discussing her recent articles on the pro-life movement and the challenges to roe v. wade. be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. ♪ host: good morning and welcome to washington journal. the united states has lost some members in afghanistan and killed a member of isis-k that killed the dozen americans and more than 100 afghan citizens. this comes as the white house imposed deadlines of leaving the country this week. but with an active terrorist threat now and afghanistan some in washington are calling a president joe biden to leave boots on the ground to protect american lives and our afghanistan allies.

our question for you this morning, should we extend our exit deadline in afghanistan? we open up regular lines. that means republicans, we want to hear from you at (202)-748-8001. democrats, your line is (202)-748-8000. independents, we want to hear from you at (202)-748-8002. we open a special line for afghanistan veterans. if you were part of the conflict in afghanistan, we want to hear from you at (202)-748-8003. keep in mind you can always text us at (202)-748-8003 and we are always reading on social media on facebook at facebook.com/c-span, twitter @c-spanwj, and you can follow us on instagram @c-spanwj. the deadline set by president joe biden to leave afghanistan

comes up this week but the bombing in afghanistan at the airport yesterday has american politicians saying perhaps we should extend that deadline until later until all americans and american allies have left the country. president joe biden came out yesterday and talked a little bit about the situation in afghanistan. here is what the president had to say [video clip] >> let me begin by acknowledging the bravery and sacrifice our military makes every single day and the loss of americans and marines and sailors and army personnel is tragic. as i said yesterday, losing a

son, daughter, husband, wife, is like being sucked into a big black hole in the middle of your chest. my heart goes out, our hearts go out, to all of those we have lost. but look, the mission being performed is dangerous and now has come with loss of american personnel but it is a worthy mission because they continue to evacuate folks out of that region. evacuated more than 12,000 additional people out of the airport in the last 24 hours. i met with my commanders this morning, got a detailed briefing about yesterday's attack, and the resources to complete the mission and we will complete the

mission. host: here is from the new york times on the drone attack in afghanistan. the situation left on the ground, the u.s. military announced its first reprisal strike in afghanistan since the attack on the kabul airport killed 13 u.s. service members, as many as 170 other people. as u.s. officials warned americans to leave the airport because of security threats. the attack at the airport was one of the deadliest in the nearly two decades since the u.s. invasion. american officials believe another terror attack in kabul is likely. the white house press secretary set on friday, "the threat is ongoing and it is active. our troops are still in danger." a warning from the american embassy in kabul said u.s. citizens at the airport who are at the eastgate, northgate, or

ministry of interior gate should leave immediately. two key allies, britain and france, and it evacuations at the airport which crowds continue to reach as they seek to flee the taliban. french officials blame the rapid disengagement of the american forces for the lack of security. well, we bring in the senior pentagon correspondent for defense to explain to us what is going on this morning in afghanistan. tara, good morning. guest: good morning. host: we know the u.s. imposed deadline to leave afghanistan comes up on tuesday. is the u.s. on track to actually finish operations by tuesday? guest: i have talked about this with multiple a fenced officials -- defense officials and they have options. they could, like france and great britain, decide to get out

early or they could use up until the very last minute kabul time and wrap up as we are waking up to get everyone they possibly can out. what we have been told is that even as they get those final troops and equipment out any available space for civilians, they will put somebody in it. host: is it possible on wednesday that there will be americans who are left behind in afghanistan? guest: it is possible and also likely. you have heard the administration say they do want americans to stay behind. these people might be those who have dual citizenship or not been able to get their family out. there will be a continued diplomatic and economic effort to continue to help those people. you also saw yesterday the state department talking about how the taliban requested a continued diplomatic presence and whether

the u.s. will have some embassy or consulate remains to be seen. but you will have to have some way of continuing communication with the taliban to get out whoever else needs to get out. host: what can or what will be done to protect americans who are left behind in afghanistan after the troops leave on tuesday? guest: that remains to be seen. it looks like it is going to be mostly diplomatic and economic. however, you have seen all sorts of independent efforts. abc news had a fantastic story last night about the pineapple express, which a special forces veterans who have been out there on their own and able to rescue 500 afghan interpreters and their families. maybe independent efforts like that or maybe it will be through economic means to ensure that the americans who to get out can. host: what is the latest on the evacuation process going on

right now in afghanistan? are we seeing private charters? are we seeing the american troops evacuating people? tell us what is going on right now. guest: it is a combination and the commercial and charter and coalition aircraft have outnumbered the u.s. aircraft. you have seen a lot of private charters, people who paid to get their own interests out whether it is the veterans groups who wanted their people out. i have seen fundraisers for planes for veteran groups in afghanistan trying to rescue animals. it has been this huge effort of everybody who has the means to get out trying to get out. host: what is the current level of threat for another attack by isis-k on american interests in afghanistan? guest: yesterday afternoon john kirby said they were credible and specific and those are two very important words.

they have intelligence that they know there is likely to be another explosion like we saw on thursday and i think that is why you saw the state department issue that dire warning in the exact same words to immediately leave the areas. that first warning was issued hours before the attack. host: with the taliban now controlling major parts, if not all of afghanistan, is the united states considering them to be an enemy or an ally in a fight against isis-k? guest: it is an interesting question and one i will try to dig into today. the enemy of my enemy is my friend. however, the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy. the taliban have not been trusted. they have targeted u.s. forces. they were in charge of perimeter security that led to the attack. i think it is going to be a very precarious relationship moving forward.

they will be in charge of governance of afghanistan and whatever relationship the u.s. seeks to have, particularly in getting americans or afghans out, there will need to be ongoing lines of communication. the fact that isis-k is a problem for the taliban too is interesting. will the u.s. share intelligence to assist the taliban in targeting isis-k? host: which brings me to my next question. what intel is the department of defense getting on potential threats? is that intel coming from the taliban or coming from somebody else inside of afghanistan? guest: we had a 20 year presence there. we have cia stations, networks of our own of human intelligence, although i do not know the status of those anymore. there are lots of streams of information that have flowed into the u.s. government and state department. the department of defense's sent

its own arms to issue these warnings. host: what can we expect coming up over the next couple of days as we meet that deadline for leaving afghanistan? are we expecting more attacks? will we see more people leaving the country? what can we expect the next couple of days? guest: 41, you will see these controlled -- for one, you will see these controlled detonations. that is the military destroying the bigger, heavier equipment to keep it from getting into the wrong hands. they are making decisions. they know they have limited time, limited aircraft, and they are choosing lives over equipment. if they have the space, they will put people on the airplanes and if they need to, they will destroy the equipment on the ground so they do not have to take up that space. host: we would like to

thank tara, senior pentagon correspondent, for walking us to the situation on the ground in afghanistan. thank you so much for your time. guest: thank you. host: we want to know what you think. should we extend the exit deadline in afghanistan given what we are seeing right now on the ground? is president joe biden doing the right thing sticking to that deadline? or are members of congress correct, that we need to change our minds and keep boots on the ground? see the numbers on screen. we want to hear from you this morning. tell us what you think. we start with the ruby calling from wilmington, north carolina on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am a veteran with 21 years of service and i absolutely support the president.

having done two periods of service in the middle east it is the right time to pull out. host: ruby, if we pull out, don't we leave some of our allies in danger instead of staying behind to protect them? we have been there 20 years. we made promises. shouldn't we stick around to make sure we fulfill those promises to our allies on the ground? caller: i think we have done everything we believed we could do across 20 years. they do not always work the way they are plant. having spent years as a planner, trainer and operator, i believe that we should be moving and that we should make adjustments just like they are doing on the ground as they change. and i think the people in congress who are talking the most have never served a single day, like mccarthy.

i think he needs to shut up. host: most people in congress and around the country says this deadline means we lost. does the united states leaving afghanistan, is that an admission of defeat? caller: no, absolutely not. i think the mission across 20 years was our soldiers went and served and give the best of our nation. host: all right. a lot of the afghanistan allies who are leaving the united states -- leaving afghanistan and coming to the united states coming to an airport near here in washington, d.c. as the washington post has a story that talks about those allies coming in. i will read a couple of paragraphs. the united states is destroying equipment at the cabell airport and more than doubling temporary housing capacity in the united

states to extract as many people from afghanistan as possible before tuesday's withdrawal deadline. the military will be able to accommodate up to 50,000 afghans at seven bases and facilities in the united states, says john kirby, who announced that holloman air force base in new mexico and fort pickett and marine corps base in quantico in virginia are part of the operation. the airlift, which is a friday carried more than 110,000 out of kabul, is entering its last four days amid intense urgency, reeling from a terrorist attack that killed 13 u.s. service members and 170 others. the vast majority afghans. we want to know, do you think that the exit deadline in afghanistan should be extended? let's start with derek calling from port charlotte, florida on

the independent line. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: just fine. go ahead. caller: basically we are in and out of the region, we are always in there left, right, center. it feels like we are going to go -- does it matter if we pull out or stay? host: derek, what is the best plan for president joe biden? he set the august 31 deadline. since he set that deadline he can also change it. would you say he should not be pressured by the taliban to stick to that deadline? caller: he shouldn't even be listening to the taliban first off. what kind of projection of power is he saying? we are the united states. we are going to take orders from the taliban? host: what do you think should be done, derek. caller: i think that the

international community should come up with something about this whole problem and not have the united states always being the sucker and always having to figure out everything around the world. host: you think it should go to the u.n.? caller: yeah. because this is, what? all european nations? this affects everybody. this has to be an effort from the international community that everybody needs to figure out. host: let's go to will calling from chicago, illinois on the democratic line. good morning. will, are you there? caller: yeah. my line was weird. i am not going to pretend like i am a genius.

i am a 24-year-old at columbia in chicago. i think we should extend the deadline. from what i have observed -- i watch your program a lot -- i think it is important to remember that this war was started over -- you can go back and forth -- but it was started on oil and the reason why people, members of congress, are so focused as they have big oil donors. host: let's go to ron: from arlington, virginia on the independent line and he is a veteran. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing today? host: i'm fine. go ahead. caller: there is a lot of talk of extending or what should have been done but if anybody says extended they have to also say

they are willing to accept more deaths of u.s. service members. it is not that easy. we have to decide what we are going to do. i believe that the corporate media -- they are sensationalizing this. there is nothing we can do because no one is discussing anything. where is congress? any congressperson who says we should stay or take over bagram -- why have they not passed the bill saying we must go and say that country or any other country? terrorists are in more than 60 nations. we just made a strike with a drone. that is how we are going to make sure we can take these terrorists out but we are not being honest as a country.

