abortion law which bans nearly all abortions after the sixth of pregnancy. the justices here hold women's health versus jackson, which challenges the part of the law that gives the public power to enforce it via civil suit without federal court review. united states versus texas looks at whether the justice department has the right to sue in federal court to block the law. watch the oral argument live coverage on c-span2 live or on demand at c-span.org. listen on c-span radio or on the new c-span now mobile app. this morning on washington journal, we will preview the week ahead on capitol hill with the hill's scott wong. then we will talk about lawsuits challenging workplace vaccine mandates with liberty justice center managing attorney daniel suhr. and georgetown university law center's lawrence gostin on

vaccines for children. plus global covid vaccination efforts. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. washington journal is next. ♪ host: good morning, it's monday, november 1, 2021. in just about three hours the supreme court will hear challenges to the texas abortion law that went into effect in september it created the most restrictive abortion limits in the country. the arguments over the heart bill begin at 10 a.m. eastern and will set the stage to what could be a pivotal term for the issue of abortion access and the landmark roe v. wade decision. that is where we are beginning this morning. call in, let us know your thoughts on the texas case and

the abortion debate today. democrats, call in at (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002 is the number. you can also send us a text, that number is (202) 748-8003. please include your name and where you are from. catch up with us on social media, c-span wj on facebook and @cspanwj on twitter. you can start calling and now. we have live pictures from outside the supreme court this morning as the sun is rising on capitol hill. we are expecting the crowd to fill in outside the supreme court, but for more on what's going to be happening inside the building we turn to kimberly robinson, supreme court reporter with bloomberg law. it will be a busy day for supreme court reporters. start us off with explaining why

we are talking about a pair of cases today on this texas abortion law. who is bringing these cases against the state of texas? guest: we are going to be hearing, as you mentioned, two cases today, starting at 10:00. the first one will be brought by abortion providers in texas. viewers room -- may remember in texas -- in august that the same providers came to the supreme court and ask them to step into stop the law before it went into effect on september 1, but the justices decided not to step in at that emergency stage, saying that they weren't going to step in, even though there were substantial questions about the constitutionality of the law, but that there were complex and novel procedural hurdles that stopped them from looking at it at that time they wanted the lower courts to grapple with first. the providers came back after

the law went into effect and asked them not to look at the constitutionality of the law as a whole but instead to take a look at this procedural question and asked the justices to expedite the case, which they did, and the justices have put this case on a lightning fast track. to give viewers a context as to how unique this is for the justices to fast-track the case in this way, they haven't done this this quickly since bush versus gore. the second case we are going to be hearing is the one brought by the biden it in us ration. the biden administration sued texas on its own after the supreme court did not halt the law, saying that texas has put him at a flea structure the law to stop constitutional rights and say that it is something the state just cannot do.

the supreme court here should let the government sue in order for it to be able to vindicate federal law. i will say that these two cases involve slightly different questions but ultimately what they both boil down to is, the supreme court has said that the federal constitution guarantees a right to an abortion, then who can suit to ensure the right is a reality for the citizens of texas? host: at the end of the day or whenever we hear the opinions of the justices, could roe v. wade be overturned in these cases? guest: it seems unlikely that the supreme court will overturn or even limit roe v. wade because they are just deciding on procedural questions to deal with the unique way that texas has set up its law. they had been set up to hear a case out of mississippi

challenging roe v. wade by adding on a 15 week abortion ban but in these cases that they are hearing today i would not expect them to be talking much about roe v. wade. host: attorney general merrick garland was before congress in one of his recent hearings and was asked about the texas abortion law. here is his explanation of what the justice department is looking for in his response to members of congress. [video clip] 3 we are concerned -- >> we are concerned about the inability of anybody to challenge the supreme court established right on abortion because of the way the law is structured and we can't have a system where constitutional rights evade judicial review. host: kimberly robinson, what is texas arguing here? guest: texas says the law

doesn't make it so that no one can sue in any court, just they cannot sue in federal court. texas says that the answer to the question of who consume in federal court is really no one and abortion providers must wait to be sued in state court and the state courts can work out the constitutionality of the law with the case eventually working its way back up to the supreme court. there are several problems with that as far as abortion providers are concerned primarily because antiabortion activists seem to have agreed not to sue under the law and as contrary as that might sound it is because the law is already having its desired and chilling effect on abortion even without providers being sued because the law are really imposes pretty dry coney and sanctions on anyone found guilty. there is a minimum amount of $10,000 against anyone found to aid and abet an abortion after

six weeks. there are some other procedural safeguards that were used in the -- that we are use to have been rejiggered in this law. it can eclipse the $10,000 sanction and the law says that's someone who sues can get their attorneys to get just because but under no circumstances can a provider successful in the law get the attorneys fees. these provisions have had their intended chilling effect on providing abortions in texas. host: live oral arguments being released by the court and when they start at 10 a.m. and we air them on c-span two, what are you watching for? which justice are you most interesting in hearing a line of lessening from?

