mark milley testify about defense department authorities related to civilian law-enforcement. 5:00 p.m., our campaign 2020 coverage includes joe biden and massachusetts senator elizabeth warren discussing the reopening of schools amid the coronavirus pandemic. on c-span2 at 10:00 a.m. eastern, the house appropriations committee considers legislation that sets 2021 spending levels for the state department, foreign operations, agriculture, and military construction. coming up on "washington journal," author and syndicated columnist cal thomas talks about president trump's reelection campaign. also, democratic congressman chuy garcia of illinois talks about the state of u.s.-mexico relations following the mexican president's recent visit with president trump at the white

house. and later, advancing health equity founder and ceo dr. uche blackstock joins us to discuss covid-19's impact on minority communities. ♪ another ruling on the affordable care act, the supreme court ruled 7-2 yesterday in favor of a 2017 trump administration rule extending the exemption to the affordable care act's birth-control mandate. it is thursday, july 9, 2020. good morning, and welcome to "washington journal." we open the show and ask whether -- support employers decided denying contraceptive health care to employees. here is how to join the

conversation. if you support the exemptions, two of 2-74s 8-8000. two-748-pose, it is to 80001. commentsost additional at facebook.com/c-span. , specificallyting on that case, the new york times this morning with a graphic on how justices voted and how people for it -- feel about where the public stands on this issue. they write the affordable care act requires health insurance plans for women include coverage for contraceptives, birth control, but the trump administration pass legislation that greatly expands exceptions to the amended to include exemptions on the basis of religious or moral exemptions.

what do you think? overall, employer should be forced to cover contraceptives? 47% favor that. 53% oppose employers not been forced to cover contraceptives. not surprising, along party lines, democrats mostly in favor, 63%. independence, 31%. the majority of republicans , so,ing forcing employers supporting those exemptions, religious and moral exemptions to employers under the affordable care act. that017 role expanded exemption -- the affordable care act reception. here is the front page of the "washington post" this morning. robert barnes writes the supreme court ruled on wednesday that the trump administration may allow employers and universities

to opt out of the affordable care act environment -- requirement to provide contraceptive care because of religious or moral objections. the issue has been at the heart of an intense legal battle, first with the obama spine withion organizations who said often contraceptive care violated their beliefs. -- writes wednesday's experience greatly expands the ability of employers to claim the estimate isnd the between 70000 and 126,000 women could lose access to free birth control as a result. oppose those or exemptions to employers for providing contraceptive care -- [indiscernible]

202-748-8000 if you support. 202-748-8001 if you oppose. vice president mike pence with a tweet shortly after the agreement -- the announcement. about twohe talked decisions. a little bit more on that from "washington times" this morning. there were two similar rulings. "justices draw a in religious beliefs." they write the supreme court delivered two wins to purchase advocates, siding with nuns and working with schools.

the supreme court upheld the authority of the trump administration and catholic forols to take steps preventing interference with religious institutions sincerely held beliefs. your calls and comments welcome. we go to south carolina. this is mike. good morning. good morning pat i generally support the supreme court's decisions. i don't see it as, sort of, the obama administration assault on religious liberty because i do think women's choice is an important issue, however i didn't think the supreme court could rule any other way than as --id when indisposed when it is posed as letting religious organizations continue to be consistent with their faith. host: do you think because this remains it back to the lower

courts, what you expect will happen -- do you think it will be further contested? caller: i don't think so, it is a touchy issue, and it gets to the heart of the clash between women's rights, contraceptive rights, and religious freedom. i think it is a very dicey issue that i just see it as one ought to take the political side out of it, for example, the cerents come -- the pen comments on how the democrats are trying to strongly oppose religious liberty. i don't see that at the basis of this. i think president obama and the was tryingcare act to give people, women, the

choice to use contraceptives, and that is what it was. to frame it as a religious liberty assault to me is just not appropriate. here is how the administration officially framed it in a statement yesterday -- they said almost a decade ago the obama administration attempted to force employers, including religious nonprofits like little sisters of the poor and order of nuns to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees in violation of their religious beliefs. twice before in this ongoing saga, the supreme court has blocked these misguided efforts and sided with religious freedom. since day one, the trump administration has sucked and the burden on religious exercise for people of all faiths. as the supreme court has previously stated, protecting worship, notice the dictates of their conscious,

is part of the best of our traditions. the objections, 202-748-8000. if you oppose those exemptions 202-748-8001. worcester, massachusetts. jane, good morning. caller: yes. i oppose it. while i can understand the reasons a little bit why they want to do that, to limit hurts to free birth control, i don't see it as a political or religious issue. nobody likes abortions or anything like that, but i do think people need to plan and have birth-control. unfortunately the world has over 7 billion people on it and if it was smaller than that, i would probably not say that, but it is because of that i feel people

should have employers be able to say going us freedoms from them, although i understand the point, even though i don't agree with it. host: here is what senator, let harris, california senator, potential run make to former biden -- "ant joe by the supremeon court that will deny up to 126,000 employees with control coverage. your tweets and comments. juju says religious freedom means the right to not embrace policy on religious grounds, we also live in a republic, not a theosophy and should not be subject to termination because of faith and religion should remain a private matter, not replied to workforce. -- --labama taxing us againstus if they are

abortions, how can they be against contraception. it makes absolutely no reasonable sense. withn only be an oligarchy evangelicals with dirty money telling women what to do with their uterus. so much for women's rights. teri saying i support the exemptions -- the fact that the decision was 7-2 should tell us something about the issue -- either we have tyranny or we have liberty at the employer and employee level. it is a fine line to walk. tim. good morning. caller: i support the exemption. it comes down to religious freedom. that being said, this should be an apolitical subject.

i was raised catholic. i am not saying those who use birth control are bad, but employers should have the right to express their religion how they see fit. host: two flint, michigan. good morning to debbie. caller: to the last guy, absolutely not. and they should not be able -- they get tax-free status, number one. i am on my way to the tax guide this morning. , bill.always been a dove i've never believed in war. do you think one dime of my money got exempted because i don't believe in war? anthey are going to be employer, be an employer. if they're going to be a church, be a church. if they're going to get tax-free status, they should not be exempted from the loss the rest of us have to comply with. i am so upset. you said you were going to

the tax guide. caller: i am on my way to the tax guy. i am retired. i make about $35,000 a year and i'm going to have to cut a check today, and it doesn't matter that i don't think my money should go to afghanistan, iraq, iran, or anywhere else -- it doesn't matter. the last guy talked about religious freedom. what about the religious freedom for the people that want to control their cycles? this is ridiculous. you know what, people told them at the beginning of trump's term that this administration was going to be against women, and they have done all of this nibbling around the edges, but at the end of the day they cut a lot of things off at the knee. one more point, while trump keeps saying i'm going to cut payroll taxes -- please. everybody realize that is just like he cut off the funding for the affordable care act.

payroll taxes paid medicare and social security, and that is his backdoor way of trying to cut those www.c-span.org programs. -- two programs. host: all right. hope it is not too big of a check. applaudi would like to donald j. trump for what he has done. this policy should have been pushed in 2016. i think it is tremendous, --estly, that this host: two ladylike, florida, opposing the exemption. tell us why. patrick. go ahead. -- ir: one quick thing notice you guys did not do anything about paul o'neill's death three months ago, and supposedly gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins.

i would look to see him his health care providers and employers say gluttony is against my religious values, you can pay for your own obesity. i would love to see health care providers say premarital sex is noinst my religious values, condominiums, condoms, and we will not pay for any children out of wedlock. there is a whole bunch of religious situations -- how .bout no working on sunday let's shut down society on sunday -- no electricity, wastewater treatment plants. host: do you think this ruling will future empower the trump administration or future administrations to make exemptions like that? caller: god, i hope not. those exemptions are we going to pick from buddhists to

christians, to jews, to muslims, everybody has to get there exemptions in? i don't think it is right. supposedly we're supposed to be a rule of the society -- not a rule of law, what i think someone wrote 2000 years ago in the bible. thank you for taking my call. host: this is the front page of the new york times. the headline allows -- "the law allows religious -- religious in out on birth control." the article, "the clash between contraceptive coverage and claims of cottages is a key battleground in the culture wars and the supreme court's decision is likely to mobilize voters on both sides of the divide." he writes for a prince, the decision was disappointed because two members of the liberal wing, elena kagan and stephen breyer voted with the

majority. both justices had been in dissent in 2014 when the court ruled in a 5-4 decision that requiring family-owned corporations to provide contraceptive coverage violated a federal law protecting religious freedom. on wednesday, in a concurring opinion written by justice kagan, they said the affordable care act itself authorized regulators to create exemptions for employers with religious objections, noting the obama administration had adopted one limited to houses of worship. whether the trump administration had provided adequate justification for its much broader exemption was a question for another day. here is part of the decision -- part of the statement of the justice clarence thomas writing in the opinion yesterday, "for over 150 years, the little sisters have engaged in faithful service and sacrifice motivated by religious calling to surrender all for the sake of said,brother," thomas

"but for the past seven years, they like many other religious objectors who participated in the rulemakings have had to fight for the ability to continue their sincerely held religious beliefs. beliefs." that your calls. georgia. kathy. good morning. caller: good morning to you. i support the supreme court's decision. i did not agree with it when you for the care act had the mandate in it. i did not agree with the affordable care act period, but i did not think the mandate should be put in there. i'm a pro-choice, catholic, conservative republican, but i feel like we should have onegious liberty, and no should have -- the government should not have the ability to

make anyone go against their religious beliefs as far as it, whether it is cap a core anyone else. you define yourself as a pro-choice catholic, and figures -- a couple reported someone hundred 26,000 may lose their coverage in this -- 126,000 may use -- lose their coverage. does it concern you the choice might be further limited? caller: no, because there are alternatives. there are alternatives. birth control is not that expensive nowadays. there is family planning methods, there's condoms -- there are other alternatives. you know what, if it is that big of a deal, you don't have to churches, or for the little sisters of the poor or hobby love it.

-- hobby lobby. there are not that many places where it will be a problem, i think. host: we should your call. elizabeth, east greenwich, rhode island. good morning. >> good morning. -- caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing fine. ruling i oppose this because i am raised a catholic, parochial girl schools, one is married and pregnant, her choice, and the other is not pregnant or married, her choice. for one of my children to be denied any kind of birth control she wants to me is unfair, and i am more worried about the religion then of religious freedom, and things like this are pushing me more

and more toward medicare for all. now, i am 60 years old and i am still working, and i don't think anyone has any right to avoid a choice for any woman in this country to either be pregnant or not, and that is my comment. i wish everybody a good day. host: right. t blogus, amysco howe with analysis -- writing, "it requires employers to provide health insurance that includes access to certain types of contraceptives. the common ministration issued new rules that expanded an exemption is amended to allow private employers with religious or moral objections to opt out of providing coverage without any notice, and today by a seven-to decision by the supreme

court, the court rejected a challenge by tuesday set argued that the new rules violated daca , and the roomaca and was an important victory for the trump administration, but the battle over the exemptions and the mandate is likely not over yet. she writes the dispute at the center of the decision is that third involving the birth control mandate to come to the supreme court. the mandate is not expressly created by the aca, which instructs health-care plans to provide coverage for "additional preventative care and screenings for women. carrying out this charge to the health screening and services administration issued guidelines to -- that required health-care plans to provide access to fda-approved birth control at no cost to women covered by the plan. .he decision yesterday, 7-2 if you support the religious and moral objections -- exemptions,

.hat number, 202-748-8000 if you oppose those exemptions, 202-748-8001. and welcome your comments on social media as well. couple of those here. tony says this -- "i oppose. employers should not force you to apply with their beliefs restricting our freedoms." i oppose, says paul berri. rights of religious those that hold them over individuals and don't. absolutely terrible. this one from tom in texas. "obama care should have never been allowed. totunately -- forcing us produce a product that was guaranteed to increase in cost was wrong. think other competent ministration pulled the plug. let's hear from pamela in arkansas. welcome. pyramid sure you

meet your audio. go ahead with your comment. caller: ok. it is all about the insurance companies. you can opt out. you know, when my children were older, i opted out of ob/gyn for them. offer it. to optloyees do not have into it, but you have the responsibility to offer us -- the insurance companies have us, i mean, jacked up, and they are just killing us. is john, doylestown, pennsylvania, who supports the exemptions for businesses. tell us why. it,er: yes, i do support and listening to the opposition, you would think the supreme court banned contraceptives. they did not ban contraceptives. if you work for hobby lobby or little sisters of the poor, you can still get contraception's. i do understand what the fear is

about. host: under those companies plans, it is -- is it still provided by the company? caller: well, you can still get the contraceptive outside of those plans. nothing will stop you from going to a store and purchasing it on your own. --t: all right, elbert in barrington, new hampshire. got it all wrong. good morning. elbert in new hampshire. you are on the air. go ahead. this.: yes, i oppose people should go back to first principles. what we call religious liberty comes from freedom of thecience, which predates -- what do you call it, the

enlightenment. william was proposed by netherlands, the the leader of the revolt against the spanish for oppressing them for their religious beliefs, and his idea was that it was nobody else's business what your religious thoughts or feelings were, and the government should just stay out of it, period. i think the exemption for taxation from churches is a atavism of when we had kings and popes running europe. we will hearht from jerry in jamestown, maryland. good morning. jamestown north

dakota. host: i have it all wrong. i need new glasses. caller: i support this decision -- if employees can afford to buy gasoline for automobiles, they can afford to buy birth control. it is available in the convenience stores where they pump gasoline. that is my comment. morning, " news this trump pressures of officials to help them with cdc -- to help open schools. cdc to issue new guidelines. he finds himself increasingly at odds with his own administration over how to combat a surgeon covid-19 cases. schoolsp demanded that reopen in the coming weeks as the u.s. surpassed 3 million cases and 132,000 deaths.