how much blood, sweat and tears of our veterans must we have? yes they are volunteers but everyone is being dishonest about the problem. are we the policeman of the world? host: we have been in afghanistan for 20 years. we have made promises. by leaving the country don't we leave behind the allies who, for two decades, have depended on the united states for security? caller: i can answer that question in a way of my own personal appearance. i remember checkpoint charlie. i understand what we are talking about but we never declared war. this is not a war. i want to hear from real journalists. i want to hear from experts. we never declared a war, ever. this was not a war. if it is true, you can look at

the presidential reserve call up authority used by president bush and every president after him. we never declared war. i feel sorry for those people. we should negotiate. i agree with the other caller. it is a united nations problem. we do not use these tools to secure the world. we are not using the tools currently there. if we want to make new rules, i am all for that, but we must stop infighting. it is like a football team or baseball team. we are just following our team's jersey to win at all cost at the sake, i think, that the united states crumbling in moral authority. host: speaking of new rules being made, house minority leader kevin mccarthy is one of the lawmakers who have been criticizing joe biden for the exit deadline and here is what

kevin mccarthy had to say about his view of keeping a continued military presence in afghanistan. [video clip] >> is there a bill you would like to see past about keeping american troops there only if the situation becomes too dangerous, which would give the white house discretion as to whether the trip should be there, and could you make the argument the situation is already too dangerous? does that bill achieve the goal you want of keeping troops there beyond the 31 deadline? >> the only way we want troops to be there is make sure americans get back safely and that the troops are safe. the number of trips you bring for safety, prior to the biden administration, he had 2500 troops. 18 months without one casualty. he has more troops on the ground today and he has the most

casualties in the last decade. instead of allowing the state department to run this i would allow the military to run it. what does it take to get them out safely and do it with american men and women and not the taliban? there is no other answer. >> just to clear this up, you said you believed the u.s. should have a permanent force in afghanistan. >> i would have checked and maintained the bagram air force base. why? because proximity, the proximity to the region it is in from russia, china, pakistan. the ability when the president tells me to look over the horizon. how can you look over the horizon if you don't have the opportunity? i believe we could have maintained it safely. we have gone 18 months with no casualties and we could have maintained two runways 30 nautical miles from kabul and i

think it gave us an opportunity for the future to maintain peace. host: let us see what social media followers are saying about whether the united states should extend its exit deadline in afghanistan. here's a post from facebook that says, unfortunately, there is no deadline. the only deadline is the lives of americans trapped in that hellhole. this is a bad situation and being played down severely. here's the text that says, no, it is time to go. 20 years was too long. we were invaders into their country. why do republicans want to keep spending money in afghanistan and not infrastructure in the u.s.? if republicans want to keep fighting, they should join the military and fight in afghanistan. here is another text that says, what happened to i will never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy? one final text that says, they

should consider whether the u.s. has protected those that associated with and assisted our interest and cause. if necessary, flood with 30,000 soldiers and arms. we want to know what you think. should the united states extend its exit deadline in afghanistan? rod is calling from new york on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i agree there should be a deadline. obviously if there are americans left in the country, i have faith the military and state department will try to get them out. however, i do not agree with mccarthy. bagram air force base was shut down by the military. they decided to leave first and exit all personnel and then the state department decided to stay at the embassy and move to the perimeter of the airport.

i think there is a contradiction here. the military has done an amazing job moving over 100,000 people, allies, americans, afghans out. jfk airport three times over a day from the pictures i can see. that is an amazing effort. however, we spent 20 years there and the effort was for not. i heard we were flying money in daily to keep the economy running. so much corruption in afghanistan. the mission was accomplished once we got bin laden. i do not know what we were doing there. the graveyard of empires comes to mind. i think there will be an investigation why the military was selling this to congress. there was money to be made. as eisenhower said, it is a military-industrial complex. host: william calling from

honesdale, pennsylvania on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i believe it would be appropriate to extend the deadline and take possession of the air force base and if any attempt to harm any further civilians or military personnel, we should in fact be capable of taking over the entire country if we care to. i just can't believe that such issues have actually occurred without a plan to evacuate all the people necessary to evacuate. thank you. host: before you go, how long do you think the deadline should be extended? should it be another week, another month, another year? how long should the deadline be extended? caller: i would say as long as

we can substantiate the citizens of our country who are subject to potential death. it means that we should take initiative to get them out. host: let's go to jeffrey calling from indianapolis, indiana on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i got a whole new twist on all of this. i feel sorry for the people over in afghanistan, i really do. but we spent 20 years over there. and what makes me mad is african-americans built this land from scratch from slavery to this day and they ain't never put 20 years into us. i truly feel sorry for the

people in afghanistan because nobody should have to go through that, but i think we need to start thinking about our own problems. the president is doing a great job. host: let's go to janet calling from west virginia on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i don't understand how this country got in this shape and biden is not capable of running this country. how in the world can we expect people like them to run our country and it is just not right. they should help the people over there get out regardless of what it takes. i just can't understand them getting biden out of there. as bad as harris is, she would be better than him. they think if them people come over here, they will kill them

first. they do not care who they kill. i am not kidding. we need to wake up. host: you heard several people on the show say already we spent 20 years in afghanistan now and according to what we have seen the taliban is back in charge. how much longer should we spend american lives in afghanistan before it is time to go? caller: as long as it takes. they were killing people -- they weren't killing people and the taliban taking over. biden is incompetent and those people in their do not realize when they get over here they are going to be suffering, these people in congress. they don't care who they kill and the border been open and people coming in, i cannot believe this. god help us. host: when you see those people, do you mean afghan refugees?

caller: i am talking about people coming over the border and we do not know who it is. i don't understand. i remember world war ii and my dad was in the navy. i prayed the leader, hitler, would be gone, killed, and he was. we just need to pray more. and also, we need new leaders. we have got to get them out. host: tracy calling from leesburg, virginia on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say to the woman who called, the reason there has not been deaths the last 18 months is because trump made a deal with the taliban and the taliban agreed to not slaughter americans left on the ground. i think that is important

to remember. we need to recognize there is a strong u.s. military on the ground that advised president biden to close bagram, that advised the biden administration to what military steps it should take. i trust -- i am a patriot. i trust my american government. i trust my american military. i am not there and neither is kevin mccarthy so it is very easy to set up here and talk about what you should have, could have, what have done when you are not there. i am going to give kudos to the biden administration for having the situation dumped in their lap and taking swift and effective measures to get it done. i know he is regretful of the americans that passed. i am regretful but i am not going to sugarcoat and say we should have never been in this situation with the taliban had there not been a contract signed

on american letterhead by an american president, by no other president in the world, in the history of america that signed a deal with the taliban and for us to respond in the way we have has been remarkable. host: let's go to jay calling from north carolina on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. [indiscernible] no administration from the beginning until now has addressed how do we make this where we are using this to improve the humans over there? what if we improved their health

care? so you do not have the situation of, i wonder why they don't like me. maybe it is because i am trying to get their minerals. [indiscernible] host: before the events, the bombing that happened this week, politico and morning counsel took a poll on what americans that we should do about leaving afghanistan. i want to bring to you the results. let's see if i can pull this up. 45% of registered voters said the u.s. definitely should or probably should still withdraw if it provides an opening for al qaeda. 40% said the possibility met u.s. military presence in the country should remain. this comes from morning counsel

and politico and happened before the bombing at the afghanistan airport. even before the bombing 40% of americans said the possibility of some type of terrorist action meant the u.s. military presence should remain while 45% of registered voters said the u.s. definitely should or probably should withdraw, even if it provides an opening for a group like al qaeda. we want to know what you think. given what happened in afghanistan, the bombing that took 13 american lives and hundreds of afghan lives, we want to know if you think that means america should extend its exit deadline. we go to raul.

i cannot hear him so we go to robert calling from gaithersburg, maryland on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning to everyone. let me tell you something, when god told them people in the bible, you got to get rid of everything in the country and the people didn't want to get rid of everybody, what happened to them? the same people came back and did damage to their whole army. that is what is going to happen. afghanistan don't care nothing about nobody in america and you say trump is behind them? man, i hope god pays him a visit and let him know he keep his mouth shut. host: tiny is calling from texas on the republican line. good morning.

caller: good morning to everyone and to you and god bless america. as far as us on the deadline, biden has already made his decision. that decision was made, i believe, before he even became president and i believe the entire democratic party is part of the taliban themselves and al qaeda. sending guys out and bringing, just like the man said, you have to look at their ideology. they don't care nothing about america. anytime you done trained an afghan army for 20 years and you run off and leave your post? you have the weaponry to defend yourself. they are not standing for america. the only thing they want to do is be able to come over here in

order to start bombing again and killing up america again and our government is behind them. host: do you think american troops should stay in afghanistan or is it time to bring them home after 20 years? caller: i can't answer that because i don't want any more americans to die, but regardless, they are going to die on afghanistan soil or they will be dying here on american soil. thank you. host: let's go to bobby calling from fitzgerald, georgia on the republican line. good morning. bobby, are you there? caller: yes. this is bobby from fitzgerald? host: yes. go ahead, bobby. caller: personally, when i am watching c-span these days, i

can still see the sanitizing. you are sanitizing joe biden. we are focusing on what we want to happen instead of what is happening. they removed the military and left the people there and they left the equipment there. if trump was in office he would be saying, how come trump gave the list of american names and locations to the taliban? that would be your focus today. you can save face if you want to, c-span, but you have got to do more than take your eyeglasses off. host: what do you think. should american troops stay on the ground in afghanistan after the 20 years we have already spent or is it time to bring them home? caller: they have a military. what you do is you make a plan

and if you withdraw, you withdraw orderly. you do it with a plan. i am not going to sit here and try to answer your questions because i know what your questions are designed to do. it is designed to keep me from talking about joe biden because you would rather blaine trump. -- blame trump. host: you do not have an opinion on whether american troops should stay in afghanistan be on tuesday or not? caller: i do have an opinion but i will not give it to you. host: all right. we go to elise calling from woodridge, virginia on the democratic line. caller: good morning. more importantly i am an american. i feel there should have been an orderly way to exit afghanistan. if you look throughout history, many countries have tried to wage war there and none of it succeeded. you cannot fight an enemy you cannot see.

as far as what happened with biden, there are things that we don't know and we are not privy to. it will come out later but as of right now we don't know. as far as extending the deadline, i don't think we should but if we can't, i think we need to set up a perimeter. that move they pulled as far as killing our people we should've tore some stuff up. i feel like they are plunking us -- punking us and we have to set a precedent. now other nations will try to test us. this is a good point to set an example. this is when we are going to be out of here, touches again and see what happens. host: the pentagon press secretary john kirby came out on friday and expressed some of his thoughts about what the future afghanistan would be. here is a portion of what he had to say. [video clip] >> i wish i had a crystal ball

and we could know for sure what is going to happen in afghanistan. we don't. we obviously don't want to see the country torn asunder through civil war but that is why whatever the future of afghanistan is from a governance perspective, we are going to stay engaged with the international community to make sure that afghan leaders are held the proper account for the way they are governing and that afghanistan's neighbors tried to play a constructive, productive role and whatever the future of afghanistan is going to be. although we will not have a military presence there, the united states government will want to see what we can do with the international community to make sure that afghans can have

the best of all possible outcomes for their future. but i think it would be foolish for us to try to be to predictive about what is going to happen right now. host: let's see what our social media followers are saying about extending the exit deadline in afghanistan. here is one text that says, we never should have left afghanistan as evidenced by the current chaos and tragedy. keep permanent military bases there for everyone's good. this tweet says, american troops have been killed in action every year of this war. time to get out now. here's another text that says, i honestly believe we need to pull out our resources out of all hostile territories of occupied countries and focus on our own problems in this country.