guest: i'm most interested in hearing from the trump appointees. there are four that want to pause the law and the biden administration is really just looking for one another vote and it's always hard to tell when the supreme court is going to decide things exactly but i do suspect that they will -- that providers or the biden administration will wind up winning the day because we have heard merit arlen saying that this law isn't limited to abortion, which is why we saw even gun rights advocates weigh in on the side of the abortion providers here because they say look, it's abortion today but the second amendment and guns tomorrow and there is no state that can't use this law to restrict individual rights they don't like, something even as basic to the american system as prohibiting people from criticizing public officials or doing away with newly recognized rights like same-sex marriage.

host: you talked about how quickly this got before the justices. how quickly do you think we could get a decision? guest: i suspect quicker than we usually think of with these high profile rulings. i wouldn't expect something to come out the next day or even as quick as what we saw in bush versus gore. that really is an open question where we will just have to wait and see. host: kimberly robinson covers the supreme court for bloomberg law. appreciate you starting your busy day with us this morning. guest: thanks a lot, thanks for having me. host: the abortion debate, today, on the phones. (202) 748-8000 free democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans to call in, and (202) 748-8002

for independents to call in. this morning we will be having this conversation about the texas case with live pictures from outside the court for the next 90 minutes this morning. you can see some of the signs already being put in place, the barricades are up there and we are expecting the area outside the supreme court to start filling in as we get closer to 10 a.m. eastern, when things get started. again, live arguments that we are showing, airing them here at 10 a.m. this morning. shelby, bluff city, tennessee. good morning, your thoughts on this texas case? caller: good morning. thank you, c-span. in my opinion. i hope they don't reverse roe v. wade. mainly because it is a woman's right over her own body whether

to have an abortion or not. nobody understands really what circumstances could be the reason, you know. it's a traumatic thing for a woman. if they do, what would be next for them to take away from a woman's right? it takes two to make a baby. what about the men? why don't they take something away from their rights about their own body? about maybe limiting how many children they can have or the responsibility that some of them don't own up to to take care of a child. you know? it's a two-sided coin. it's not just a one sided. god gives us the right to make our choices, right or wrong. that's my belief. thank you. host: are you going to be watching or listening to the

live arguments today? caller: yes. host: what justice are you most interested in hearing from? caller: well, i haven't thought about it in that respect. i'm just thinking any state shouldn't allow this to be overturned. as long as you have a qualified abortion dr. and, you know, you can weigh the options, giving that lady, the person all the information they need to make a decision, it would be a very hard decision for a person. we should have that right about our own body. right or wrong. host: shelby, tennessee this morning. as usual, democrats, republicans, and independents. we were talking about the speed at which this case because --

this case came before the supreme court, this pair of cases, filings were due late last week. here are a few snippets from the filings. first from the abortion providers themselves, they are the lead filers and one of the cases today. providers arguing that texas gets away with this ploy, that's how they described the state of texas having designed the law, saying that the constitutional rights to abortion will be the first but certainly not the last target of states unwilling to accept federal laws was which they disagree. this from the state of texas on behalf of the solicitor general there. here are some of their arguments from their filings last week, saying that the court has expressly stated that although government may not place

obstacles in the path of a woman's exercise of her freedom of choice, it need not remove them of their own creation, arguing that regardless of the texas constitutional obligation, no law -- host: again, those are from the filings released late last week by the court. democratic line, james, your thoughts on this case today and the abortion debate in general? caller: good morning, let me mute this and try to muted. host: i appreciate that, easier to have a conversation that way. caller: i seen here the republicans said keep the government out of your business, but the government is in our business. always going into afghanistan and places like that. like in afghanistan and places

like that, i can't understand why they keep the government out of our business when the government is in their business. trying to force abortion stuff like that? they is in all our business. the government is in our business. thank you, john. good morning, c-span. have a great day. host: phone lines are open for republicans, democrats, independents, having this conversation about the fetal heart eat bill for the first 90 minutes of the program today. the bill was signed into law back in may, went into effect september 1. banning abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected. before a woman even typically knows she is pregnant. there is no exemption in cases of rape or in test. it allows private citizens to sue abortion providers.

