one of us is perfect, but the one who [inaudible] was perfect, he [inaudible]

above your dignity. so love to all. thank you for the service you provide. bye-bye. >> we will hear next from gretchen. gretchen in olympia, washington, independent line. >> thank you for the opportunity to express ourselves. it's interesting that this is for women only. i am not as politically aware as my significant other, but i am kind of adopting his ideas, which are, he feels that men should not be allowed to vote on something that has to do with women's right to bear children or not bear children amongst other things. another thought is that overpopulation is the root of so many problems in the world today, and so to make a woman give birth to a child that is

not wanted -- and you can say, well, people want to adopt -- but there are plenty of children to adopt. i'm so concerned that this is being overturned, and i hope that it will be rethought, and that we continue to have the choice to do what we want and need to do with our bodies, and especially in the case of rape and incest, which is hard to come. thank you so much for the opportunity to speak. >> we will hear next from emma. she's in missouri, democrats line. go ahead, please. >> hello, america. and i just want to say this. i think it's totally ludicrous for nine people called the supreme court to make rules and regulations for 350 million people in the united states.

and furthermore, as far as abortion is concerned, i'm a christian. god doesn't force me to keep his ten commandments. who are the supreme court to make rules and regulations to, or send me to jail because they feel that they can make laws on my body! it is wrong, and i don't care who you are! it is wrong! >> that's emma, in missouri. one of the things taking place yesterday, aside from the debate over abortion and other political matters, was president biden talking about a new effort to offer broadband in areas that might be under served by that or people might not be able to get access to broadband. the new are doing our quick reporting on, saying he, said one day about 40% of u.s. households will soon be eligible for free internet services and that's thanks to a new federal subsidy. you can see the full announcement out our website at c-span. but he's a portion from the president yesterday. >> here's how it works. if your household [inaudible]

twice the federal poverty level alas, that's $55,000 for a family of four, or 27,000 foreign individual, or a member of your household is on medicaid or supplemental security income, or a number of other programs, you are eligible for the -- for the affordable connectivity program. nearly 40% of the household in america qualify. and if you qualify, you are going to get a 30-dollar credit for months towards your bill, which, which most folks will mean they get on for nothing. look, zero. let me explain. in the past, 30 bucks a month meant you had to settle for a slow internet service unless you wanted to pay a heck of a lot more to pay out of pocket. but over the last few months, my administration has worked closely with the internet providers. this is a case where big business stepped up. urging them to cut their prices and raise their speeds. i'm trying to get others to do

the same thing in the police, but these guys are the best. [laughs] well, look. we've secured commitments from 20 providers, most of whom are in the garden today. [inaudible] prices for high-speed internet for tens of millions of households. so now, families who are eligible can select the plan from a participating provider and receive high-speed internet at no cost in most cases. >> again, you can see that presentation and the speech from president at c-span now or the web span at c-span dot org. the new york times reporting that congress plays hold its first hearing on, quote, unidentified aerial phenomena, since 1970. leslie king and ralph blumenthal writing that the hearing comes after the release last your report requested by phone congress on that phenomenon. the nine played preliminary settlement for the their office of director of national intelligence focused on hundred 24 incidents dating back to 2004, and was able to explain only one. the report declined to draw in france is saying that the veil -able recording was, quote, not

just inclusive, and noting that inconsistent data created the challenge and evaluating the phenomena, but said most of the phenomena reported, quote, do represent physical objects. the assessment concluded that the objects were not secret u.s. financial technology and that, quote, the currently [inaudible] data indicates that any uap are part of a four day of foreign [inaudible] program or indicated of major technological advancement by major as hundreds. are --, florida, republican line. >> hi. i'm just calling -- this is my first time -- on a little confused how we all sit at home and we are enraged at kids [inaudible] someone coming in, blowing kids away in school, and you say your angered about that and yet, people are having abortions and no one's getting anchored about that. you sit and angry about kids getting killed in a school or on the street or however, but

it's okay to walk in and just kill a child? i mean, murder is murder, correct? and if i can say another thing, we have people protesting outside the supreme court people and it's okay, but yet we have the black lives last matter lady whose [inaudible] counsel owns, and she's crying, and saying that candice owens was threatening her life. this doesn't make any sense. >> okay. let's hear from martha in illinois, democrats line. go ahead. >> hey! i just wanted to say something that the taliban or isis are the guys that make children have children. and do we want to be like that? i mean, look at the women in afghanistan right now. i think trump did a little, a little, a lot of damage when he told us, during the debates