openant the schools to be and go in the fall economic -- fall." press secretary kayleigh mcenany asked about it at a press briefing in the fall. [video clip] mcnerney: he does not want these guidelines to be a reason for schools to not reopen, they are not perspective. >> what does he think -- what does the president think is too strict and impractical? mcnerney: i would note in these guidelines there are 28 and pleasant acknowledgments that these guidelines are not feasible. 18 times it is mentioned that some of this might not be possible, and nine times it is mentioned it might not be feasible. foodpecific example is on

services -- have children be -- bring their own meals as feasible. there are 22 million children who depend on these meals that schools, that is one example. >> that is one thing the president does not like -- is there anything else? >> there are several. >> i am wondering what they are going to change. >> you will see. the cdc will come out with new guidelines -- there will be five, i think, he said, and you will see those one they come out. host: the usa today reflecting the latest numbers, above the fold, "the usa reached 3 million cases. totook the u.s. three months reach one million, and half the time to get to 2 million and reach 3 million. 4 million cases could be tallied as high as july 22 and the usa leaves and unavailable -- an

unenviable group, beating out 740 2000cases, india's 690 9000d russia's cases, with 145 million in population. compiled to statistics by johns hopkins university. heading back to the court decision yesterday on providing contraceptive care and the exemption upheld by the court for employers on religious or moral grounds -- do you support that? .he line is 202-748-8000 if you oppose that, 202-748-8001 . jamie is in bolingbrook, illinois. go ahead. caller: yes. i definitely oppose these guidelines because birth control is used for a lot of other things other than, you know, controlling birth. so, if you are going to offer health care, you need to offer

birth control is a form of health care for women's rights and women's health. host: david in philadelphia on the other hand supports the exemptions. tell us why. --think you host: are you there? in sicklerville, new jersey. caller: i greatly opposed this exemption. i think it has more to do with the fact that our justices are only jewish and catholic than it does with the just freedom. i am a christian, but i do not get an exemption because i oppose war. -- should these businesses because they oppose birth control? host: why do you think that it is because they justices are jewish and catholic? caller: we have 59% of the population protestant.

no protestant supreme court justices. here's the decision -- the writing of ruth bader ginsburg. she and justice sotomayor in the scent of the opinion. rights,ice ginsburg "today for the first time, the --rt cast totally aside rights and interests -- i guess we have justice alito -- ", today for the first time, the court cast aside countervailing rights and interests with zeal to secure rigid religious rights. these -- this leaves workers to see contraceptive sources other than their employers and absent another available source of funding, to pay for contraceptive services out of their own pocket.

now justice alito on a different case, we will tell you about that in a moment. we will read that story in just a moment. let's get back to calls. joe supports the exemption. caller: i believe it is the employer's right to -- for what he believes in. if a woman wants birth control, maybe she should make sure her partner uses birth control. responsibility if she gets pregnant. on the other cited mary -- on the others is mary. caller: a shame the public does not know that nuns are hypocrites. samoa committed in fantasy in 2013 while these

lawsuits were going on. convent ninet the months pregnant, gave birth in her room, and smothered the infant because she wanted to keep her fake chastity fake charity gig. it is shocking the nuns are trying to take away health care rights from female employees when they have their own sex scandal and infanticide scandals. shame on them. host: we mentioned the little sisters of the poor decision released yesterday by the supreme court, this is the hill, "supreme court expands religious rights with a trio of rulings. the supreme court wednesday upheld the trump administration's expansion of birth control absent -- exemptions for employers marking the third time in a week the court has issued decisions broadening religious rights. two of the three cases decided wednesday by 7-2 margin.

liberal justices, one was nominated by president obama, as well as the ideological center john roberts suggesting religious protections enjoyed durable support on the bench. the majority of justices on the supreme court have increasingly treated religious liberty rights of greater importance than right then other rights. asked to are adjudicate conflicts between religious liberty and other fundament of rights, they have consistently ruled that religious liberty supersedes other rights." chickamauga, georgia. my comment is not necessarily on birth control. factor with a insurance companies and what our government says is right and

wrong. as a citizen of the united states, -- my husband goes to work every day to pay for our insurance. issuesa lot of medical and i was just in the emergency room yesterday. a sickness dueth to diabetes and liver disease. major insurance companies with the company my husband works for that have proceduresedical may beuld possibly help save my life and for me to have better quality of life and not have to spend so much money on medication for me just to be existing in this world today. i have diabetes.

aggressive.is so i am on insulin. there is weight gain that has come with this. i have a liver disease. seeiver doctor wanted me to about getting weight loss surgery. not because of a weight issue necessarily, but to stop the diabetes so that maybe we can work on healing my liver which was non-drug-related or alcohol abuse or any of that stuff. my insurance company rejected it. would not provide us with coverage. husband paid out of for my financed it, if any other medical mishaps might happen to where my insurance company could say no, she ended up with a heart problem and it

is related to the weight loss surgery, we don't have to cover that. get -- who do you you get your insurance? is this an obama care plan? caller: it is through my husband's company through sigma. they are doing the same thing. the insurance person the company goes through, the person who comes out and talks to him tells me that what happened was when the weight loss surgery first came out -- host: i'm going to let you go. we are staying on topic on what the courts decided in the little sisters of the poor case and whether employers should have a religious exemption. the court upheld that. what you think? (202) 748-8000 if you support that. (202) 748-8001. patrick in maryland. caller: good morning.

several callers have discussed the fact that birth control is inexpensive and available to anyone who wants to get it at any drugstore. has anyone discussed the fact --t some of these drugs so-called prevention -- are actually --? they actually cause abortions? has anyone talked about that? host: you're the first one. caller: that is an important factor in this discussion because these little sisters of the poor and other religious organizations do not support the killing of a living person. linda in kansas. caller: good morning. the --posed to

host: exemption? caller: we need birth control to be just as inexpensive and available as possible. we have an overpopulation in the world. we need to keep birth rates down as much as possible. we also should not be supporting religious exemptions for anyone. the government is supposed to stay out of religion. opposed to this. we don't want to see an increase in abortions. health --not host: contraceptive care? caller: if we do not have contraceptive care we will have an increase in unwanted

pregnancy and an increase in abortions. we don't want that to happen. we don't want overpopulation. the planet is not going to be able to support many more people. have climate problems. we have the pandemic. which has been made worse because of overpopulation. people are living too close to each other. therefore they spread germs, viruses or easily. to have laws and rules that make it less possible for contraception. host: a couple of comments on social media. a tax here from powder springs, she says "on birth control, three points. one, it will increase the number of abortions. two where will it end? some religions do not permit

blood transfusions. some religions do not permit vaccinations. three, poor people will be unfairly impacted." "thison twitter says decision on religious moral exemptions is just one more reason we need single-payer health insurance and move away from employer-provided." from keith on facebook, "no one forces you to work at their business. if you don't like their policies, you are free to leave and find employment elsewhere." achael says, "support, but as male, i should keep silent. " -- an analysis on scotus blog.com is where you can follow their reporting. "the12, she writes, supreme court ruled that a doctor known as a ministerial exemption which bars ministers

for employments discrimination, a lawsuit filed by a teacher at a lutheran school who is an ordained minister. ourerday, the court held in lady of guadalupe school verses -- that the exemption also forecloses lawsuits by two teachers at catholic elementary schools in southern california. although the teachers were not ordained ministers, the school argues the exception must apply because they play a key role on teaching religion to students. the court, in an opinion by samuel alito agreed. here is some of what justice alito said. he said the religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools. therefore, the selection and supervision of teachers upon whom the schools rely lie at the core of their mission.

judicial review of the way in which the religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the first amendment does not tolerate." sent, justice sotomayor writing, "pause for a moment on the court's conclusion. even if the teachers were not catholic, even if they were forbidden to participate in the churches sacrament to worship, they would nonetheless be ministers of the catholic faith simply because of their supervisory role over students at a religious school. that stretches the law and logic passed their breaking points." let's here from reston, virginia. this is chris. what you think? caller: good morning. i came from a muslim country. christians were minority there.

they did impose their religious belief on us. to feel that before they know religious freedom -- religion should not interfere in state affairs. we are treading on dangerous ground. the -- were killing people. based on their interpretation of the bible. this is the first step in banning abortion. i think church and state should be separate completely. this is not right. belief or religion interfering governments. period. in north bergen, new jersey. caller: good morning. out about the -- [indiscernible]

i want to know why the so-called -- that nothing is said about -- [indiscernible] this is going to destroy everything in the religion and -- [indiscernible] the employee wants to save money, nothing else. two impose your views on somebody else. the supreme court is playing politics here.

host: connie in new jersey. another story new jersey about the u.s. exit from the world health organization. the plan to do it anyway from usa today. -- may hurt a vaccine trial. a republican sharply criticized president trump's decision to withdraw from the who's saying it could jeopardize the development of covid-19 vaccine and impair efforts to stop the global pandemic. "withdrawing u.s. membership could, among other things, interfere with clinical trials essential to develop into -- develop vaccines." after the white house formally notified congress they had begun the who withdrawal process. mike pompeo commenting yesterday at the state department. [video clip] >> we provided notice to capitol hill for our intent to withdraw

often the world health organization. we had, he kidded to congress even in the informal progress process that this was our intention. we did that consistent with residence guidance. we will work with congress in respect to appropriated funds. we are not going to underwrite an organization that has historically been incompetent and not performed its fundamental function. there is a focus on the failure that took place around wuhan and the who ability. this is an institution that got ebola, the sars, u.s. had to create their own system to do the work to prevent and come up with solutions to hiv-aids. the united states did that. the world health organization has a long history of corruption and politicization.

don't gethat they some pieces of their program right, but this organization has not been able to deliver on its core mission for decades. we got some reforms through back a handful of years ago. leadership hasn't been able to implement them in a way that can prevent the kind of global pandemic that has destroyed lives and cost the global economy trillions of dollars. that is not an organization that the administration has any intention of underwriting. host: the house and senate are out this week for the july 4 break. the senate coming in for a short pro forma session. word this morning there could be additional debate, could be some collaboration on police reform. the headline from the hill, "tim cut -- tim scott saying he is talking with democrats about reviving the bill. he said yesterday he is talking about potentially reviving the bell. he is the only black republican

senator and had taken the lead in writing the gop's police reform legislation. ofsaid he had spoken with -- california who has the congressional black caucus about conch rising -- compromising parts of his bill. the hill reports the senator bill had previously stalled after democrats blocked it, saying it did not do enough. scott expressed optimism, he is hopeful agreements will happen in the next couple of weeks. when they return." bobby from spanish fork, alabama. caller: i am cheering. this has been nine years of effort. i am familiar with the little sisters of the poor, having grown up in a city where one of the most beautiful convent exists in mobile, alabama. if you know these women, they are extraordinary. if you know the people who give to them, they are extraordinary. they exceptional money to stay

in nursing homes. they take the poorest of the poor off the street. -- in an for them extraordinarily loving way. if you have been to a nursing home and smelled deterioration, it is absolutely the antithesis of what you see in the little sisters of the poor. everything is spotlessly clean. it is gorgeous. there are fresh flowers around. the floors are clean. it is very cheerful. everyone is smiling. these are lovely places. co-worse -- these religious groups against their will to pay for what an earlier ,aller very rightly alluded to these so-called contraceptives are in fact -- i will fill in what he didn't know. if you have rudimentary knowledge of obstetrics, you are aware that these contraceptives

senseortifacients in the that they have morning after pills. has been created by conception, that is a new person. people deserve and will receive their civil rights. we are hearing about black lives matter, we are not hearing anything about prenatal lives matter. this started with griswold v connecticut. contraceptive rights was something unheard-of prior to that. this was not a legal right. this should not happen. of biden and his business pro-choice catholics, that is an oxymoron. there is no such thing. if you are pro-abortion, for the killing of prenatal lives, you are no longer in factoid a

member of the roman catholic christian church. that needs to be said very loudly. that collar is absolutely completely off the rails. many bishops around the country have for bid in joe biden from receiving the eucharist because he holds positions absolutely antithetical to those of the roman catholic church. host: the case was little sisters of the poor versus pennsylvania. pennsylvania's bob casey with the tweet, "today's decision is a gross misinterpretation of the affordable care act and will disproportionately impact low-wage workers, people of color and lgbtq people who are already facing barriers. no private employer has the right to deny access to health care, that includes birth control. anne-marie in hazleton township. on the i am commenting

oppose line because i had ovarian cancer. my daughter has to be on some sort of birth control pill so she doesn't get it. to say to somebody you can't have that and it is a health condition -- i mean that should have been brought into the fact. whoel -- for these people think every birth control pill is used to stop birth. it is not. there are health reasons that some women need to take this. they are not cheap. it is not fair to everybody. host: to cleveland. this is william. caller: good morning. support of what has happened with the supreme court. i would like to explain why. -- as far as abortions go, i personally don't

believe in them. through the course of a marriage, my spouse asked me to pick her up birth control medication because she did not like me using condoms. she didn't want me to be fixed either. control,et this birth her regular supply, and i bring it home only to find out she had not been taking it for several months. she was pregnant and she knew it did -- she knew it. we were getting ready to divorce and she wanted another child to get more money in her monthly support check. let's hear from tony in tillman, maryland. caller: first off, you have to believe that the religious right

believes in the right to life. 92% of them support capital punishment. a great deal of them support trump putting three-year-old immigrant children in cages, 17 of them died. they don't believe in wearing masks to protect other people from getting the virus and dying. they are not right to life, they are right to birth. once you are born you are free game. you are on your own. paying -- tweet from jen for jacobs, "tulsa county reported 261 cases for monday and tuesday, equipping tuesday's seven-day rolling average of 146.7. a health official said the june 20 child -- trump rally likely boosted cases. "

tulsa county covid cases soaring weeks after a trump rally." the president has another event set for portsmouth, new hampshire. this is the headline in usa today, "doctors warn of risks that trump's new hampshire rally. the news press he will hold a rally saturday raised concerns among experts about what his visit will due to the relatively low covid-19 numbers in the area. residentsununu urged to wear masks and practice social distancing at the outdoor rally." on the president, his niece mary trump, her book is coming out. we have a copy here. trump, the nice of donald trump, "too much and never enough: how my family created

the world's most dangerous man." because of legal issues involved in the publication of the book, she is not yet able to speak with us or others in interviews about the book. we expect that when that -- when she is available, we will have --erage on "book tv pico book tv." 2.ry weekend on c-span providence, rhode island. michael, good morning. providence, you are on the air. caller: first i would like to clear something up. people who are pro-abortion are leftists that literally have sex only to have abortions. there are people on the left to have a fetish did not give birth, but to be pregnant and then kill the child. batavia, illinois.

