progressive in the case of women's rights. we weigh the different laws on the books and states and we tally them up. there are some states that have what we call refusal laws, which allow for health-care corporations to refuse to provide certain services. other states have really progressive loss and we simply bounce them out. host: california is the only state on your list to get an a plus. guest: that is right. as a california native, i'm very proud of that. host: bill is coming in from pittsburgh. caller: good morning. i'm calling because it have all e views views, i would say extremist, talking past each other on this issue. that a womanelt should have the opportunity to

plan when she would have her children. but at the same time, at some point, you do end up ending a human life. ask if your guest -- at what point during the just station process guest: i would never use the word homicide. the supreme court looked at this question when they issued the roe way decision in 1973. and we agreed with the court in that time. a pregnancy involves the progression of life. when a pregnancy is viable at that point, the state has a greater interest in protecting

the potential for life. the roe decision said that states can restrict or ban abortion after that point. that is this basically the law of the land across the state today. most states have restrictions that women can only terminate pregnancies at that point if there's something in the pregnancy that threatens her life for her health. that is something we agree with, we think that's a reasonable decision. it is also worth saying that the american public agrees. seven in 10 americans believe abortion should be safe and legal and we believe that is the proper balance of rights. host: it was 43 years ago today that the roe v, wade case was decided by the supreme court. this past fall, c-span put on a program called "landmark cases," and one of the cases was the roe

v. wade case. because of the anniversary, we are replaying this "landmark cases" roe v. wade" tonight at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. arlene is on our washington, d.c., democrats' line. caller: good morning. i want to make a comment. if i could, i will ask a question as well. i find it surprising that there is even a debate about whether your employer can be involved in your reproductive rights. i would think it would akin to you being hired by naral and saying they had everyone on birth control and if you get pregnant, all the employees should have an abortion. of course, that would not happen because naral is pro-choice. but that would be an employee or

being involved in your abortion -- i'm sorry, in your reproductive rights. my question was, if naral is going to do a primary endorsement like planned parenthood did? thank you. guest: do you mean in the presidential election? caller: yes. guest: naral has proudly endorsed hillary clinton for president. yes, indeed. host: why? guest: first of all, let me say that we are very lucky that we have three fully pro-choice candidates on the democratic side. with so much at stake with the supreme court and all the restrictions that our opponents are trying to impose on reproductive freedom, we think it is very clear that hillary clinton stands head and shoulders above others on her commitment to this issue. she has always put women front center in our governing philosophy and she will be a leader on this issue as president. host: do you have to be pro-choice to work at naral? guest: that's a great question.

i'm confident that everyone who works at naral is pro-choice but perhaps the more interesting settle the is does everyone personally believe they might choose abortion if they were confronted with that question? that is really the difference between us and the other side. we actually would support a woman who makes that decision. we would just as fiercely support a woman who says that is not the decision i will make for myself, but i'm not prepared to let anyone else make that decision for me. so, yes, probably pro-choice, proudly pro-choice, but your views on abortion and your family are your own. host: does naral receive federal money? guest: no, naral does not receive federal money. host: what is your relationship with planned parenthood? guest: we are proud to stand as an ally with planned parenthood and a sister organization. host: but separate? guest: totally separate. host: is it necessary for planned parenthood to receive federal moneys? guest: absolutely.

planned parenthood is one of the most important, respected, and vital providers of women's health services in the whole country, and they are absolutely essential to the net worth of network of health care that is available to them. host: jeff is in akron, on the independent line. go ahead, sir. caller: a couple of comments. she needs to understand that if you say your progressive or living in a progressive society. that's a euphemism for communism for starts. i also want to ask her, but you took my question in front of me. i want to know how they are funded if not funded federally? to say that planned parenthood is a great provider for women's health care, all they do is an abortion factory. they do not do anything else. there are no mammograms.