with hillary, that you can just take a baby out of you and [inaudible] with the baby in the ninth month. i mean, that's ridiculous. trump did a big number on this country, and we need to get back to basics and just, you know, this is a woman's issue, and it's a health issue, that's it. not complicated. >> buffalo, new york, hour-long for republicans. we'll hear from julia. go ahead. >> hi. this is -- i'm a first time caller too. and the color that just spoke about trump, of course they're going to blame trump for everything. and trump didn't say that, that's a fact. that they are selling baby parts from planned parenthood, that is a fact. and we donated, the federal government does give money to the planned parenthood, which i believe is wrong. because taxpayers shouldn't

have to pay for anybody aborting a baby. and there is too much availability out there. there's too much technology and there's a birth control, there is a day after, there's condoms for men. you know, and they should not have to -- if they choose to be from risk, efficiently up to the taxpayer to pay that, the price for them. i'm sorry, but this is very emotional to me. because a lot of things i'm hearing are so wrong. and they are getting misinformed. >> julie in buffalo, new york. we will hear from christina in south dakota, independent line. hi. >> i. i'm a first time caller as well. and i just wanted to say that i agree with the previous scholars that abortion is murder. but if you want to allow murdering babies, and i think it should be up to the legislature, not the supreme court, which is what roe v. wade did do. they made base, basically

codified a lot. but i want to bring up the point of [inaudible] . you know, there's something called euthanasia which certain states and countries do for people, and they do it in a humane way. abortion is many times not humane at all. sue fair, who was a person who was a manager of planned parenthood, was asked to step in because the nurse became ill and she stepped in just simply to hold someone's hand a, 12-week abortion. as she was appalled when she saw that baby shark from the pain and try to get away from it when the baby was being aboard the. she later became a pro life advocate and sadly, she has passed from cancer. but i think if we're going to have abortion it needs to be humane there. needs to be standards. there are standards for elaborate. there needs to be standards. when you do a dilatation, an extraction off a baby, your cutting it into pieces, sucking it out, taking it and embolism.

and yes, many times they are very careful so they can sell those parts. >> okay. we'll go to francis. france >> okay, we'll go to is in north carolina. francis. francis in north carolina, democrats. line good morning. >> good morning. i am 84 years young and i believe a woman should have a right to choose. there seems to, be a misconception that man up don't have anything to do with this procedure. actually, no one has ever become pregnant without a man involved. so, let's just be honest about this. of course, at my age, i did not have the opportunity to use, even if i had wanted to, and i'm not sure i would have, but i would like to have that choice. so, let's just keep choice for this procedure open to the

ladies of this land. thanks much. >> that's frances in north carolina, there's an effort at the senate to pass legislation that, if it were, passed would put abortion protections that federal law. it's not expected to pass by reporting, but it was senate majority leader chuck schumer on the senate floor yesterday make a case for the legislation. here's a portion of that from yesterday. >> i want to be clear. this week's vote is not an abstract exercise. this is as real and as high stakes as it gets. he and senate republicans will no longer be able to hide from the horror they've unleashed upon women in america. after spending years packing our courts with right-wing judges and justices, after changing the rules of the senate to push three rigidly conservative justices, after stealing the nomination of merrick garland. the time has come for republicans, this new maga republican party, to answer for

their actions. if senate republicans allow the supreme court's decision to stand, it will be open season, open season on women's rights in america. a few days ago, leader mcconnell himself acknowledged that a federal ban on abortions is now possible. should the supreme court overturned roe and republicans take control of the senate. let me say that again, because it is so dreadful. in light of the supreme court's decision, upcoming decision, leader mcconnell acknowledged that a national ban on abortion is now possible without row. if republicans reclaim the majority. hear that, america? a total ban, it total national ban on abortion. stated by not any republican but by the republican leader. >> that was senator schumer from yesterday.

the debate begins tomorrow, and you can see it play out and see with the various senators have to say about this topic and the issue of abortion by watching c-span two. staying close to our website as it plays out. that's where you can watch it, starting tomorrow. one more call. this will be from linda, she is in missouri, independent line. hi. >> hi, thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to talk about what are we going to do about that man, paying for their girlfriends or wives to get an abortion. what are we going to do about them? i'm torn between, you know, you're coming after women's rights that not the mandate that the women pregnant. i don't understand that, it's like free willie. the man can go around and produce all the, we have more than six, seven kids all over the world and we do nothing. but we want to come after the

woman. i just don't get that. i think there should be some big and place where we can identify, if you can identify a woman getting an abortion, you ought to be made for her to say this is who i got pregnant by. and go after the man to, thank you. >> that's one day missouri, last call for the topic. we appreciate all of you who called in and participated. coming, up we're going to talk with cheryl i chumley the washington times. she has a book i coming out, we'll talk about it at its contents when washington journal continues. congressional directory, go there today to order a copy, a guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress, including bios and committee assignments. and contact information for state governors and the biden administration cabinet. order your copy today at c-span

