"washington journal" is next. ♪ good morning and welcome to "washington journal." 2013., march 29, president obama called on congress to pass gun-control legislation and urged americans to remember the victims of gun violence. he spoke at a white house surrounded by mothers whose children were killed in the shootings. calls on theyour president's call for renewed on rent -- and gun legislation. democrats -- republicans -- independents -- online.also find us send us a tweet by writing

@cspanwj. span and facebook to weigh in. you can also e-mail us. here is the front page of the new york daily news this morning, quoting president obama -- yesterday, the president said "shame on us." inside of the new york daily news, it says -- let's take a lesson to president obama in his own words. [video clip] ." >> i read an article in the news hasother day, wondering, washington missed its opportunity because as time goes

on after newtown, somehow people start moving on and for getting? people hereyou, the do not forget. grace's dad is not forgetting. has not forgotten. the notion that two months or three months after something as horrific as what happened in newtown happened, and we've moved on to other things? that is not who we are. that is not who we are. i want to make sure that every american is listening today. days ago that happened. country was shocked. the entire country pledged we would do something about it and

at this time would be different. shame on us if we have forgotten. i have not forgotten those kids. shame on us to go we have forgotten. host: president obama speaking at the white house yesterday. we are asking you what your reaction is to the president's renewed call for gun legislation. philip walker of the washington --t rights -- writies lily joins us now, annapolis, maryland, on the democrats' line. what is your reaction? i 100% favor with the

president is doing. i do not know what it will take this country, especially when we have children being killed, and that little girl in chicago. i do not know what it will take for us to do something. i do not know why we need to have assault weapons. wayne lapierre, i think is an idiot or not. i think we should do something about gun control. that is all i've got to say. why do we need assault weapons anyways? that is one thing i do not understand. host: here is the front page of the chicago tribune. shooting,member this a young woman, hadiya

pendleton, who attended president obama's inauguration, was shot short time after. an independent in texas, sabrina, good morning. call.:, for taking my i just want to say i am highly in support of what the president had to say yesterday. i cannot imagine why anybody would not be in favor of background checks. the thing is, if you do not have bad intentions when you purchase a gun, why have a problem with background checks? another thing is, i know this is hard for some people to swallow, i was talking to a friend the other day and she said, imagine a world with no guns. guns are only two people or animals. why would people want to kill animals? you can go hunting for food. you can go to the store to buy it dead. what you need with a gun other than to kill? i am not in favor of guns.

i think if there was a world without guns, we would not have this problem. people can say what i want to say about it is not the guns, it is the people -- is the guns. his: president obama renews call for gun legislation. that is our topic. some comments on our facebook page -- we hear some other comments -- william writies -- writes -- beverly in minneapolis, on the democrats' line. caller: hi. minnesota, and probably throughout the country, they are

putting armed guards in churches. it is good friday. this is a christian message. this is the message of the prince of peace who says a .lessed are the peacemakers we cannot have military weapons on our streets when we have children. host: all right, beverly, this is what jim wright's on twitter --writes on twitter let's hear more from president obama. [video clip] >> members of congress will vote on whether we should require universal background checks for anybody who wants to buy guns about criminals or people with severe mental illnesses cannot

get their hands on one. they will vote on tough new penalties for anyone who buys guns only to turn them around and send it -- sullen to criminals. they will vote on a measure that would keep weapons of war and igh-capacity magazines facilitate these mass killings off our streets. there will get a vote on legislation that will help schools become safer and how people struggling with mental health problems to get treatment in need. none of these ideas should be controversial. why wouldn't we want to make it more difficult for dangerous person to get his or her hand on a gun? why wouldn't we want to close the loophole that allows as many as 40% of all gun purchases to take place without a background check? why would we do that? host: president obama speaking at the white house yesterday. here is the "usa today" --

art is our next caller in wisconsin, hello. watching the just show and decided to call in. i am hearing everybody talk about the tragic situation that is happening. i certainly agree with it. the problem that i have with the universal background checks, we have background checks and the wisconsin that everybody, whether it is long gone or handgun, have to go through to verify your not a criminal, a felony, all of that. you get all the information on the internet and the president's white social security and actors and stuff, that is all out there. you get all that information, somebody will get that, printing my name, and everybody else's

name in the paper, and we need to prosecute these people. we need to do more about it. look at chicago, just down south hamas. they've got the toughest gun laws. i do not have a concealed carry program. they are the only state out of the 50 that does not have one. they do not prosecute. got killedal that there, they're not prosecuting. we need to enforce some of the laws that we have and quit trying to make new laws everytime something happens. host: 1 about if the background check information could be made secure? if there was some sort of privacy protection? is there a level it reached that would satisfy you? caller: yes, if you could guarantee that. that is the biggest question. if the president's wife, which i say is a pretty important person, if personal information

can be out there, if they cannot keep that secret, how can they keep the information you're talking about secret? independent on our line, good morning. independentn our line, good morning. caller: i wish more people could read between the lines about this, legislation and all these things they are trying to do. when they say universal, they are talking about a majority of americans. as i know it to this day, in white christian american male and women are the majority in this country. when they're talking universal background checks, they are basically talking about white christian americans. that is what they're talking about. they do not care about gang newers in chicago or orleans. they're the ones.

if the guns are of latta, only outlaws will have guns. this is big brother. people need to look into the future and see what is going on. this is more government intrusion. they need to stay away from us. this country was founded by white christian american males. that is what all this is about. -- it sounds to do like you do not believe african americans are hunters or women. caller: they possibly do. what is the number? one%? how many of them actually fish or hunt? callers,'s hear more sharing your stories about how you use guns. i will repeat these numbers -- our topic is president obama's renewed a call for gun legislation. we heard from the president what

he would like to see past, details about the legislation before the senate. here are some statistics on what americans think. this is a cbs news poll. 47% was like to see stricter gun laws. a 39% said, keep the laws the same. 11% said to weaken the gun laws. fred is in missouri on our democrats line, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. the legislation that president it is about our children. if we do not protect our children, what can we do? out, theyphone came passed a law for cell phones. people were dying behind it. we got our children -- the most important thing we have in this world as our children. our children are getting killed

by people using weapons that are full capacity magazines holding 30 rounds or more. if we do not do something about that, what are we saying? it is okay to kill our children? e aboutyour callers spok minority people getting guns, they do not fish or hunt -- to back up what he is saying, i know more minority people that fish and hunt than i do what people, caucasian people. that is not the issue. the issue is protecting our children. --is ok to kill our children i know what those weapons can do -- i was an infantry soldier. i have used every weapon you can imagine. we do not do something to protect our children, what are we saying? it is okay to kill our children? and is ok for terrorist to come into these gun shows and by all the weapons and want?

is it ok for people with mental in capabilities to choose those weapons to use against our children? we cannot do anything about it? don't do anything about it at all. let the kids died. that is okay. no problem. is that what they are saying? sure, you should have background checks for people that are purchasing any kind of weapon. if i purchase a weapon legally and give it to somebody who is a criminal, that is against the law. enforce that law. that is one thing we're not doing. i agree, we do not enforce the laws enough. host: we will leave your comment there. writesight on twitter -- --twitterr some more details of the cbs news poll on how american stand on gun control.