we must care for our needs and there is more than enough to focus on in this country. we are letting our country go. we must fight to get it back. another tweet says, let's leave this up to the experts. one final text that says, of course, extent until our people are out and then go after taliban, isis. level the place, destroyed everything we left behind to prevent them using it. we want to know what you think. should we extend the exit deadline in afghanistan? we start with randy calling from ohio on the independent line. good morning. caller: hello. i am a pro-life independent and not pro war but we should have started this thing withan endgame. we were just going in there to do three things, take care of the taliban to get them out of

power so al qaeda could not train there anymore, and to get bin laden. we only accomplished one thing. i think our resources now should be to get the world involved. not just have us be the policeman anymore, we just cannot do it. that is pretty much all i've got to say. i think both presidents has made us look weak. biden for letting the taliban dictate what we can cannot do and for trump negotiating the deal without the afghan government involved. i think those are the two biggest mistakes i have seen out of this whole thing. host: let's go to leona -- lenara, sorry, from dayton, ohio on the democratic line. good morning. caller: morning. i think we should remember religious wars has been in existence for generations. the reason why we were there is the wrong reason. nationbuilding i think was a

mistake. we have different ideologies. i think we should get out. i think we should have never been there past bin laden, particularly because the proliferation of heroin in our country has been 20 years since we have been in afghanistan. i think we should have never been there. i am a 100% service connected veteran. we should have never been there. we should get out now. host: let's talk to rodney calling from clarksville, tennessee and rodney is an afghanistan veteran. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. how are you? host: i'm fine. go ahead. caller: it was time to pull out of afghanistan. we should've been out a long time ago. even though it falls under president joe biden he has to take some responsibility. but as you look at 20 years or more there has been a lot of

politicians that kept passing this and profiting and we should have been out a long time ago. this could have been prevented by getting our military out first, civilians, and then leaving. i think we also could have kept a presence there like we did in iraq. just a small group. we had 3000 holding things down and when we pulled them out that is when the taliban ran us over and we gave key airports away. bagram, cap minh airfield, we should have never given our air's authority --error authority away. -- air authority away. host: what should we do now?

should we stick to the august 31 deadline? should we scrap the august 31 deadline and risk going to an all-out conflict with the taliban who says that deadline is a redline for them? caller: that is the tricky situation. we cannot leave americans behind because if we do, we are going to see them in orange jumpsuits being beheaded. we are in a sticky mess. we need to get everybody out but it is going to cost us again. we are in a very bad predicament. we are in a pickle and we have to pull up our bootstraps and do something. host: let's go to laverne calling from texas on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, this is a very sad situation we find ourselves in but first, i think the country as a whole should band together and support our leadership.

they are doing the best they can i do believe. the other thing i find interesting is that people are calling in and talking and i am a veteran of 28 years. people calling in and talking about, the military should do this, the military should do that. what we need to understand is that less than 1% of our population are in the military. i support bringing back the draft not only for men but for women. if you want to come here, show us that you support and are here for more than the opportunity just to make money. we need to have a strong military. i believe in that. i am also concerned about hearing those in congress talk about all of the money that was spent, all of the money that was spent, but yet, those in our government refuse to signed

legislation that would support our country's infrastructure. the other thing i find very disturbing is the fact that we have people talking every single day about their concern for the girls and women of afghanistan. i too and concerned about them, but the other thing we can draw from this is that if you have concern for those women and girls in afghanistan, why do you want to suppress the women of this country by trying to support voting suppression in this country? host: let's go to shirley calling from new castle, pennsylvania on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. you know what? i believe that we can no longer honor this deadline because we are going to leave some of our military there and i am telling

you, that can't work. we are a military family. my father and brother both served in world war ii and my son in the marine corps. i am telling you, this won't work. we have to make sure every one of our americans are out of there. whatever it takes, we have to do. it is just a shame what is going on in this country. it is just a shame. host: shirley, would you make an open-ended exit? would you say american troops need to be there for however long it takes, whether that is another month, three months, another year? caller: you know, if it was handled properly, i believe we could be out of there in a month to six weeks, but we need somebody in there who knows how to do the job. that's the problem. they can say what they want to say but i know if trump was

still there, they would have feared him because they knew he did not mix words. he got up there and said the way it was going to be and that is how it was going to be. they knew if they went against him what was going to happen. i thoroughly believe if we can get somebody who knew what they were doing, i believe this could be handled properly. we cannot keep policing the whole world. we cannot afford to do that. host: let's go to ray calling from aurora, the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a registered libertarian. good to talk to you for the first time hope to see you on a weekday but that aside, i do not think we should extend the deadline. i disagree with one of the prior callers about bringing back the draft because i do not think you

were going to bring a strong military. you just require everyone to serve and you will have people who do not believe in it. but i hope withdrawing from afghanistan is the first step in eventually withdrawing every single military force and shutting down every military installation outside the united states. we need to bring an end to this flawed and bad military empire. host: let's get a perspective from a member of congress on the situation in afghanistan. joining us is representative rob wittman who is a member of the house armed services committee and he is here this morning to give us his perspective and discuss with us the situation in afghanistan. representative wittman, good morning. guest: great to be with you this morning.

great to hear your callers exerting their thoughts and ideas and asking those questions and giving your response to your listeners. great morning. thank you for the opportunity. host: thank you for being here. first of all, what is your take on next week's deadline on ending u.s. military operations in afghanistan? guest: jesse, i think the number one focus for the biden administration needs to be getting every u.s. citizen safely out of afghanistan. that should be the sole focus and i think the president has to make it clear that we are going to evacuate every u.s. citizen. if the taliban stands in our way, our military will retaliate and it will be swift and it will be severe. i want to make sure we are doing everything possible. i was concerned last week when the secretary of defense said the united states would rescue every citizen that they can until the clock runs out.

the clock runs out on august 31, he has not changed the deadline. i believe that empowers the taliban. wise the taliban setting our date for getting our citizens out? we ought to set the timelines, not the afghans and august 31 is an arbitrary deadline. it should be based upon us getting every u.s. citizen out. since when have we as a country abandoned our principal of leaving no one behind? i think it is critically important those things happen. there have been a number of missteps by the biden administration to get to this point. if the planning was done properly ahead of time in the transitioning was done to make sure you are getting americans and afghans, special immigrant visa individuals and then

brought the military out, that is the way should be done. you took the military out first which creates this vacuum and empowers the taliban. i think the bottom line is the president needs to say, unequivocally and without artificial deadlines, we are going to get every u.s. citizen safely out of afghanistan. host: representative wittman, they will be some americans who want to stay voluntarily and keniston and we know there will be some afghani citizens -- in afghanistan and we know there will be afghani citizens that want to get out. will there be enough personnel to ensure their safety? guest: i believe having some element of force, just as our ability to counterterrorism, will be critically important. it does not have to be a force that has offensive capability but completely taking out our

forces and the president saying we have over the horizon capability. let me tell you, it is way over the horizon. our ability to now prosecute counterterrorism operations in afghanistan is extraordinarily difficult because we are having to operate at long distances because we did not take the time prior to the withdrawal to have agreements with countries close by to be able to do counterterrorism operations. to me, if you are going to good going to negotiate -- to me, if you are going to negotiate, we know the taliban is going to do. they are sympathetic to these terrorist groups. isis-k is going to operate there. the key is this, they may be

enemies in and amongst themselves but they do have a common adversary and that is the united states. when you see a common enemy all of a sudden you see enemies willing to work together. i think there should be some type of presents that should've been negotiated to begin with. not for offensive purposes but purely for the opportunity for us to prevent another 9/11 attack with these terrorist groups setting up operations in afghanistan. in that vacuum, jesse, i believe there will be these types of operation setups. host: we have heard about military equipment being left behind. we have had 20 years of military equipment going to afghanistan and now is the troops are pulling out with us august 31 deadline not all of that equipment is coming back home. what realistically can the taliban guest: i think they can use

every single bit of it to their benefit. hundreds of thousands of small arms, they can use those, millions of rounds of ammunition, armored vehicles, blackhawk helicopters. the taliban now has more blackhawk tell comforters -- helicopters in australia. they are pretty resourceful, so whether they are able to get the assistance from other countries that are not our friends to help them with the blackhawk, or if they take those assets and sell them, either way, it is the advantage to the taliban to have that $85 billion worth of weapons. that is just a best estimate that we can come up with. that is the best estimate that i have come across to this point, and that is 85 billion in direct

aid to the taliban. i am deeply concerned about that , again as part of a proper withdrawal plan, first of all you should have gotten everybody out on a timeline that you could control and then withdraw the military. then get as much of that equipment out as we can. we saw what we did in iraq, and i visited there multiple times, and it was a big effort to get that equipping out because we did not want it to fall into the hands of people that did not have our best interest in mind. i believe at some point what we have left behind to used against us. host: can we expect hearings when congress resumes next

month? guest: absolutely and also from others. one thing i also want is not just a hearing of the armed services committee, but we need to have a 9/11 style commission. i believe all those that have served over these past two decades deserve answers to why this withdrawal failed and i want to make sure it is not just about what happened in the last month. i want to make sure we conduct a full review on america's involvement from our initial invasion to what we did to assist the afghan government to this withdrawal. we spent trillions of dollars they are thousands of american lives lost. you must understand what we have done, what are the things that went well and make sure we do not repeat them. i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me to create this afghanistan

commission in the same way we did that 9/11 commission because there are some important questions that need to be asked, facts that need to be brought to the forefront, and we want to get did the truth -- to get to the truth and we want to be able to learn from it. host: we would like to thank representative rob whitman for coming on with us and talking about the situation in afghanistan. thank you so much. guest: thank you. host: coming up, the immigration clinic director at the university of law center will be here to discuss the supreme court going against the biden administration on a trump immigration policy, and our spotlight on magazine segment, our guest will be here to talk about the timeline of the

pro-life movement. we will be right back. american history tv, james baker reflects on leadership and his career serving his secretary of state, and as ronald reagan's white house chief of staff and treasury secretary, a best selling author exit how society can learn from the wisdom of the founding fathers today. watch american history tv every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org /history. >> we are at an important

tipping point, but we do matters and i believe that that 1776 project is in important historical moment. we need people to get behind us, make sure that our message reaches everyone. america is a great country, and we need to fight for it. >> live sunday, carol plane is our guest on in depth. her most recent book -- join the conversation live sunday at noon eastern on in depth on book tv. there is a collection of c-span products on our online store.