.org, or scan the code with your cell phone. every purchase of support c-span's nonprofit operation. >> c-span's the weekly podcast brings you more than 40 years of audio recordings from our video library, comparing events of the past two today. politico reported on a draft of a supreme court decision in a major abortion case, some say it poses the biggest challenge over to roe v. wade. the latest episode, hear how the current members of the supreme court answer questions about roe v. wade during their confirmation hearings. >> john roberts said that roe v. wade is the law of the land, seventh law of the land. do you believe that? >> roe v. wade is an important precedent of the supreme court, decided in 1973, so it has been on the books in a long time --

for a long time. it has been challenged a number of occasions, and i discussed those yesterday. the supreme court has reaffirmed the decisions, sometimes on the merits. >> the court's ruling about the rights of travis the in griswold late the foundation in roe v. wade. >> the court's decision in planned parenthood versus casey reaffirmed the core holding of -- well, that is the precedent of the court, settled in terms of the holding of the court. >> you can find the weekly on c-span now, our free local video app available wherever you get your podcasts. >> " washington journal" continues. host: our final guest is cheryl the washington journal continues. our final guest of the morning

is cheryl chumley, she's with the washington, time serves as online opinion editor. she's also the author of the book lockdown, the socialist plan to take away our freedom. cheryl chumley, welcome back to c-span. >> thank you for having me. it's great to be with you. >> what prompted this book? >> well, for two plus years i covered the government's response to the coronavirus in my commentary writings that the washington times. early on, i wrote a piece in april of 2020, i wrote a piece entitled the coronavirus will go down in history as the biggest political hoax. for that, i was attacked. but look at where we are now. i cover the last couple years of the lockdowns, the clampdowns, the unscientific science, the hypocrisy's and so forth. i just felt it was time to write a book, letting readers know not just some of the underreported or unreported behind the scenes discussions that justified the lockdowns,

but also, more importantly, what's ahead. how the democrats, in particular, how the left is going to continue to use fare from the coronavirus to justify even more clampdowns on liberties. >> you open the book with a personal account from your life. already a little bit, and then you can expand on it. you're at this, science is not sacrosanct, doctors are not gods. but leaving size placed americas freedom and change. does their national misstep, as the nation's big mistake. with the pandemic first, fear replaced reason and then overreaching government exploited the situation to instill more fear and grab more powers. and democrats, progressives, globalists, collective as, socialist and marxist saw the opportunity to reshape the entire world. they can only keep the fear going and press for even more powers, move goalpost further down the field. but you talk about a personal experience of yours. talk about that, and then talk about why you wrote what you did. >> thank, you thank you for that. so, i open the book by going

back in time to 2008 when my husband had a heart attack. i raced to the hospital and every doctor there told me that he was going to die. in fact, they were very casual about, it they're very certain that he was going to die. as the days war on and he was in a coma, then they told me that in order to save his life they would have to amputate his leg because there is an issue with the balloon pump that they inserted in his leg to keep blood flowing to his heart. there is still certain he was going to die, but they felt the need to do something. so, fast forward through the ordeal and, ten days later, he did emerge from this coma. not only was he alive and well, but he had all his mental facilities. his mental capabilities. because another thing the doctors were certain about is an off chance that if he didn't die, he was going to be a vegetable and completely unresponsive. so, he is here today, he is

alive and well. minus one leg. my point and telling that story, and other than my forward, there's a couple other personal tales as well, is to make people think. everybody in their lives has had a doctor tell them something with certainty, only to find out that it's not true. if you haven't had that happen to you, you know someone it's happened to. and yet, with this coronavirus, we forgot that. we forgot that doctors are great at what they do and they should be held in high regard, but the fact is, in america, it still comes down to a personal choice, a personal decision. doctors aren't god, they don't know with certainty, no matter how much they tell you they do. >> the white another reporting leading up to this week, talking about 1 million deaths and relating that to covid. how do you take that figure, in light of what you read about in the book? or at least at the me write about? >> it's very sad to me, very distressing.