over half of republicans want the loss kept as they are, 52%. 66% of democrats want stricter gun laws. that is a cbs news poll. david is in florida, a republican. caller: as far as the guy who says it is okay to kill your children, no, you can put that on a government intrusion. how you protect your children? a firearm. obama made the comment about 47% of gun purchases are down off record with no background check. how could you possibly make such a statement with there being a record? based on what? did people the number of the air? artfully all of half gun purchases are done with no paperwork and background check? what evidence does he have to substantiate that? once again, they throw stuff out. people gobbled up. up.obble it do you support any

elements of gun control? i hear that you do not support measures that go as far as banning assault weapons, but what you think about some of the basics, some stocks with a background checks? >> i have a background checks and in my state. i run for a national database that we already have. why does he need a national background check that already have, as it is possibly registration? they also want to know, between private individuals, say i want a lot of people believed thate all this is is registration or some kind of way of tracking who has what hidden under the guise of good intentions. people have to be a little careful about the things that are done under good intentions. they used to drill holes in people's heads to let the demons out. the mantle. it cannot always work out a great. they need to put a little more

thought into it. they need to think logically. look at how the american public is feeling about gun control. a story from politico this week. backing for stricter gun control has weakened since the days immediately after newtown, connecticut. speaking of the shooting in newtown, connecticut, news coming out about the gunman, we are seeing ness from "usa today" --

the police are revealing details about what was inside of adam lanza's house, including guns. let's go to joe in alabama, on our independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. are you ready? host: i think so. caller: first of all, i do not believe in banning nothing. i think everybody should be able to have full automatics and silencers, if they want to. silencers would help a lot to keep the noise level down to keep them from bothering your neighbors. policy,back to the gun and what the president said, like i said, i do not think we should ban nothing. high-capacity magazines, whenever, i really do not think that is going to do much of

anything. everybodyve that should have a background check when they purchase a gun. i don't care if it is our neighbor, your cousin, your brother, your mother, i don't care. i have to have a background check when i buy any kind of dumb. if one person has to have it, i think everybody does. is reason i believe that because there are lots of people theycan go to wal-mart, can buy a gun because they can, theythen they up the price, go to gun shows, they sell it to anybody who's got the money. that is what is going on. it is not just the gun show. they will sell them on the street. they will sell them to anybody. that is why i think we should have a background check for

everybody. i think it should be noted on your driver's license. i do believe we should try to use some common sense when we are trying to identify who the crazies are. that seems to be the main problem. how to identify them. one way i feel like we can identify them is how they drive their vehicles. on aey have so many points driver's license, then it should be noted that they cannot buy a gun. if they cannot drive a vehicle, then they certainly cannot be allowed to have a gun. host: a proposal from gio in alabama. donna from vallejo, california, the democrats' line. youer: good morning, thank

for c-span. the problem i have as far as the gun situation, you know the the bible that esau, fable, will live by the gun and die by the gun. spirit ism is, his fighting back because he wants that gun because he needs it to live on this earth. that is the only way he can make on this earth is with that gun. that is the reason why everybody in other and he's people's business because he's got to rule this earth the way he was set out to do. right now, we're just in turmoil because of his need for the gun. --t: on twitter

the real d says -- will, florida, what you think? caller: the problem we have with these new laws is that the people writing them have very little understanding of the topic. it is like saying, we had a car accident, let's get the homage to run our motor be -- order vehicle department? people say, universal registration or back contracts -- my ancestors came from a country where they have a universal background check and universal registration. ghetto andup in the died there. the rounded up the people on the list first. you're looking at a lot of butle say as common sense,

people are not looking at history, every time that law has been passed, what happened to that country a few years later? if you have a situation where they pass a law and within 10 years something bad happens because of the law, maybe we should have countries stop passing laws like that. host: what if it was not a national registry but a background check? caller: for is my problem with a background check. problem with a background check. the department of justice promised in the clinton administration they would not they promised that the national instant check with not keep a list of people who asked for a check. it was a big scandal.

the turnout the department of justice had backed up on their computers for several years -- it was a matter of reloading the backgrounds. i'm a little biased. in ae ancestors who died government-caused holocaust after a law like this was passed and i cannot fight back. host: let's look the "new york post" -- what was in the inventory about the lanza home -- let's take a look at a recent ad from mayors against guns. this is a group that michael bloomberg, mayor of new york, is

involved with. [video clip] ♪ >> the nra once supported background checks. >> we think is reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal back contracts for every sale every gun show. no loopholes anywhere for anyone. >> america can do this for us. please. from mayorss the ad against guns. it will take a look and an nra ad in a few moments. daybreak on twitter -- dave writes on twitter -- james from indiana, an independent scholar. -- caller. caller: i'm glad you have me on the air today since it is good friday. i have a few subjects of want to

touch on don't cut me off. i have several different subjects i want to touch on. both parties, either one, they say they want to protect the children. why are we so bent on abortion so much? is that protecting the children? say the least that can protect themselves are the children. wouldn't you say a woman in her trimester. --her trimester host: will also be talking about abortion in a few minutes. or like on together for us. how does it relate to guns? caller: aren't all these ads about protecting our children? host: what you think about gun- control legislation? caller: there are a lot of countries that protect their children with guns.

switzerland, for instance, every member of the family knows how the shooting down from nine years old. they have absolutely no violent crime. they should automatic weapons, each and every year. a good lawrence in texas, democratic caller. andet's go to lawrence texas, a democratic color. -- caller. caller: divided we stand, only because of obama. that has been added more than anything. every republican being set on obama. obama has no control. congress has control. control, republicans seem to believe that is going to be a civil war in america, why they've got to have guns. we have people with guns of all

races that need to have universal background checks. it does not bother people and to what comes into their family. then it becomes a problem. any race, we need those small loss that the president is trying to get through -- laws that the president is trying to get through. if we want to save america, let's do that. on twitter -- an advocate for the second amendment. let's hear from bill from oklahoma, a republican. all, i want tof appreciate the c-span station. i want to appreciate your contribution. people need to realize that the second amendment, dianne feinstein missed the point

completely when she was addressing the second amendment, thinking we are talking about hunting, gun rights for hunters -- people skirt that issue. there was well-armed military at the time the second amendment was committed, was introduced. they were talking about citizens' rights to keep arms. the part about shall not be infringed upon, all of congress has missed that. obama has missed that. people's rights to have a gun or not have a gun, that is something that we earned through our forefathers. it shall not be infringed upon. all the laws we can create in the world will not change the problem we have. i am a former police officer. host: what you see is the problem? caller: people are you going to do what they're going to do. getting guns illegally. we can change the laws -- the only laws that will affect

anybody are the ones they're trying to push for today, that will affect law-abiding citizens. criminals will still get the guns. host: let's listen to an nra ad. [video clip] >> in a recent closed-door speech to donors, politicians, and media, bill clinton spoke about american gun owners. all of these people, all they've got is their hunting and fishing or they've been listening to this up for so long, they believe it all. we've already heard from barack obama posta conference toro of san francisco elisse. it is not surprising then they get better, they cling to guns or religion. the arrogance of their superiority requires this for a bottle. they do not give us rights. protect us. we pay to protect them. we are free already. as long as we have the second

amendment, we always will. we are america. our politicians are only as powerful as we allow them to be. ♪ ad from the nra. chris is our next caller in texas on our independent line. caller: good morning. host: what did you think of the ad we saw? sides -- ielievable both sides have problems because they do not listen to each other. yes, there are people that should not have guns and there should be people who have any guns out there want. a problem with the background decideis who gets to where the disqualifying line is, where medical conditions and we lose the right, who is qualified to make that decision, just like

the no-fly list? what does it take to get off of it? how do dispute something, if and dr. minute diagnosis against made a doctor diagnosis against you? host: what are your thoughts on how that should be framed? should be left up to a committee? should there be a head doctor who makes the decisions and set the standards? that when i'm not exactly sure. i personally believe that everybody ought to have a gun and carry one. and everybody would be cool. abundant power and respect. -- be equal. everyone would have power and

respect. host: would you change anything about existing gun laws? caller: kinney to enforce the gun laws. danny to stop making it political statements. - they need to stop making political statements. thomas on our facebook page, and one from shannon -- james writes -- you can join the conversation by going to work facebook page and looking for c-span. william and ohio, a democrat. caller: good morning. thank you foresees an. one thing i would like to say is, how much of this argument is

based on false premises? just like the previous caller said, we need to enforce the existing laws. look at chicago. one of the highest crime rates in the country, yet they have one of the lowest rates of prosecution in the country. is actually going down. if they would start taking these guns away from gangbangers and other people, the crime rate would go further. there would be no argument for further gun control. on theed the polls screen, how many people favor standard background checks. in need to ask a question there, how many people are in favor of background checks if it includes gun registration? if you put that in there, you watch how that poll number pulls down. host: let's look at the polls from cbs news. this is generally asking americans whether they would like to see stricter gun laws,