your purchase will support our operations, and you have time to order the congressional directory. go to cspanshop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with geoffrey hoffman, he is with us this morning to discuss the immigration policy and the failed attempt to end the last presidents remain in mexico policy. good morning. first of all, tell us what the immigration law clinic is at the university of houston and what you do there. guest: i will be happy to. we are a law clinic, our primary goal is two fold, to teach

students to be ethical and competent attorneys, and in addition we serve the community. we help immigrants with all types of family-based cases and also humanitarian cases. host: what exactly happened with the supreme court decision, a lot of this news got lost because of what was going on in afghanistan, but it was a pretty major decision this week. take us through exactly what the supreme court said. guest: i think i will take a step back because such a complicated issue, immigration is one of the most complicated issues. judge pozen are on the seventh circuit said it was the most complicated field of law behind tax law. immigration, this policy is

called the migrant protection protocol, and also called remain in mexico, and this was started back in 2019 from the trump administration, and basically what it did was required certain people to wait outside the u.s. for the duration of their immigration court proceeding. the important thing to think about with respect to this program is it was soundly criticized as not only inefficient for adjudicating this cases, but also as really creating a human rights abuse, a crisis, because what was happening, 70,000 people or return to mexico, and it was devastating.

we represented some in the clinic, and they had no shelters, no access to food, basic needs, no access to counsel. so it is been a very dire predicament for these people. there was seemingly no regard for the human rights issues. the other thing i would point out about the mpp is that it really is kind of a non sequitur because in march 2020, title 42 was invoked because of the covid-19 pandemic, so what that did, it was used to expel about 940,000 people. so think about that, almost one million people have been expelled, and that is different. expulsion is different from deportation and different from

waiting in mexico. once title 42 was used in 2020 and because he did not need mpp anymore, the trump administration just expelled those people so they were not even given a fair day and a court, any judicial process. so fast-forward to judge has mark, the district judge relating to the texas lawsuit against the biden administration, biden earlier this year rolled out plans to cancel or resend the mpp program and that would challenge -- that was challenged by texas. a sickly what the judge said was the biden administration did not follow the correct procedures under the administrative procedure act and therefore is prohibited in enjoying the

cancellation of the program and basically send it back to the agency to give better reasons, saying it was arbitrary and capricious. that was appealed immediately and then found its way to the supreme court, and the supreme court quickly found that the program agreed with the district judge and found that the program must be reinstated. obviously this is a devastating decision for a lot of people. the other thing that people have been writing about is that basically what the federal judges doing in this case is making himself the person in charge of foreign policy. there is a long tradition that the courts are not supposed to determine how we deal with other countries, and by requiring the biden administration to have this program, that requires

bilateral negotiation and agreements with mexico. it seems like that would the a no-brainer, that the court should not have the ability to tinker with the foreign policy of the united states. that is another reason to criticize the decision. host: who exactly does this affect now that this program has been order to continue? who is affected by it, and is there way for the biden administration to actually -- the court did not say that program must run forever. they just said you have to give vetter reasons. is the administration moving towards giving those reasons to the judge? guest: that is a very important point, and the way that this could play out -- let me back up and say again about title 42, if

it is going to be continue to be used, which might understand it is used every day, that is going to really be the issue. people are not getting a fair day in court no matter what happens with mpp. mpp really should not be used. there were exceptions, they were supposed to be exceptions for certain people, people who were unaccompanied minors, people who met certain vulnerable populations, transgender cases for example, and people who were in expedited removal. i think that hits the nail on the head, which is the biden administration now has to do a very thorough job of presenting reasons to the federal court

that would spell out exactly why the program is not effective, white it is not efficient and why it is not legal most importantly. i would point out a panel has already found the application of the subsection of the immigration nationally act does not support the application of mpp to asylum-seekers. it was never legal the way it was being implemented by the trump administration was not lawful. that is what the biden administration should emphasize to the courts. host: we have mentioned during this segment that this requires agreement from mexico to actually work. do have any idea what the mexican government thinks about this court saying this program must continue? guest: it is interesting that

the mexican government, and this has not been widely reported, but it actually pushed back against mpp and did say, through some of the negotiations, that they refused to accept family units back. they have made sort of exceptions and they have been pushing back. this may create an opportunity for the mexican government to push back even more, so i think that is right. host: with this program, the remain in mexico program, does the u.s. have this with any other country decides sicko, or is this specifically aimed at immigrants and asylum seekers coming through mexico? guest: the subsection specifically uses the word contiguous territory mso that is

correct, either mexico or canada , people coming through, and it is not necessarily mexican nationals were talking about, but talking about anybody passing through that border. that is been one of the paramount reasons for the criticism because it is being applied to people who are being thrust back into mexico. they might not even speak spanish or be from mexico. they have been subjected to kidnapping, extortion, rape, violence, and i cannot emphasize enough the lack of care and adequate protection these people have been subjected to under this program. host: let me remind our viewers they can take part of this

conversation. we will open up our regular lines. keep in mind you can always text us at (202)748-8003 and we are always reading on social media and on twitter and on facebook. we know that it was the state of texas and other border states that brought this action against the biden administration. it is going to be the impact of the supreme court decision on those border states? guest: the border states specifically texas, especially texas, had been very litigious in the sense that they have taken it upon themselves the role of plaintiff.

what they are trying to do is create a litigation strategy to force the biden administration he -- administration to do certain things, not just in the mpp context, but there was another case recently in the southern district of texas relating to the policies of prosecutorial discretion. that decision also was adverse to the biden administration, saying that he couldn't provide certain priorities. that decision was stated by the fifth circuit and my understanding is that will be stayed for the duration. that has left a pertinent -- or it will be an issue. host: lets let some of our

viewers get involved. we will start with paul from new york, new york, on the independent line. good morning. caller: hi. i wanted to ask about the statement you made that some of them have no access to shelter and food. that would suggest there has been starvation. if that is the case, could you elaborate on that? also, when he saved the conditions in mexico were unacceptable, there are 128 million mexicans. it seems almost insulting to suggest that the conditions are so horrendous that really no one should be living there. could you elaborate? guest: sure. i think with the public has to understand is these people are not going back to hotels, not

going back to mexico city. they are not going back to shelters like you might understand shelters in the social services we have here. they have been going back -- and i know this because some of them are my clients and we have heard reports of this. they are going back to basically places that do not have much or any support, they do not have access to jobs, so how they -- how are they going to buy food or essentials? i think that listener misunderstands my point. i'm not saying mexico is not supporting, it is that mexico does not have the infrastructure. i think that mexican government would admit that. host: this is anthony calling from ohio on the democratic line. good morning. guest: good morning.

i want to make a couple of points. there is a legal way for them to come to the united states and there is an illegal way to come to the united states. and i was in germany, if you cross that wall, you were shot. here, if you approach nor read and you cross that line, you are shot. if they come up to our border and they cross it illegally, they should be shot. they are committing a crime. if they want to come legally, i am all for it. that is all i have to say. guest: i hear the sentiment, and i understand the thrust of that argument, but i think we have to understand what mpp is for, for people who are approaching ports of entry trying to get asylum

for the most part. they are not people generally who are caught tried to illegally enter. they are trying to apply for admission. the point under the subsection is that under the ina there is a provision for people seeking asylum and there is a process for them to get what is called reasonable fear interviews. they are not getting those interviews, and the point is they are being taken back to mexico to dire conditions. i don't think that is what we want as a country. i don't think we want to be known as a country that puts people in harm's way and creates a situation that is basically a humanitarian crisis. host: doing know if the administration is going to challenge in court again the

decision that forces them to continue this program, or did they plan to sit back and let this issue lie? guest: my understanding is they do not plan to sit back and be complacent. because of the supreme court decision that is now before the fifth circuit, on appeal, i anticipate that the department of justice will prosecute that appeal, but eventually it will go back in front of the district judge. as you pointed out, they will make arguments about why it is not arbitrary to cancel the program. host: eventually we expect that decision by that judge will be appealed again, and the court of appeals decision will be appealed again. how long before we see this before the supreme court again? guest: you are asking about the

future litigation and the trajectory, and you are right, it could percolate up to the supreme court, but something else, this can also be dealt with through a legislative process. the biden administration has attempted to the budget reconciliation, and is another issue on your audience's mind, but, and from reports i have received, there is a budget up 3.5 trillion, and at that some billion would put forth a pathway for that sedition -- city ship -- citizen ship, and -- another group is farmworkers,

essential workers, etc., so if people are able to apply legally to get into the united states through some sort of reform, it could move out some of the policies under the trump administration. host: we have been going through a pandemic and in the united states, and frankly the world has been going through it. how has that impacted immigration into the united states and those seeking asylum? guest: the main way is to create incredible burdens on both legal immigration and people who are subject to trying to enter at the border. i have already talked about title 42. we had a client who was subject to title 42 from a country where

he was subject to political persecution. he was expelled without any judicial or ability to administrative credible fear interview and then he was tortured back in that country, documented torture. it is had devastating consequences, and texas and some of the other plaintiffs have made outlandish statements without evidence that immigrants are the ones ringing covid-19. i would challenge that and say it is happening is the immigrants or the migrants are getting covid-19 in the detention centers, where the actual issue is created. there is no evidence and hard data to suggest that the immigrants should be demonized for that reason. host: not to the phone lines and talk to diane calling from

desoto, kansas, on the republican line. caller: good morning. the first caller stole my point of view almost word for word. i have been to mexico, and most people have been to mexico on vacation or visiting, whatever, through my whole life. it is a big country. it has opportunities for people who want to work there. yet these immigrants, they do not want that. they want with the u.s. has, which are social benefits which cost a lot of money, and millions of the same benefits are not available to the u.s. taxpayers that the immigrants get by nature of having a child in the u.s. and they get benefits for the whole family.

my sincere belief is that the reason that we are getting all of these immigrants is that president biden opened the borders enclosed the wall expansion and is looking to basically look forward to having these as all democrat voters after asylum is granted or citizenship is granted. then it is a political ploy. guest: i will be happy to respond. certainly i understand the sentiment, and from the perspective of somebody who has vacationed in mexico, i can see that. a couple of assumptions that i would point out, the assumption is if you are in mexico you can

get a job and live in mexico and the mexican authorities are welcoming to these migrants. that is not the case. the mexican authorities do not have infrastructure to grant asylum to a large group of people, number one. number two, you need a work permit just like here to work, you need that in mexico. number three, the public has to understand, and i have worked with a lot of these people. i have talked to many migrants, and i can tell you the main reason that a lot of them are coming, and some are for economic reasons, but the main reason i have seen is legitimate, valid persecution based claims. you have to understand the state of some of these countries in central america.

their kids are being beaten, raped, persecuted on the way to school. they do not feel safe. they have no choice but to come to the united states. i am not saying this because i have heard it or because i read about it. from my own experience representing these immigrants, a lot of them have valid persecution based claims, and i don't think we as the united states wants to be remembered for turning people away. host: this is john from liverpool, new york, on the democrat line. guest: i have no problem turning these people away. there is a legal and in a legal way to do this. i am looking right through you, pal, this is all of the money.

i am paying you. these people do not have any money to pay you. this is a big money grab. you are profiting from open borders. i am a democrat and i have always voted democrat, but if they continue this garbage, and the amnesty lie. these people are coming here for a better life, and they are telling you they are persecuted come and you are buying it because it is to your financial benefit. it is all about money. you are grabbing money from the american taxpayer to support these people. i am ashamed of you. guest: ok. my response to that, this is interesting. there is a misunderstanding about immigration, this dichotomy between a legal way and an illegal way.