anyone aiding or abetting abortions, anyone found doing so , the person who finds him is entitled to $10,000 under the law. this is the process that the court is being asked to decide by the justice department and by the abortion providers. rich, independent, marion, ohio, good morning. caller: yeah, it seems like there's a bright line of when they start to charge for abortions where they confiscate people's money at the point of a gun. abortions that are done once is one thing, it's another thing to ask people to pay for their crime and supply the weapons. i think in the congress and the senate they shouldn't cross over that bright line, which is a big

change. the other one is we have the second part where people are invading people's bodies, which they have rights to do and people are getting fired because they are not getting shots. men and women are forced to get vaccines, which may be right or wrong, they are invaded and are just stepping over the line, their right to have their own bodies as a destination. i will hang up and listen to your answers, thank you. host: i hope you keep watching this morning, rich, at 9:00 this morning we will be talking a lot more about vaccine mandates and the legality of those mandates. we will be joined by daniel at the liberty justice center, a managing attorney there, also representing several different cases when it comes to vaccine mandates. particularly nurses in illinois who are suing in response to the

vaccine mandates that they are under at the medical centers that they work at in illinois. 9 a.m. eastern if they want to join that conversation. dorothy, good morning. you are next. caller: first i would like to say that men should not have a right in this abortion thing. they never had a baby, they are never going to have a baby and if they are concerned about abortion, they should go to the doctor to get a male dysfunctional pill and have them get a birth control pill. they are the reasons women have abortions. if men use the protections they needed, there wouldn't be an abortion. so stop telling women what to do with their bodies when they

aren't doing what they should be doing with their bodies. thank you, america, have a great day. host: ron, independent. caller: good morning, lizard friend, you guys are doing a great job. this woman who has the right to be judge, jury, and executioner, the child inside of her womb, doesn't she have a right to live? i don't understand why we have the right to dissect and tear apart a newly created human being. i will leave you with that question. thank you. host: the issue of abortion has traveled overseas with president biden as he has been on his second major overseas trips since becoming president. just one of the headlines you may have seen late last week on this front, president biden saying that the pope told him, as a good catholic, that pope

francis told him he could continue receiving communion at the end of the 20 summit before heading to glascow for the climate's this week. president biden had been asked a little bit more about the meeting with the pope and that conversation on abortion. this is the comment from president biden. [video clip] >> on your meeting with the pope, the 50 million catholics back at home are seeing something play out that has never happened before, the split in the conservative wing of the catholic church, moving to deny someone like you, a catholic president, the sacrament of communion. what did it mean for you to hear pope francis in the middle of this debate, calling you a good catholic? did what he tell you, should it put the debate to rest? >> look, a lot of this is just

personal. pope francis has become, i don't want to exaggerate, he has become someone who has provided great solace for my family. when my son died. in my view there has always been this debate in the catholic church, going back to pope john xxiii, talking about how reach out and embrace people with differences. if you notice, but the pope said, when he was asked, first got elected pope, asked his position on homosexuality, he said who am i to judge. this is a man of great empathy. a man who understands that a part of his christianity is to reach out and forgive.

so i just found my relationship with him to be one that i personally take great solace in. he's a truly genuine decent man. host: that was president biden at the end of the g20 press conference. he will be in glasgow this week to talk about the issue of climate change and u.s. efforts on climate change as the president's bipartisan infrastructure bill is working its way through congress and the end of the budget reconciliation process and democrats try to come together around the bill that they can support. that bills framework released last week was in large part devoted to climate issues as well and we will be digging into that all week long as both of those big pieces of legislation move through the house and senate floors.

but this morning we are asking you about those texas abortion cases before the supreme court, asking you to call in about the state of the abortion debate in america. it's (202) 748-8000 free democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, it's (202) 748-8002. carolyn writing in, praying for texas, pray for our babies, that's what she writes this morning on facebook. alvin saying that pro-life is going to overtake pro-choice under this majority conservative supreme court. stephen saying that he's ok with abortion outlaws, but is this just political? i think it is, the politicians don't really care about them after birth. joby saying that the supreme court is only discussing the right for citizens to hunt for

victims under the texas abortion bounty. we know that abortion is legal in that ruling stands. jamie, good morning, you are next. caller: good morning, blessed all saints day to you. this texas law and the pending decision from the supreme court is one of the most glorious days because i believe firmly it is going to go on the side of prenatal civil rights. what so many of your callers, or 50% of them are missing, the key point that they are missing is that this is absolutely and has always been a human right and a civil rights issue, just like martin luther king annunciated clearly, free at last, these most certainly are, modern science has shown everyone with all the advances of in vitro image ring and in vitro surgery. we have all seen that these are most certainly human beings.