because, early, on what i discovered, i'm talking early on within the couple months of the coronavirus in america, was that that data was so wrong. it was cute. for one example of this, hospitals were actually incentivized to report more cases of coronavirus because governors in their respective states told hospitals and clinics to stop doing medical procedures in order to make room for this huge flow of covid patients that they were predicted to have to deal with. and, so hospitals had a huge fending stream cut short. so, congress, of course, stepped up and they created a bill that gave hospitals and clinics around the nation money to treat covid patients. well, hospitals were in that rock and a hard place. anytime anyone came into their facility, they tested them for covid. because they were short on cash, it made sense, it incentivize

them to report massive cases of covid. but we never really are clear on whether people in hospitals were treated for covid or treated with covid. whether they died from covid, whether they died with covid. and so, now, if you look at the statistics that came out from early on, those statistics are still being built upon in today's statistics and data, used to justify coronavirus clampdowns on coronavirus funding. so, i question the stats. and just as every american citizen should, as well. >> our guest with us and, till 10:00. if you want to ask your questions about her book to a 2748 8000. for democrats. it doesn't one for republicans, 8002 for independence. you can text your questions and comments as well to 8003. cheryl chumley, a couple more lines from your book.

they want to lockdown, they want to look at the lockdowns of individual freedoms, that division will, rights individually held liberties so they can stage the reset a reshaping to america, and a world, more in line with their collective hissed and elitist beliefs. it's called destroy, then rebuild. but they're destroying it's a constitution, and what they're trying to rebuild its cultural marxism and communist control. beware, be warned. be armed with the truth to fight. can i ask you the day's and all of that? >> yes, i'm glad you did because i was about to explain it anyhow. so, the world economic forum and klaus swab, the founder of the world economic forum. has penned on we form dot org, don't take my word for, it go and read it yourself. an agenda called a great reset. in the world economic forums klaus schwab's own words they want to take this pandemic because i see it as an opportunity to use it and bring about brad, changes not just in

america but around the world. america is a stumbling block to some of these changes that the great reset vision has on store for us. one of the agendas at the world economic forum hasn't store is to change the definition of capitalism. because, here in america, we have the free market system and businesses are in business to make money, right? it's profit versus law that decides the success or failure of a business. well, the great reset has a new form of capitalism. they talk about it being more aligned with what china does, calling it a stakeholder capitalism versus shake older capitalism. stakeholder capitalism opens the doors for businesses to be rated failures or successes based on the social justice agenda as that they promote, that they get in line with. and that they find. this is why you have, in large part, it will cut corporate culture out there. a lot of these businesses that

are pushing social justice environmental things, black lives matter agendas and so forth and so on, they have signed on to this great reset put forth by the world economic forum. so, that's one example of that they. but, by a large, when i say j in that context that you read, i'm talking about the globalists at the united nations, at the world economic forum. those in america who want to partake of this new, great reset. >> if that's the case, is being laid out at the world economic forum, then mechanics to they have to do that to achieve that? if it's even a desire of theirs. how would you see that? >> again, taking information right from the great reset pages posted at the world economic forum, a couple of ways that they achieve this by force. right? because a lot of american citizens may not want to play with that. but a lot of the ways they do it is by getting banks involved or getting insurance in companies involved. so, say your business in

america and you say, you know what? i don't want to go down that great reset wrote, i want to stay with my business thanking the profit versus loss. and i don't want to play into the social justice agenda. well, that's great, but the insurance company that ensures youths so that you can do business may play along with a great reset. or the bank where you get funding may play along with the great reset. so in order to compete in this new business, you are going to have to sign off on paperwork that shows what you are doing to promote social justice in order, say, to get a bank loan or in order, say, to continue ensuring your business. so there are very many safeguards that the world economic forum has in place in order to achieve their ultimate endgame, and in my book, i point out a lot more of how this plays out in america, and also offer some ways that americans can fight. >> i'm sure, would some say

that, at least, so what's your trying to propose there is a conspiracy theory and? how do you respond to that? >> well, you know, conspiracy theory sounds like it's something that's just a figment of imagination. and this isn't. this is, this is actually happening. and once again, don't take my word for it, go to [inaudible] form dot org, and look up the great reset. this is out in the open. and if you also look at joe biden and our own president, he has, if you go back in time to his campaign website, he has an agenda laid out called the build back better. and he has statements that he's made in the past about joining into this great a reset, so if you look at how america is positioned right now, we are falling right into line with this administration, with what? the world economic forum wants to rig chief. which is why the world economic forum just wants to piggyback on this pandemic right now, because, you know, time is short. the next president may not be

