unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c., and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. host: steven aden is the general counsel for americans united for life. here to talk is about the nominee for the supreme court. talk about the scope of the work you do? guest: we are the oldest national pro-life adversary organization started two years before roe v. wade. we are active in state legislatures. host: what was the reaction when you found out that a supreme court opening came up, or ticker live when it comes to the issues you advocate? guest: high energy. i think iran screaming down the hall.

honestly, a moment where we have been building up to this for a while. and everybody had been talking about it. and when the moment happens, it is surreal. we had prepared for a long time to talk about potential nominees. host: what is high on your list about kavanaugh? guest: he has been experienced federal appeals court judge. court for 12 years. it is often referred to as the nation's second-highest court to the supreme court because so many of the justices have come from that court in d.c. and it involves a lot of federal issues. a lot of interplay with congress. is theond thing commitment to constitutionalism. when we look at a judge, we want theee what the terms of

nation's charter made it to mean. host: are you hoping he will be the vote that turns over roe v. wade? that roe v.oint is best example of judicial activism that you can imagine. how what justice white said on dissent was true. finding a right that hadn't been in their in the constitution before and imposing that on all 50 states. we think the judicial activism is not only misguided but is passe. judges tople look for look at what the constitution means.

host: the americans united for we ares -- writing, ready know about him, dangerous to women. he lavished praise on the dissent of roe v. wade. forcing a young immigrant woman to fulfill her pregnancy. his career as a , pushing forrative gutting the protections of roe v. wade on the bench. guest: first of all, yield law issued his support. saying that not only had he been a terrific mentor for young women going into the ranks of judicial clerks but she couldn't think of a better mentor for her own daughter. hadtruth is that he has

more female law clerks than male. and he sent a number of them to supreme court. he is a terrific role model. a true gentleman. and these attacks are desperate. host: he has criticized roe v. wade. guest: there was only one case in which the d.c. circuit court called to has been look at abortion rights. and it is the case of having to do with an illegal immigrant to anten abortion while in office of resettlement re-holding facility. the d.c.ote first for circuit, the judges that will against her, that first of all, she didn't have a right to have the title government spend its resources to assist her to get an abortion. clear law. that has been law for 30 years. the supreme court has said as much in cases.

secondly, he said there was no reason why she couldn't work this out. hering a sponsor to help through the process of obtaining an abortion. he was reasonable and principled. and the full d.c. circuit court of appeals, all 10 judges, took over the case and issued a new opinion, setting aside brett kavanaugh's position to roll in her favor. later on, the supreme court vacated that decision. the d.c. circuit isn't the date, there are not many cases where the court is called those cases and in one of those future u.s., he took a middle line which hardly makes him a danger to women. continue our conversation with our guest, steven aden. if you want to ask questions

you canett kavanaugh, do so. if you support his decision, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001. and you can tweet us thoughts. what is your organization doing, particularly when it comes to the congressional aspect? guest: we have a lot of information on our website. to our contact in the senate, telling them why we think he is well-qualified. and we will be signing a letter from our staff and our president to the senate judiciary committee, urging them to confirm him. host: two people on that committee are senator michalski and senator collins. talk about where you see this playing out?

guest: it seems that democrats are not open-minded about this candidate. and because the senate is closely divided, republican senators could be the deciding vote. them hasne of expressed opposition. both are open-minded. on the other hand, at least one democratic senator has signaled that he is open to vote for this nominee. the vote may be similar to what we saw for justice neil gorsuch. 54 votes received from republicans and democrats. after initial opposition, several democrats will see that this is a qualified constitutionalist nominee. host: we result had a about -- on

>> i joked that i feel like i am back in law school. i want to gauge for myself. and i know that i will not be able to ask him a question on, x case, id you do in wouldn't ask it and he wouldn't answer. so what i'm trying to do is discern if judge kavanagh has the qualities that i think we are looking for in a judge. the judicial temperament, the character, the intelligence, the balance. the desire to truly follow the , rather than move things in a predetermined or political outcome. so i want to know. -- do seaview press had end

how does he view precedent. guest: she is exactly right. the people wonder nominee who explains judicial temperament. is who we have in brett kavanaugh. and she is right -- would you askedrn roe v. wade isn't and wouldn't be answered if it was. instead we have a proxy engagement where conservatives look for someone committed to the constitutional text. it is supposed to be amended by the winds and views of one justice or another. so in judge kavanagh, we have someone who is committed to understanding the constitution and the original text and not superimposing his own text or judgment on the document.

host: what if roe versus wade was overturned? guest: a lot of people don't understand what roe was. know that it even had to do with abortion. so if you ask people, do you it is anoe v. wade, automatic yes because they think it is women's rights. court were to support roe v. wade that it will be the question of the regulation of abortion sent back to the states, where we think it belongs. it are to be subject to political forces, the legislators and different states ought to be subject to accountability, to the people back home on an issue.