couching this is a woman's issue is a very clever but wicked game by the probe prenatal murder crowd. women are simply the vessels holding another human being. they don't have autonomy over the unborn in utero baby. if they go to walmart and purchase a baby doll. the female owns the baby doll and can do as she wishes with it, pleases, but the in vitro life developing inside of her is a separate entity that has rights. all of the world's great religions have consistently through thousands of years, consistently, from buddhism to hinduism, islam to obviously christianity, and pagans, good pagan religions, the greeks, they have all agreed on the sacredness of the pre-born, prenatal human life.

so, this is wonderful. amy coney barrett, justice kavanaugh, justice gorsuch. this is a truly glorious day that many of us have worked 50 years to see coming. host: you say many, how have you worked on this issue? caller: praying and ticketing right in front of the abortion mills, the abortion slaughter houses. we have been there, ticketing, praying, counseling women, contributing money to pro-life candidates. we have an excellent one here in alabama, tommy tuberville, the man is phenomenal on the issue of pro-life. contributions to candidates? donald trump, for all his flaws, was phenomenal as well. joe biden has been a big topic in this and i want to address this. he is absolutely, completely in

violation of everything the roman catholic church teaches. regarding pope francis, he doesn't hold sway in this, or perhaps many of your listeners who are not catholics don't realize, pope francis only on rare occasions can perhaps address this, but that's just his personal opinion about joe biden and communion. those decisions of biden being able to receive, joe biden has the fact out excommunicated himself already. anyone who purports to be a catholic who contributes and supports the murder of an unborn baby is de facto excommunicated. host: something that you brought up earlier, you said you picketed outside of abortion clinics. how long have you been doing that? why did you start doing that? what is it like to do that? caller: it's a great question,

john, thank you very much. as a young child i was steep clearly in traditional christian catholicism by my parents and grandparents and i began ticketing in a big way during the clinton administration, with janet reno. you may remember there were some unfortunate people who took matters into their own hands and janet reno and clinton posted u.s. marshals in permanent trailers, they lived there, in front of the abortion mills around the country. i began in a big way with my fellow catholics to peacefully pray and ticket. we were there with ronald reagan back in the day. but my biggest efforts began with the clinton administration and janet reno. their extremism on murdering unborn babies. host: on the line for independence on picketing outside of various venues, this is a picture from "the new york

times," headline, texas abortion law, with brett kavanaugh, focusing on that pivotal role he could play. showing a picture of an abortion-rights sign at the home of justice kavanaugh in suburban washington as police stand guard and watch outside the house of the justice. joseph, washington, d.c., democratic mine, you are next. caller: i grew up catholic and am listening to people calling in talking about the religious justification for why they go and try to change the minds outside of abortion clinics as these women attempt to make the most difficult decision of their lives. i have friends who tell me, you know, joe, how can you be a child of adoption and say that you support women's right to choose? of course, i'm grateful for the second chance at life i was

given by my birth mother, but i would never use that or my religious up ringing or anything else too, you know, use that to justify trying to tell a woman what to do with her body. as a man i will never have to face that decision and i agree with a woman who called in earlier who said that men should not have a say in anything to do with this because they will never have to make that decision . i mean, i don't know, people calling in and using anything religious to justify their position on this, read the constitution. separation of church and state, you know what i mean? host: we talked about the justices that folks are interested in hearing from today. are you going to watch and who are you interested in hearing from? caller: yeah, i will definitely be tuning in, but i'm going to be at work, may i will turn it

on for my students, i work in schools, to see what they think. host: the c-span now app is available in free and perhaps a good way to look at doing it, available in the app stores. jay oak hill, florida, republican line, go ahead. caller: how are you doing? host: doing well. caller: all rightcaller: -- caller: all right, let's start with women being hypocritical, it's my body. i'm deciding what to do that. what about vaccines question mark my body and i only decide what to do with it, but it only applies to women. it's quite interesting that woman advocating for abortion because it is their body, their choice, yet a man cannot back out of a vaccine because it is his body and his choice? by the way, if it's such a woman