47% said yes, that number is down from the immediate aftermath of the newtown killings back in december. 39% said people lost a cent. 11% said to weaken the gumballs. gary in north carolina, republican. caller:, for taking my call. -- thank yo ufor taking my call. we have a problem with guns, but it will somebody wants to call something, they can use almost anything, a machete, a pitchfork.sh cook, a it is a problem with mental health. i do not know how to address it. i do not think, is, i think they're just going to be more aggravation. host: what about proposals that would change the number of shots one can get off quickly, the number of clips, things like

that? you talked about a sword being able to do damage, but you see a relationship or contrast between what a sword can do and five minutes vs. what a gun can do in five minutes? host: it is a load faster. it is still not a problem. that is probably good thing, to ban some of the clips. i do not see why you need 50 rounds or anything like that. thing.the mental health in host: what would you do to fix it? caller: i don't really know. that somebody is sick, they should not have guns around them. i don't know the answer. a shotgun, i didn't

need any background checks for it. you can do one shot and killed 10 of 15 people if they are standing close. i do not know what the answer is. i think congress, they've got tough egg here. i do not know what they can do to fix it. host: are you a gun owner, and may i ask? yes, i've been around them all my life. i was taught to respect it and to be careful with it. also, i believe somebody tearing my door down, i would be able to get them out without them telling my family. your. on the news every night, somebody kicking the door in -- news everyt on the

night, somebody kicking the door in. my point is that guns are not the only way to kill. as far as the magazines -- there are a lot of questions. host: some members of congress withustling -- wrestling the questions you're asking. senator mark o. rubio, republican of florida, and rentalr james in hoff buster any new restrictions on guns. the two senators added their signatures to a letter sent to majority leader harry reid that outlines the senator's intent to oppose any legislation that infringes on the american people's constitutional right to bear arms. let's take a look at the other republicans who have offered this letter. we see senator ted cruz, senator

lee, and senator paul. charles is our next caller in colorado on our independent line. caller: good morning. i have friends on the right and left on this gun control issue. people needme that to come realization that the reason why people are getting killed, gangs get these guns. i hear the chicago argument all the time about how chicago has some of the strongest gun control rules, but on the other hand, i have at the iron highway. you can go to mississippi, by a ton of guns, no background chicago,ring them to sulphur twice as much. -- sell them for twice as

much. isould say a good solution that a car is a dangerous thing. you drive it, you have to be safe with it, you can use it as a weapon. why not have the same kind of checks for guns where you have to go to a course, you have to meet with a police officer before you can get a license to purchase a gun, and every time you purchase a gun, just like a car, there is an identification number that is registered to you? you can own all the guns you want, largest clips you want, you own a gun, you sell the gun, you have to make sure whoever you solitude transfers the license number. that kills all the stock purchases, gangs going to gun shows and get an automatic guy had a gunaw a

show with a hidden camera, and in 45 minutes, he bought six automatic weapons in el paso. he walked out the door. there were two guys in the parking lot wanted to buy the guns from him. down in another show, rio day janeiro, how they are preparing for the olympics, because the get-go section of town borders for the olympics is says,to be -- one guy where do think we get all these guns from? it says, made in connecticut. people aree gun throwing out fear based things about the government taking your guns away, the government breaking down your door and doing this, second amendment rights. you know, i hate to tell these people, if our government went sorry, buddy --,

bushmaster ak-47 or is not going to work against drones or anything like that. host: you come from fort collins. has your opinion changed since the shooting at the movie ateater in aurora or columbine high school almost 15 years ago? caller: no. americans are reactionary people. we see something, we react. then we go off and forget about it and when something else happens, there will be another tragedy, then we react, and we forget about it. i do not buy into that kind of thinking. host: i want to share, on twitter from joseph -- -- a comment on twitter from jos eph --

looking at a couple other stories. this is a piece in the baltimore nakamura -- looking at a couple of other stories in the news, this is from the economy and business section of "the washington post" -- moving on to this piece in the new york times -- we will talk more about this issue on "washington journal" on monday morning when "the wall street journal reporter elisse -- when "theki

wall street journal" reporter joins us. is aiming to require cleaner gas. the obama administration is moving forward with tough new standards to cut pollution from cars. another environmental issue in "the wall street journal," states cooling to renewable energy efforts -- you can see here state renewable energy standards, states in what had no standards, states in yellow have voluntary ones, and in green, they have either mandates or bills to scaled-back a mandate. we will get one last call on the issue of president obama are new

in the call for legislation. michael is in miami, a democrat. caller: high. i was wondering how if you guys could read the second amendment on air when these people use a second amendment rights -- the public should know what it really means. host: why is that important to you? caller: a lot of people do not know what their rights really are. as ase it all the time defense for their views. they do not really know what it means or what it says. host: let's read this from the cornell university law school of law regulated militia being necessary to the security of our free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. what does that mean to you? caller: you got to be part of a

militia to protect what is important to you. if you own a gun, you should be able to be part of a more shot or a small army to protect yourself against the government. the government has bigger weapons. you cannot go up against a government with just a machine gun. host: that is all for our calls on this topic. coming up next, we will hear from bloomberg news reporter esme deprez on abortion laws in states throughout the nation. we'll also talk with gregory angelo, executive director of the log cabin republicans, a gay republican group. we will be right back. ♪

>> dallas city hall, a scuffle. >> november 24, 1963, a dallas nightclub operator jack ruby shot and killed lee harvey oswald. a man arrested for the assassination of president john f. kennedy hear firsthand about the retrial from juror -- from a juror who kept a diary of the proceedings. >> i felt very sorry for jack ruby. he looked along. he looked forlorn. he looked pitiful. he never said anything. he never smiled. i made eye contact with them. his eyes were never fixed. he had a vacant stare, i guess you would say. he looked like he was feeling his way through the world. i felt sorry for him.