caller: good morning. i have been listening to two opposing people's opinions. theyave people who think can just make everybody else do what they want and other people are losing their freedoms. other people want to just pursue their rights to happiness and keep their freedoms and keep the constitution the way it was written, that we have the right to pursue our happiness. every time we have government interference telling us what to do, having single-payer anything, we are losing more freedom. when i listen to too many liberals you have talking on your shows every day that talk so much nonsense, i have to turn you off just to get a clear head. it is overwhelming. nobody should tell someday else what to do. if i don't want to take a pill,

the government should not put that in my insurance. we should have a choice. choices make us free. choices do not dictate us to be all the same. we are not happy if we are all the same. this is totally nonsense. it is not church and state. that has nothing to do with church and state. it has to do with the constitution that says we have freedoms to choose and think what we want to do and buy, and no government should force us to buy anything or pay for 70 else's. host: houston for one more thought. caller: good morning. i oppose. it is supercritical. -- it is hypocritical. when it comes to the nuns, they are hypocrites.

the 1970's, i couldn't work in their hospital. indidn't get a right to work st. joseph's hospital here in houston, texas until the 1980's. host: why weren't you allowed to work there? iller: it was the 1980's and was a nursing assistant before i was allowed to work there. the nuns would walk past you and turn their heads. host: beverly, thanks for your call. we are joined by author and conservative columnist cal thomas who will talk about president trump, what he should do to improve his chances for reelection. we will hear from illinois democrat chuy garcia talking about the meeting with president obrador with president trump yesterday.

book tv on c-span2 has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. coming up this weekend, sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on examining what he calls the new face of socialism in the united states and whether it is becoming part of our political culture in his book "the united states of socialism." he is interviewed by benjamin powell. at 10:00 p.m. dr. easy kill ezekiel -- dr. eas emmanuelle discusses his book "which country has the world's best health care?" this weekend on c-span two. we are joined by syndicated columnist cal thomas

to talk about president trump's campaign and election campaign 2020. welcome to "washington journal." guest: it is nice to be back. host: we talked about the rally in tulsa and the rally head for president trump in portsmouth. from a strategic and safety point of view, what is your thought of him returning to those rallies? guest: i think they're fine. imagery has a lot to do with this, along with medical substance. i have been an advocate of the president leading with a mask except when he is speaking, like we saw the coronavirus task force yesterday. everyone had a mask on except when they got to the podium and spoke. that's about leadership. i think that's a good thing. whether they are effective or not, we will find out later. his audience as well. this is what leadership is about . this is deeper than just

symbolism. we've got to get beyond this. we had a roaring economy before the virus hit. all demographics were doing well, african-americans, hispanics, asians, women. this is an aberration, a pause button on a great economic boom. when the pause button is put on fast-forward again i think things will improve. what i wish the president would do is begin to set an agenda for the next four years if he is elected. we already know what the joe biden agenda is. it has been published as part of a biden-sanders compilation. their first issue is climate change. it goes on in the proposed democratic platform, these hyperbolic things come the end of the world is near that we have heard for several years.

this has become the number one priority for democrats -- host: if you are writing the agenda for president trump, what are the topline bullet point items that should be in there? guest: going back to what he was doing before in terms of creating jobs, protecting the streets, there's a really good column in the wall street journal that says this could be a july 4 election. by that he means that the president is playing to his strengths when he talks about tearing down monuments, undermining basic american values and principles. this worked for richard nixon in 1968 with a rise in the democratic convention in chicago and lawlessness on the streets. i think public order is better than law as a phrase for him. people are concerned about what's going on in the streets and the tearing down of the statues. there are ways of removing statues beyond their sell by

dates, but that should be done through a legislative council process and orderly fashion rather than these writers in the rioters in the streets who are undermining some of our principles will stop as the president said in his july 3 remarks in south dakota. one page outtioned of the playbook, tweeting about the silent majority, most of the time in capitals. do you think there is a silent majority and the president needs to expand that silent majority, expand his base? guest: to questions, very good ones. a lot of people do not respond to pollsters because they are afraid of what might be said about them if their neighbors find out or if they are asked about it. the other point is we heard this in the 2016 election.

hillary clinton was going to win hands down. everyone wondered after the election, what happened? i didn't know anyone who voted for donald trump, democrats said. that is the silent majority. can trump re-mobilize them to the extent he did in 2016. number two, turnout. will they turn out? whiteree, can he reach suburban women and men who were enthusiastic -- especially blue-collar men -- and the 2016 election? there has been a slip among his strongest base, evangelical christians. especially in the latter group he needs to get off of the personal attacks. theydon't solve anything, don't convince anyone. diminishing another person, calling nancy pelosi and joe biden names doesn't help in my

view. americans respond to a positive agenda, a forward-looking agenda. that is what ronald reagan did. a city on the hill. even in his last letter to the american people he said america's best days are ahead. we are an optimistic and forward-looking people. host: you can read his syndicated columns in the nation's capital in "the washington times." also a new book "america's ,xpiration date" by our guest cal thomas. we are talking about the president's campaign and the broader campaign 2020. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. the headline whose divisive in a new american revolution? democrats want to impose socialism and worse in the nation. where is it written that the

left it's to control the agenda, you write? in fact it is liberalism that has brought the nation to near ruin. which ideology is responsible for 60 million abortions, the welfare state, and family breakup, drugs, and the teaching of false american history? failing inner-city public schools and much more? when conservatives oppose these cultural revisionists, they are called divisive. they should be holding the left accountable for the destruction caused by their ideology. what about for those who still consider themselves in the middle of this clash between ideologies on the right and left? guest: the old line the middle of the road is the dangerous place to be. that is where dead rabbits and armadillos are. i don't even know what moderate means anymore. we have labels we apply to

people, left, right, conservative, liberal, and the rest. i do it to sometimes, but at least i define the terms. most people can't even define them anymore. same with the religious area. a lot of people couldn't define evangelical. they have no idea. conservatives have been playing on defense for too many years. the ideology that has caused a lot of social and political unrest. we have a unified philosophy on the left. in academia and the public schools, in hollywood, singulare, which has a worldview. "the new york times", "the washington post" put out an article on diversity. they don't mean diversity of opinion or ideology. a person who is african-american, a woman,

hispanic, a latino, whatever, if they are liberal they are liberal no matter how you dress them up. i think real diversity means entertaining other points of view. we have seen when conservatives try to enter the public square and media they are shouted down or censored. that's not good for america. i would say the same to my liberal friends. i don't want to censor them. i read liberal colonists, many of them are my friends. all i want is an equal opportunity to be heard, and i think that's the major objective of most conservatives i know in the country. host: you mention the folks who do not participate in polls. let's go to the polls before we get to calls. the average showing joe biden eight points ahead. what is your thought on that? guest: we had hillary clinton way ahead in 2016. we had jimmy carter ahead in 1980 of ronald reagan. the polls have been wrong so many times in so many ways.

it depends on several things. how the question is asked and the understanding of the person being asked, as well as if they are being honest. a lot of people hang up when the calls come in. they don't want to be bothered. mine, around dinnertime, which is annoying. around dinnertime, which is annoying. we would be better off going to a fortuneteller than upholstered. first, pennsylvania, our democrats line. caller: good morning. whatalling in regards to we actually have experienced. the true colors of our president and his way of doing things. some of the things that are brought up in this book i feel we see in his character. narcissism,, the

the narcissistic personality that he is looking at what this now and thefor him problems of america are way down somewhere. he tries to stifle -- if he could he would be firing people in his way because the campaign and him holding these rallies and beefing that up in a couple of months, instead of trying to curb the control -- and this is what he wanted. he wanted things to open quick because his economy was going down the tubes will stop his economy, he thinks. he thinks he brought it up. -- i'm sorry,rted but we ignore the fact that it started to come up in the obama. obama did start the rise of the economy. it happened to get in his hands.

host: cal thomas? guest: i would say the same thing about ronald reagan. he was benefiting from his predecessors. were't know which book you talking about. there are a lot of books and more coming. many politicians are narcissistic and think more highly of themselves than they ought to. trump don't think donald is any different from barack obama or bill clinton for that matter. as far as benefiting from the economy, everyone benefits from a good economy, republican or democrat. can't we be unified on the fact that lower taxes and fewer regulations and many other things that the president has done has improve the economy? barack obama inherited a really, really bad economy and did some things that helped improve it. i think, like ronald

reagan, donald trump has gone far more. if joe biden is elected he said he would raise taxes and reimpose regulations and adopt the green new deal business which would force a lot of people out of the jobs they like and have now into green energy jobs. i think that will be a major issue in the campaign and one that a lot of people won't like. callerre mentioned character. you brought up the decline in polls along evangelical supporters of the president. how concerned are you that the president's character could be a negative factor in the campaign? guest: it is only july. we will have to see. i think that if there is a , and friedman of "the new york times" said yesterday, the president ought to be forced to release his taxes first. that could be decided in a few

hours by the supreme court. that there should be fact checkers at the end of the debate. i know how that would go. i think character matters in some way. if i'm about to have surgery, i might be interested in the character of the surgeon, but i'm more interested in how many of his patients have been healed to his surgical skill. i don't put my faith -- as king david said in princes and kings -- i put it in a higher authority. this is the choice we have, trump versus biden. if there were other choices i might think friendly, but i don't have any other choices. nor that i have any other choices in 2016. host: republican line, stuart, florida. and i: i am a republican am also an intelligent republican. i am an environmentalist and i believe we are destroying the planet through climate change.

do you believe in climate change, mr. thomas? guest: i think over the history of the world -- and i'm sure you're smart enough. you said you are an intelligent republican. i don't think they are contradictory. the climate has ebbed and flowed. we had a warmer climate then a cooler climate. in the 1970's there was a newsweek cover story of the coming ice age. scientists are not god. they put in models into the computers and the computer spit out things based on the models. we have seen that with the coronavirus. the world health organization saying one thing one week and the opposite the next week. the cdc saying one thing one week and the opposite the next week. even dr. birx says she doesn't fully trust the numbers coming out of the cdc anymore. it's difficult to base policy on these models. i think the earth has a built in self cleansing element to it.

should we pollute the planet with more carbon emissions? no, we ought to be responsible, but i think turning the power over to the federal government -- which doesn't do mar very may things well, honestly, and i think that's a bipartisan statement -- to basically take over the economy on the green that is a verynk dangerous for our economy and future. host: you had a column with the headline will lightning strike twice about the trump campaign. you write that a myth says lightning never strikes twice in the same place. but donald trump seems to believe it when it comes to replicating his narrow victory in 2016. what is not a myth is you can't reproduce experiences. some of the concerns you were trying to raise in that column? guest: i go back to something i said earlier. the late glen campbell had a

wonderful song called "try a little kindness." i think reaching out counts for a lot. i would like to have seen, even before the virus hit, the president heading up on stage as some of these rallies -- having as some oftage these rallies african-americans you didn't have jobs who have jobs. you might be able to go into the hospitals and talk to people who had the virus and overcome it. you can talk to the relatives of people who have succumbed to it to demonstrate empathy. i think he's capable of that. but the constant battering, negativity, and labeling people i don't think is helpful. while it may fire up his base, you can't win with just the base. you have to expand it. that is what we saw with blue-collar democrats voting for the president. the issue in this campaign is if

they will still do that or asert to the status quo ante said.lege professor i think kindness carries a lot of weight, especially to suburban white women without college degrees, and to other people who want a positive, encouraging message when there is a lot to discourage us. host: arlington, texas, independent line. caller: i left the democratic party and became an independent years ago over there in session with daca. this president is clearly a neofascist. the most unintelligent person i've ever seen. he is an unintelligent person who suggested we inject disinfectant into our bodies to kill coronavirus. there is no trump tax cut. i am paying more federal income taxes now than under president obama. i made 51,000 dollars this year

thus far and paid 8000 dollars in federal income tax. where has my tax break come in this tax cut president trump has given? and what economy? he is on the coattails of barack obama's economy. he has done nothing but start a tariff war with china and we had to give welfare payments to for soybean purchases. he has the instincts of an authoritarian. he cleared out lafayette park using thug-like tactics on peaceful protesters. guest: we get the talking points. maybe you can define neofascist for me. it doesn't sound like you are independent to me, sir. you are speaking the democrats' talking points. you are calling names. i'm sorry that you think you are paying more in taxes. i don't know -- you said you made $57,000 last year. i think the republican tax cut