thing, how did they get pregnant in the first place? men's fault because they don't wear protection? that woman who called in? that's insane. it takes two people to procreate, not one. what about the father of that child? you don't think he has any rights to that? kind of interesting. host: stick around, at 9 a.m. we will be talking about vaccine mandates and one of the attorneys on one of the cases is challenging a health care workforce mandate and will be joining us in the 9:00 a.m. hour this morning. stick around for that discussion. marie, greenville, mississippi, you are next. caller: i was going to piggyback on what the man said about hypocrisy but i was doing it from a different way where i was speaking out against the catholic church and that hypocrisy and how they are talking about abortion. i watched a documentary one time

where they said they were tearing down a 100-year-old catholic church and found baby fetuses buried inside the walls of the churches where the priests impregnated the young girls in these young churches and i guarantee that if you tore down 100 more you would find the same thing. it's hypocritical of the catholic church to be judging anybody. now i don't agree completely with abortion. i do think there ought to be stipulations put on it, i don't think it should be used as a form of birth control. i don't think a person ought to be able to have 2, 3, 4, 5. there ought to be a cut off, but the hypocrisy of the catholic church? you still have men and women coming out and confessing on what was done to them and there's churches and they ought to be the last one judging somebody concerning this. thank you. host: independent, good morning. that was marie out of tennessee.

caller: love to be here, good morning. what jamie from alabama said, i wish you could book him. he's one of the most prepared callers i've heard in years and he knows exactly what he's talking about. host: you are talking about jd, the one who said he had been in the issue since he was a child? guest: caller: yes, yes -- caller: yes, yes, i wasn't sure about his name, i'm glad you allowed him to speak thoroughly. a few different things. not to piggyback on his comments, they were so well expressed, but this is a, what has happened is the pro-abortion contingent has had to shift their argument away from the it's a clump of cells and this is not a person into the now it's almost completely into a

bodily autonomy issue. as others have pointed out, there are many areas in which bodily autonomy has been regulated by the state. a lot of things that you can't do or that you will be penalized if you do. everything from seatbelts to endless things that you cannot do with your body. particularly for minors. and yet abortion is an exception. it's framed as a woman's issue and callers who say that men should not have any say so at all, that's like an argument saying that white abolitionists should have nothing to say about slavery. or any other issue that might have impact around the world that doesn't affect our society or culture and yet we are interested in it from a human

rights standpoint. host: rich, on this idea, this legal line that we have drawn in the country when it comes to abortion, we were talking about this last week, it was actually the program last monday. justice correspondent for the nation joined us to talk about this issue and others as well. but in this clip here, he talks about the line that we have in the country right now and efforts to lose move the line on abortion. here's the clip. [video clip] >> there is not abortion on demand. before viability we treat the woman as a full person. after fetal viability we allow for some state legitimate interests. we allow for some state interests into how the fetus moves on, goes on. to the point where it can be extracted from the mother and have some kind of chance of

survival. we then have a state interest. that is what roe decided. when you move that line from fetal viability to any time that, 15 weeks and this is to pay, six weeks in texas, you are then obliterating ro. you don't have to say it. but you are. you are obliterating the legal line we have drawn in this country at fetal viability and you are just getting into morality, my moral say this, your morals say that. then we can't have a society, right? if the law is simply a contest of whose morality wins, we can never come to consensus. we can never find people. but with a scientific line like fetal viability, we can move forward. host: that was last week on this program. we are taking your phone calls as we talk about the issue of abortion on the day where two

key cases before the supreme court, cases on those texas abortion laws and this issue of abortion are very much in debate on a weekly basis here in washington. it's a topic that often gets brought up on the house floor. this from brad wenstrup, the republican out -- in ohio, on whether democrats are doing enough to keep federal funds him supporting abortion providers, that issue in the federal spending deals that are working through congress. this is congressman when struck. [video clip] -- congressman wenstrup. [video clip] >> sadly this denies our ability to care for the most helpless among us. when we devalue life, we devalue

the lives of the inessential. i stand up for the rights of the unborn and the born. our society does care for the mother in need, perhaps scared and alone. americans across the country reach out to help mothers in the children's in their womb. i have great concern over the proposed spending bill that lacks crucial protections to ensure that taxpayer funds don't pay for abortions. without the protection taxpayer funded abortion not only harms us as a society, it violates the religious freedoms of thousands of americans. the long-standing hyde amendment ensures that taxpayer funds don't go towards abortion. democrats are currently proposing a multi trillion dollar bill to brack -- build back broke plan that doesn't contain those protections. in 1994 joe biden wrote that those of us opposed to abortion shouldn't be compelled.