all they are is an abortion factory. they charge women money and then get money for the aborted fetuses. to stand there and say that is what you stand for is great. i think you're right to choose is fine, but i do not want to have the federal government pay for it. i'm was looking at your report card and see your comments. host: why are you against abortion? why do you feel you have a right to tell a woman she cannot have an abortion? caller: i did not mention that at all. i said everyone does have a right to choose. my issue is having the federal government subsidize it. host: thank you, sir. i apologize for mischaracterizing your statement. guest: thank you very much for your comments. i appreciate the fact that you are pro-choice. i'm afraid to say that your characterization of planned parenthood services simply is

not true. i was a client of planned parenthood for contraceptive services. the vast majority of what planned parenthood does is preventive health care. they are also a proud abortion provider, but that is not factually accurate. the reason they are so vital is because this is where women can go for, not only abortion services, but for contraceptive services. we should all agree that is vitally important whatever side of the abortion question we are on. to the question of federal funding, we will simply have to disagree about that. abortion is a constitutional right. it's a uniquely important service that women need to have available. because without it, we cannot participate fully in society. the supreme court looked at that question and said it's that important. it's just different and more important. constitutional rights do not depend on how much money you make in this country or where you get your health insurance. some women do get the health insurance through the government.

it is just not appropriate then for politicians to step in and say, well, we will support the service, but not that service. that is a two-tiered system where rich women get access to some kinds of health care and other women don't. that is, i think, fundamentally un-american, and i hope you will reconsider that. host: how is naral funded? guest: thank you. with private donations and foundations. host: harry in iowa, a republican. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. thank you for having the program today on the national right to life day in the capital. i hope that god is with everybody in the east coast as we face this blizzard and that everyone remains safe. because i am a charter member of lutherans for life. i was an ordained pastor.

my wife was having a troubled pregnancy, and the doctor said the dnc and have the products of conception removed. that was our child, our daughter, five months in her mother's womb. we were not able to receive our child's body for burial because it was a product of conception. that is why i'm a charter member of lutherans for life and kansas right for life. i was serving at a parish and kansas. jumping forward to now, i had an invitation to visit with pope francis.

the lutheran church missouri synod president matthew harrison to washington, d.c. -- host: let's wrap this up and make your final statement. caller: i was in d.c. with senator grassley and senator cruz on pro-life work. a pro-choice man and his wife took me and my daughters, kidnapped and attempted to shoot me and stab me. i'm in witness protection. host: we are going to leave your comments stand there. the march for life is today. it will be live online at c-span.org. you will be able to watch it later on the air. it will be live online at c-span.org.

lydia is in upper marlboro, maryland, democrats' lives. caller: good morning, peter. this drives me crazy. i'm a 79-year-old woman who was married and had four children and four live births. i lost my husband to domestic violence and he deserted our children. i moved to another state and refused to pay child support. i worked two jobs to raise my children. i get so angry when i hear men calling up in men most of the time when there's a pregnancy, they don't take any responsibility for them. they desert their girlfriends and then the woman has to make a decision. no woman wakes up in the morning and decides she's gone to change her hair color and go have an abortion. when did women's reproductive rights become a political football? i get so sick of men. you don't get pregnant. you don't carry children. you don't give birth. i get so sick of men. every time the subject comes up

most of the calls this morning have come from men. this is not the 17th century. we are not the property of our fathers. we are not the property of our husbands. we are smart. we are independent. we are courageous. we are brave and we have a right to make our own decision. it is a decision between a woman, her god, and her doctor. if it is murder, the bible says we all stand before god to be judged. thank you very much. guest: thanks for for your courage and your comments. it is no surprise, i wholeheartedly agree that pregnancy and the decisions around pregnancy, especially unplanned pregnancies, profoundly impact women and their ability to participate fully in society and to raise healthy families. this is so profoundly personal and fundamental ability to our being whole people.

it's a decision that has to reside with us and whomever we choose to consult. thank you for your bravery. host: does the father in your view have a right to opinion or voice and it comes to having an abortion? guest: yeah, i absolutely believe that women should consult with their partners if that is appropriate for them. in many cases, that is exactly what happens. in some cases, it's not. i believe that when women make that decision about who to consult, they are wise about it. they know who is going to give them good advice. at the end of the day, the decision has to be theirs. host: wasn't there recently a frozen embryo case? what did you think of the outcome of that case? guest: i would rather comment on what i find most interesting about that case. right-to-life organizations stepped in and tried to influence whether the embryos were preserved or not. i find that very fascinating because it tells me that those organizations are not just organizations are not just anti-abortion. what they are about is trying to