>> this saturday at 7:15, part of american history tv on c- span 3 . >> what you do about the israeli-palestinian conflict? untiltook the president june 2012 to develop an answer. his answer was, two states for two peoples. a jewish state and a palestinian state. but only when the palestinian state will be a decent, stable, peaceful, democratic, non- corrupt government. first, that means arafat has got to go. gives ant abrams inside view to the bush administration's successes and failures with the middle east peace process. part of booktv and c-span2. "washington journal" continues.

follow stateprez and local government issues for bloomberg news. at line of a story recently wrote, north carolina governor signs at the earliest u.s. abortion limit. what did the governor of north dakota assigned? bill and whated a is called a heartbeat and. this is effectively out and as early as six weeks into a presidency, as soon as the fetus's heart can be detected. it is the narrowest window of any band that we have in states inht now -- ban that we have states right now. this goes even earlier than arkansas. host: there are two other aspects relating to the kind of fetuses that can be aborted. what are those? four abortion-e related pieces of legislation

that got past north dakota. we've got a heart beat bill, the six week ban -- we have been admitting privilege bill. that is maybe more threatening to the one clinic that north dakota still has in terms of shutting it down. the third one we have is a ban on abortions sought for sex selection or genetic abnormalities like down syndrome. and we have a fourth, which will beto the voters, it will what is called a personhood resolution, which would essentially to endow a fertilized egg with all the rights and privileges of living human beings. those measures it all law abortion completely. host: in bloomberg business week, you look at what happens to a woman in north dakota that

wants an abortion. what happens to a woman that wants an abortion? does she have other options? is it legal for to go outside the state? guest: is important to note that these lots will north dakota have not taken effect yet. there will not take effect until august 1. we definitely think there'll be plenty of legal challenges. these laws off and gets paid in court. do not take effect until years down the line. -- they do not take effect until years down the line. north dakota and women still have that one clinic. the state is big. the one clinic is in fargo. we already see north dakota women leaving the state if they live and other parts of it to get an abortion. you have states like wyoming and south dakota and even canada that women can drive to. absolutely, people can go out of state to get the abortion. there are different laws

depending on states. south dakota would require you to take two trips. it really comes down to personal economics, whether a woman has a car and can afford to take the time off from work and to get child care to go to seek that abortion oscar. host: joining us for a local perspective as dave thompson. he's the director of prairie public radio in north dakota. good morning. how has this law been received on the ground? guest: it is definitely pulverizing. we have people who are saying, good for north dakota. a lot of people are saying, where are we going as a state? it is evenly divided from the calls and e-mails i have talked to. host: how did this get through the legislature? guest: the governor stayed out of it until the end. it was through the efforts of the pro-life legislators, the people who are anti-abortion who

pushed this legislation through. as you see, there have been a number of bills enacted, some that might be even contradictory. however, they were basically saying to everybody who would listen that it is time to challenge roe v. wade. onre were passionate debates the house and senate floors. they did not pass by that much. if the governor decided to veto the bill, they would not have overridden the veto. the governor decided to go along and say okay, let's be the state that will challenge roe v date -- roe v wade. host: we're talking to the news director at the prairie public radio in north dakota. we other guest esme deprez might see legal challenges to this. what are the expectations, david? guest: the expectations are we will see legal challenges when the bells have been signed,

everything settles down. they will now be lax august 1. i know of two efforts that are being considered right now to take them to court somehow. either in state courts for a stay of the law or federal court for rick -- for a writ. there is another avenue, referring the loss. that is being talked about quite openly. if you get a referral gulling, wants to get the language approved that could be on the ballot, then you could get enough signatures to stay the bill from going into effect. that effort is also being talked about. host: dave thompson, tell us about your governor, details about how this affects him politically in your state record -- your state. telling me,tel is governor, this might weaken him of it. he may have packed too far to

the right. there are people in the republican caucus in the legislature who are questioning what he has done. if i could take a moment and say therethey're telling me -- was a constitutional amendment that will go on the ballot in 2014 that is kind of a personhood amendment that says all life should be protected, from birth until thdeath, from conception until death -- the governor could have done that, we will be to the other bells, but see what happens in 2014 when the amendment is voted on in 2014. he did not do that. he went further. there are republicans questioning whether or not he was talking too far to the right. host: dave thompson, thank you for talking to us early this morning. let's follow up on

a person could bill, something mr. thompson mentioned. what is that? seek: personhood measures to endow fertilized eggs with all the rights and privileges of living human being. what this does is that it effectively equates abortion with murder and thereby outlaw's it in that way. we have seen this play out in mississippi. voters already weighed in on this issue. two years ago, they rejected a personhood amendment. in colorado, this has also been rejected. if north dakota voters to approve of personhood measure, this would be the first date to have such a thing. it is important to note that personhood measures are not pushed typically by the mainstream anti-abortion groups. this is really something new, this isg we are seeing, not necessarily constitutional. abortionam anti-

movements do not see this as a good way to tackle the heart of roe v wade and to get abortions no longer possible in this country. host: we're talking about north dakota. you mentioned arkansas. what are other states that are seeing more conservative abortion measures passed and going into law? guest: we have seen a ton of state activity in recent breeze -- recent years. record numbers of loss. -- laws. 20 weak bands are very popular. arizona passed a ban recently, which bans abortion at 20 weeks, which is a little bit earlier than the standard of the 20-24 week sat in roe v wade. like north dakota, we have other states passing laws that require abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.

depending on where you live, that can be hard to obtain. hospitals do not want to get into the middle of that, that sticky political fight, deciding whether abortion is obtainable in the state. mississippi had a law passed last year -- it is really getting challenged in court -- it is another state where there is just one abortion clinic left. thoset clinic cannot get admitting privileges, then they may have to shut down. another very popular law we have seen is to require abortions be provided in ambulatory surgical centers. those have certain holly requirements and requirements about sinks and closets. michigan passed along last year it like that. that is going to be very expensive for providers to conform to and therefore may put them out of business. host:

host: mark is our first caller. st. paul, democrat. caller: i am noticing that the republicans have a double standard about a bigger government, but yet they want to take away women's rights, have control of their body, and put fetuses before them. it is getting really frustrating seeing the republicans changing everything that don't need to be changed. it is just really frustrating. are: esme deprez, how republicans generally looking at the issue of abortion? in did it come up campaign2012? what are the platform believes of the party? at the federal level it is hard to enact these laws, so republicans have tried to stay

away from talking too much about abortion because at the federal level we will not see a lot of action. president obama believes strongly in a woman having the right to an abortion if she wants one. comments about rape got republicans into trouble and those are related. we have seen the activity of the state level. what the caller spoke to was an argument put forward by pro- abortion rights groups that the government really shouldn't be in the business of telling a woman what to do when she is faced with a medical decision. on the other hand, of course, you have for public and saying we have an interest in protecting women, and interest in protecting the fetus, and therefore they passed these laws based on those beliefs. host: virginia, republican caller. hi, rick. caller: it's greg. host: ok, hi, greg. caller: how are you doing this morning ?

thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. i think this is so sad. it is just tearing away the rights of the most vulnerable in for furtheringnt a political agenda and keeping popular with the liberal democrats in a very self- righteous, selfish way that goes totally contrary to the bible. it is sad, and i see a president that fights so strong for the gun rights and using kids on the stage as a ploy when there is thousands among thousands of innocent, vulnerable children being every year, and it is totally contrary to the bible, and i would like to say to ms.