was basically across the board. if you are paying more taxes even on the republican tax cut, you may want to consult your advisor and see what you're doing. maybe you're not taking enough deductions. taxes andme ask about federal spending. the federal deficit ballooned in june totaling 860 $3 billion, nearly as much as the entire gap for fiscal year 2019 as federal spending triple to combat the coronavirus pandemic and tax revenues plunged. what are your concerns? guest: i think this is one of the few bipartisan things that occur in washington, spending. no one wants to address the debt, the deficit. as i write in my book "america's expiration date," one of the common denominators to the the klein of all empires and great societies and -- the decline of all empires and great societies

is massive debt. the problem isn't taxes. the problem is spending. no one can cut the rate of increase of spending in washington. the democrats in my view would demagogue them as wanting to starve children, we saw this before. this is the kind of ridiculous non-debate you get. when paul ryan was the speaker of the house he put forward a legitimate plan. it had flaws, but it was a good start to reform social security and medicare, the major drivers of debt entitlement programs in the country. someone came up with an actor that looked like ryan pushing an old lady in a wheelchair over a cliff. that is not a credible response to a credible proposal. ,his is what politicians fear doing anything, cutting spending on unworkable and outmoded programs, because their major

goal is to be reelected and they will be demagogue by their opponents if they try to cut even the increase in spending. host: congress is clearly not in that mode with spending on coronavirus alone. guest: that's true. every year there are anti-tax organizations like citizens against government waste who puts out a book on wasteful and unnecessary spending. i have said on several occasions in my call and that every agency of government should be forced to come before congress every couple of years and justify not just its baseline budget -- it's budget, and baseline budgeting is ridiculous, but its existence. if it is living up to the charter, if it's a living up to the reason for its existence, and it cannot be done better and more cheaply by the private sector, we keep it. if he can't we get rid of it. we do that -- if it can't, we

get rid of it. we do that in business and private life, why can't we do it in government? like ronald reagan said the only proof of eternal life is government programs in washington. caller: i would like to say that the coronavirus and the trump campaign, to have the president of the united states run a campaign so people can get sick and take the illness out and spread it to other people is a selfish act. there is no debating that. we see in arizona doctors are sending elderly people home to die because they can't care for them. we see governor desantis in florida trying to hide the numbers and misconstrue the numbers to fit his agenda. the other thing about president trump compared to barack obama, tell me how many lawyers barack obama had to hire and how many of his lawyers they had to hire and how many and president obama's administration are in prison or on their way to jail.

you talk about the drug war. are you kidding me? the drug war is funded by the alcohol and tobacco commissions. it doesn't seem they care so much about people being strung out on drugs as much as it is whose drugs people are being strung out on. host: we will let cal thomas respond. guest: president obama did not need a lot of lawyers. he had his attorney general who described himself as president obama swingman. all of these personal attacks -- first of all the coronavirus death rate is down 39% according to figures i saw yesterday. infected andhose affect did recover. do some have lingering problems? yes, they do. this has been true of all kinds of viruses and pandemics in the past. more people died of the flu in last worldwide

pandemic we had. be bipartisan because the virus does not discriminate between liberals and conservatives. this ought to be something that unifies us and is not used as a political weapon for or against one party or the other. can't we come together on everything, or have our politics been so poisoned that someone puts out another statement according to whom? host: the homepage of the group called 43 alumni for biden, we work for w we support joe. your thoughts on this group and a similar group, the lincoln project of like-minded republicans opposing the president. guest: you never see this working on the others will stuff you don't see groups being formed democrats for donald trump or democrats for ronald reagan, though there were a few

more for him. way.ways works this some wishy-washy republicans want to the approval of the editorial pages of "the new york post. or the washington a lot of editorial writers were behind john mccain when he ran for the republican nomination. as soon as he got the nomination, they were opposed to him. death, we moderates are for joe biden -- if you -- all of this moderate stuff, we are for joe biden, if you are for low taxes and more freedom, how can you vote for someone who is against those things? joe biden for almost 40 years was me emily opposed the federal -- was opposed to federal funding of abortion. now he is for it. he says times have changed. the value of the unborn child hasn't changed. these so-called republicans, republican in name only.

myron in ohio. caller: good morning, mr. thomas. for all of your wonderful work over the years. i am a republican. i have this question. the democrats, day in and day to, to use your word, seem be unified. republicans never seem to be. can you tell me why? guest: there are several reasons. i am a native washingtonian. the establishment is very strong. people like the approval of others. it's human nature. i would rather have every call from you saying wonderful things about me, but that is not reality. people like to go to cocktail parties and read the paper and see their name in a favorable

way. it's very attractive and seductive. a lot of people who are not well grounded in their ideology and are afraid to speak out for what they believe in because they fear being labeled racist, sexist, homophobic, intolerant, bigoted -- we have heard all of the buzzwords. there are a lot of people who are fearful about that. a couple of books ago i had a whole chapter about hate mail. it was funny. i couldn't print the obscene things, but one of my favorite lines was when i was doing commentary on npr. " is there some kind of inbreeding program on npr that produces a guy like thomas?" i thought that was funny. host: jim in missouri. caller: good morning. good morning, how are you? thisld like to flip

around. i want to know why you think the broadest segment of the woolorate can have the pulled over their eyes. you're guy trump is in trouble. you picked the wrong jockey and probably have a weaker hors revisionism, i'm sorry, is actually a large monkey on the back of the so-called conservative republican party, which is actually, i'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you are neither conservative and i doubt you are a republican. host: we will let you go there, short on time. final thoughts? guest: we had a mix of species there, we went from a worst way monkey, kind of confused about that. if you were still on the line i would ask in what is a conservative to you? like to lower taxes, individual liberty, personal

responsibility. that in the is a hard conservatism. for you to say that i'm not something, i think you'd have to define what you think conservatism is, but we out of time and i appreciate your call. once again, always a pleasure to be on c-span. host:'s new book is called "america's expiration date." thanks again. more ahead here on washington journal, we are joined next by joe garcia to talk about the visit yesterday. also litter on we will be speaking with advancing health talkingounder and ceo about the impact of covid-19 on minorities and what she calls the pandemic of inequities. ♪

>> american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the americans for every weekend. coming up as we can, saturday on oral history, an interview with cox,eney cox -- courtland his involvement with a student nonviolent quarter many committee. on sunday at four clock p.m. eastern on real america, the 1963 nbc news report, the american revolution of 1963. and the status of the civil rights movement with protests maryland,ia, alabama, and in the northern cities of new jersey, chicago, and brooklyn. i said in a discussion on

congress, and polarization with historians as well as political scientist norman ornstein. and in :00 p.m. on the cohen talksandrew about his book. days that defined jfk's response to the nuclear arms race and civil rights. exploring the american story. watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. announcer: washington federal continues. host: we are joined next by congressman chile garcia from the fourth district of illinois. welcome. guest: good morning. glad to join you. morning to on this talk about u.s.-mexico relations and obviously with the visit yesterday of the mexican president lopez meeting with president trump and holding a

briefing with reporters, also talking about the beginnings of the u.s.-mexico-canada agreement. let me read you a little bit from the washington post article about that. from visiting the mexican president improve relations. they say trump was elected on the anti-immigration platform that said he would build a wall along the u.s.-mexico water and worse mexico to pay for it. mexico rejected that idea out right, u.s. taxpayers have funded the barricade which is under construction. last year, trump threatened to impose tariffs on mexico. a deal was struck to avoid a trade war but not without hard feelings on both sides. lopez seem to and have a pretty good relationship going on. why do you think that is? i think that the meeting for the most part was a dog and pony show.

attacked insulted and mexico and mexican-americans for years now. it's hard to believe that president lopez is falling for it, even though minister trudeau did not show up and sees right byough the whole photo op trump and his aides. whatalso very true that both presidents have in common is countries that are being withed by the coronavirus new levels of infection. we've reached the 3 million mark yesterday, one of the highest totals ever, 59,000 cases, new cases reported yesterday. of course, both economies are reeling from the effects.

both of them had a need for a distraction and this was sort of a perfect press conference. what is almost interesting was no mention of the free trade wasement, the usmca improved significantly by democrats and the house of representatives in negotiations with light hauser. it's also very telling the president lopez would come and only meet with trump and not even arrange for a phone call with vice president biden, particularly given the polling in the country that shows vice president biden would have beat him in many states across the events trumpg many won in 2016. host: a letter that you sent to president trump, you said that while this meeting may appear to totrade related, and tied the new united

states-mexico-canada trade agreement, it is nothing more than an attempt to distract from the coronavirus crisis and your failure to lead an adequate response to the pandemic. those are the words and the experience of the congressional hispanic caucus. i am a member, a signatory to that letter, and we feel very strongly about a variety of things. they won when donald trump became a candidate for president, he attacked mexico and he attacked mexicans and mexican americans. he has unleashed almost daily attacks against the immigrant community, calling people like myself criminals and drug dealers and everything else. that hurts. we take that personally and it has not ended there. it's also ironic that it was in washington, d.c. that the

community across the country of immigrant groups had to fight and defeated efforts to include the question of citizenship on the census, a clear act that is meant to suppress the census reporting in this country, and particularly among immigrants and latinos. and more recently, just two weeks ago, we were able to stop trump's effort to end the daca program, a program that is helping almost 800,000 young people who, by all measurements, are u.s. citizens except they don't have a piece of paper to prove it. they were children who were brought here many, -- were very young. who simply want an opportunity to legalize their status and a pathway to citizenship. they are doing good things and communities, many of whom are front-line workers, many of whom

are essential workers saving lives in hospitals with doctors and nurses and other personnel. this is the track record of why wetrump, and that's wanted to send that letter to president trump and we wanted everyone to take note of it because these are grievances and this is the track record of this administration as it pertains to immigrants and latino and mexican-american communities. democrat from illinois, (202) 748-8000 is the democrat line. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. story,spanic immigrant what you are very familiar with. you came here from durango, mexico. briefly tell us your story of when you can to the united states and why that was. here, my father

was a pioneer. he left a very small village in the northern state of durango like many other men at that time who were trying to provide for their families. part of a u.s. worker exchange program to work the fields in texas and tell on you and he made his way to chicago when he got his green card. therrived here, the rest of family, to be united with him with every card 1985 and have been members of our community contributing. i have the great honor of being one of 14 members of the 116th congress who are foreign-born immigrants who understand the contributions of immigrants in this country and why we need to embrace and have a good immigration policy and immigration reform in our country, we are law abiding, we are hard-working, we are

god-fearing. we are as red-blooded americans as anyone else, and we just want simply for the american public to know that and to also know of the contributions that we are making to build our nation. indiana, katelyn on our democrat line. trump has repeatedly tried cutting the international budget which can disproportionally affect people in poverty around the globe, and i'm just wondering what you are doing with the rest of congress to try to protect it and make sure that citizens outside of america are still safe and healthy. guest: thank you for that question. haveu know, trump doesn't very many international friends collaborators to engage the rest of the world in

a globalizing economy and in terms of foreign relations, about the only does go friends that he seems to have our , but he putin in russia has been someone who just doesn't have a history of understanding foreign relations and the need to be a leader on the world stage by assisting other nations in their time of need. one of the things we're trying to do now is to ensure that during covid-19, four countries -- more countries have access to credit and are not obligated to pay whatever obligations they may have because of the pandemic, just as we have created relief programs in this country that has resulted in stimulus checks to working families across the country, initiatives to help small businesses, and also looking at a passive of important

legislation, the heroes act, that would help many states and provide thingsts like rental assistance and help for small property owners who have to make their mortgage payments as well. this is the agenda that we are trying to advance in the u.s. congress today, both on the domestic front to help are working families and workers across the country in small businesses, as well as to help other countries during the pandemic when they are very strapped for cash and where exceptions need to be made to help people get through these tough times. host: kingston illinois, sharon, independent line. caller: i just wanted to say i think it's unfair to mark quite as as racist if few million white french people

wanted to come into america in any area. rather you have people that have been in a certain place for 30 or 40 years, even if it is a white, french person. i think any american would have a problem with that. if tingling or 3 million andagoans decided to move, go to mexico and move into any i wonderood in mexico, many mexicans would have a problem with 2 million or 3 million illegal americans coming them,free anything from any people that have been in an area for a certain amount of time, i don't think race or nationality or color has anything to do with it. americans have real problems with french people or a wish or anybody coming into the area if they feel threatened like they can have their job or something like that. i don't think america has a race problem at all or a nationality problem. i think they are very accepting of other nations.

we are all next and all that, that's all i have to say. no racial or ethnic characterizations of the american public whatsoever in the remark that i've made this just want you to know that there are many americans living happily in mexico and many are parts of mexico. they find a welcoming country and that accepting country and one that they want to live their golden years in in many places across mexico, so with respect to the flow of people across the border, it goes both ways. the moment that we can ensure the advancement of working people and working families on both sides of the border, then we can talk about full integration. their long stood and equality rates on both sides of the border as long as you have working conditions both in the

mexican economy, workers in the manufacturing sector in mexico only earned about 40% of what workers in china make working in manufacturing, you are going to have the exodus of jobs going to other countries. that's why we fought to improve labor standards in the new trade agreement. i wish the two presidents would have talked about it, i wish they would have taken at least one question from the media in their two press conferences that they had, but obviously that wasn't the emphasis of it, it seems to be one more opportunity for a photo op. i welcome the debate around immigration reform and why it is .adly needed our immigration system and the laws are broken, we need to reform them and we been pushing for a dialogue and collaboration in the u.s..

host: the administration citing covid-19 in their proposal to change a file of roles. asylum from disease hotspots. the trump administration proposed a new set of rules that block migrants from applying for asylum if they came or passed through a country with a widespread contagious disease such as the coronavirus. that would block nearly all asylum-seekers at the u.s. southern border from applying or any form of humanitarian projection in the u.s., and would put them on the fast-track to deportation instead. what are your thoughts? guest: in the first place, it's very important to understand that president trump has fought to dismantle our silent system process.