influence families to shape them to look only the way they feel comfortable. i do not think anyone among us or certainly anyone reasonable among us would believe that a frozen embryo is akin to murder. this is about controlling how families choose to grow. that is a space that no other person should have a right to get into. host: what is naral doing today while the march is going on at the mall? guest: there are members of congress making floor statements, but mostly we are busy organizing in communities across the country and looking forward to the supreme court cases coming up this year and organizing for the president race. host: helene, texas. caller: it is now oklahoma. eufaula, oklahoma. don't ever apologize because you do not misinterpret the

statement that that man said. you had every right to say what you had to say because he is dead wrong. it just shows his ignorance and the uneducated populace. that first woman who called him, o my lord, please, lady, why don't you go to one of those clinics and inform yourself first of all? i would advise all those people for the right to life, go ahead, go to the hospitals, and comfort those babies who are born to addicted mothers, all right? become foster parents to all those unwanted children that are being born, all right? go ahead and mourm and cry over the child that has been abused and neglected and died a miserable, horrible death.

i will tell you, in oklahoma, that occurs on a daily basis. hats off to you, ms. crane, for your calm demeanor even if you are being called a murderer. you are the perfect vice president for your organization because, yes, indeed, they do offer health care, because the health care system is so broken in the united states, even though i president has been trying hard. host: all right, in kileen, texas. it's time for cynthia. go ahead with your question or comment for donna crane of naral. caller: i have three questions that take about 15 seconds. i've read that there are one million people who would like to adopt children.

the second question is, what percentage of abortions save the life of the mother? the third question is, do you believe that a fertilized egg is a person if left alone to develop? host: before we get donna crane's answer, do you believe that a fertilized egg is a person if left to develop? caller: sure. host: why? caller: they become a person. it's common sense. host: donna crane? guest: i will take them in reverse order. i believe a fertilized egg has the potential to become a person. i believe it is not a fully developed person. the percentage of abortions that are necessary for the life of the woman is very small. for the health of the woman, it's larger. for all the other reasons that a woman would feel strongly that at that moment in time that she cannot bring a child into the

world is much larger than that. i enthusiastically support adoption services. naral would be the first organization to defend them if they were under attack the way legal abortion is under attack. if a woman feel strongly that is the course she wants to choose, if she has a planned or unplanned pregnancy, we applaud her and we defend that right. host: the next call for donna crane comes from jerry in georgia. you are on "washington journal." caller: thank you very much. i want to make a comment and i have a question. the comment is that i grew up in a baptist church in south georgia. they get all riled up about abortion, but the church was in rockthrowing distance of children living in dire poverty and would do nothing about it. my question is why did the european countries and other civilized countries not have this problem?

guest: that's a great question. thank you very much. i'm afraid i do not feel like i have a lot of expertise about the european countries and how they approach this issue. but what i do know is that i've experienced a lot of what you have observed. i'm sorry to hear that about your local church. there are certainly lots of church that do the opposite and take good care of people living in poverty. that said, it's really distressing that the people on the other side of this debate so frequently seem to think that there is a right to life until birth. after that, you're on your own. these are the people that do not step forward and urge the government to spend more money or, let's say, the appropriate amount of money for education and health care and programs that would actually helped lift poor children and families out of poverty. there is a real hypocrisy there and that is really distressing.

host: donna crane, what did you think of the videos that david delaiden and his group put out about fetal tissue sales with planned parenthood? guest: i did watch all the videos. i think certainly any kind of explicit talk about medical procedures is very difficult to watch. it seems quite clear now that the videos were doctored. we have not seen the full context. it has been pretty thoroughly discredited, which seems like what it was intended to do. i think our opponents for years have wanted to try to bar planned parenthood for participating in many health care programs, and this seems like another piece of ammunition in that battle. host: you referred to the pro-life movement as opponents. again, we are going to go back that there are two sides with no shared space?