let me say as far as asylum-seekers, you have to understand, and may be caller doesn't understand, there's something called the convention against torture and the refugee act of 1980 and there is a doctrine, which is well entrenched in our laws and our domestic international obligations. this is not happening in a vacuum, not something that creative immigration attorneys are making up. this is required by law. again, unless you have worked with immigrants and spent time representing these people and unless you can tell me you have experience with these people, i don't think you have a basis to criticize. host: one of our social media followers has a question, this person says does the u.s. patent

mexico through this program? and then how can we encourage mexico to close its border? guest: that is a good question. i think the issue is and it has been brought up a few times about how do we incentivize mexico and other countries to stop people? and then it becomes a question of sort of ad infinitum, where you are stopping people at various borders before they get to the united states. as we know, mexico is pretty poor. they do not have the infrastructure. my understanding as far as payment, i don't think the united states does pay with respect to the mpp program, and that is part of the argument that the mexican authorities are using about how this is an

unfair program because you are basically dumping people into the mexican population and not allowing them to have social services. i think that is a fair point and important to note. host: this is bill from mobile, alabama, on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say that we don't need these people here. we don't want them here, and they come in here with covid and nobody seems to care. the communists in washington, d.c., they want to state in power and be as stupid as they are now. ridiculous. guest: let me point out what we have done as a country and how

we have in the past welcomed people in the past and we have been a country that is sensitive to humanitarian issues. think about act in 1959, the cuban exodus, first eisenhower and then jfk letting about 250,000 cuban nationals because of the situation. think about h w bush in the 1990's, the chinese student protection act, about 300,000 chinese graduate students and undergraduates. think about after world war ii and some of the things that we should have done better in terms of welcoming refugees. think about afghanistan right now in the situation with

afghani translators and interpreters. most of the callers are very xenophobic and i understand where they are coming from, but i think that is not really the kind of country that we want to be, the beacon of light that we want to be. host: what are the requirements to actually apply for asylum from those -- for those coming in to the southern border? what are the criteria for allowing them to seek asylum in the united states? guest: that is a great question. i think people do not understand how difficult it is to get asylum. i think asylum, some of the judges are denying upwards of 90% of asylum cases. it is really a pretty high bar. what you have to have is past

persecution, a connection to one of the five grounds, race, religion, nationality, a social group, and then you have to show that you would be persecuted to go back. you have to have a well-founded fear of persecution. these are not easy cases. they are difficult. they are cases where people sometimes fight for years. i have a case right now which is pending for many years. people are frustrated with the backlog and with the lack of movement in terms of legislation. i will point out, for some of your viewers, remember who has been a champ and of legal immigration in the past? ronald reagan, if you remember,

1986 amnesty, that was all ronald reagan. we have a duty and a humanitarian obligation to help people. i am a citizen. many of you are citizens. i get that you want to create a country that helps u.s. citizens, but many have legalization, a pathway to citizenship, the statistics show that program, that is actually a boon for the economy and actually very good for people to get on the tax rolls. it is very good for our investment and very good for not just immigrants but for all of us in the united states. host: this is tom from

connecticut on the independent line. caller: the ronald reagan deal was a one-time deal, and it was promised that would never happen again by the democrats, but they broke the deal. it is not hundreds of thousands. it is millions crossing the border and there seems to be a lot of sympathy from washington, but they do not seem to have sympathy for the people who are receiving these people. i suggest that we -- maybe washington can provide buses to take them to washington d.c. and see how to deal with them. host: go ahead and respond. guest: it wasn't really a question. i think it was a suggestion. i think the way to respond, there is a great organization

called immigrants last, and it has a list of different proposals, and these are probably technical immigration related statutory proposals, but we have what is called the 3 and 10 year bar, and that means if somebody leaves the united states they are barred for a period of time, and allow for people to adjust status lawfully. a lot of people are barred because of unlawful presence, a situation where we have more waivers. i get the frustration from my fellow americans, but think of it this way, we do not have the legal resources to support told me people -- 12 million people so we will have to create can sums to legalize some, and many people in the united states can

be a boon to our economy, and we need to make efforts to solve the problem. we cannot stick our heads in the sand and say we just don't want anymore people. that is not going to happen, so we need to be intelligent about it and look at organizations and have comprehensive reform. host: this is david from turkey, new mexico, on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i would like to know if mr. hoffman would be willing to give his address so americans can go -- i imagine he lives in a gated community, where we can get in, if he would leave the gate open, and if not be guaranteed that we would not be shot or persecuted if we go on to his property, and i would admire him or any of these others that say we have to

bet millions here, if they would sell their properties and take everything out of there account and all of these goody-goody to shoes and then go help them in their country, the world would be a better place and we would not have this conversation. us having to give up, and if you look in certain neighborhoods, they say they are being persecuted, being beaten and raped and all, has he looked at chicago and even here in albuquerque, and that does not count for any sympathy? we have to say please come over, don't worry about what the americans are complaining about. they are just anti-people. guest: there is a misunderstanding that people who help immigrants or democrats who

push for comprehensive immigration reform are just looking for open borders, and that is the premise of this discussion. i'm not advocating for open borders. i am advocating for a legal process that allows people to be adjudicated fairly and with due process. due process is part of our constitution and it applies to you and me and to people who are here in the united states, that is all that is matters. host: this is linda from staten island, new york, on the republican line. caller: good morning. i hear you said something about three chilean dollars -- three chilean dollars for your immigration -- $3 trillion for

your proposal. guest: that is actually the budget -- the overall budget and it is not my proposal, but just to correct you, a portion of that would be used for legalization. guest: i understand. but legalization is just an abstract term. you want to see $3 trillion for housing, where are you going to invest that, what part of the landscape are you going to apply? we are facing eviction. how do you visualize this? this is a big number. i don't see any real investment as far as these communities are concerned.

guest: i think what the caller is talking about is a ajit reconciliation, and -- budget reconciliation, and i can only speak to immigration, and the fact that as i said before, within the reconciliation, which is moving forward, there are options or alternatives available for specific groups. people who have, dreamers, farmworkers, essential workers. host: we would like to thank geoffrey hoffman for being with us this morning and talking to us through the supreme court decision to stop the current administration from ending the remain in mexico policy. thank you so much for your time this morning.

coming up, we will go to our open forum which will allow you to call in and talk about what you think is your most important lyrical topic of the morning. you can see the numbers there on your screen. stick with us. we will be right back. ♪ >> the population of china in 1949 was 540 million. during the 72 years, the prc has had five principal leaders, and since 2012 the current head of state. george washington university

professor david shambaugh has written close to 30 books devoted to the subject of asia. we talk with the professor about his newest book. >> lesson where you get -- listen wherever you get your podcast. ♪

>> your opinion matters, be part of the national conversation by creating a documentary that answers the question how does the federal government impact your life? your video will explore federal policy or programs that affect you. the competition has $100,000 in cash prizes and a shot at a grand prize of $5,000. for competition rules and more information on how to get started, visit our website. studentcam.org. "washington journal" continues. host: we are going to go to our open forum where you call in and

tell us what your most important political topic is of the morning. we are opening up our regular lines, republicans, you call (202)748-8001. democrats, (202)748-8000. independent, (202)748-8002, and you can always text us at (202)748-8003. we want to know what you want to talk about this morning. before we get into our open forum, i want to bring to a story from the washington post about hurricane ida coming up on the u.s. gulf coast and hopefully all of our viewers down in mississippi, alabama, louisiana, you are all doing ok. sunday, march 16, anniversary of hurricane katrina man fall in louisiana, and this marks the

expected landfall of hurricane ida which is forecast to crash a core as a category four unleashing destructive winds and flooding rain and ocean surge up to 15 feet. on friday night the hurricane center warned of life-threatening inundation due to the surge and catastrophic wind damage near where the storm comes ashore as it boosted the predicted landfall intensive a category from three up to four. new orleans was placed under a hurricane warning. storm surge warnings stretches from louisiana to the mississippi alabama border. hopefully all of our viewers on the gulf coast are doing ok and will be doing ok throughout the

weekend as we continue to watch and track hurricane ida. let's go to our phone lines and see what you would like to talk about this morning. this is fred from red oak, texas, on the republican line. caller: first i would like to say i appreciate you taking us on like this where we can actually say what we are thinking. that gentleman before us mentioned about ronald reagan letting in or letting -- legalizing 4 million hispanics. that number went up to 25 million after four or five years. they had a cost in the 1990's of which eat family cost and it was over $200,000. what bothers me most about our situation that we are in is the

lawlessness. you go to chicago, detroit, atlanta, i don't know what to say about that except i want my fellow countrymen to jump in to help we can do to straighten that out for everybody, not just me. i know people have different views of what causes it. i personally have a view that is probably different then you are some of the people, but i think it is family failure. it is not police failure or guns. i am sorry, in my heart, i cry over that. host: this is paul, calling from plymouth, connecticut, on the independent line. caller: good morning. on the immigration issue, some of the people have suggested that border crossings, people come here without paper should

be shot. the advocacy of violence, we must reject. to say that state sanctioned or not, this leads to vigilantly is him, and we need to reject that. we saw the lead up to january 6. it was all over the place. anyone could see that violence was going to happen. to have people like we've seen on the border during the trump admin station go down there and intervene with law enforcement. the biden administration is on the right track. they are approaching this because they were handed it over a number of different administrations. your guest pointed out there were republican presidents who

led the fight and championed for fair immigration. isn't about opening -- opening the borders or boat seeking -- -- vote seeking. i am just as much right as i am left but the argument being made that somehow the democrats want these people on the public dole is wrong. host: this is ava from mississippi on the republican line. caller: just pray for us down here that we don't get the hurricane bad. host: where is columbia? caller: about halfway between jackson and new orleans. host: are you seeing any effects? caller: it should be moving in

tonight and we are going to be on the east side, so we have everything moved and shut down and walmart has been overflowing with people getting supplies. but we is as ready as we can get. we always know how to prepare down here. host: what you want to talk about this morning? caller: the man that was up before me, i don't know how many people is in mexico in comparison to the united states, but i am just asking, i don't know if they pay sales tax or land tax, if they pay income tax. but do they have a food stamp program like we do? do they have medicaid, medicare? i'm just curious because we have people in this country that need food stamps.

you can't get medicaid, some people taking only part of their medication. i am not trained to deny anybody the necessities of life. i am just curious about all of this, what kind of programs that they have down there. host: this is lori from pennsylvania on the democratic line. caller: i was just calling to -- i believe the republican party is more of a propaganda machine, running their campaigns on propaganda and disinformation. they are not talking about any policy, and i think that his interests -- injurious. if you think about it, trump broke the constitutional norms

more than anybody ever has, like affirming his appointing his top seats to put in people that were temporary. host: this is dave from bedford, new hampshire, on the republican line. caller: good money. i am calling because all of the stuff going around, this is not a democratic problem or a republican problem. this is a media problem. what i want to talk about, which no one is talking about, is how about the arizona audit, we have not even done -- you are getting ready to hang up on me. nobody is showing it. you got arizona, michigan, yeah.