in line with this great reset. >> the book is called, a lock down -- the socialist plan to take away your freedom. cheryl chumley our guest. she also writes for the washington times. she's our online opinion editor. you consider her columns and opinions that. edward in new jersey, independent land, first for our guest. good morning. >> good morning. i'd like to say that socialism's empowerment of marginalized people, and that's important now because of the free world [inaudible] 18% of the ones population. so if they're going to have any competition against the rest of the world, you know, we need to have, in power as many people as possible. and my other [inaudible] question too is you [inaudible] you know, it's just like you [inaudible] people have infiltrated the [inaudible] and all these other things. [inaudible] can you put to me some code carrying agenda of members that you speak of [inaudible] you've listed five groups of socialist and whatever. and i laid out even [inaudible]

and five groups of socialists ever got together to agree on anything. so that's where i stand and [inaudible] . >> okay. [inaudible] and would. >> no, socialism's empowerment of marginalized people that's, it. >> okay, got you. cheryl. >> i disagree. i think socialism is a roth, a cancer on society. and i think it steals the talents that god gives each and every one of his creations at birth. socialism takes that and puts it up for the collective to decide whether or not you can use [inaudible] talent you have a bus and make a profit and supportive family. and i just think that there is a, you know, settled history from socialism has created more chaos, has driven more people in poverty, and has resulted in more deaths than any free market. >> from judith, judith in

michigan, farmington, michigan, democrats line, you're next. good morning. >> yes. i just wanted to comment on -- and she was first talking about how socialists are putting the fear in people. well [inaudible] last republican politician, they are gaslighting the american people with their fear, and this started off with the fear of immigrants, fear of [inaudible] fear of blacks, fear of them taking jobs, fear of crt, transgender people. they are just -- and then it was a fear of wearing masks, fear of this virus, or fear of the vaccine. so the republicans and politicians are instilling fear in american people. and that's how they reflect on what they are doing, which is try to gain power and money and try to corrupt the system for their own gain. so they are just throwing out

all these different things [inaudible] conspiracy theories. obama was a [inaudible] muslim and all these different things. so we are being gaslighted, and she's contributed to that, and so, just, i'm not listening to her, i'm not going to read her book. she just sounds crazy to me because i know people who have died from coronavirus. and it's a new virus. so of course, it's going to seem like, you know, that doctors don't know what they are doing. they didn't, just like with ebola and spanish we. >> okay. okay, color. thanks, you put out a lot for our customers want to. miss chumley go along. >> she's not listening to me so i'm not sure how to respond to that. i would just say that i'll take everything she said and take out the word acquitted republican in instead. >> what do you mean by that? >> i mean that, or i'll take out everything she said about republicans that put the were democrat in. it's not republicans that are creating this hysteria of fear over the coronavirus

[inaudible] historical fear over borders and so forth. the republicans are basically trying to do the line -- law and order route. and then the media come and leftists come, and they twist that into being something that it's not. but just as an example, immigration. republicans aren't against immigration. republicans are against open borders. and so the media come along, or those on the left, and they say, oh, republicans are racist because they don't want, they don't want immigration. so, that's not exactly true. that's where the real gaslighting occurs on the site of democrats. >> when you talk, since you talk about the coronavirus, your book is entitled, a lockdown, going back to the early days of lockdowns, particularly because the term flatten the curve was used, and things like that, do you think that was a necessary measure early on, when ventilators and hospitals were overrun? what do you think about those early on days? was there a role for it, i guess it is what i'm asking? >> i understand what you are saying. and actually in this book i, do

have a little bit of criticism for the donald trump administration. mostly because of allowing anthony fauci and deborah birx and the medical bureaucrats to have such influence and such a platform. so early on, when the virus was first coming to america, yes, we didn't know what it was. but the thing was, when donald trump tried to do common sense reactions and responses to this, he was attacked. he was put in iraq and a hard place. he tried to shut down travel from china. he was attacked. he tried to control at the borders. he was attacked. and then later on, he was attacked because when he stepped back from doing some of his initial gut reaction to things to secure america from the virus, then he was attacked because he didn't do some of the things that he wanted to do in the first place. so it was politicized from the start, and i would have to say that if, if we face another pandemic, what i would like to see out of our white house,