a long-held set of values that recognizes that people who are fleeing from violence and persecution should be given the ,pportunity to make their case this new announcement has to be looked at within the framework of what the president has intended on doing for the past several years. there are legal actions against the president and the the stepstion and they taken with respect to the asylum system. it is one of the distinguishing features of our system in this country to welcome the persecuted and people who are fleeing danger and who are seeking refuge in a nation that historically has welcomed them. that came to a halt with president trump. the latest announcement is simply efforts to scare people into not accepting any new comers as a part of the recipe that helped the president elected in 2016, but i think the

american public is recognizing that you can't just do things like that and do away with many of the things that have made a legacy around the world as it relates to immigrants and refugees. host: alberto is next in bakersfield, california, republican line. from vegas though, california. promised immigration reform in the first year of his presidency, he lied to us with all the congress. deported more mexican people from their home state. i have a lot of friends that have been supportive. and you guys are saying nothing. nothing. have the latino congress, they don't say nothing to obama. and you guys do not complain.

don't see any deportations right now here in california. i don't see nothing. like obama did. you guys didn't say nothing. we have all these aliticians, democratic, liquor store on every corner of the latino community. that's the way you guys allow the latino community? to have a liquor store on every corner? host: will get a response. guest: thank you for your call, alberta. for the record, i am one of the freshmen members of congress, i was not there when president obama was in the white house. he does hail from chicago, i was quite disappointed that no immigration reform was achieved period, it's one of the lacking's of his administration.

i served with president obama and the illinois senate, by the way. in a house of representatives, we have passed the dream and promise act, an important part of immigration reform. it has been languishing in the senate for almost eight months now. we have urged leader mcconnell to call the bill for consideration in the senate, he has refused to do that. the bill would enable doctor --daca class of young people, it would provide a pathway to citizenship for people who have temporary protected status in our country. that is what we have done. i plan on continuing to be an advocate for immigration debates and immigration reform in our country. there is another bill i believe we past three months ago, the farm modernization act that would also provide such a vehicle so that farmworkers could stabilize their situation

and could provide a significant pathway to legalization for them. their employers supported the essential nature of farmworkers in our economy, especially in the pandemic. so we are looking forward to continuing to press immigration reform bills in the congress, but that's what the 160th congress and the house of representatives had done to advance immigration reform in our country. host: that call from bakersfield, california. kevin mccarthy, the minority leader from california represents that central california city. with president trump in january at the signing of the usmca, the political article, trust north american trade deal starts now, here is what to expect. it started yesterday at the white house. congressman, you alluded to some of the changes, the improvements in the usmca that were made. what can you tell us about this

deal, particularly in terms of u.s.-mexico portions? guest: the bill is an improvement over the prior north american trade agreement that was in place for 25 years. , acifically, it provoked cause mexico to act on its labor laws, passing a historic piece of legislation that on paper sounds really good and is going in the right direction. with respect to getting workers in mexico greater opportunities theytermine what union want to be affiliated with. mexico has a long history of government-dominated unions, they are quite friendly to employers and they have kept wages very low. part of the reason why many jobs have gone out over the 25 year period of the north american

free trade agreement. other improvements in the bill included the fact that the initial proposal would have granted from the, large pharmaceutical companies the ability to move to mexico with all of their monopolies guaranteed. thus raising the price of pharmaceuticals in mexico, including the price of insulin because of their intervention in the house of representatives with trade representative , thatouses -- lighthizer allow that provision of the law to move forward. however, better bill, the conditions in mexico are still such that, as i stated previously in the manufacturing sector, mexican workers only earned about 40% of what chinese workers earned in china. the incentive for companies to continue outsourcing and moving

jobs in relocating, the only way that can be improved is by strengthening labor rights in mexico. will fall short mexican workers are not able to organize and american workers will suffer from that outsourcing of labor. there were improvements to the bill. there were also initiatives to ensure that along the border they were both drinking water is -- there were both drinking water a residual water systems implemented. the usmca, things can only improve the living conditions of workers in canada and the u.s. and mexico improve, and that's why in the end, i wound up

voting against the usmca. one other provision that was completely ignored by the usmca, even though it has modest improvements, what the omission of any mention, even the word climate change is not included in the agreement. when so many countries are recognizing that climate change is a threat to everything that we are as countries and the civilized world, it was omitted from the usmca. reason why i voted against the agreement, because i felt that it was a shortcoming and that we should have done more. european countries and the european union understand climate change, they are taking sustainable energy and move away from fossil fuels. we don't have the luxury of not addressing climate change in the most important economic agreement between the countries in north america.

host: a couple more calls here, we will go to tim in gainesville, florida. democrat line. caller: good morning representative garcia. so glad to be talking with you. i want to know i'm a pro-life democrat. i'm also a black lives matter person. i marched with the children of daca, i am the grandson of a jamaican immigrant in my mother's name was carmelita. i wanted to say that you can be a patriot like john quincy. they were against the mexican war. it withncy adams viewed disparity, the annexation of texas. he thought that was the ultimate betrayal of the constitution, but i would like to get your remarks on this direct quote. -- and theution is

union is sinking into military monarchy to the ripped asunder like the empire of alexander. that was as comment about the annexation of texas. thank you so much for taking my call. guest: thank you so much. i see your also a historian and a very wise one. i think we've had warnings from great leaders in our country from different sectors of the population all along who have warned against the election of people who think that they are alleged to be king, and their elected to do it they will. i'm also reminded of the threat of the military-industrial complex and how we have the

responsibility to always protect the constitution and to make sure that no one in any branch of government monopolizes power or violates the constitution, so thank you for your call in for sharing a little bit of american history with us and the things that make us a unique nation. host: steve is next, independent line, port saint lucie, florida. caller: joe biden's 50 year career with 5 million factories and jobs and most of them to communist china. where do you think this virus came from? the communist chinese government. back, marxisp reveledt in the streets of chicago, and you haven't said one word about that. let's talk about that. you are hispanic american, your brothers and sisters know they're not going to vote for joe biden because the offshore's and outsources all the jobs.

guest: thank you for your call. know, there is plenty of blame to go around in past bipartisan trade deals. i've heard regrets from members of congress who have been there during that previous experience with respect to what we are facing now. we are trying to do things in the u.s. congress to address the working conditions in those three countries, we are trying to ensure that workers have the right to affiliate with unions freely. we are trying to increase wages and we see wage differentials as being one of the things that creates inequality and disparities from one country to another. only when we have enforcement of labor models and transparency in trade agreements

that we can advance and ensure that working people are advancing. the blame on bad trade agreements is bipartisan. the people who were there prior to my arrival in congress should be held to account for that, but i think that as we move forward, we will learn from mistakes and shortcomings and that's what will make us a better country, and that's what will enable us to engage in real and fair trade deals in the future that improve a lot of working families in all three countries. host: great to have you with us on washington journal this morning. guest: thank you so much. host: there's more ahead. up next, we are going to be talking about the inequities of the treatments the pandemic. we will be speaking with advancing health founder and ceo talking about covid-19 and the impact across minority communities. your calls and comments ahead.

trump: america's future is in our hands and ladies and gentlemen, the best is yet to come. trump is hosting a rally in portsmouth, new hampshire. campaign 2020 coverage saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, on-demand at c-span.org or listen on the go with the free c-span radio app. today, secretary of defense mark esper and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general mark milley testify before the house

armed services committee on the authorities and roles of the defense department related to civilian law enforcement. watch live coverage beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, on demand on c-span.org, or listen live wherever you are on the free c-span radio app. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events. you can watch all of c-span's public affairs programming on television, online, or listen on the free radioactive and the part -- radioactive -- radio app or through our social media feed. c-span, created by america's as ae's television company public service and brought to you today by your television provider.

washington journal continues. host: dr. blackstock is an emergency medicine physician in new york. you can read some of her postings on yahoo! news, she's in medical could trigger and also the founder and ceo of an organization called advancing health equity. welcome to washington journal. guest: thank you for having me. host: tellis, what is your group, advancing health equity. what is that about? guest: i start of the organization about a year and a half ago in response to racial health inequities that i can see in my clinical practice, practicing over 10 years in the emergency department. we have some very concerning statistics. black men have the shortest life expectancy, black women have the highest maternal mortality rate. i really want us to work with health care and related organizations around these racial health inequities.

host: how do you propose going about doing that? in a practical way, what is your organization doing? guest: i partner with these organizations for talks, training, consulting. most training is about racism and health care, unconscious bias in health care. making organizations more aware trying although we are to the wonderful positions and clinicians to people, sometimes our biases actually implement the way that we care for people and we have data that shows that. and also working with organizations to ensure that they are meeting their health equity goals, ensuring that all patients are having the optimal health outcome as much as possible. host: our guest, a former associate professor of emergency medicine at the nyu medical school. the organization you just mentioned you formed a year and a half ago, well before the

pandemic. inequities, the pandemic must be really revealing much more of that to you. guest: absolutely. obviously these were concerned that i had before this pandemic and i think there are a number epidemiologists and researchers and other folks working in the health equity space that were very concerned about the health inequities because before the pandemic, what the pandemic has done is really exposed and amplified the numbers. thinking about what we've seen in, andfour months we've seen black lies and indigenous communities being absolutely disproportionately impacted not only in infection rates, but who is hospitalized and who dies from coronavirus. host: that exposure and that amplification of those inequities, the problems it has caused in particular among minority communities in some way

could be a good thing in terms of evolving solutions down the road in terms of legislation, health-care legislation, in particular? say, i don't will know if i would say it's a good thing, i think it's definitely bringing more attention to the inequities, and i think that for example, i testified in front of the u.s. house of representatives subcommittee on the coronavirus. we had a briefing in early june on racial health disparities and they were very interested in developing legislation to address the inequities that we're seeing. testify, to talk about the importance of having legislation around the disparities because as we know, we are going to be in this pandemic for much longer than we expected. what i expect is for these communities that have already been devastated, to be

devastated even further if we don't have legislation passed to mitigate the impact of the virus. host: our guest talking this morning about the effect of covid-19, the pandemic on minority communities. we welcome your calls, your comments. the numbers are (202) 748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zones. in the mountain and pacific regions, (202) 748-8001. dr. blackstock, give us an idea of what your day to day work life is like. guest: sure. a clinic,bination of seeing patients in urgent care since january, and it's interesting because i transitioned out of the emergency department at urgent care because i thought it would be quite simple. typically we see minor complaints. but the pandemic happened, so i started seeing patients who essentially the walking wounded of the pandemic. i had many patients who were

sick enough for me to have to send them to the emergency department. and what i did notice over those first few weeks here at the pandemic hit was my patient population with specifically very diverse quickly shifted over a matter of weeks to mostly .lack and latin many of them have been working continuously, they had not had the luxury of working from home. many were essential workers and service workers. they were in a sense exposed and put at risk to be infected with the virus. many of them also to public transportation and lived in overcrowded housing, which we also know are risk factors to being infected. forally had the opportunity hundreds of coronavirus patients up until this point. unfortunately in new york city, our numbers are doing much better, so we are seeing much less patients who are infected. but i will say that that

experience was quite scary. host: in new york city in terms of minority communities, can you address some of the underlying issues in terms of, is it more because those communities are more susceptible, you mentioned the transportation issues in new york. susceptible to an impact from covid-19, or because they are lacking adequate resources, access to primary health care, for example? guest: those are all factors. we are seeing these disproportionate rates is multifactorial. pandemic, wehe have communities with high rates of uninsurance, do not have access to follow the care. we also know that there are certain social to terminating employment,cation, all have a direct influence on the health of individuals and

communities. even before the pandemic, if communities carried the highest burden of causing disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, and asthma, which we can to find out work risk factors for doing very poorly when you are infected with coronavirus. add on to that the other factors such as overcrowding in housing, transportation, and it's almost a perfect storm to make these communities even sicker. looking hopefully a year or more down the road when the pandemic subsides, what do you help your organization, the advancing health equity, can take forward? what kind of ideas are you trying to take forward for minority communities? term, we are short pressing for recommendations to the subcommittee on the coronavirus, but the recommendations are really targeting testing and contact tracy infrastructures in black

and indigenous communities. is goingink outreach to be very, very critical as we go on in the pandemic. education around the symptoms of coronavirus, how is it transmitted, because we know the messenger is incredibly important in terms of relaying these messages to communities. and in the long term, we need to really think about impact in the communities and those areas i mentioned in terms of employment. leave,s of having sick having personal protective equipment on the job, having access to homeownership. homeownership is very important to developing wealth and welfare is key in addressing some of the issues that we're seeing in terms of racial health inequities. ist we are calling for really for federal, state, and local governments to invest in black and other minority communities because i think that we will see in the future of the , further devastation if

we don't make social change. host: the u.s. passing 3 million cases yesterday, a graphic in the washington post, new coronavirus cases and deaths are the day. this was last night, so obviously it has gone up. 62,751 total cases, now over 3 million and the debts yesterday alone, 897. that death toll has no risen above 130,000. were you surprised at all by the spike we seen in cases of states that had reopened? guest: no, i wasn't surprised, to be honest. beginning,the very although there were not stringent federal guidelines about reopening, that you needed to see a certain number of cases or at least see a downward trend over the course of 14 days, and many of the states that reopened not have that. some states were even trending upward as they reopened.