esme that in the end, not you, ma'am, and your constituents, but god will prevail -- host: esme is and have constituents. she is a journalist. is that advice you would give to those who support abortion rights? caller: that is absolutely a message i would give to all of them, yes, ma'am. host: ok, let's go to esme deprez for response. guest: you know, this issue divides america like a few others. the caller obviously spoke to believe that many people have. in north dakota, most recently when these bills were being debated on the floors, there were lawmakers who cited scripture and they often cite their religious beliefs for wanting to protect the unborn child or the fetus, and therefore this is a source of the lyrical agreement and

religion definitely plays into this issue. look at the gallup poll un-american opinions about abortion and roe v wade. would you like to see the supreme court overturn the 1973 roe v wade decision or not? , 29% say yes, 18% have no opinion. the no opinion level is the highest level gallup has reported on this question dating back to 1989. , any thoughts on how public opinion has shifted or stay the same over the years? guest: i think polls have showed that this is a very divisive issue, and you get into labels that really don't describe the full feelings of a lot of americans. you have the pro-choice label versus the pro-life label, when many people are in between and

many people can see the arguments on both sides. i don't think that we are going to see resolution or strong majority opinions, any time on either side. offers his opinion on twitter. into a nissan next caller in pasadena, maryland, on our independent line. think this was a good thing that passed in north becausehe cause, -- like the lady mentioned, it could be taken up in the courts and the challenge. believingl opinion is in life, the gritty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, including the unborn. i would like to see this challenge in court and hopefully get held up, because life is for all, particularly for the

unborn. i feel that abortion in the case of convenience is just completely selfish. you are talking about the laws regarding the cases of rape and incest and all that. and suchand that issues need to be handled and dealt with delicately. however, in the case of just abortion for the sake of convenience, i think it is just a little bit selfish and we need to consider the unborn in those matters. host: ok. esme deprez, our color talked about wanting to see the courts take this issue up. guest: right, that is what we're seeing out of north dakota. when the governor signed this bill, he he was clear in his intentions that we don't know if the law is constitutional, referring to the six week

heartbeat ban, but maybe we will find out. important to note that mainstream abortion groups are not pushing these six-week roe v-- bans are it what wade told us is that the woman has the right terminate her pregnancy until viability, which the previous twitterer reference, up to 24 weeks. a six-week ban goes beyond that. mainstream abortion groups don't see the ideological makeup of the court favorable to them right now, which is the reason why they don't typically push lawweek bans because if a like this makes it to the supreme court, they don't think they have a favorable opinion to be handed down. it is really a tension we are seeing layout and the antiabortion movement, going to

the supreme court and having r oe challenged and those who want to wait a little bit until the ideological makeup is more favorable to them and just kind of chip away at the law until then. physguy on is twitter. we saw a different perspective in "the washington post" this week. cecile richards did an interview .ith sarah cliff she says she sees a few reasons to worry. "i think something will go to the supreme court rate i hope the court will honor judicial resident, the right women and men have had for 40 years, and won't let it be taken away. timere groups like

parenthood talking about what is happening in north dakota -- how are groups like planned parenthood talking about what is happening in north dakota? are they able to fund raise? guest: absolutely. you have the americans of both liberties union, -- american civil liberties union, groups that do pro bono work that are not affiliated with planned parenthood and do not have the lyrical muscle that planned parenthood does, and of course you have planned parenthood challenging these laws. some of them have said we are going to challenge these laws and we are ready to fight on behalf of the remaining clinic there in fargo. they call these laws blatantly unconstitutional -- for example , with the six-week and, it contravenes the legal precedent set in roe v wade. they say they are dangerous and

they don't let women make the decision and don't take into consideration the choices and factors that may weigh on that woman when she is making the decision. they are very mobilizing around these laws and getting prepared to fight them very hard. host: esme deprez is a reporter with bloomberg news. she joins us from new york city and she writes for both bloomberg and "business week." democrats line -- hi, joe. caller: happy friday, happy easter to everybody. i am a pro-lifer. we don't call ourselves antiabortionists. it is a pro-life movement. i applaud north dakota and the governor 40 is doing. i hope that they are successful in their endeavors to reverse these terrible laws that are killing our unborn children.

and again, thank you, and happy good friday and happy easter to everyone. , any thoughts?z caller: i think his views are obviously shared by the lawmakers who passed these laws in north dakota and others who are passing similar laws in other states. north dakota is a real possibility for becoming the first state with no abortion clinic. again, there is just one clinic in the state right now. it is in fargo. if that shuts down, it would be the first with no clinic, which would be a huge symbolic victory for antiabortion advocates. we will see what happens. host: here are the states considering a heartbeat bill. kansas, kentucky, mississippi, ohio, wyoming. we see one tweet talking about this.

right, we did see that amendment get voted down in mississippi. the concern a lot of people race is that these written very vaguely. we don't totally know what would be the effect. in north dakota we saw a debate surrounding the personhood measure, that it may shut off some forms of contraception, may make it really hard for in vitro fertilization doctors to operate normally as they do now. the state medical association says this may complicate end-of- life care, it may complicate organ donation. the personhood bills are really an unknown right now. we don't know what effect they would have. as far as the heartbeat dance, insee those being debated

five states right now. this is kind of the hottest bill right now in the abortion legislation. this debate is not over. we saw arkansas in march passed a 12-week ban. sames based on some of the thoughts, of when the heartbeat can be protected. it is the question of how you detect the heartbeat. in six-week it is necessary to do a transvaginal ultrasound. in 12 weeks you can do in a typical abdominal ultrasound. host: here is a visual image of the states considering heartbeat bills. north dakota just signed that into law. you can see the details about arkansas' law. this is from "the new york times."

our next caller. this one is in poland, maine. janet on our independent line. hi, janet. caller: good morning. i will say a bit of these sting -- some of these things with a bit of tongue-in-cheek. i grew up in the 40s and 50s, when modesty was something that was held in society. i remember the first time i saw men in washington talking about abortion. i was master think that men were talking about something so -- i was embarrassed to think that men were talking about something so personal to women. and i have a problem with the term pro-life. if they tell me they are against the death penalty, i believe they are pro-life. i prefer pro-choice and anti- choice. andve a question for esme, it is this -- i grew up catholic

and i seem to remember that they said that life -- there was not a soul or whatever until so many weeks in a pregnancy. i don't know the answer to that, but up until abortion became an and at that time, when we started talking about abortion in the 1960s, one of my friends said she thought that life began when you took your first breath. if god came down and told me when there was a soul or life began or what, i would believe it. here is another thing that , when they quote the bible, whether talking about same-sex marriage or abortion. what happens when the muslim population overtakes the christian population? does that mean we base all our decisions on the karen -- koran now? host: all right, janet, let's go

to esme deprez on the issues you brought up. guest: this issue of when life begins is at the heart of a lot of these debates. a lot of lawmakers pushing the antiabortion bills will tell you that life begins at conception and therefore, whatever -- they based that reasoning sometimes on religious doctrine, sometimes on other things. obviously you have the opposing side saying that life begins when you take your first breath or life begins when a fetus is viable outside the womb. it is such a hotbed for political disagreement, and it depends on your personal views about when it begins. being seeing the laws formed around those beliefs about when life does begin. host: here are comments on facebook.

we will keep sharing your thoughts and opinions on twitter. .cspanwj we will share those tweets on the air. .igh, elise -- hi, elise caller: my problem with this subject -- look at paul ryan's abortion bill di your so much about unborn children, and yet when these children are born, they want nothing to do with them. they want to take away food and housing. 30 times now congress voted down the health care bill. they are so self-righteous that they are going to tell women how they should live their lives. i'm really tired of males, males, males, and that goes for

christian right, the vatican, and republican men. i am astounded at the republican women that put up with this. i sometimes wonder what goes on in their brains. host: tell us about what is happening in the -- in wisconsin, what the conversation is like concerning abortion. a big: we used to be blue state. now it has turned red, parts are purple. we have a governor, scott walker, he is trying to take away everything. he is taking white unions, trying to take away early voting -- he is taking away unions, trying to take away early voting, anything that would benefit democrats. it is the same as every republican governor. ,nd the vaginal ultrasound that is absolutely sickening. what is withonder these men to come up with such things. , what ise deprez

happening with these purple states? guest: we have a six states with republican control in both chambers of the legislature. those are the states we look to typically to see if bills are going to sail through much easier, obviously, when you have one party in control. in the so-called purple states, you have political disagreements so it is not as clear that they will be passing legislation related to abortion. and it is interesting to note that very few states are trying to actually expand abortion rights, which is the other side of this argument. we have governor cuomo here in new york trying to liberalize a bit the abortion laws. currently the law says it can criminalize doctors who perform abortions after 24 weeks if the health of the mother is in question and not just simply the life of the mother.