host: date, go ahead. caller: we are not seeing none of that. the internet is not showing it. nobody is covering none of that. i want to see that because it will start going state to state. dominion is deleting all of the things. what is going on? host: this is sherry from iowa on the democratic line. caller: my concern is on senior people, i know they are helping people in the united states with stimulus money, and for people who have children, but what i am seeing is a lot of people who don't want to work anymore, and they are forcing people to have

the vaccinations to keep jobs. we are in a real predicament. i have several friends who work in restaurants and they are saying they are unable to get food from distributors because there is a lack of people to work, and not because they are sick but because they reject vaccination. as a senior, i was married 31 years and my husband left and i was disabled. i know longer can go back and get those benefits for being disabled. i live on a minimum of 647 a month, and i talked to my democratic people running for office, elizabeth warren, and i asked her how this works when we all pay our own disability if we have a spouse, we all pay, no matter who we are.

i worked all of my life, and i don't understand how that takes away my getting my disability when i worked, and they went by his income and now he left. now i am living in poverty. host: host: the caller brought up the coronavirus pandemic. as we go through the end of this month, we will see more and more schools reopening around the country. we have several schools that have already opened but we see more and more schools come back to in-person learning. some of the schools are also dealing with a new outbreak of coronavirus. here is a story that comes from the washington post that talks about a situation that happened in california with the reopening of schools during the pandemic. an unvaccinated elementary

school teacher infected with the delta variant spread the virus to half of the students in the classroom, seating outbreak that eventually infected 26 people. that's according to the cdc. the unusually detailed study, which comes at school district's across the country reopen, seems to intensify the debate over vaccine mandates and schools. a handful of school districts including new york city, have already announced vaccine requirements for teachers and staff. others may follow suit now that the food and drug administration granted full approval to the pfizer-biontech vaccine. the most important thing we can do to protect school children is particularly -- children, particularly those too young to be vaccinated, to make sure the adults in their lives, including teachers and staff, need to be vaccinated.

that is from johns hopkins university. that is coming out of where an elementary school teacher infected half the students in the class eventually infecting 26 people. this comes as more schools are planning to reopen over the next few weeks. we have seen several schools reopen and then be forced to go into virtual learning as the coronavirus ran through the school. we want to know what you want to talk about this morning. let's talk to charlie calling from maine on the democratic line. charlie, good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. i watch you guys every day. my biggest beef right now is i don't care what party you are in, what they are trying -- this minority leader, i can stand looking at the sky.

in america, when the president is the president, we are in crisis. if you can tell, shut up. this guy does nothing but puke all over the man that runs our country. all these people want to have their say. all these republican people, they want a 911 hearing. we can't even find out what the minority leader said to mr. trump on the telephone. how are we supposed to believe anything that comes out of the sky's mouth -- this guy's mouth? host: let's go to stephen calling from oklahoma on the republican line. stephen, good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. i haven't called in many months. there are a few things on my mind. i just know that i'm a senior citizen of 62, and obamacare

kept me from my doctor because my health care didn't work. a month or two after they told me i could not see the doctor anymore because they wanted me to have a medicare supplement which was $360 a month at the time. donald trump was in a year or two in office and lowered it to $45 a month and nobody knows out there or even cares that he lowered it and was helping health care. effie was the president in 2011, i would be back to work making $50,000 a year. you know what they're doing now? they are tailing the welfare, the foodstamp money, it went from $360 per month to $720 per month and now they're going to

give them $300 more because they have two little kids? and i go they never worked, they gamed the system, and they never give us senior citizens any extra -- what's, $30? i never saw $30. host: let's go to william calling from new jersey on the independent line. william, good morning. caller: thank you, jesse. i have three points, and please let me finish. first of all, god help the families of our service people who have been killed in this disaster, this catastrophe created by mr. biden because he decided to pull out our troops before pulling the civilians and afghan allies out. and also the hundreds of afghan families. the other thing, number two, the problem with kamala harris' wide

open border, speaking of covid, they seem to be concerned about stopping the spread. why are they allowing tens of thousands of illegal migrants, knowingly many of them infected with covid, and sending them to every state in the country. by the way, here is another problem with the border. they are not betting or checking people's backgrounds. with this catastrophe in afghanistan, it does not take a smart person to realize terrorists and people that mean us harm can easily come through our wide open borders because harris has failed to seal the border, including drug dealers and not to mention the deadly fentanyl. host: let's go to diane calling from austin, arkansas on the republican line. diane, good morning. caller: good morning.

i agree, wholeheartedly, with the gentleman from new jersey. i hate to see what is going on with our country. are you there? host: go ahead, diane. caller: sorry. they are just trying to destroy our nation and in every kind of way. we are letting the population of arkansas come in in a years time. we have covid all over. it is costing the health care system and united states a fortune, and we are bringing all of these people in when we have homeless people in our own states, born and raised here. we have seniors that cannot afford their medication or supplement health care. i, since biden has been in office, my gas has gone up two dollars per gallon, my utilities went up $20 for each utility i

have, groceries has went up 30%, so it is costing me another $500 a month to live when i make $35,000 a year. taxes went up $40, real estate taxes. they are going into everything they can to destroy this nation. host: let's go to michelle calling from kansas city, missouri on the democratic line. michelle, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to speak about people who are talking about refugees and immigrants coming in and how they are ruining the country. i beg to differ. i live in a neighborhood called northeast kansas city, missouri. after we desegregated in kansas city, we had solid blue-collar majority white neighborhood of 42,000 people.

people left. houses were empty, all of our business is on the avenue and st. john, our main commercial thoroughfares, were vacant. there was nobody there. i bought a house in the neighborhood because i grew up here and i like the houses for 32 tell -- $32,000 for a four-story victorian home in 1996. things were bad. there were hookers three blocks from my house, gang war. it was terrible. a few years later, they started bringing refugees in from the middle east, from africa, from russia, from afghanistan, and from mexico, central america, and it was unbelievable what they did. these immigrants and refugees came in, they bought up these vacant businesses. you can't even find an empty business on the avenue or st. john now because immigrants have

opened up businesses. host: let's see what some of our social media followers are thinking about their most important political topics of the morning. here is one text that says "it is time to talk about the climate impact now hitting, along with ida and the guaranteed disaster about to hit. forget politics." here's another text that says "i think we should pull out of afghanistan but not the way biden did it. for him to think a prayer or the 13 serviceman loss would make everything better, and it does not. i fear attack on usa on upcoming 9/11." once again, we went to know what topics you want to talk about this morning. let's go to randy calling from arlington, minnesota on the democratic line. randy, good morning. caller: good morning. i have the privilege of being up

at 4:00 this morning and i encourage all of us to bring back 708. it was any interview on story in public square by brian lam who started your c-span. the most important issue i want to bring -- because it was an interesting day yesterday -- i am in the health care field and was speaking to my old boss. and we are in a specialist field so we have all of the knowledge that you want to know about aerosols. i am in dentistry. i tend to be independent more toward the democratic. the information she was giving me was so absurd i could not even stand it. i had to tell her to stop. i ended the evening by bringing up bill marr, which we have not had on our tv for a long time because we have been outside. i would encourage everyone to listen. he had the privilege of having ralph reed last night.

it is a great conversation, and it entails all of the things that all of us callers are not happy about. we need to work together. i'm finishing with what i heard on brian lam, and that is the fact that we need to have ask. we need to have -- facts. we need to have journalism and a good public broadcasting system that gives us facts. host: let's go to judy calling from las vegas, nevada on the republican line. judy, good morning. caller: good morning. i think all of these people that are thinking of the trivial things going on in america, which are not really trivial because biden is nuts, but right now, i think we should concentrate on afghanistan and pelosi. i think she is behind all of this. if people wouldn't vote on the

$1 trillion bill she has up, then she would get to work on helping the nation more. thank you. host: let's go to carmine calling from new rochelle, new york on the republican line. carmine, good morning. caller: good morning. with regard to the thousands of illegal immigrants coming across the border and also now the tens of thousands of afghan refugees that will be accepted by us, it seems as though once we receive them, within 48 hours, if they need clothing, medical, food, temporary shelter, we supply that for them. i would like to know -- my question is, i would like to know, are any of these programs being geared towards the thousands of americans who have

seen their homes burned to the ground in the forest fires on the west coast that have taken place in many states? it seems as though everything for the stranger, nothing for our fellow americans. i just do not get it. host: let's go to danny calling from denver, colorado on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. whatever but he fails to see is corporate america is what is ruining everything in the united states. it started long ago in the late 1960's when the shorter brothers wanted to move samsonite to mexico. as a result of this global -- they wanted to use cheap labor for everything they produce. the wealth of america has to be distributed amongst everybody. what is going on on the immigration thing is let's talk about enforcing the law. if you want to enforce the law, we should enforce the law and

people -- on people hiring these illegal immigrants. once they see jobs are not available here anymore and people are being prosecuted for hiring illegals, by the law, then dickman offered and the people that own these packing companies are sent to jail and anyone that hires these illegals are sent to jail and it will be a deterrent. people will not come across the border. what also has to be done is a detention facility has to be built on the mexican side of the border so they can train these people before they come across the border. they ought to be building the tension facilities down -- building detention facilities down there while they wait to come across legally. host: we would like to thank all of our callers for joining our open form segment. coming up next in our spotlight on magazine segment, world magazine leah savas will be here to discuss her recent article on the pro-life movement. we will be right back. ♪

>> weekends bring you the best in american history and nonfiction books. on book tv, we will feature author discussions from freedom fast, a libertarian gathering, including gary hooper, anthony davis, karen mcdonald -- carrie mcdonald, and philip magness and benjamin powell. on afterwards, robin d'angelo discusses her book "nice racism, how progressive white people perpetuate racial harm." she is interviewed by author and professor of african-american studies at princeton university. watch book tv every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at tv.org -- booktv.org. >> sunday on q&a, a conversation

with karen tumulty on her book, the triumph of nancy reagan on tenacity of the former first lady who shaped the reagan presidency. >> she has but one agenda, ronald reagan's well-being and success. she was also -- she had better instants about people than he did, sort of a better nose for trouble than he did. the people in the administration who understood all of this, who recognized her power, people like secretary of state george schulz or white house chief of staff later treasury secretary james baker really understood that she was a very important, a crucial ally to have if you were trying to get ronald reagan on board. >> karen tumulty's biography, " the triumph of nancy reagan," sunday night on c-span's q&a.