to be honest, i think what we're seeing now has been very easily predicted because when you don't have the virus under control, and you are not using the public health measures and you decide to reopen, slowly opening restaurants, clubs, bars, you are going to see what we're seeing now in the south and western parts of the country. host: we have called waiting period first to jenny in missouri. -- jimmy in missouri. guest: caller: i just wanted to say that right now as everything saysing on, as everybody minority communities, i think all communities are minorities due to the fact that sometimes, thele get confused about whole world watching and it's very hard to run a state in very complicated to run a country. i'm a longtime democratic and i believe that the president we

have right now is doing his best, and may god bless america and may god bless the united states. host: dr. blackstock, any thoughts? guest: i respectfully disagree with that. i think what we're seeing now looking at the case numbers is that the death we had in this country compared to other countries, compared to europe, compared to asia, compared to even other countries, what we're seeing is a clear lack of effective federal leadership and also of a clear strategy for containing this virus. we know that there are basic public health measures that eliminate the spread of this virus. had 50t that we different countries and the united states, everyone is doing their own thing. if we had a uniform strategy, we would have had more success. host: you talked protective

equipment and moment ago, this is from the washington post. health care workers again short on protective equipment, health care workers on the frontlines of the coronavirus pandemic are accounting shortages of masks, face shields and gloves. a frustrating occurrence of a struggle that haunted the first month of the crisis. why does there continue to be such a problem? guest: that is such a great question. we know in the beginning that we had a shortage, and a lot of it is due to one supply chain issue but also to the fact that the federal government could not take the lead on ensuring that we could procure large amounts of personal protective equipment. again, we need to have a uniform strategy and the federal government needs to be involved in that. but also the issue is that we have this shortage, and then we started having to reopening. reopening happened and we are seeing surges in the south and west, and those hospitals don't have enough ppe. we are also seeing outpatient

clinics and offices open as well, and they also need ppe. we have even a larger demand for personal protective equipment now than we had previously, but we had no national strategy to attain large amounts of ppe.. int: let's hear from sherry dallas, texas, next up. [indiscernible] host: dr. blackstock, were you able to hear her,? guest: i wasn't able to hear clearly. host: it was kind of money on my end, too. we apologize for that. we will go to john in chantilly, virginia. caller: thanks for taking my call. thank you for your service.

you give us the best advice that you can give to us. said, i would like to elaborate the point that the gentleman was just calling and say black people in this country, they have been suffering for a long time and they have a lot of existence that they have. but that's not why a call. the president is challenging our doctors, telling us what needs to be done and how we should view this disease. that doesn't mean that wearing a , you are protecting yourself and protecting others. have do you convince someone who is ignorant who goes to the people and knowingly doesn't know what is going to come? a lot of young people, they listen to the president and they think that you are a coward if you are not wearing a mask.

i will never let the doctor do a surgery on my wife that wearing a mask, you're not going to do it. this is very simple, i just came back from new zealand and i can tell you one thing, i am surprised how people are irresponsible and following the doctor's order and the guidelines and i appreciate your service. thank you very much. thank you for sharing that experience. from new zealand, new zealand has done a tremendous job of containing the virus and i think they could be an example for this country. the other thing that you mentioned in terms of this administration, they really need to follow the advice of public health experts. public health experts are experts for a reason, and they know what interventions work. we know that universal masking, we know that washing hands, social distancing all works. and we follow that in the city.

we had some really scary numbers, we had preventable deaths, even. and we saw what happened and we shut it down. we saw our numbers go down dramatically. pointd echo the caller's that visit ministration needs to start listening to public health experts. we know what we are talking about. host: can i asked you, he was critical of the president, a tweet from the president this morning about a test, he said for the thousandth time, the reasons we've shown so many cases compared to other countries is that we have not done nearly as well as -- have not the newly as well as we have is that our testing is much a grand better. we have tested 40 million people. if we did 20 million instead, cases would be half. not reported! the president saying that the cases are higher because we are testing more. guest: no. that is something he keeps

saying that is actually quite inaccurate. for several reasons. for one, the positivity rate has been increasing. hospitalizations, especially in increasing.re also that tells of the people are actually getting sick enough to be hospitalized. know that there is a lag of three to five weeks between detected and hospitalizations and deaths. we will next few weeks, start seeing not only the hospitalization rate go up, but also the death rate as well. there are other countries testing much more than we are that are not having the same positivity rate. there's something going on here and we know that it is because there is no national strategy around the spread of the virus. host: along those lines, our guest is also a contributor to yahoo! medical news.

one of her most recent pieces, new covid-19 cases, our inevitable outcome of opening too quickly. l is joining us from california. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm just wondering with the effective the virus, -- effect of the virus, i would think that today, they don't have a lot of medical insurance, i think that they were more so affected. you know? if there was a cure for the disease. my question for the doctor, isn't it true most diseases are all diseases attached to the iron in your red blood cells? guest: i'm actually not familiar with that mechanism. that this virus is a

novel coronavirus, and we are learning a lot about it every day. vaccines, we have about 145 vaccines being studied worldwide, we have a little over 20 that are actually in human clinical trials, and then we also have a tremendous number of researchers working on therapeutics to mitigate or hopefully cure this disease. host: does this feel like it has been a crash course in infectious diseases for you training in the emergency room? guest: it's funny that you say that because i was talking to one of my colleagues, we have really never needed this much infectious disease before and also epidemiology. the epidemiologists are probably the cool kids of this pandemic, we are definitely learning a lot we go along each day. there's a situation quickly evolving. even now, the fact that a few

days ago, a few hundred scientists got together and said they were concerned that coronavirus is not only being transmitted by respiratory droplets, but through aerosol. that also is another concern about whether or not the transmission is also significantly airborne as well. host: could that be part of the issue in terms of national it seems like every two to three weeks, guidance changes, or certainly may be revised? i think that we've seen other countries handle this virus well. i don't think that is probably the reason why as a country, we are doing so poorly in terms of managing it. i think we need to be flexible, we need to realize there are new discoveries, the evidence coming out day by day and that we respond appropriately. david in's hear from mississippi.

go ahead. caller: [indiscernible] handling covid patients. because of that -- sets up for fraud. test positive, they don't test positive. one story about 12 nurses who tested for covid and out of curiosity i went with hospital to test and every single one came back positive. woman whord about a found out she had to wait an hour and set underscore to go home. after she got home she gets a phone call saying she tested positive. don't believe the numbers. it's all made up, it's all political.

what going to happen? and theor reelection only state he didn't win was minnesota. they know trump has got minnesota. host: dr. blackstone, is it all political? no, it is not all political. here since march, taking care of coronavirus patients, and i saw it with my own eyes. walk in withs short of breath, fatigue, low oxygen levels, oxygen levels sometimes incompatible with life. i had a considerable number of them sent to the emergency department. saw were scary. i have to admit even as a physician, i was scared to go to work because i saw how sick my patients were and i was scared of getting infected, i was scared to bring it home to my family. and i saw was very real

have a lot of colleagues that without for that as well. host: there's a headline about the effect on pregnant women, a warning for expectant mothers, especially black and hispanic. what are the issues facing them and why black and hispanic women are more susceptible? ago,: a few weeks declassified pregnant woman as a high risk category for coronavirus because they are more likely to be hospitalized. these are pregnant women in general. we are not sure if the hospitalization is for pregnancy-related reasons or coronavirus, but what we do know was that black and hispanic women were more likely to be admitted to the icu, the intensive care unit, and also to be intubated, to have a breathing tube placed down. they were more likely to get sicker. what it suggests from that data is that we are seeing issues affecting other racial disparities that we are seeing in the pandemic, the fact that

black and latino people are more likely to be working on the front lines, more likely to live in overcrowded housing and basically be at risk of being infected. it's the same reasons we are seeing black and latino pregnant women being infected as well. ob/gyns have to take into consideration how they are keeping them safe. host: pennsylvania, amos. caller: how are you today? host: fine, thanks. caller: i'm calling concerning, you are constantly hearing about infections and deaths, but what about the recovery rate? you never hear about the recovery rate, you never hear about natural medications, you never hear about vitamin d, a, c, zinc. help me out with that. guest: that's a great question. i always tell my patients and others that you should

definitely be taking your vitamins. zinc is very important, vitamin d is very important. but also, you have to take into consideration that other public health measures that are mentioned previously are really what is going to keep you the safest. look into that if you some of the chinese data, there are a lot of herbal medications that they have used for coronavirus patients, so definitely there are more holistic ways of treating coronavirus, but they really haven't undergone any clinical trials, and so we really don't have any evidence on how effective they are. one more call from kathy in fremont, california. caller: i work in a library and i was off for seven weeks and now we are doing curbside pickup. it is a large group of people. they have taken a lot of strict

precautions but they are not having us do things like testing or temperature checks. when i go to my church, they are limited to 80 people. they take their temperature when you go in. they do that. is there a risk for me and work where we are not doing some of that stuff? .uest: we will see temperature checks are not that helpful because not everybody with coronavirus will have a fever. temperature checks actually end up mixing a lot of people. the key during this time is to have small groups of people indoors if you have to be indoors, wearing masks, keeping six feet apart while you are indoors, and then spending as much time outside. you mentioned you were doing curbside pickup. that sounds relatively safe to me. i would actually be more concerned about you being in church with 80 other people. that is a large number of people to be indoors with. we know the virus has high rates

of transmissibility in indoor settings. host: dr. blackstock is the founder and ceo of advancing health equity and an emergency medical physician in new york city. you can read her writing or reporting at yahoo! medical news. thank you so much. guest: thank you. host: the supreme court will be issuing additional opinions. could be the final opinions in this term in the next half-hour or so, we expect. we will go there live if we see a reaction from the court steps as we get a live look at the u.s. supreme court and spend the next half-hour hour or so asking you about this current supreme court term. as it ends, your reaction to the decisions that have come down so far. for democrats, our lines are (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. , (202) 748-8002 . back in a minute. "q&a," a night on

journalist talks about the history of voting in the u.s. and some of the issues surrounding voting today in her book "thank you for voting." >> the 2013 decision had a massive impact on voting rights, and there is not any voting thats advocate or attorney does not see it as just a ground shaking impact. laws of course the voting that are discriminatory are still illegal, there is not federal oversight based on the history of discrimination of the kind of stopgap where they need federal approval to make voting changes. >> watch sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's "q&a." president, from public affairs, available now in paperback and e-book. presents biographies of every president, organized by their

ranking by noted historians, from best to worst. and features perspectives into the lives of our nation's chief executives and leadership styles. visit our website, topan.org/thepresidents learn more. order your copy today wherever books and e-books are sold. host: here on "washington journal," this is the stakeout position, what is called the stakeout position, outside the u.s. supreme court across from the u.s. capitol. reporters gather there for potential comments from participants in cases that are being decided, decisions handed down today by the supreme court. we expect that after 10:00 eastern or so. going to ask you in this next half-hour -- actually, we will continue longer and make it a longer program for you so we can see if we can get some of those final decisions in. plenty of time to get through.

(202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. on the current court term that is wrapping up this week of the decisions that have come down, we talked about the coverage, the prenatal coverage, birth control decision that came down from the court earlier in the little sisters of the poor case. we will talk about that some more. this morning, expecting rulings on the president's finances. this is yahoo! news. "the u.s. supreme court to rule in trump finances case." court on thursday will say whether president trump onds to release documents potentially sensitive cases with potentially far-reaching applications. they write that asserting presidential immunity, the new

york real estate tycoon has refused to release his tax returns despite promising to do so during his 2016 campaign for the white house. trump finances are the target of the democrat led committees in the house of a percentage which are looking into the president, the trump organization and his family in what started as a probe into foreign influence in 2016. a new york prosecutor, a democrat, is looking meanwhile into whether the trump campaign broke finance laws with hush money payments to a point start and a former playboy model. the supreme court said wednesday it would issue its opinions in the remaining cases for this term at 10:00 a.m. eastern today, on thursday. so about 25 minutes away. they come out fairly quickly. back to the discussion we had this morning, the headline in "usa today," "justice is ok exemption to birth control coverage." decision is the latest in battle over affordable care act.

towards the end of the story, richard wolf writes this. "the case, which had confounded the justices for several years, represented the latest but not the last challenge the affordable care act, a decade after its passage. the high court has upheld the law twice and will hear a third challenge in the fall, one in which the trump administration recommends the entire law be struck down. it was one of the three religious freedom cases heard by the court this term and one by conservatives. in june, the justices ruled a state may not deny financial support for religious education if it provided such for private secular schools. and also on wednesday and ruled that religious schools can fire teachers without being subject to jobless nomination lawsuits." -- job discrimination lawsuits." first in johnstown, pennsylvania. ron, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine, thanks.

caller: ok. on the supreme court ruling on the birth control pills, many women use birth control pills for not just birth control, but for things like irregular endometriosis, things like that. are they going to deny a woman the right to obtain birth control pills because of other medical conditions other than birth control? that is what i don't understand. i can't believe that 7-2 vote either. that really astounded me that some of the liberals on the court would vote with the conservatives on that. host: the review expressed by rachel in california -- a similar view expressed by rachel in california. "my daughter has pc os and it has been a lifesaver for her." it helps with them to be to tryst, hormone imbalances, and can cut your risk of developing

ovarian cancer by 50%. "ixel on twitter says, totally missed what religious freedom means. i thought it allowed christians the freedom to worship. it really means their minority gets to dictate how the real world works." richard is on the independent line in star lake, new york. welcome. caller: hello. considering the two supreme court decisions today on the tax returns for mr. trump, i think the subpoena from new york is a legitimate subpoena that the supreme court, i would think, would want to support. i think the request by the committees could be seen as overreaching. i don't think there is a law that says a president has to provide his tax returns. i realize practice has allowed it. but i am not sophisticated enough to know about the law, but i do think common sense says it could be a bit overreaching.

host: on that piece, "the washington post" says this about that case in particular. , theew york attorney president is attempting to stop subpoenas from a grand jury. he is looking into whether corporate records were altered in violation of state laws to cover up hush money payments. he too is seeking the information from a third party. in lancaster, california, welcome. caller: yes. i think we need to know about his tax returns, because i think he is a crook. this is our money. i believe he is stealing it. he needs to be exposed. that is my comment. host: ok. to maine. jack, welcome, independent line. how are you? caller: wonderful, thanks. glad i got through to you today.