he is trying to get the health aspect of that codified into law so doctors may not be as afraid as he thinks they may be now to perform abortion at later stages in the pregnancy. but new york is really an anomaly in this. most states are trying to restrict the procedure as opposed to expand access or make it easier for a woman to get. host: crystal river, florida. emily is a republican could -- emily is a republican. good morning, emily. caller: good morning. first i want to comment on the previous color, mentioned she feels the vaginal ultrasounds are disgusting. i have had three very high risk pregnancies, and i had to have vaginal ultrasounds to see if the pregnancy is viable. --i disagree with that area

i disagree with that, and i was not uncomfortable at all. toot of the -- i don't want say women, but the young girls, are the ones getting abortions. they, first of all, are not old enough or mature enough to even have sex, and they don't have the mental capacity to choose that in life. they say it is going to ruin their life. i got pregnant when i was 16, and i got pregnant with twins. unfortunately, i had a basketball scholarship and i gave up everything. unfortunately i went into premature labor and they both died after birth. -- i couldn't have children afterwards, but 10 years later i was able to get pregnant and that is why all my pregnancies were high risk. .ut i am not for abortion

roe v wade was based on a lie. the woman said she was raped, when she later came out and said she wasn't. that was based on a lie, and that is what started the whole abortion rights. was, feel that if america say, or 80% of america wasn't for abortion, that our congress, our political, our politics wouldn't be for abortion. i think it is all about getting votes. you go with the higher opinions of the united states -- host: all right, let's get a response. guest: the caller brings up a number of interesting points.

we have certainly seen this vaginal ultrasound debate, and you sharp focus in recent years -- this vaginal ultrasound debate come into sharp focus in recent years, whether the governor needs to mandate a vaginal ultrasound versus in a domino ultrasound. that has political heat around it. you bring up the fact that girls are having sex at age's that are not mature enough to have sex or have the mental capacity to have sex. i think the opposing argument would simply be that if a girl does not have the mental capacity to have sex i the mentl capacity to be a mother? -- if a girlously does not have the mental capacity to have sex, doesn't she have the mental capacity to be a mother? there is all busy disagreeing argument on both sides trade -- there is obviously disagreeing arguments on both sides. the color's opposition to abortion, we are seeing that play out in many states and a lot of people filled the family.

-- feel differently. at the history of abortion law in this country since the caller brought up roe v wade. i'm a 1962 to 1973, before roe v wade, 17 states amended their laws to allow abortion in cases such as rape, health risks and fetal damage. only pennsylvania failed to lift a total ban on the procedure. then we sought roe v wade in 1972 -- then we saw roe v wade in 1973. the justices ruled that the u.s. constitution guarantees women a right to privacy in deciding whether to end pregnancy. he states longer can prohibit abortion -- states can no longer prohibit abortion except in cases of viability.

even then, states must allow abortions when necessary to save a woman's life or protect her health. how have we seen the law worked on by states since that jacko u.s. out -- how have we seen the law worked on by states since then? effective v wade right now compared to what states are doing? guest: there were two very landmark cases at the high court related to abortion. obviously roe v wade was the first. and we saw in 1992 a case called land parenthood -- planned parenthood v. casey, and what the high court decided in 1992 is that states have the right to restrict -- to pass certain restrictions, and certain restrictions are legal. what the court said is that the state cannot impose an undue burden or great obstacle to a woman trying to get an abortion.

that is exactly what we are seeing states try -- kind of test. we are seeing states test what the undue burden limit really means, and how far states can go in legislating the procedure. host: and i am sharing with you these images and this timeline .rom pewforum.org there are details about planned parenthood v. casxey. kate in iowa on our democrats line. hi, kate. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i would like to share as a democrat, as a young female, i was pro-abortion, and now as a woman, wife, and and as a mother, i am against abortion. i do not think i have the right to impose my will on someone. saying that, i think one of the fundamental things that is being

forgotten in this discussion is mentioning the woman that was behind roe v wade and how she has, since having had that abortion, changed her opinion to becoming pro-life. i do not think any female, as --r review scholars stated, as your previous college stated, has the ability to know the medical or emotional or spiritual ramifications, regardless of her religion, has on her body or mentality or any other part of the rest of her life. that choice, which our society has basically taken down to it is an interesting point to make because as we have segued from listening to the decision on gun control to this life decision

and how we are protecting children in one aspect, what about protecting babies from the scissors used during partial- birth abortions or any other procedures? a lot of people don't want to think about those things, but if you ever do research on it and look into the subject and take it from a human perspective, i am a humane as being and we have inalienable rights, people can understand or maybe get more in-depth understanding of what is actually transpiring when they make these life altering decisions. host: ok, thank you, kate, for sharing your perspective. let's get a response from esme deprez. guest: i think the caller's political -- personal evolution shows one is been happening over the past few years. lawmakers are acting on their beliefs against abortion and we

are seeing more laws passed at the state level regarding this. one thing i thought was really interesting in north dakota, a lot of these laws do not have exceptions for rape or incest. a number of years ago you could be -- many pro-life republicans would say "i am against abortion except when a woman has been raped or victim of incest or life or health of the mother is at risk. now we are seeing a loss to further and do not provide any exceptions. and do that go further not provide any exceptions. it ties closely to what the caller was describing about her own evolution on the topic. host: we are showing again from "bloomberg businessweek" where there are abortion clinics and facilities in the area. fargo, surrounding states, and canada. mike, republican caller. caller: i have a question for your guest and perhaps she could clear it up for me.

in relation to this law they are talking about in north dakota, i was under the understanding that you had to be at least six weeks pregnant just in order to have an abortion, and so therefore you cannot have one prior to six weeks and you cannot have fun after six weeks, then you cannot have 1 -- you cannot have one after six weeks, then you cannot have one. that was my question. guest: i think the caller raises a great point. a lot of women do not know if they are pregnant at six weeks. that is why the sole remaining clinic in the state is saying that we are going to be shut down, we are going to be put out of business if this law gets held up. effectively there will be no market for lack of a better term for the procedure. most women do not know they are pregnant at six weeks, and a lot of them do, but you don't necessarily act the next day. it might take some time for a woman to way her decision and

decide what she wants to do between the time she finds out she is pregnant and by the time she may decide to go through with an abortion. a six-we could ban -- the caller is right, it would be an year ban on all abortions in practice. host: here is what esme deprez at sixin bloomberg bid " weeks, the fetus is typically smaller in size than a dime, according to the mayo clinic." jane roe in roe v wade. "vanity fair" profiled earlier this year. hi, andrew. caller: people ring up a lot of the typical points, and it is important -- we are talking about life issues here. it is very important that we not only talk about life experiences, but we just have

to agree on objective criteria. i think the bottom line is this -- ethically, if there is any doubt -- we have all of these arguments about when life begins. if there is any doubt, shouldn't we resist the urge to perform these abortions? i know these are people in crisis, but people in crisis don't make decision -- don't make good decisions. that is why it takes all of us to look at each other in the face and say let's rally around here to do something better than this. your democratic caller who called earlier about republicans and pro-life and do not want to provide social services for these people -- well, that is a good starting point, because that is about protecting human dignity. but if we are going to protect human thing today, that humans have inalienable unity him and