in god we trust. that was -- host: this morning we are hearing from you in the first hour and a half of our program as the sun rises here on capitol hill in just about two and a half hours, arguments over the texas abortion law, the most restrictive in the country, beginning at the supreme court. you can see the media gathering there. some of the signs for folks on both sides of this issue outside the court, we are expecting that area outside the court to get more outed ahead of the arguments at 10 a.m. eastern and we will be airing them on c-span two, the live oral arguments being released by the court. jim, new york, you are next on this issue. go ahead. caller: a lot of people calling in with this god stuff, i think

it says somewhere in the bible to be fruitful and multiply. that's the dumbest thing i've ever seen. anything to do with a god that would say to do that? the planet is too crowded. have all the abortions you want. it's a thread that goes through all of this environmentalism. there's no room for all these people. we are killing everything. we are just destroying the planet. these animals, they need a place to live to. host: jim in new york. this is nicholas from dallas town, pennsylvania, democratic line, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. i'm pro-choice all the way. i'm tired of listening to these religious right wing republicans talking about how big the government is, always intruding into your lives, yet they want to use this issue to dictate to

women on what they can and can't do with their bodies? i'm sick of living in a country with a bunch of ignorant people. they would not like it if i was a person, which i am, because i'm living and walking amongst us, i'm a citizen in the united states with the right to live in this country, yet if i was dying from some type of kidney disease or something, liver disease or something and i wanted to connect my body to your body in order to live, that would not be legal. and yet they want to force these women to have a fetus, which is not a human walking among us, it doesn't fall under our legal rights in this country, only because of their religious beliefs? even in the christian bible it allows for abortion. it says it right in their bible, yet they don't read that part of their bible. iq. host: david, a height -- thank

you. host: david, good morning. caller: here's an inconvenient fact for all the people out there. it really doesn't matter what the supreme court comes up with. the gluten mocker institute ran a study of abortion prior to roe v. wade and on average, 800,000 babies were aborted. all you are basically going to do if you do away with roe v. wade, you will run it back to my time in the fifth -- the 60's, when people had to go back into back alleys, take it out with a steel coat hanger and have an abortion that way? which way do you want it, people? whichever way you do it, it doesn't matter, you are still going to have abortions. host: a reminder today, the idea of roe v. wade being overturned

is unlikely in this pair of cases before the court today, though that issue will much more directly be the focus of a case being heard december 1, that mississippi abortion law case being heard december 1. this case, much more about this issue of standing. the wall street journal editorial board today is taking up this issue, their thoughts on it, reminding us that the supreme court isn't nearing a challenge to roe v. wade today. they say that both plaintiffs lack legal standing to sue the state of texas here, both parties being abortion providers and the federal government, saying that the texas law will almost

host: the texas abortion case it isn't is the lead headline today. from that editorial board. this is gretchen, new york, montauk, good morning. caller: i just have to say i have called so many times on this issue. why don't males used earth control? they cause the dilemma yet they don't take any responsibility for it. thank you. host: this is james out of murphy's borough, tennessee, independent, good morning. james, are you with us this morning? no ahead, turn down your television and go ahead with your comment. caller: ok, listening to this

you would think men could have babies. i don't understand why they are all up in a woman's body. in this country a black woman couldn't be raped by a white man and have babies, now you take it all the way back to there. so if you get raped, it means you going to have my baby, but who going to take care of the baby? i don't understand why it's mostly white men calling in like they is god, they having babies. the catholic church is no different from no other church. same thing going on back in churches. rape. rape all. thank you. host: live pictures from outside the supreme court. you can call in, phone lines

split by political party. republicans, (202) 748-8001, democrats, (202) 748-8000, independents, it's (202) 748-8002. we are also looking for your comments on social media. this is monica from the facebook page saying that texas has the right to do what they want and in this case it's about saving babies lives. this says that the citizen vigilante aspect of this law should allow -- alarm everyone. vigilante justice could literally be used for anything. the other problem is no exceptions for rape or incessant. for those reasons hopefully the mississippi band will be upheld. that mississippi case will be before the court on december 1. renee saying not overturning it would be disastrous on several levels, forcing women and sometimes young girls to give birth when they don't want to be

pregnant, turning neighbors into bounty hunters, turning more people into statistics. pregnancy isn't contagious when it comes to comparing to the pandemic, covid is. this from twitter, this criticism from our phone lines this morning, why are they not divided between men and women and make the ratio three women for every male all are, asking us be better about the issue, this is about removing a woman's rights, let's give women more of a voice. this is rita's comment out of jacksonville, alabama, independent, good morning. caller: good morning. today's my 75th birthday. host: happy birthday. caller: yes. seems like the women and the men , they enjoy what brings the babies here, yet they don't want to take care of them. 90% this day and time don't even