my opinion on -- first, i will go to the birth control thing. we are missing the boat. the insurance companies should make some sort of allowances to take contraceptives in or out of a policy. i don't know. there is probably a lot of details to work out there but it is easiest to have insurance companies to do it. but with regards to the supreme court, i believe it is in the constitution that the house of representatives is not only permitted but required to investigate the president's branch of the government. i think it is their responsibility to do it, and i do not think a supreme court would be well advised to not allow them to investigate. those are my comments. i hope i was clear. host: ok. good to hear from you. this is the elite opinion piece in "the wall street journal" this morning. religious liberty lives at the high court. they write the second opinion

wednesday, little sisters of the poor versus pennsylvania, involved employers who rejected providing contraceptives under a mandate from obamacare. the little sisters had been fighting this for years. the trump administration put forth regulations in 2017 and 2018 to expand exemptions for employers with good-faith objections. pennsylvania and new jersey sued, calling it an abuse of discretion. not so, ro justice clarence thomas for the court's five conservatives. the affordable care act's text doesn't mention contraceptives here but rather empowers the to decide whath preventive health coverage is mandatory. that quepasa's grant of authority includes the ability to identify and create exemptions, justice thomas wrote. this is a victory, but a narrow one. justice kagan concurred in the judgment, joined by justice breyer. but as the case moves back to lower courts, the trumpet ministrations opt out might

prove arbitrary. that reads like an invitation to keep the sisters in court. saidces alito and gorsuch they would have also held for the sisters under the religious freedom restoration act, which would end their "legal odyssey." but progressives today exhibit a growing hostility to religion, writes "the wall street journal," and are likely to pursue the nuns to the end of the legal earth. they conclude by saying a president biden would be under pressure from the left to undo protections for religious employers so the fight could start a new in 2021. a question for joe biden, how much do you want to force catholic nuns to violate their conscience to appease the secular left? we hear from michael up next. we are waiting for opinions from for opinions from the supreme court in the next when he minutes or so. michael, good morning, in richmond, virginia. caller: hello. i want to give my opinion and a shout out to my friend, nick.

he is one of my colleagues. we were discussing this recently. to delaware and here from anthony, democrats line. -- hear from anthony, democrats line. caller: thank you for having me. i just wanted to say i think of course the judges made a good decision but if the democrats get back in office, it is going to change again. host: all right. in maryland, jorge, independent line. your thoughts? caller: yes. i think there has been a mixed batch of good and bad decisions from the supreme court. i guess the bad decision, what i would consider a bad decision, was the lgbtq decision. i don't think the result is bad necessarily. but i think the supreme court

did not do their job in reading a decision that is constitutional or not. i feel like they were doing the job of a legislator, the civil rights act. i don't not think when the act was written they were including the scope of lgbtq community. that is my opinion on that decision. as far as the birth control supreme court decision, i think it is good. we should have the freedom to respond to our conscience. and i think this decision helps a lot of us to do that. there are companies that should have the freedom to decide what they want to include in their insurance. that if there is a company that disagrees, all

birth control should be included. that is the beauty of the free setet, that companies can up and advertise themselves to include benefits and people can choose to look there. if they are not happy with cap needs that do not include birth control, then you don't have to spend your money on that company. we should have that freedom. i think the supreme court allows -- that decision allows us to have that freedom. host: 15 minutes before the top of the hour, 10:00 on the east coast, about the time we should start seeing some decisions from the court, which would be their final decisions of the current term. a live look at the u.s. supreme court. we are asking you your thoughts on the term of the cases decided yesterday, what the decision may be today. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for independents, that line, (202) 748-8002. our plan is to stay here live,

extend the program a bit, go to 10:30 eastern in the aftermath of those decisions. if the news comes out, we will bring it to you from the court. other news. this is on unemployment for good 1.3 million americans filed for unemployment last week. they say why it matters. the number of new unemployment applications has fallen steadily and speaking in march, but the number is still historically higher than before the pandemic hit. economists are watching the weekly gauge for any sign that spiking unemployment may come alongside the sharp uptick in coronavirus cases around the country. tweet, also sent us a post your thoughts at facebook.com/c-span. a couple of those here. this is a post from rachel. supreme court, please make the right decision. america deserves the truth. the truth is in his taxes. if he is completely innocent and it is a witchhunt, we deserve to know. if he is directly tied to

vladimir putin and undermining our foreign policy for him, we definitely need to know. make those returns public. from jean on facebook, the supreme court interprets the law, does not make laws. if you want to see tax returns of candidates or those in office made public, then you must pass a law making it a requirement. it currently is not. matt in summerville, south carolina. good morning, sir. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to say that the country deserves to know whether we are dealing with an honest man. this man is in charge of the lives of so many people. he made so many errors and is not believable, but i believe in the decision made so far. the decision coming out this morning on the supreme court about the taxes will let us know whether we are dealing with an honest man or a crook. i think you. -- i thank you. host: illinois is next. jeremy on our democrats line.

do us a favor and you your audio so you will not have feedback. go ahead with your comment. you are on the air. go ahead. caller: yeah. i work for donald trump. host: all right. to wanda in chico, california, republican line. good morning. caller: i would like to say that i think it is going to be a good thing if trump has to release taxesxes because trump's are done by professional accounting firm and they are not crooks. but if he has to release his taxes, that means everybody else in congress, all the politicians that become millionaires while serving in congress, and all the clinton foundations and biden family syndicates, they will have to release their taxes, too.

so i think this is a very good thing. i hope trump has to release his taxes. host: political rights this morning about the implications of that decision politically. supreme court set to decide who can see trump's tax returns, financial records. the supreme court is set to unveil its decision on thursday about whether congress gets to see president donald trump's tax returns and financial records, a ruling that could reshape the balance of power between lawmakers and the white house in the most dramatic way since watergate. the court's final opinion day of its 2019-2020 term also includes a related dispute about whether new york prosecutors can similarly access trump's financial records held by his accounting firm and banks. they write that a decision to reject trump's legal challenges could result in voters getting to see the tax returns he has resisted disclosing since launching his presidential campaign in 2015.

the justices are also set to rule on grand jury subpoenas that a manhattan prosecutor is using to demand many of the same tax and financial records in a criminal investigation that appears to be focused on the tax practices of trump's business empire. rick is in columbus, ohio. go ahead. caller: good morning, sir. host: morning. caller: yeah. i don't see how they can call it religious freedom when they are talking about forcing someone to pay for somebody else's -- i don't care if it is birth control or whatever it is. if you are forcing somebody to do it, the gentleman earlier would say that is a religious freedom. that is not forcing -- forcing someone to do something is by definition not freedom. thank you, sir. host: ok. we go to lufkin, texas. and lisa, good morning. caller: good morning. i am kind of sad about the birth

control, because all the coverage of not being covered will only lead to more abortions. host: so you feel that the decision they have rendered yesterday will lead to actually more abortions? caller: yes, sir, i do. i sure do. as a christian, i think it is very sad. i understand that some religions believe that you are not to use birth control, but not all people have the same beliefs. that will definitely lead to more abortions, which will cause more loss in life. it is just real sad. host: ok. the cases coming down today, one of the good resources to follow all of the cases and coverage of the court is scotusblog.com. they are also on twitter.

they are tweeting this morning. they say today is the last day for supreme court opinions this term. expected at 10:00 a.m., three cases left. one about whether half of oklahoma is a native american reservation. and a pair of cases about the ability to get trump financial records. --y all say the trump cases one asks whether three house committees can subpoena trump's financial records as part of the congressional investigation. and another will determine whether a new york city grand jury can obtain those records as part of a criminal investigation. in washington, we hear next from sam. welcome. sam? you are on the air. go ahead. caller: yeah. i am kind of shocked i got through. i don't understand the big kick and giggle about trump's taxes. my main concern is the screaming, yelling march to

socialism. has anybody ever seen what happened to hitler, what happened with saddam hussein? and the racism in this country. when does c-span break it down the middle instead of the vile racist epithets that they hold? i thought you guys were supposed to be for everybody on the planet, not just democrats. that,what do you mean by sam? we lost sam. we will go to huntington, west virginia. hi there. caller: i am 77. i don't believe anyone needs to know about trump's taxes or anyone in congress' taxes. they don't need to know about my taxes or your taxes. it is just another stupid game they are playing.

thank you. host: this is from business insider on the upcoming book about president trump. is accused of paying his sat died in 1999. but in her new book, mary trump says her uncle cheated his way into the wharton school by praying a friend, joe shapiro, to take his sat for him. called thatdow claimant into question in a recorded statement released on wednesday. while she did not refute the claim, she said she was always told her husband met donald trump after trump started wharton. manalso said shapiro "was a of great integrity and honesty" and that allegation is part of the new book by president trump's nice mary trump. the book "too much and never enough, how my family created

the world's most dangerous man." the book is coming out. the author not yet available for interviews due to litigation going on. but she is available for interviews -- when she is available for interviews, you will see that on our companion book to be. book tv every weekend. 48 hours of books and authors. for more information. the book is set to be released and should be in stores shortly. we go to philadelphia. christopher, good morning. republican line. caller: good morning. -- and ihe supreme also think i have been watching the different senate races. like in kentucky. i am really interested, the one that comes out of wyoming. devon isof mine named

running for senator and i hope he gets good support. host: all right. also in philadelphia on our democrats line this time, rosalynn. caller: yes. i am calling with regards to president trump's taxes being revealed. my taxes have to be revealed. i have to pay my taxes, reveal my taxes. for 15 get a delay years. this is crazy. what is up with the supreme court? what is up with the senators? what is going on with our government in this right now? it is a sham. they are cheating left and right. he said he was going to drain the swamp. he brought the swamp in and is burying us in the swamp. thank you very much.

host: as we wait for those decisions from the supreme court expecting to be handed down in the next couple of minutes, we remind you our lines are (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. and for independents, (202) 748-8002. to stay on the air on this program until about 10:30 eastern or so to get your reactions to those decisions. and your reaction on twitter as well. steve tweets this. we are asking more broadly about the term itself. in responding, steve says the supreme court term has had surprises for so-called conservative court. chief justice sided with the progressives in 5-4 decisions, and it is nice to see a few true precedent-setting 9-0, 8-1, 7-2 rulings. the ruling yesterday in the little sisters of the poor case was 7-2. writing about that, this is the

lead editorial in "the new york times." "birth control access is curtailed again," they write. the cost of birth control can be significant and many women rely on it, not just to prevent pregnancy, but to treat medical issues. sometimes the contraceptive that works best or the only one a person can tolerate costs many hundreds of dollars without insurance coverage. they write it also bears reminding that the trump administration has been attacking both the aca and access to birth control since the moment president trump took office. on the latter front, its most successful ever before this week was to gut the nation's decade-old family planning programs, called title x, in an licit effort to cripple planned parenthood. all of the administration's efforts on this front have most recce affected poor women and women of color. lori is in winter haven, florida, on the independent line. welcome. caller: hello. i want to comment on president trump's tax reforms.

i feel that is no one's business. it is none of no one's business. they don't look into my tax forms. why should they look into his? those inyou think general should not have to provide their tax returns and financial information? caller: that is something that should be up to him. what is wrong with this country as they are try to turn it into a socialist, communist country. that is what these people are doing. [indiscernible] instead of le letting democracy take place. who isow to a caller joining us from missouri. caller: in the heart of the ozarks. anyway, i think we should look at his taxes. i also think all of the congressmen and senators

should be investigated. everybody t should be able to see where they sent money coming to china or wherever. this should come in clean -- money, to china or wherever. this should come in clean. that is part of draining the swamp. thank you, c-span. host: the front page of many newspapers. "the wall street journal" no exception. their headline here about the reopening of schools. "trump urges schools to open, takes aim at cdc guidelines." just above that, we want to show the chart they put in "the wall street journal." virus cases in the u.s. climbed at a quick pace. the u.s. passed 3 million confirmed covid-19 cases less than a month after crossing the 2 million mark. michael is next in san diego, california. good morning. caller: good morning.

i want to thank c-span for giving americans a place to vent our opinion. anybody that has watched this show knows you folks are neutral. the guy you had on at 5:00 with the book, i was yelling because i did not agree. ok, supreme court decisions. here is why we need to see all of the politicians's tax returns, because they make the laws and was of the land and we need to know if they are try to do for something to pad their pockets. don't you agree? i am sorry. you can't say if you agree or not because you are supposed to be neutral. i am sorry. [laughter] host: that's ok. you were not going to luer me into that, michael. nice try. nice try. caller: ok. as far as the birth control and abortion rights and everything, when i talk with a lot of my male friends and stuff, males should not be making these regulations and laws concerning a woman's body. i'm sorry.

where are the laws that say a man cannot do this with his own body? not only that. if it comes to a vote, i think the mail vote should only count as half of what a woman's vote counts as. any comments back to me from my comments. host: thanking you for your comments, michael. appreciate you calling in. we go to orange, florida. johnny on our democrats line. good morning. caller: my name is johnny. i am calling about trump and the tax returns. friend, a public officeholder, shows taxes. everybody makes a decision on what to vote on. on the abortion side, people of people in the 1970's and 1960's were having abortions illegally and were dying. some got raped. , it is ao understand

twofold party when it comes to abortions. not just killing babies. sometimes you have a family that cannot afford to have another child in their household and have to make a decision. that is a very hard decision. president trump, i don't know how we allowed this to happen. this guy has no empathy for the public. he does what he wants when he wants. host: ok. johnny in florida, . a couple comments on facebook. many texts specials can review them for conflict of interest to the presidential position and all the government of positions like congress, judges from etc. karen in fort worth texting that if everyone believes tax returns should be shown, so should anyone in line for including vice president and house of representatives. we go to john in lake geneva, wisconsin. john, go ahead.