every human being is unique, we have to start from the beginning, or society begins to fall apart from these mixed messages. host: andrew, we will leave it there and go to esme deprez for final thoughts. guest: i would just say to the caller that right, the point at when life begins is a major flash point in the discussion. it is hard to say that medically or ethnically -- or ethnically or religiously when life begins. we all have different opinions on that. he mentioned the question about when we should take care of life before a person is born or after. this comes down to economics in the state of north dakota as well. it raises an interesting question -- there is going to be a big legal fight in north dakota and all of the states challenging abortion laws. the state in north dakota, for example, is ready to spend that money to defend this case and

bring it all the way up to the supreme court. obviously, the opponents on the other side would say, let's spend that money elsewhere, let's spend the funds to litigate this case and spend it on the children who were already born and don't have enough food to eat at home. it is an ongoing political debate and we are seeing it play out in north dakota and all over the country right now. , a reportereprez for bloomberg news. you can see her stories at bloomberg's website, bloomberg .com. thanks for talking with us this morning. guest: thanks for having me. host: coming up next, we will talk to gregory angelo, head of the log cabin republicans. he will talk about the debate in the gop over same-sex marriage. and later, our "america by the numbers" segment seeks to separate fact from fiction when it comes to popular economic claims. we will be right back.

>> inspection, not wars! inspection, not wars! >> mr. secretary, we are going to put them down as undecided. [laughter] listen toirman, as i those comments, it struck me what a wonderful thing free- speech is. wheret was the hearing donald rumsfeld was making the justifications for attacking iraq. what you did in here in the clip were questions that we get a chance to ask him, which was how much money is halliburton going to make from this war? how many u.s. soldiers will be killed in this war? how many civilians will die in this venture?

i would like those questions answered now from somebody like donald rumsfeld. >> more from code pink cofounder medea benjamin, sunday on c-span's "q&a." emma it took the president until 2002 to develop an answer. the answer was to states for tuesday -- to states for two people, jewish state in palestinian state, but only when the palestinian state would be a decent, stable, peaceful, democratic, non-corrupt government. arafat hasmeans got to go. >> elliott abrams on the israeli-palestinian conflict, sunday at 10:00 eastern on c-

span2. "washington journal" continues. the: gregory angelo is head of log cabin republicans. tell us about log cabin republicans. guest: log cabin republicans was founded in 1978 in response to ronald reagan and is opposition to an amendment that, not unlike a position eight, would have made it in for a teacher to be openly gay in schools. , at tremendous political risk, came out and said it was unnecessary, and he opposed it. after ronald reagan came out in opposition to it, the proposition failed. a local group of gay republicans founded a local chapter and wanted to pay all my to the roots of a quality that the root publican party has -- roots of inequality that

the republican party has, and they chose the name log cabin republicans -- the roots of the quality that the republican party has, and they chose the name log cabin republicans trad. host: how would you make the case for the republican party and gay marriage? guest: you are seeing tremendous movement on this issue, allowing same-sex couples to engage in civil marriage partnerships. when it comes to the republican party, we have a bit of catch up we need to be doing in terms of getting with the times. there are a tremendous amount of younger voters and younger conservatives, younger republicans who support the freedom to marry. we feel republicans should come around on this issue. additionally, there is a lot of republicans out there who have opposition to same-sex marriage , specifically based on religious grounds.

people talking about their religious beliefs. i am trying to make the case to fellow republicans saying that they should support marriage equality. what i tell them is that we are not looking for the sacrament of holy matrimony to be administered to any same-sex couple. what we're looking for is civil marriage in the eyes of the government. one is a piece of paper that the government gives you, gives you the same rights and privileges and response abilities and, to be fair, burdens that had her sexual married couples have. the other is a sacrament that occurs in a house of worship. we are asking for the civil marriage partnership, not a sacrament of holy matrimony. talk if you would like to to gregory angelo, here are the numbers to call. marriage and gay marriage was an

issue on the republican party that form, opposition to gay marriage. here is what it was in 2012, heading into the election. guest: well, when it comes to the platform, you talk about place where the republican artie needs to be more caring, if it is going to be -- if it is going to win over gay voters. that language is an anchor around the neck of this party, individuals who want to be supportive of the principles of low taxes, less government, strong defense, saying i am on board with all those things, except that your that form is exclusionary not only to gay individuals, but there are some hostility there in that. . i would also say that regarding should bethat we

pursuing a federal marriage amendment, i think it is an absolute nonstarter, something that would never pass and something that i think would be an absolute disaster for the party if we continue to pursue this and continue to promote language promoting a federal marriage amendment. it is something that would force the 2014 election to be all about this issue. it is something that could force the 2016 election to be all about this issue. republicans that i know, regardless of where they might fall on the marriage issue, really want to be talking about jobs and the economy, because they know that is the greatest place where they are going to win over voters. host: gregory angelo, executive director of log cabin republicans. how does the log cabin republicans think of the supreme court weighing in on the defense of marriage act and proposition eight? defense ofrding the marriage act, we have long been lobbying for the respect for marriage act in congress, which

would overturn the defense of marriage act. we fear that section three of the defense of marriage act, which was being litigated in the supreme court this week, saying that for federal purposes, marriages only recognize between one man and one woman -- clearly we want that overturn. when it comes to proposition eight, there are a number of ways the court could rule. they could rule broadly and state that marriage equality should be the law of the land in all 50 states. they could rule narrowly and say that only california deserves marriage equality. they could uphold proposition eight -- i don't see that happening. talk aboutates proposition eight, how could the court possibly tell of the states how they should recognize marriage as people talk about the marriage being an institution regulated by the states throughout the history of the united states -- it is easy for me to fall back on that argument. it is easy for me as a resident

of the district of columbia, territory that allows marriage equality, to say of course the should be left to the states. but when i do that as a gay man, i am telling log cabin republicans members in california, some of whom have been married for decades, some of whom if opposition eight is upheld -- if proposition eight is upheld, the death tax would apply to them, so they have a financial interest in this, and they have an interest as same- sex couples, and it is difficult for me as a gay man to say you need to wait your turn. host: david in virginia beach on a democrats line. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good morning. caller: i want to point out an inconsistency with republican arguments on same-sex marriage and at how it relates to abortion. they don't want to redefine marriage between -- to have it apply to people of the same-sex,

and yet yet with abortion they are completely fine with redefining what a person is in terms of the personhood statutes. if you remember from yesterday, or the supreme court cases that were argued this week, nobody could come up with any real arms -- any real harms that would arrive from the redefinition of marriage, and yet there aren't one million different consequences that would arrive from the redefinition of a person in terms of state planning, how lie a fertilized egg -- u sag recognize as a person, how do they receive -- a fertilized egg recognized as a person, how do they receive benefits through a will, welfare benefits to a fertilized egg, things like that. it is a big inconsistency and something republicans should reflect on. i try not to what

do is to conflate pro-life and the marriage equality lobbying that is going on. i don't see very much overlap with them. traditionally, the republican party, certainly these socially conservative wing of the republican party, the abortion issue and the same-sex marriage issue have been intertwined. you can only be a social conservative if you are pro-life and if you are against same-sex marriage. is, you are seeing now especially among younger conservatives, a disentangling of those issues. you still have younger conservatives who are admittedly pro-life and adamantly pro-life. but they differ from their parents in the sense that they are supportive of the rights of committed same-sex couples to engage in civil marriage partnerships. they don't see any harm that is happening because they're gay friends are getting married or their gay friends that could get married, they don't see them as

a threat to the institution of marriage, while they are still holding to pro-life principles. wonk here is a piece from blog. they talk about how the two issues are getting different poll numbers when you ask republicans as well as americans generally. "thereh kliff notes, were two major social issues this week, the gay arguments before the supreme court and the north dakota abortion law, but they are decoupled and attitude. if they used to go hand-in-hand am at today they don't. attitudes on gay marriage have shifted dramatically, to the point that the attitudes of the young look nothing like the attitudes of the old. 78% of millennial's support gay marriage."