guest: i think there is lots of shared space. i think that mr. delaiden and his colleagues are the fringe of that movement. when you talk to most americans, what they believe that abortion should be safe and legal and we could be doing a lot more to help women with health care and information so that we can prevent as much as possible the need for abortion. there will always be a need for abortion and we will defend it. we have an unusually high unintended pregnancy rate and there's more we can do about that. host: iowa, please go ahead with your question or comment for donna crane of naral. caller: how are you doing? good morning. i'm an independent, and i'm pretty much a progressive. i'm a fiscal conservative. i'm pro choice. i think that's a no-brainer. i do not think anybody should have the right to tell another human being what they can do

with her body and with their own property. if i paint a picture and i want to take it into my backyard and burn it in a pile, that's my right to do so. i cannot go to my neighbor's house and take their painting off their wall and burn it. that is against the law. but i should be able to do whatever i want with my own property. pro choice, no-brainer. i also heard your guest, you asked the guest if her organization was backing a candidate for president. she said, yes, hillary clinton. then you asked her why, and she kind of hesitated for quite a while. but i think it is obvious the reason she is backing hillary clinton is because hillary clinton is a woman. i am for women's rights 100%.

but she said feminism is having a resurgence and she thought that was a great thing. maybe in some respects, it is. i think a lot of feminist today -- feminists today are different from the feminists of before. i'm old enough to remember many of the feminist from the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's. host: we are going to leave it there and get a response from donna crane. guest: let me clarify the record. there is no hesitation whatsoever. we are very proudly supporting hillary clinton for president. her gender does not especially make a difference. it is the leadership she has shown throughout her life. she has made women central to her governing philosophy, and we believe she will be a leader on this issue and gender does not matter much one way or the other. host: you said all three

democratic candidates you could see supporting. guest: they are all pro-choice, which is a great thing to have happen. i would love to see pro-choice candidates on the republican side. that is not the case this year, but i would love to see that. host: stella, who -- this is what she puts on her twitter feed. america.she asks the question, explain the double homicide homicide issue, please. guest: i could guess at what that might mean. it is possible what she is referring to is a series of laws in which when a woman who is pregnant is harmed, there are considered to be two independent legal victims of that crime. we fully believe when a pregnant woman is harmed, that is worse and that the penalty should reflect that additional severity, the brutality of that crime. we don't believe there are two

legal victims in that case because primarily those types of laws are offered by our opponents as they are looking to change the legal foundation of abortion rights by creating what we might call personhood rights and creating legal tension. we believe those crimes should be punished fully. but we don't believe they should become entangled in the abortion debate which is what happens we identify a second legal person. i hope i got that question right. host: when a man decides to tell you his view on abortion, does he have a right? guest: definitely. he is an american citizen or a world citizen. he has the right to an opinion. that is absolutely true. does he have the right to have his view supersede mine if i'm making a personal decision?

no, no one does. a woman does not either. host: evelyn, chicago, democrat, you have the last word with donna crane. caller: good morning, and thank you. in my medical profession, any tissue the donor has to sign a release. in catholic hospitals, you have a choice. if you stay, you state. if not, he found another place to have an abortion. third thing, i witnessed women getting abortions in the alleys coming into us and dying. i am so sad to hear all of this stuff being brought up again. and also, what happens to male contraception? thank you. host: evelyn, before you hang up, could you explain what you meant by your medical profession? what was your position? caller: i am a registered nurse.

i came to chicago to take the specialty. also, i entered the hospice unit. i have 45 years of all of this. host: prior to 1973, and in 1973, you were 41 years old, what experience had you had seeing the results? where did women go for so-called illegal abortions at that time? caller: alleys, a lot of them came from the alleys. host: do you mean a doctor who would do that or somebody who was not a doctor? caller: no, no, this was all purely illegal. i don't know. a midwife? i have no idea. we used to have quite a few of those. host: that is evelyn in chicago. guest: thank you very much for your courage. host: donna crane is the vice

president for policy for naral pro-choice america. announcer: bradley olson discusses the u.s. stock market and the impact on oil prices and energy sector. lack looks, harold pol at single-payer health care. the plan is currently endorsed by democratic presidential candidate bernie sanders. plus or facebook comment and tweets. live atton journal" 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. all persons having business before the honorable, the supreme court of the united states are admonished to give their attention. announcer: "landmark cases,"

exploring the constitutional dramas between several supreme court decisions. >> number 759. chief justice burger: we will hear arguments for number 18, roe v. wade. >> quite often in many of our most famous decisions, the court took quite unpopular cases. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in this society of 310 million different people who help stick together because they believe in the rule of law. host: good evening, and welcome to c-span's "landmark cases." tonight, the 12th and final in our history series, the 1973 roe v. wade decision, a decision that continues to rock the american political landscape.