whether it's led by a republican or democrat, is to never force people into doing certain actions. always just suggest, advice, give the best case rep or recommendations from the medical community, but african with the forced closures, never again with the forcing of the face masks. >> when you say the best of judgment of the medical community, you wouldn't put dr. fauci in that list? you wouldn't put doctor birx in that list? or how would you clarify them in light of that statement? >> well, obviously, they have more medical experience than i do, right? i'm not a fan of anthony fauci by any means. but at the same time, i recognize that he is more studied in infectious diseases than i am. so i want to hear from him his words to what would i don't wanr his words to trickle down into society as if they are mandates, and dictates, and that they are supposed to be obeyed, no matter what. and especially when you look at the medical bureaucrats, including anthony fauci, you

know, one day they say this, and another day they say that. and american citizens are supposed to jump and obey, no matter how conflicting the advice months are. so yes, i want to hear from anthony fauci, but i want to hear from anthony fauci as part of a group of people who can also suggest how best american citizens can protect themselves with the emphasis on protecting sells you. >> probably -- you mentioned that talked about, you probably know that she has a book out. she recently talked to our folks at batavia bought it. and one of the things she talked about was those early days in the lockdown, at least the justification on the thought process going into a. i want to play a little bit of what she had to say and get your response to it. >> i just want to make it clear, you don't do a lockdown unless there is a crisis. and we were in crisis. we could see what was happening and in italy. i had wanted out to tick case fatality in italy and their

excellent medical care and what they were learning, and they still had extraordinary case fatality rates i. was looking at our case fatality rates, case fatality rate, in those individuals over 70. that means if you are 70 and diagnosed with covid, 30% of those individuals were succumbing to this virus. and so, we didn't have a treatment, we didn't know about clotting, we didn't have ventilators, and we didn't have ppe. and we were barely keeping up. and i just want to be very clear, we were behind in the human capacity needed to treat these patients i. mean, we didn't have enough human capacity if we had had 25 new york's inner cities greater than 1 million people, without a lockdown, that's how you end up with literally hundreds of thousands to millions of people dying [inaudible] . >> again, that was doctor birx.

cheryl chumley, your response. i mean, that's your opinion. you know, she is looking at italy, and she's applying what took place in italy to america. and look, it sounds bad what she says but all along the medical bureaucrats had been predicting this, predicting that bloom, predicting this doom, only to be proven wrong. anthony fauci, early on in the pandemic, he came out and he predicted x amount of deaths based on computer modeling, which is the same type of gloom and doom wanted modeling that climate change alarmists used to predict that within, say, 12 years, we don't take these regulatory controls on human activity, then the world is going to be expire, go up and small, and we're all going to die. well, anthony fauci did the same thing, based on computer modeling. and i'm assuming that deborah birx, who worked closely, hand-in-hand with, anthony fauci, used those same type of

statistics and data in order to justify clampdowns and lockdowns. but look, at the hospitals in america were not hugely overrun with covid patients. you have to put these in context, you have to put the data from hospitals in context. and if you look at their emergency wards, you have to compare them to the bed count the previous year, before the pandemic. and many of these stats coming out that said that the hospitals were overrun with covid patients, in context, looking back through history, and putting them in context with other years, it didn't happen. those weren't over -- the hospitals weren't overrun with patients. so many of these gloom and doom predictions that apparently deborah ports was still making to this day didn't happen and they are not based on truthful stats. >> what's that where you referred to, though -- that basis, then? >> we'll, if you look there are

books out there written by some people that i know who have done statistical analysis of the coronavirus -- michael b truss's one -- and he has gone back in time it, and he's actually analyzed the stats of hospital beds in icus, and he's looked at the number of patients who were admitted during the covid years versus the numbers of patients who were admitted before the covid years, and where you get the difference, where you can try and believe the truth from facts, or truth from myth about covid patients, is when you start looking at the excess beds, when you start looking at the bids were taken by covid patients above and beyond what is normal. and in many instances, the beds that were taken by covid patients were not going above and beyond what is normal for i see you and emergency clinics in the years before the coronavirus. so it's difficult, like i said,

the data has been skewed, and it's difficult to see nowadays watch truth from mid. but there are some people out there who've done an excellent job of looking simply at the stats i'm not getting involved with the politics. >> the book is called a lockdown, the socialist plan -- >> recorded to see this this night to take you to capitol hill where the nominee for ambassador to ukraine, brigitte brick, is testifying before the senate foreign relations committee. the center says the committee will also consider nominations nominations [inaudible] and ambassador to chad. you're watching live on c-span tv.

[inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible]

[inaudible]

[inaudible]

[inaudible]