what is your response to that? guest: with all due respect to smiley, that is not the case. i find myself far more accepted as a gay man in republican circles than i do as a republican in gay circles. that is simply for the fact that republicans are interested in having civil debates about issues we might disagree on, but when it comes to core republican principles of less government, strong national offense, second amendment rights, low taxes, low spending , empowering the individual, free enterprise, we see eye to eye. i personally agree with 95% of the republican party platform. i obviously take strong exception to the parts of a platform that states there should be a federal marriage amendment. but when i look at 95% of the republican principles i agree

with and then i look at the democratic party platform and i find myself disagreeing with 95% of them, it does not make much sense for me to be on the democratic team. host: gregory angelo is the executive to rector of log cabin republicans. david is on the independent line. caller: i want to thank greg for pointing out the recent comedy of being more accepted within republican circles. the liberal agenda is so a certain way that if you disagree, they immediately want to throw you down the river and tell you you are a mental midget if you don't agree with liberal policies. like with abortion, as soon as you bring up what about the man's rights, they scoff at you much like the father has zero say in what happens to the baby until it is born, then pay up, sucker. host: and getting into our topic now about gay issues and republicans and the issues that lop cabin republicans -- log

cabin republicans are working on, what do you think about the potential of gay republicans working with other gay rights groups around the country? perhaps more liberal ones? caller: you know, i am not sure how that is going to work. i don't know the workings of the gay movement, so to speak. my exposure to gay people -- i do a lot of restaurant work, and in the restaurant industry, and i have softened my view on them because i found out they are real people just like me and have a sense of humor and are fun people to be around. host: let's leave it there and go to greg lee -- gregory angelo. guest: first, thanks for the call under support, david. idea, you mentioned the of working with other gay advocacy organizations, and we have a history of at times collaborating with other gay advocacy organizations thomas certainly when it comes to issues we agree with like marriage equality.

are happy to partner up. i come to this position as executive director of log cabin republicans from being the share of log cabin republicans in new york state and being having the -- having the honor of working with the coalition of gay at this is the groups -- of gay advocacy groups. we were the only organization, log cabin republicans, the only partisan organization that was involved in that lobbying process. in order to get republican votes, the governor realized he needed to work with log cabin republicans. what that tommy is that there are certainly times when we need to be a part of this guy like you make conservative case for marriage equality, because organizations on the left do not know how to make that conservative case for marriage equality. are part protections

of marriage equality legislation. a lot of liberal groups say that that should not be a part of the equation. , it does.me it does not need to be a game where it is only one or the other. in new york state, i was witness myself, to republicans who said that marriage equality is coming to this state, whether it is a democratic controlled chamber or republican-controlled chamber. they will pass a marriage equality bill that runs roughshod over religious liberties. so respecting religious liberty, that is the role we play when we are collaborating with allied organizations. host: marielle, new haven, connecticut, democrats line. , everyone. my feelings on all things concerning the issues --

concerning gay issues is that i feel that as a citizen of this country and as someone who pays taxes, they should have access to all the benefits provided to everyone. now, as far as the ,spect of log cabin republicans you know, i have tried to keep up with the gay issues, and from time to time i find myself why didn't the log cabin republicans be more supportive of different issues that have come on the scene? -- not atotal lack of total lack, but the communication problem is something that the log cabin

republicans should deal with. a detailsyou give us about some of the issues that have come up? it is in regard to pass the senate votes, where the communications of -- where the communications have come up where different groups have supported the different sides of a certain bill that has come up. i find myself looking -- well, what did the log cabin republicans have to say on this? host: are you talking specifically about issues related to the gay community or about broader issues? caller: i think it encompasses both, because how can you separate them? if you address one issue, usually in tangles with another issue, and all issues that are concerning the citizens of this country should be addressed. host: ok, let's get a response

from mr. angelo. guest: my pleasure. for a quick rundown of the issues that we are engaging on and that we have engaged on, i would encourage you and all the viewers to go to our website, l ogcabin.org. you can find out about the bills that we have an still are directly elaborating -- directly lobbying on. theontinue to lobby for respect for marriage act, which was overturned -- which would overturn the defense of marriage act. we are on the hill lobbying for the violence against women act. we continue to work for the uniting american families act, which would address couples in any copperheads of immigration reform -- any comprehensive immigration reform package. and we continue to lobby for the nondiscrimination act, to make sure that he built on not

discharged from their jobs -- to make sure that people are not discharged from their jobs for sexual orientation. and we played a significant role in the repeal of don't ask don't tell. in 2004 -- as you may recall, in 2010, an appellate decision ended up upholding a lame-duck democratic congress' feet to the fire and the president's feet to the fire to put it to a vote, which would not have been possible without republican support. log cabin republicans was just dax was directly responsible through the lobbying efforts. that, we areo working for republican policies and to -- and principles that advocate strong national defense and strong economy through lowering the tax burden on americans. host: let's hear from a republican caller. john isn't of carolina. welcome. caller -- john is in north

carolina. welcome. caller: thank you for having me. i am very young. i am in my 20s. and i'm african american, a black republican. i agree with civil unions. i don't have a problem with the term "civil unions." i come across this all the time -- what is the difference between a civil union and in my personal opinion, marriage? god trade according to the book i am not going to name, a man should leave his mother and father and cleave to a woman. many conservatives think that is the definition of marriage. some individuals get into this historical because they use the term "one man, one woman." i have studied history a lot and i find that to be not accurate because some men have gone with multiple women. i support civil unions. what i would like to see is congress vote to strengthen

civil unions and make it so that -- arenions are not even not different from a marriage, and some individuals have made the statement, "you are for gay marriage, you are just not for calling it gay marriage." i guess that is kind of my statement, but marriage involves god. some people say that gay people believe in god, and that is true thir at is true. my answer to that, based upon the definition of a male being married to a female, if two individuals of the same-sex decide to get married, that would be a disqualification, just like i am in my 20s and i cannot run for president -- host: a disqualification for what? being a republican or going to have it? -- going to heaven? caller: i'm sorry.

i should have explained myself better, forgive me, man. i disqualification for marriage. ?ost: do you support polygamy you said that was based on your reading of the bible. caller: no come a man. .- no, ma'am i do not believe in polygamy. host: let's go to gregory angelo for a response. guest: thanks, john. first of all, i understand how difficult it can be -- as a gay man, in republican circles, dealing with democratic friends , you mentioned you have challenges yourself explaining why you are were -- you are a republican. keep up the good fight there. i am a proud gay man. i am also a proud christian man.

as i mentioned earlier, i think that religious institutions and religious liberties should be respected just as much as independent liberty. but when it comes to civil marriage for same-sex marriage couples and talking about civil unions, making the distinction there, to me that is separate but equal. that is not something i can stand for personally. stands not something we for as an organization of log cabin republicans. ,hen i talk about marriage because i want to directly address the biblical references you make -- when i talk about marriage, i always make sure to refer to it as civil marriage between committed same-sex couples, because when you make that distinction, it reminds people that what we are fighting for his government recordation of our unions, government protection of -- government recognition of our unions, government protection of our marriage.