know who their daddy is and i think america needs to wake up. what are these women going to do if they quit having abortions? that's what the babies are made from. cosmetics is made. host: all right. good morning. las vegas. caller: i'm just saying it's a shame for the women in texas, especially, who are -- host: who are what? caller: all they have to do, i know a man looking for a gal at all times out there. they decide there's extra with a diamond race let and a poor girl will fall for it and then he talks her into getting an abortion. we don't need that kind of stuff. then he goes over across to do the same thing to those little girls over there, bringing them

back to texas to get an abortion. they don't want the responsibility of taking care of them, but they sure do like the fun. i don't think it's fair for these little girls who have had to put up with this whole thing. we just need better laws for something like this. we don't need to use it as birth control. host: jennifer, germantown, good morning. caller: i just wanted to say that i'm tired of hearing about the women that get pregnant and it's only the women's responsibility to take care of the babies and get an abortion or not get an abortion? what happens to the men? it takes two to tango. wire and the men being held responsible. i really like with these other callers said about men needing birth control. i really think it's needed.

these men don't want abortions but they don't take care of their babies. the other thing, i just wish civility would come back to america. that's all i have to say. thank you. host: that's jennifer from germantown, maryland. this story out of u.s. papers from late last week, new research found that over the course of september the number of abortions performed in september was half of that carried out in the same month of 2020, bringing the new near total ban on terminations into stark relief, the data gathered by the texas policy evaluation project, noting a surge in abortions in texas in august, likely ahead of the implementation of the restrictive law back in september. mary, greenbelt, good morning. you are next.

caller: yes, i would like to comment on the caller, jd, and recommend a guest for your show. i was upset by jd's comments. i grew up horribly disfigured by the catholic church. my mother was not allowed to use birth control to save her own life, she was ordered by a priest to disfigure me to extort permanent abstinence from my dad. i always wish i had been aborted because of the unrelenting discrimination i have faced. my research has shown in the years that this kind of abuse is common in the catholic church. we would not be having this debate if there was more attention in the media to the more frequent dangers of childbirth. men would never tolerate the kinds of injuries that women suffer from childbirth. you should have on your show a writer, john loftus, who used to

work at the justice department. he has written books on the church, the catholic church's collusion with the nazis during world war ii, including collusion by future saint pale -- saint pope paul the sixth. he funded nazi death camps in croatia to punish women suspected of using contraception. a church that was allowed to collaborate with the nazis, it's disgusting, i grew up disfigured because of this fraud committed by the catholic church and that's not even getting into all the pedophilia committed by priests. host: joy, montgomery village, good morning. caller: a couple of points.

speaking as a provider in women's health services, what we have in this country is a failure to educate our population, men and women. i am continually surprised by the lack of education that men and women have about initial conception. we don't have resources for people to be able to obtain contraception. we don't have people that support legislation and policies that would make it accessible and affordable and in all cases it should be free. we would have fewer abortions if men and women had an understanding of, one, about pregnancy and how it develops, how conception starts. we would not be blocking legislation that allows employers to present -- prevent people from obtaining contraception. if we want fewer abortions, we should have more resources in this country to support not just pregnancy, but postnatal care. we have women making decisions

on having a pregnancy or not because of where they are economically. if you do not have childcare or the ability to nourish yourself during pregnancy to even have a healthy baby, we have a high infant mortality rate among women of color, black women in particular. i don't hear people talking about the number of children that die because of low birth weight or perinatal complication. we don't have the support needed for those women to make a decision because financially they can't support a pregnancy. we don't have childcare, we don't have early childhood education that is universal in this country. you can't fault women for making decisions about the life of a child when they don't have resources. i support a woman's right to choose and you have people calling in saying that they are pro-life, they are not.