an issue so important and so intensely felt. host: it could be going back to states. guest: 10 states would have restrictions on abortion before 20 weeks. only 10. -- 18 would continue to have abortion on demand. and in the middle you would have states where it is up for grabs. there would be a lot of litigation and intense debate in the state house but we welcome debate. thehink that is what constitution spells out for an issue as closely and intensely felt, passionately, by the people. aden is our guest.

his website, you could see more work on the justice brett kavanaugh. from florida, muriel, go ahead. -- come caller: good morning. years ago, when they had this, people used hangers. today there is so much protection out there that a woman could take care of herself. plus, it would be better for the wouldn't get germs and everything else if she didn't use protection. for theirwe pay abortion? the abortion clinic makes millions of dollars that they give to the democratic party. that is not fair.

is, why all these people get abortions when there is so much good stuff out there to use for a woman to protect herself? good points. let me try to separate the rhetoric from the reality. opponents of supreme court nominees by republican presidents have frequently said that the nominee would set aside abortion rights. davidaid that about souter and sandra day o'connor and anthony kennedy and those three justices got on the court and they formed the plurality that end up voting to affirm roe v. wade. that they always say this to propose a republican nominee and often it doesn't reflect reality.

think that folks often remain open-minded about brett kavanaugh. they have to see that he is an official. he is a leader in the judiciary and a good human being. i hope that folks keep an open mind. i host: this is joe from new jersey. good morning. is an important season for voting. it is important for democrats to be engaged. as far as women's issues, i don't believe that i should be engaged in women's issues because i'm not a woman. and i don't think it's my what they should do. they should be educated to make their own decisions. we don't have to make a decision for a woman.

menendez, think about the election. host: thank you. guest: 1, i think this is an issue that impacts everyone and should impact everyone. as the father of six children and married to the most incredible woman i've ever known, childbearing is much tougher for the woman bit it is a full-time job for both and it got to be. it doesn't give men a right to dominate women over and impose their opinion but it does mean that we need to understand the issue. i understand the issue and i look closely, biology helps a lot. when you look at life in the womb, it is human life from conception. arises, should some human lives deserve less protection than others?

for life, weted work to protect human life from conception to natural death because all life is precious. thank you. caller: good morning. [indiscernible] i would like to ask the gentleman what the united for life -- [indiscernible] himsoundingly agree with about the belief of life, the beginning of life is when conception happens. no matter which side you are on, it may be helpful. host: she asks a little bit

about your organization and spoke a little bit at the end towards the meaning of life, guest: we have been around since 1971 and we have participated in every supreme court case in abortion since then. we stand for the right to life from conception to natural death. every human being is precious. every human life deserves protection. that is why the work in the state court and legislature -- it comes to the possibility of overturning this, it would go to the supreme court. are there courses in the -- are there cases in the lower courts that could determine this? that i think it is a myth there needs to be a legislation to determine roe v. wade.

that isn't so. every case involving abortion asked the justices to apply the standard for abortion -- that the supreme court is already cleared out in the 1992 case. an invitationis to the justices to decide whether roe v. wade continues to or not.e, in 1992, the last time the supreme court took a good look at roe v. wade, that case contains three provisions of a pennsylvania abortion statute with informed consent regulations and general motors regulations. so there are several kinds of cases working their way up to the case -- to the courts right now. one is out of arkansas which involves the regulation of a chemical abortion, calling for

them to have transfer agreements to transfer a woman to the hospital when an emergency happens. another is the prenatal nondiscrimination act which outlaws giving an abortion on the basis of the gender of the baby. areas,tionally in urban abortions are secured because the parents just don't want the gender of the baby and we think that is tragic. and these bills would outlaw that. there are other kinds of vehicles. host: is there a best case that could serve the purpose? guest: i think the best case would confirm the states important constitutional interest in protecting women's health and safety. because for the most part, abortion is practiced substandard.

you have one in philadelphia where he was charged with murder, there are multiple providers like that across the country. roe saved usat from back alley abortions isn't true. -- theson for that reason that god's now happened in philadelphia was because the health apartment in philadelphia thought that because there was a constitutional right to abortion, they couldn't inspect. didn't15 years they inspect abortion clinics because they thought it would impede access. that is wrong. states have constitutional authority to regulate abortion like any other health care. you will,st cases, if ifthe one set of form that you will, are the ones that

informed. caller: thank you for c-span. kavanagh'sudge nomination for two reasons. the first is the way he was selected. we had special interest groups and we had a president to pick tim. and that should be done another way. we shouldn't have special interest groups picking who is going to serve on the supreme court. the second reason i oppose is because i don't believe any judge should have a lifetime job. we even have in our county court , they are elected for 10 years all they have to do is get elected again, you vote for them and that is victoria -- and that is it.