caller: yes. hi. i am just calling about president trump tax returns -- president trump's tax returns. it has never been in the constitution that they have had to divulge them. it has been stricken voluntary. voluntary. i hope the supreme court will hold that. ont: a tweet from matt ford the first decision coming down here shortly. he says it is mcgirt versus oklahoma. land reserved for the creek nation since the 19th century remains in indian country. the first opinion coming down from the supreme court. we understand the decision on the president's cases, the president's finances rather, the first case set to be released in five minutes at 10:10 eastern and the second case at 10:20

eastern. our plan is to stay on the air until at least 10:30 to get your reaction to that. we will go to st. petersburg, florida, and hear from wanda on our republican line. caller: hello. good morning. finally got through. good morning. my opinion on president trump's tax information, i believe it is private. it is private for me. i don't want to apply for a job and they say we have to look into your tax information. i am a former new yorker, born and raised there. i am 61 years old. i don't think that is our business, his information. it should apply to all that are in congress or all politicians. if they make that a law, then they have to do it. control, the birth that is very, very controversial.

i think they have to include doctors. alsors have to be able to educate their patients in many want regarding if they families and things of that nature. i thank c-span for being around. i listen to you all the time. i work at home. i listen to you and look at you from my station on my brakes. thank you for taking my comment. thank you for being there. host: here is an update on the first case decided. a 5-4 decision. the court rules oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute a major crime involving an indian within the historical boundaries of the creek indian reservation in eastern oklahoma. first decision out of three coming down. the next two will be the trump finance decisions. the first one expected here at 10:10. the second one at 10:20.

we continue with calls. to jacksonville, florida, lawrence. caller: thank you for having me. office,ieve any elected especially the high office, your life should be an open book. you should not hide anything. if you wanted to be a law enforcement officer, they check your background, your credit report, anything that might being a lawth you enforcement officer. so when you run for these high offices and you say "i am the best candidate of the land," everything in your life should anit an open book -- be open book. thank you. host: "the washington post" this morning about the little sisters

of the poor case. the headline on the opinion piece, why can't we settle on contraception? given that more than two thirds of americans believe in the pits for that private health insurance plans should cover contraception, it is strange that we can't seem to settle the matter. you would think a functioning democracy could work this issue out in a reasonable way that respected the rights of women as well as the rights of those with religious objections to contraception. he writes, the ruling concerning the trump administration regulation that allows even publicly traded companies, not just family-owned ones, to deny female employees this coverage if they have religious objections. likelyost employers seem to continue to cover contraception, the decision's immediate impact may be limited to an estimated 70,000 to 126,000 women, which is little comfort to those who will be affected. and giving the large business expansive rights to invoke religion to deny employees a particular benefit create serious dangers.

the trump will false fall short -- falls far short of balancing legitimately competing interests. we hear next from manchester, new hampshire, and susan on the independent line. caller: hi. host: morning. caller: as far as the taxes go, i am with the other ones that said the same thing. he is in the most highly placed office in the country, so of course we need to see his taxes. i work for tsa. alsoexamine our financials because we dealt with a lot of people's properties and stuff. so of course he has to. he has to have that. and another thing i have to say. i voted for the guy. biggest mistake of my life. i am a registered independent,

and i voted for a white supremacist. and now, he is coming up here to our state and he is going to contaminate the population with covid. i mean, really? stay out of here. stay home. go home. supremacistshite in neo-nazi supporters congress and out of congress. you know, i'm saying go home or he should go home. go back to germany. we don't need him here. thank you. host: myrtle beach, south carolina. next up, we hear from anthony. go ahead. anthony in myrtle beach, you are on the air. all right. caller: my name is beverly.

host: it says anthony, but go ahead, beverly. caller: i am calling about contraceptives. i feel like the only thing that is going to do, the more people that die from the covid virus, it is going to multiply because that means people cannot afford to get contraceptives. what they are going to do is start having more kids. as far as the taxes go, i feel like it is something that should have done in the beginning when the person runs for a high office. they definitely should look into the taxes and do a thorough background check. not when somebody is going into a second term in the election. host: ok. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: perhaps anticipating the decisions coming down from the court today, president trump with a couple of tweets this money. two of them. prosecutorial misconduct. the second one says, presidential harassment. the first decision should be

coming out shortly. we will get to that and show you that as soon as we see it. crosby, texas, democrats line. michael, good morning. caller: hello? host: you are on the air. go ahead. caller: yes. written,w had been that would mean they have a right to subpoena the taxes. somehow got the taxes. they will not give it to the house. they got, that is how him. they went through his taxes and got. r -- and gott him. the president knows this. they ought to give it up. it is in order to. that is why he did not want to give it up.

everybody knows what's going on. thank you. host: st. james, new york, independent line. caller: hi. i have a couple of comments. one is about the upcoming decision we are all holding our breath about as to seeing trump's financial records. it is unbelievable to me how often it has been blocked that it's finally had to come to the supreme court. that has basically been his m.o. as an "businessman." i feel the president and every public elected official should have public records as to financial statements. that is the only way to really hold people accountable. i believe the supreme court does not vote in favor of accountability and the public record access. it will set a very dangerous precedent. skipping over to the impeachment trials, just really quickly, i think that also public officials

should have a basic 101 course in the constitution. when people apply for citizenship and go through that process, they are educated about the constitution. host: we have a decision. we will have to cut you short there. this is the scotus blog, the first case. here is scotus blog with their tweet on that decision. , theump versus vance supreme court hands president trump a defeat in the battle with the new york district attorney holding that a subpoena to a sitting president does not have to meet a heightened standard. so that is the first of the two financial records cases. that one involving the prosecutor in new york, cyrus. ruling in favor against president trump. that is the first of the two decisions that are due this morning. the second one coming up here in

about five minutes on the house committee calling on seeking president trump's records. we will continue with your calls and look for a little more tweet reaction on that as well. possibly some comments up at the court. we have cameras at the court. there is a stakeout position at the supreme court this morning, so anything that is available here certainly within the next 15 or 20 minutes or so, we will try to get that on the air as well. let's go to ruben in deleon springs, florida. go ahead. caller: yes, hi. someone'ssaying finances, it is nobody's business what they are doing with their money so they should not asking for his tax record or nothing like that. i think they are just try to get trump in any way. they just jump on him from all directions. host: andrew from politico, his headline in a tweet. d.a.eets this "manhattan

can obtain a grand jury subpoena for trump's tax returns." that is from andrew. the manhattan d.a., cyrus vance ,r., is now -- cyrus vance is allowed to subpoena for the tax returns. the first of two decisions this morning ruling in favor. we hear from george, democrats line. caller: good morning. yes. i would just like to ask a question about trump's tax return. i would like to know why he doesn't show his tax return and all the other presidents i know have shown them? i mean, how do we know who he has been involved with? we should know that. i think that is one of the rules. every president.

everything like that. thank you. host: ok. walter in duxbury, massachusetts. welcome. caller: good morning. i think this is an infringement on privacy. i think the issue with trump and his taxes is between trump and the irs. if there were any problems in there, they would have picked it up in the numerous audits they had on his account. no one requires anyone to disclose tax returns. everyone wants to look after the fact. let's not ignore four years of what we have been witnessing here, a continuous attack and debacle by the justice department in this country trying to destroy our government from within. something entirely wrong with this whole process. host: ok. casper, wyoming, beverly. good morning. welcome. caller: good morning. i believe they should look at trump's tax returns or all of

his records because he is fighting them. you know, why would a man hide them if he is innocent? host: here is a look at the decision itself just released as a pdf to reporters. the case, trump versus vance, district attorney of new york. the new york district attorney does have the right to subpoena the president for his financial records and tax returns. mountaintop, pennsylvania. good morning to irene on our republican line. welcome. caller: good morning. host: yes, go ahead. caller: regarding the birth control issue, if you don't want a baby, avoid sexual relations. control your own body. it is free. you don't have to pay a penny.

you could prevent breast cancer and do yourself a favor. that is my comment. don't expect anybody else to pay for your immortals. van nuys, california. go ahead. caller: president trump released all have is financial records before -- all of his financial records before running for president, giving the country information about where he was investing in his money, where he earned his money, and everything. far more revealing than anything a tax return which show. i am a tax preparer. we are required by the irs not to reveal tax information for any purpose unless we get the expressed approval of the particular person who's return it is. also, if we want to know where investment are being made, the

financial records is where we see that. none of the people in congress have to release that information. that is why pelosi and a few others -- i will not go into all their names -- ended being multimillionaires, because of the investments they make based on the information they get in congress. the last thing i want to say is to have a subpoena requesting information for 20 years prior to ever mentioning he was going to run for president is far overreach in my opinion. if they want to know what he is doing right now, that is one thing, but to ask for information from all of his kids and grandkids as to what they have done over the course of the year, plus what president trump has done for 20 years before ever running for president is

far overreach. there is no reason to go into anybody's records that far back. host: here is what the court van said in the nuys decision. a video reporter tweeting this. 7-2 decision for new york prosecutors against trump, orders trump to turn over tax returns. "no citizens -- i will read the highlighted part. no citizen, not even the president is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding. we reaffirm that principle today. thomas is in east china, michigan. thomas on the democrats line. good morning. thomas, you are on the air. go ahead. all right. staten island, next up. independent line. caller: yes. good morning. can you hear me? host: yes, we can. caller: i just heard the

announcement. i was also listening to people who were calling. i have been listening for a while. i am very, very glad that the supreme court made this decision. i am not really concerned about nancy, congress, whatever. -- nancy pelosi, congress, whatever. trump should have been given to new york state a long time ago. that is the one he is most concerned about, because that is the one that took place before he became president. it is based on what we know now -- based on what we know now, there was quite a bit of involvement in russian and money and different things that we can see. that is very important that that criminal proceeding take place and he be -- he has to be accountable for that. host: this is cnbc tweeting

this. trump loses. his team argued there should be "a temporary immunity" for presidents from criminal investigations. the supreme court did not buy it. i would democrats line in tucson, arizona. good morning. caller: yes. good morning. i would like to say that along with the presidency, all people seementer our government to be privy to special insurances, special privileges, and that is a necessity. but in order to not have a crook in any of these positions, there should be a vetting that includes tax returns. for quite some time of the person's life. because you can be a real jerk haveurn around and still all your cronies or what have you.

and there should be a higher standard. i am glad they upheld the higher standard as opposed to just going along with those for trump. i think justice has been served. ofhink there are other areas which justice is not served by the courts. in this instance, i am pleased. host: just to let you know, that is the first decision that came down, the vance case. the court saying the new york district attorney does have the right to subpoena the president's financial records, his taxes. the other case, that decision has just been handed down. it was just sent out as a pdf. we will get news on the finding their momentarily and be able to tell you exactly what the courts said to break down their ruling on that decision. here we go from scotus blog. let's read this.

thep wins this stage of dispute over congressional subpoenas to lenders and account for president financial records as the supreme court 7-2 sends the case back to lower courts to take account of the separation of powers concerns. that is all we have so far. so it was sent back to the lower case, the second case there. that is the ruling of the supreme court. we will continue with your calls for a couple more minutes here davie innext from easton, pennsylvania, independent line. caller: good morning. i am very glad about this decision. i hope that everything does come out that they were trying to hide and misrepresent. what i am really focusing on is the relationship with deutsche bank and putin and that aspect of it.

courtery glad the supreme held -- i mean, it is honest. i think the supreme court in america and you, c-span. host: john is in cincinnati on our republican line. john, go ahead. caller: yes. i am really sad to hear we have so many of these questions going around and all these different things happening throughout our country where people are upset about how things are being governed, but nobody is asking what the constitutional basis are for any of these comments they are making. so until we don't deal with the root of the problem and understanding as free self-governing people, the people in congress are not your masters. and they are committing a stringent fraud whenever they pass rules without getting the consent of the governed,

treating you like legislative slaves. psychologically, they have told you you have no freedom and you are not self-governing, so you are just asking for more violence and war riots and more people tearing up over country -- more riots and more people tearing up our country. what is the constitutional basis for any of these stands people want to take? thank you so very much for your time. host: ok, john. more from scotus blog on the second case. they write in the same lineup as trump versus vance, here is the 7-2 opinion. chief justice john roberts in dissents from alito and thomas. let's get one more call here. barbara from alexander, louisiana, go ahead. you are on the air. independent line.

caller: good morning. i am overjoyed concerning the decision. but the thing that gets me about these hoaxes, the russian hoax, the virus hoax, and we know how the virus hoax turns out because we are dying every day or getting infected every day. -- in other words, i don't feel the head of our country is taking care of our military. we love the military and the people who are helping him who are under him who does exactly what he wants. if they don't do what he wants, they get rid of him. host: ok my barbara in the louisiana -- ok, barbara louisiana. "the wall street journal" reporting on the first decision this morning. supreme court rejects bid to block new york subpoena seeking financial tax records. they rejected the president's

hisfrom seeking use of records from his accountants, potentially opening the president up to widespread scrutiny. the court set the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings. the case is one of the two before the high court in which mr. trump challenged subpoenas that were not sent to him but instead to his accountants and to bankers. we are going to wrap things up here for "washington journal" this morning. thanks for hanging with us for a little bit extra so we can get those decisions to you. appreciate all your calls and comments. back here live tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern as we always are, but we will take you now to a briefing from the house minority leader kevin mccarthy on capitol hill. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> we should be focusing on the schools and childcare. there is a need for stop these are all things that -- we should not make an excuse that de