you can find all q&a interviews wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are backend we have our spotlight on magazine segments this morning and we are talking to leah savas who is a reporter for world magazine and covers pro-life topics for world magazine and world digital. she is here to talk about her recent article on the timeline of the pro-life movement and current challenges to roe v. wade. good morning. guest: good morning. thank you for having me. host: tell our viewers what type of article they can find when they pick up world magazine. guest: world covers a variety of topics. we have several different beats including a compassion beat that covers organizations around the country that are helping people in need. i cover pro-life topics, so my

beat is mostly about abortion. i also read about euthanasia from time and national and international topics. we had some international reporters covering what is going on in afghanistan right now and also our bureau covers politics and focus is on education as well. we like to focus on the un-boring, the unfashionable, just unseen people in society. we have a list of theun's -- th eun's we -- the un's we like to cover in the magazine. host: you wrote a recent article covering the pro-life movement in the united states. talk to our readers about the major milestones you cover in this article chronicling the pro-life movement. guest: yes, so one interesting thing i got to look at while

researching for this article is i looked at past coverage that was done. since a lot of the stuff i wrote about, some of it, happened before i was born, i looked at world past coverage. some things that were interesting to me, in the 1990's, seeing the disappointment a lot of pro-lifers suffered after the casey decision. there's also just a bad rap that pro-lifers had because there are a lot of shootings of abortionists in the 1990's, and i continued into the early 2000s. operation rescue was a direct action group of pro-lifers that would do clinics and protest abortion. it was kind of an aggressive side of the movement and there was no real connection -- it is not like operation rescue liked or approved of the people who

killed abortionists, but the kinds of aggressive part of that movement i think led into the shootings and sometimes clinic bombings. so it was helpful when the pro-life movement started to refocus efforts on pregnancy centers and helping women who are in need, helping them find ways to be able to take care of their babies, find resources in their communities that would allow them to bathe a child, and another thing -- child. and another thing that was monumental for the movement was bringing the image of the unborn baby to the minds of americans. that was largely done through the parshall abortion ban. that band a certain method of abortion that involves mostly delivering the babel and then

snapping the back of its neck to kill it before completing the abortion. just the description and images of what that procedure involved, for a lot of people, i think it was a wake-up call and helped them recognize "oh wow, this is brutal, bloody." so ultimately, even though there is a long battle behind giving that parshall abortion ban in place, ultimately -- parshall abortion ban -- partial abortion ban in place. even judges would ask probing questions, especially this one judge. he would ask the abortionists in the courtroom to describe the

procedure. he would help them cut through part of the jargon to explain what really happens. that was an interesting thing to see, just that coverage. one thing that was pointed out in the past coverage is a lot of other news organizations did not even mention these descriptions of the procedure in their own coverage, but world quoted verbatim a lot of the exchanges between the judges and abortionists. one of them included -- i think an abortionist was talking about how you take the tongs and you pull, and the judges asking is that like salad tongs? he's like yeah, yeah, except a judge explains but you are crushing the head of a baby, right? so he is kind of explaining,

even though he ultimately ruled against the ban, he was explaining the brutal form of that and what it looks like. host: so bring us up-to-date to today. who are the faces of the pro-life movement in the united states now? one of the images people see end know -- and know today from the pro-life movement. guest: i think a big part of the pro-life movement now is the pregnancy centers. a lot of groups do not like pregnancy centers. they think they are trying to make women into her life activists. but in talking to these centers, i've seen a lot of compassion from them. they have a real desire to help these women. they feel like it is not empowering to women to tell them in order to live a complete life that they need to abort their baby.

they want to show women that they can help raise them, that they can be good mothers, they have support and are not alone. a lot of these women feel alone. the people they talked to first in their lives when they find out they are pregnant, sometimes those people will tell them you need to abort it. they feel pressured into it and feel like there is no other choice. so women, even though if there is a lot of these women who help women with unplanned pregnancy, they think the pregnancy center is a big fake right now. i think unfortunately during president trump's administration , president trump became a big facebook the movement. i think some, even pregnancy center workers, where think for for the way he acted to protect them through his executive actions, even though a lot of

the legislative goals he had did not work out. but there are other people in the movement who were definitely pretty disappointed that he does not treat women more honorably and also they just had the sense -- this sense of feeling like he was a distraction from the real issue we should be speaking of, these women who need help and unborn babies who are being killed in abortions. host: let me remind our viewers they can take part in this conversation. we will open up our regular lines. republicans, you can call (202) 748-8001. democrats, your number is (202) 748-8000. independents, you can call (202) 748-8002. remember, you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media, @cspanwj, and on facebook

, facebook.com/cspan. leah, you point out encouraging numbers for the pro-life movement. i want to read a couple paragraphs and have you react to it. you say in one paragraph, even in a hostile political environment, pro-life state legislatures continue to make bold strides in 2021. they may break the 2011 record for passing pro-life bills in the hopes they supreme court ruling in an upcoming case out of mississippi will allow that legislation to take hold. another bright side, surgical abortion facilities have continued a gradual decline. the latest data show abortions were down to 806 you 2320 in 2017, almost half of the all-time -- all-time high in 1990.

-- 862,320, almost half, in 2017. would you say the pro-life movement is winning? guest: that is a tough question. i was say in a lot of ways, yes, the pro-life movement is winning because they have the truth on their side about the reality of unborn life, but i do think there's a strong contingent of people who will continue to try to emphasize that it doesn't matter if the baby is scientifically alive if the mother doesn't want it, then that is a burden to her. i don't know. i think it will be an ongoing struggle, just basically between two worldviews. even if abortion -- even if roe v. wade gets overturned, there

will still be the need for pregnancy centers. so that battle of trying to serve the women and the baby at the same time for these centers will continue. host: speaking of roe v. wade, there is a major case coming in front of the supreme court out of mississippi called dobbs versus jackson, women's health, that some people say could be used by this supreme court to overturn roe v. wade. is it still the goal of the pro-life movement to overturn roe v. wade or is it more of an effort to make changes at the local and state level at this point? guest: i think it is still a goal to overturn roe v. wade. i think a lot of that -- part of that goal is to make these state-level changes. for example, in arkansas, they passed a pretty much universal protection for unborn babies except for if the mother's life is in danger. the governor, when he signed

that, he specifically said his goal was to target roe v. wade. but that is not the only purpose for these state laws. i think state legislatures, they represent voters, the voters electing the representatives, you know, they have pro-life desires and they do not want to see babies being aborted in their state. ultimately, if roe v. wade does get overturned, it will go to the state and the states will -- whatever laws they have in place will kind of determine whether it is a safe place for unborn babies were not. host: let's let our viewers take part in this conversation. we will start with gretchen calling from new york on the democratic line. gretchen, good morning. caller: yes. my main question is why don't males -- can you hear me?

host: yes, go ahead, gretchen. caller: thank you so much. my main question is why don't any of you pro-lifers use any literature or anything from males to use responsibility since they cause the women the conundrum. guest: yeah, actually, a lot of pro-life pregnancy centers do have resources specifically for men. they want to help these men be good fathers, and that is a big part of it. unfortunately, a lot of the talk about abortion has kind of marginalized men in the question when really you, like you said, it is a big part of it. they are the father, they should be involved. unfortunately, with issues of abuse and stuff, it is hard --

some people are like, "well you don't want the father to be involved because of abuse." in a lot of cases, it would just be helpful if the man could be told, "you need to step up and be the father and talk to some men who someone told him that." and they -- talk to some men." someone told them that. and they did. this is something i need to do and this is my child too. i think that is an important conversation to have with the men. i think there are resources out there for them, but there should always be more. there can always be improvement in that way. host: let's talk to john from virginia on the independence line. john, good morning. caller: morning, jesse. i appreciate you taking my call this saturday morning. i would like to say hi to leah. i am personally pro-life and i think all christians should be that way with the commandment

thou shall not kill in the bible. my question for leah, do you think there should be an exception when it comes to the mothers' life being in danger? guest: from my understanding, with certain pregnancies, there is not a viable option, but that is a totally different situation. since the pregnancy is in the fallopian tubes, it would not work out there anyways. but with life of the mother situations, i think that there actually are a lot of cases -- you don't have to make that decision, you can do an emergency c-section quickly where any abortion takes longer. i have talked to doctors that are pro-life and they say, "no, i will always try to say both of

them. there's a big difference between aborting because they're trying to take the life of the baby and inducing a pregnancy while trying to save the baby and also trying to save the mother." i hope that answers your question. host: let's go to miriam calling from texas on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. so i believe in the ideal of my body, my choice. i'm curious to see what you think of the mandate for vaccinations. guest: ok. that's a tough question. that's not something i have covered very much, so i'm not sure i can really comment on that. host: leah, the first sentence in your article is in the 1990's a few of the most visible faces

of the pro-life movement were murderers. you go through talking about james cobb and michael griffin. has the movement become less violent since those days of the 1990's that you start talking about here? guest: yes, certainly. if you look at the dates of different shootings, there were some -- i think there is one in 2015, but that was a data point that was scattered out from most of them, which are in the 1990's and early 2000s. i would definitely say -- a lot of the groups used to do sit ins and they are not able to do that anymore because of certain legislation that prevented that. now, people who are willing to do direct action, they tend to be involved for life.

or sidewalk camping, which is praying in front of abortion's facilities -- abortion facilities on the sidewalk. sometimes talking to women handing out literature and nearby centers -- by nearby centers. i definitely think the movement is not -- the main faces no longer the murderers who killed the abortionists. the main faces the pregnancy centers. and often, the groups or other legislative groups, i think even students for life, they are not violent. they do wonderful protests and have signage, but there is nothing about this hedging on being violent. host: in your article, you point

out world magazine back then called these martyrs a distraction from the issue of abortion. is it still a distraction? is violence still a distraction from the overall goal? guest: the murders you mean from back then? host: yes. guest: well, i think it is less than a distraction since it has not continued as much recently, like i was saying. i think the pro-life movement has done, like i was saying, -- has done a good job -- like i was saying come on focusing on helping women. a lot of the pro-lifers i talk to, they are involved in volunteering, leading bible studies, to help women know that they are loved by god and it is not like abortion is anything super -- it is not like abortion is a sin on its own. there are sins we all commit all

the time that are just as bad as abortion, and god forgives all of those because of christ's sacrifice on the cross. so i think refocusing on those pregnancy centers and also the young generation in students for life, i think that has helped to refocus also on the women who need to help and unborn babies who need the help as well from the pro-life movement. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to rob calling from aurora, indiana on the republican line. rob, good morning. caller: yes, sir. i commend this young lady. leah, i really respect you, sweetie. i do not believe in abortion. put this in god's hands, and these women that worry about their bodies, if they do not want to have children, do not get pregnant. there are ways of taking care of

it, and absolutely this is a part of what is wrong with america today. if they believe in killing babies, they will kill anybody. we have shown it this year. and we are showing it right now. this country is in an dire state and we need to get a bite and out of there and the rest of his crew -- biden out of there and the rest of his crew -- biden out of there and the rest of his crew. host: go ahead and respond. guest: as long on as there are humans on a planned pregnancy and a need to serve those pregnant in need. i think the pregnancy centers are excited to do that because it gives them an opportunity to serve their communities and love these women and unborn babies and born babies that need their help. host: now, our next caller is calling from indiana on the

democratic line. allen, good morning. caller: thank you. thank you for accepting my calls. i'm a long-time listener, i love the show. can you please get your glasses back? you scare me the way you look. ok, two questions i would like to ask. i don't believe in abortion as a means of birth control. i think women should be offered counseling. people make mistakes and things happen. what i would like to ask you, if a woman is raped by a stranger or someone she knows in a violent act, would you be in favor of her getting an abortion once she found out she was pregnant or force her to carry the child? this is a question of do women

have a right of control of their own body? host: go ahead and respond there, leah. guest: my response, actually i just last week spoke to a girl who was conceived in rape. she turned out to be a state champion in track and field in high school and an all-star athlete in all-american athlete in college. she is also crowned miss universe 2022. i talked to her about this, and -- misses universe i should clarify, 2022. but we talked about this and she found out when she was nine that she had been conceived in rape. she said her first reaction when she heard that from her mom was just --

host: we are having a bit of a technical difficulty with leah right there but we will have her back in just a moment. i will read a little bit from her article here that we have up where she talks about the pro-life movement. i think we have her back. are you there? guest: yeah. sorry, i was talking and it cut out. host: so jump back in there. guest: so i was talking about someone i had interviewed who is conceived in rape. so yes, she ended up becoming a great athlete and had been crowned miss universe 2022. so yes, she said she was proud of her mom for continuing to choose to continue with the pregnancy. can you still hear me? host: yes we can. guest: great. she said she was proud of her mom for continuing the pregnancy and was grateful to her mom for giving her the opportunity to live.