is completelyem corrupt at every level from the county, state, appeals court. guest: respectfully, i don't think the nation's courts are corrupt. i think there is a lot of integrity of their. i thinksonal opinion, the reason the framers of the constitution made federal judge from voting, secure from forcible retirement, letting them stay in as judges however long they want, is because they wanted to insulate them from pressure. i think that is a good thing. don't think it is proper, looking up the whole picture. the truth is that the president's attorneys got lists sources.t of from the federal society at heritage foundation.

they got lists from adf and other organizations. a lot of organizations had their input into what became the president's list. from which he promised he would to thee a justice supreme court. he kept his promise. that is new and different and unique in the annals of political history. i think it is a good thing. it gave everyone a chance to vet nominees to the supreme court had the opportunity to make the call. i think it has been healthy for the system. high on judge kavanagh and he was high on our list, yes. host: let's go to emmett who supports the nomination. caller: the democrats said they were not going to elect anybody who is nominated by trump.

how come there is so much animosity between the democrats and republicans and why is it that they hate trump so much that they would say that no matter who he nominates, they wouldn't have anything to do with it. guest: good questions. part of the problem is that the supreme court has been politicized in a way that was never intended by the framers of the constitution. so a lot of social issues decidedg abortion get by the supreme court, ultimately. say are referred to as the nation's abortion control board. because every case involving abortion regulations comes potentially, to the supreme court for review. i don't think that is the way it was intended and i think it tends to polarize the american

people. consequently, the american people come to the process polarized and it becomes a fight over which nominees might better reinforce our political judgments. that isn't the way was intended to be. host: what is the appetite to take on another abortion case? guest: difficult to say. i think it signaled with the recent texas case two years ago. i haven't seen any signals recently. the supreme court has been upond the port -- called texas and louisiana to decide whether the state and constitution defined from the medicaid program. there has been a split in the federal courts of appeals, a 5-2 appeal and the supreme court is likely to take up that issue.

host: it centers around anthony kennedy deciding to leave. can you scope out his role on abortion cases? guest: it can't be understated on both sides. justice kennedy wrote the opinion for the majority of the court that upheld the federal partial-birth ban act. strong language and affirming constitutional also someand empathetic language, talking about the difficult decision that women have to make and how hard it is when they discover for the first time that they --owed their doctor to according to justice kennedy -- jamd the baby out and scissors into the baby's head and suck its brains out." rightsst amendment talk to womenc --

without hindrance from city ordinances. talking about how all they want hold them a pamphlet. on the other case he was silent on the case two years ago as the justice stephen breyer, writing for new york, struck down a lot law.xas' abortion he has been a wild card, a mystery man, to some degree. and i think that conservatives are looking for somebody who is more reliably constitutionalist, perhaps pro-abortion forces are looking for somebody more reliably pro-abortion. hard to say. host: we go to philadelphia to someone who opposes. go ahead.

caller: thank you for c-span. the reason it is so politicized is a recent move by the republicans blocking a sitting president from nominating a , which isurt justice traveling on the constitution. the public only cares about the constitution when it affects them. as it comes to abortion and brett kavanaugh, generally speaking, on abortion, i don't understand why people such as yourself want to tell other people what to do. if you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one. don't tell other people how to live. damn about your own god business. we shouldn't allow a president under investigation to nominate anybody for anything. the man is a scumbag. guest: i think you refer to the

nomination of merrick garland by president obama which was stopped by republicans in congress, because we were in the middle of a presidential the republicans in congress thought it was better or the winner of the election to get the nomination. if hillary clinton had won the election than you would say something different. are coming from because a lot of people say that but there is a dividing line between those who understand that life in the womb is human life as those who don't see it yet. let me encourage you to be open-minded and see it. life in the womb is life. i don't think that some human lives deserve more protection than others.

that is why a lot of my friends are. i disagree. host: a religious issue, do you see it that way? guest: no. some are animated by religious issues. some are secularists. it is a matter of basic biology and human rights. areave a lot of friends who atheists and you are not religious but they recognize in the womb is human life and all life deserves protection. host: would you say that americans united for life is not religiously animated? we have people on staff who are religious. and we have people on staff, not so much. not a religious

organization. we look at things from a constitutional perspective. from a human rights perspective from a medical and biological perspective. host: we hear from a viewer in monro. this is nate. go ahead. caller: i would like to ask why this should be a state issue? ?ost: repeat that one more time state issue?s it a if it is a life, it should be a federal government issue. are againstou abortion, are you against

and high-techyos pregnancies? these would be rich women who get those procedures. but women who come to abortion come to it out of desperation. many want to control impoverished women's bodies, they like to force them on a gurney and struck them down for nine months, force them to have the child to continue with the pregnancy that they may not mentally, physically, emotionally, psychologically be up for. about thef you care refugee children who were kidnapped and never see their parents again? guest: let me assure you that i think hard about this as a father of six. and i think that it is an important issue for all of us.