even though she ended up in foster care, her childhood was hard but she said she would not have it any other way. she is thankful to be alive. i think we should think of stories like that, especially women who have dealt with a really hard situation of rape. i think they should remember people like tori who still have wonderful lives and to our thing for to their moms and their moms are there heroes for deciding to continue with their pregnancies. host: let's go to michael calling from stamford, connecticut on the independent line. michael, good morning. caller: good morning. since she has a lot of opinions about everything but the my body, my choice, which she is a woman entered understand that altogether. how about adoption? you have not mentioned anything about adoption. it is legal to get an abortion,

but all of you people are thinking about the unborn but are not thinking about the born people. how about all of the little kids that are born who are homeless and all of that sort of thing? you're just making more and more homeless people because, once these people are poor and having abortions. host: go ahead and respond. guest: to use tori as another example, the woman i was talking about. she is pro-life and is adopted -- her and her husband adopted a young adult son. so just using her as an example, i think a lot of those do care about the babies already out there, and pregnancy centers do provide women with help in setting up for an adoption. a lot of questions -- a lot of christians and pro-lifers will get involved in pregnancy centers and maternity homes and

will adopt the babies. often are helping foster care homes. that is one thing tori that i spoke to last week has. pro-lifers do, even if they feel busy, even if they feel like they are incapable of taking care of a teenager who they just met, she just kind of urges people to be bold and step out and be willing to help the already alive children born, not just already alive children unborn. and give them the aid that they need in order to have lives that are just blessed. host: one of the things you point out in your article is in the to thousands's, the pro-life movement found what you call unexpected -- 2000s, the

pro-life movement found what she would call unexcited allies. who are those allies found? guest: one i wrote about was a nurse who formally help with abortions at an abortion facility. i believe her name was brenda schaefer and she was one that helped kind of get the description of partial-birth abortions out into the public. so she was one maybe unexpected ally. you would think someone who works in any abortion facility are probably pro-choice and think abortion -- an abortion facility are probably pro-choice and thing abortion is alright. i believe she was pro-choice but then saw this and was like i didn't realize this was what abortion looks like and what it involves. another example are people who would not say they were republican or conservative but who may be found out what

abortion involves, found out about life in the womb and how life, scientifically, begins at the moment of conception. then speaking through that, they were like, i do not think abortion is right -- thinking through that, they were like, i do not think abortion is right. they started getting involved in pregnancy centers, serving women directly, going to baby showers, giving women gifts they need to help raise their children. i think often the groups like democrats for life have a very strong presence, and there are so many democrats who would like to be able to vote for a pro-life democrat. but since they are being weeded out, that is not happening. also groups like pro-life san francisco just recently -- the

former president of pro-life san francisco is actually an atheist. he is lgbtq friendly, but she also -- she is lgbtq friendly, but she is also for the unborn. that is unconventional that you would see as well. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to eric from arizona on the republican line. eric, good morning. eric, are you there? caller: yes. i'm here. host: go ahead, eric. caller: i do not understand why we are so worried about abortions when we have people that will strap a bomb to themselves and walk into a crowd and blow themselves up. explain that to me. guest: yes, well i think it is

because abortion touches a lot of women and it touches a lot of families. it touches a lot of unborn children and those children are precious to the lord, those women are precious to the lord, and the people i talked to at pregnancy centers, this is what they deal with every day and they have women who come in week after week who need help. we need to find a way to serve them, find a way to protect their babies. host: we have a social media follower who has a question for you, and this person texts in, can you have your guests explain the pro-life stance by republicans and their support of the death penalty at the same time? guest: unfortunately, i have not cover the death penalty, so i don't think i can really answer those questions. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to sharon

calling from minnesota on the democratic line. sharon, did i announce the name of your town -- pronounce the name of your town correctly? caller: that is close. that is how we say it in the wintertime but right now it is different. host: ok. go ahead. caller: i appreciate the topic as always. this has been a very hot topic all of my life. i am finding it hard to take your guest too seriously because she has not wiped the smug smile off of her face since she started. now she just did. i think we have all noticed that and it has been hard to take her seriously with anything she is saying. i want to talk about a little experience i had when i was 15. i was raped by my abusive -- please take the smile off of your face man because i'm having a hard time.

i was raped by my abusive alcoholic uncle and think god for my christian parents and my pastor at my church who is able to guide me to get any abortion because, at the age of 15, i was distraught. i was at the point of committing suicide, so then there would have been two lives lost. so i am an advocate for any woman whoever chooses to make the choice to do what is right for her own body. you have absolutely no right to come into my uterus, go into anybody else's. you may have your own opinion, but we all have our own life stories. thank you, ma'am. thank you for taking the smile off of your face. i'm sure we will see it again. thank you, jesse. host: go ahead and respond there, leah.

guest: i'm really sorry for her story and i'm sorry for her experiences. i know that that must be terrible. i guess i don't know what to say. host: let's go to michael calling from belleville, new jersey on the independence line. michael, good morning. caller: good morning. iq for c-span. i was wondering if your guest is familiar with research by steven levitt, the governor, showing states that legalize abortions prior to roe v. wade so reductions in violent crime, 18 to 25 years down the line. it is an interesting topic for me because it is a trade-off between ending the life of an unborn baby versus creating people that the system is not

able to take care of. thank you. host: go ahead and respond. guest: this actually has come up in some of my reaching coverage too, talking about this. i think pro-lifers would say we cannot use abortion as a solution to unplanned pregnancies. that can't be the fix. to reduce crime, we can't kill the potential criminals or sufferers. we have to find a way to serve them. i do not think abortion is the solution to that. i think there are other solutions, and i think also abortion is a violent act, so it also contributes to that violence against others. host: let's talk to fannie calling from texas on the

democratic line. good morning. caller: hi. i wanted to ask leah why she judged people. i feel like each person has their own right to do what they want to do. i am 67 years old, only had one child, my child passed away at 23. i have come from the lord's family and several of my sisters did have abortions. a couple of my friends had abortions. they all know -- knew how i felt about it. at the same time, i felt it was their right. the only person i can judge he was god. i feel like some pro-lifers judge people. and she, earlier said something about it is almost like she is

god or somebody. each person has to pay for their own sins. but god sees everything, and he know every situation. so i feel like that's something. and then i think it is very realistic for them to think they can overturn roe v. wade. i think it is because of the different justices we have that was appointed by donald trump. i also wanted to ask her a question. when the man said earlier we need to get rid of biden and his crew. so what does biden have to do with roe v. wade? host: go ahead and respond, leah. guest: ok. so there are couple different things i think she said, but the last thing you asked about was biden. i think a big goal for pro-lifers right now is to

protect an amendment because there are a text from the biden administration as well as the pro-choice people in congress just to pass a budget that will not include protections and would ultimately allow taxpayer funding to go towards abortions. i think that is the reason they want to focus on biden. they just since the attack at the federal level. it could also lead to more unborn babies losing their lives if there is funding for abortions at a federal level. host: let's talk to al calling from massachusetts on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to think your guest. she is very brief coming on this

morning. i would like to make a few comments. both are invoking god. our guest has the holy spirit. you have to allow the holy spirit to work inside of you. thank you. god wants us to live within parameters. thou shall not murder. another guest said why are republicans pro death penalty? because a person has free will to do that. i asked, why do we take a poll of how many of your listeners would choose to abort themselves today. that poll is never taken. none of us would choose that. so god wants to give these babies a chance. are there necessary times for abortions? of course. but not the millions that have gone on by the far-left atheists the last 50 years.

my question is, who would choose to be aborted? none of us. host: go ahead and respond, leah. guest: i think that is an interesting point, because like talking to the woman i was mentioning earlier, she is thankful her mom did not choose abortion for her, and even though she had a tough childhood , she is thankful that she had the chance to live and that she now has the chance to care for other people who are in need. i think a lot of other people who are in similar situations would agree. host: let's talk to lisa calling from ohio on the independent line. lisa, good morning. caller: hi. i am calling to say two things. the first thing, with abortion now, it seems to be an antiquated form of birth control. i would challenge the democrats out there or people -- the

pro-choice people, why are we using abortion as a formal birth control? it is not a form of birth control. there are so many newer ways of controlling getting pregnant. even shots in the arm that keep you from getting pregnant for five years. there is no reason for this many abortions. except for planned parenthood making money off of each one. when you talk about your uterus, someone's making money off of your uterus. host: go ahead and respond before we run out of time, leah. guest: ok. i think that pregnancy centers can do a lot to help women, and i think that some have even tried to help with sex ed in schools so we can get the ideas down to like high schoolers and middle schoolers, just finding other ways to prevent getting

into a situation like that. host: let's see if we can squeeze in christian calling from carson ville, michigan on the democratic line. good morning. caller: hi. i wanted to make a comment. i am pro-choice and i am going to invoke god in that because god gives us choice and we shall be judged by choice. not by a human being that is trying to tell us that there way is the right way. god will judge us all on choice, so that is why i have to be pro-choice. host: go ahead and respond. guest: i think we do have a choice to make the right decision or wrong decision, and i think god has a lot of grace for those who repent. and that is what i've heard from

pregnancy centers. they want women to know that god loves them and will forgive them because of christ's sacrifice on the crossthat includes abortion. host: we would like to think leah for talking about her recent articles on the timeline of the pro-life movement. thank you so much for being with us this morning. guest: thanks for having me. host: i would like to thank all of our guests, viewers and social beauty of followers for being with us for another edition of washington journal. everyone keep washing your hands and stay safe and make sure you have a great saturday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪

>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that is why charter invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, and power in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service, along with these other providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> today on the anniversary of the 1963 march on washington, voting rights advocates will hold of march in washington, d.c. to call for passage of federal voting legislation. among the speakers is martin luther king iii and rev. al sharpton. live coverage begins at noon eastern on c-span.

you can watch online at c-span.org. >> we are at an important tipping point. what we do matters and i believe the 1776 project is an important historical moment. we need people to get behind us. we need to make sure our message reaches white, black, asian is everyone. america is a great country and we need to fight for it. >> september 5, carol swain is our guest on in-depth. her recent book is "black eye for america." join the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, text and tweets for carol swain on september 5 at noon eastern on in-