lives areause all human lives, including lives in the womb, no human life deserves less rejection. that is why a lot of people i know in the movement are pro-life. -- a supreme court case in 1965 that first started the whole line of cases we called due process. griswold held that a connecticut law allowing the use of contraceptives by couples is unconstitutional. i'm not here to opine on griswold. for people have different views. the supreme court took that right to privacy and in 1973, reason and precedent

and created new rights for abortions. whatever you think about the right to contraception and privacy, i don't think it should include the right to destroy innocent human life in the womb. host: morgan opposes the nomination. go ahead. caller: thank you. i'm against brett kavanaugh's nomination for different reason because hedon't -- doesn't believe a sitting president should be indicted for crime, which is why trump picked him. you care about life outside the womb? the only time we hear about you people is about abortion when a child hasn't been born. but when they are out of the womb, being shot down by police in the back, unarmed, children being taken from parents, we never hear from you people about children who are here, living and breathing, suffering

horribly. you care so much about life -- can you explain to me why? guest: i hear that sometimes. why do pro-life only care about people in the womb and not after that but it is false. centerslife pregnancy and abortion centers. pregnancy centers outnumber abortion facilities. doing good work on a charitable basis. keith.et's go to

caller: i am against abortion. it is -- like an alien. disgusting. host: from our oppose line, barbara? caller: i have the answer for our previous caller -- how come there is so much animosity between democrats and republicans? the answer is because a supreme court seat was stolen by the republicans and they have no qualms about it. that is why there is animosity. the other thing is gentleman said is that we thought it was better to wait until after the the lastto appoint

justice? the constitution doesn't give to maket wing the right law just because they think something is better. host: do you have a question related to pro-life? caller: weekend control when a supreme court justice dies. even if it is his last day in office, he has the right to make that. guest: senate leadership felt that was the better -- folder was better to decide.

host: there was a decision -- what do you think about those statistics and what do you attribute that to? pregnanciesumber of resulting in abortion is as low today in 1972. it has dropped to magically. large spike in the number of abortions during the 1970's. it dropped to magically. at an ever-increasing rate. womenk this shows that can live without abortion. conference at the heritage successful women, women who have done well in life came to talk about how they've achieved what they have achieved

without a right to abortion. women don't need abortion. host: this is ann in san diego. caller: i support the nomination. ask, couldn't we bring -- amething of abortion cruel and unusual punishment? feeling pain. democrats should realize that a lot of the mexicans are guest: at some point, babies in the womb feel pain. being pulled him from limb. scientists differ about that point.

we know that early preemies born at 22 weeks feel pain and respond to stimuli like we do. it is the reason why the house abortion at 20op weeks. the senate didn't go along with that. we help they will take a -- take that up again. america is one of the most radical nations in the world when it comes to late term abortions. vietnam and north korea, we allow abortion at 20 weeks and it is time for that to stop. scientists generally agree that babies feel pain. host: could congress passed legislation to put protections back in place?

what is the likelihood? is hard to say. there is a lot of energy in the the sakeregulate for of women's health and safety. in some states there is energy to limit abortion, two very early just asian. is so much activity in the states that congress doesn't feel it is necessary to regulate. i think that is what is happening. think the principle congressional legislation that we have seen with the abortion act would stop the gruesome and terrific active partial abortion. it has been few and far between so far. host: one more call. caller: my question is, since have an organization so for

life, what do you do after life? guys in support of the criminal justice system? the way schools are, communities? me, it is ironic that you guys fight for the baby but once the baby comes out, there's nothing. and the other thing is that you stated that the last president, that it was in the middle of the election but the election was over one year away. the republicans didn't allow nominate merrick garland. guest: many people in the pro-life movement are active in churches and support pregnancy centers. there is an extensive network of people out there and i encourage

you to get to know and become involved in this. there are four times as many pro-life centers as there are abortion centers. they are staffed by women who care hill, asow to capitol committee'sudiciary subcommittee on federal courts looks at the structure of the federal court system and potential ways to restructure it. law professors and a federal willls court judge testify. the hearing has been delayed as committee votea on spending for 2019. we expect to start in just a moment. live coverage from the dirksen senate office building on capitol hill, here on c-span.

chatter] ible

chapter] ible chatter]