they are pro-birth. host: as democrat -- democrats debate this social spending bill on capitol hill and the increased child tax edit and the extension of that, do you think that is an argument that democrats should be making to try to sell the social spending bill? that they could lower the number of abortions in the country? caller: i do, but that's for the children that are here. i think that if democrats had a better argument, part of the problem that republicans have is they get to carry this discussion through marketing their argument. as nonsensical as it may be, they talk about things that most of them have absolutely no concept of. you cannot tell me that you are pro-life and support the well-being of children and then vote against families being able

to take care of their children and bring them up to a standard where they can provide for them and give them food, shelter, and housing. this party goes against everything -- every single thing that would benefit people who are poor and impoverished. host: janice, louisiana, line for democrats, going good morning. caller: hello? hello? i have an alternative to abortion. it's vasectomy, it produces sterility in the mail. the mail it jackie lacey normally, but the jacket lit does not contains perm. this does not alter the sex drive or libido and is the answer to abortion, the need of chemicals or other ways to keep from getting pregnant. men must take more

responsibility when making a woman pregnant. no man should father more than two children in this day and age. no woman should have more than two children. there are too many babies born that cannot be taken care of. host: how did you come up with the two child limit, out of curiosity? caller: hello? host: why did you come up with a two child limit? caller: because we have too many people starving. children starving to death. it's so disturbing to me to see so disturbing to me to see children all over the world starving to death and people not taking care of children because we should not have children when we cannot take care of them today. later on, maybe so. china limited childbirth, now

they are increasing at, but they saw so many people starving to death in china at one time. now they are doing better. host: we will go to hopkinsville, kentucky, philip is a democrat. good morning. caller: hello? host: good morning. how are you? caller: how are you doing this morning? let me say something to these people. i adopted two children, a girl and boy, and i thank god the parents of these two children did not abort them. because they have been a blessing to me and my wife. as far as abortion goes, it is an abomination before god. i believe no one has the right to take a life. i do not care how it was

conceived, they do not have a right to take a life that god has put on this earth. and they are going to pay for it in the end. host: philip in kentucky. it's coming up on 8:00 a.m. eastern on the east coast. in two hours, we will hear arguments about the same law, the texas abortion law, the most restrictive in the country, that went into effect on september 1. the supreme court began, continuing this term with oral arguments, and we will be airing those on c-span2. we want you to keep calling in for about 30 more minutes in this segment and give your thoughts on the abortion debate in this country today and your thoughts on the texas law itself. 202-748-8000 for democrats.

202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. as we show you live pictures of the supreme court this morning, that area filling in with members of the media, activists on both sides of the issue. the fences are up, there is police presence, and we are two hours away from the arguments beginning. we want to keep you updated on some of the other news that we have been keeping track of today, including a headline from usa today, at the end of the g20 meeting, president biden saying the u.s. is the most critical part of the global leaders' agenda. the president ramped up his meeting yesterday. this morning he's already in scotland for the climate summit, the cop26 summit begins today. throughout the beginning of this week, another headline from the new york times, a weekend of

diplomacy, now biden heading to the glasgow summit, noting at the end of the press conference, the g20, his meeting with the pope was brought up and questioned. the president was questioned about the meeting as the argument on abortion ranges in the u.s. and thousands of new york firefighters, police officers and other municipal employees lose their paychecks starting today for failing to comply with the mayor's covid-19 vaccine mandate. the number given, and the issue of faxing mandates in the

workplace is when we will take up in about one hour here this morning. we will be joined by one of the lawyers involved, representing nurses and health care workers out of illinois,, who are suing. and from the washington post today, this bed by a name you will likely know, mitt romney, the senator from utah with an op-ed on the filibuster. his column today arguing to keep the filibuster and keep minority rights of empowerment in the senate, talking about the history of that issue. that is in the washington post if you want to read that. now back to the issue of abortion and we have 30 more minutes to take her calls. ivan out of sherman, texas, a republican. caller: good morning. i want to state it's so sad, you

can find all kinds of instances where you can take a child, whether it is religion or anything else. it's people not being responsible for their actions. host: i apologize for the bad connection, hopefully it is something we can fix or fix on your end. barbara in alabama, a republican. caller: good morning. um, i'm an elderly lady and i remember back when abortion was first made lega. l. and it was required you saw a psychiatrist, you had to make two visits, the abortion had to take place within the first trimester. and then it expanded further and further.

what i would say to you is this, what is the -- what's next? because now we have states that are allowing abortions almost up to the time of the birth of the child. and i believe it is in virginia, where if an abortion is not successful, and the child is actually viable, the parents or the mother of the child is give n the choice as to whether or not she wants that child to have any sort of medical intervention. so, what's next? host: where roe v. wade has put

us is the issue of fetal viability, that that is the line we have come to in this country of the access, the constitutional right protected in the decision, in that landmark decision from roe v. wade. are you are going for that line to be moved before fetal viability? the heartbeat bills are pushing it more to six weeks as opposed to the time at which a child could live outside the womb. caller: i will tell you this. i am absolutely opposed to abortion, but i would never judge a woman who made that choice. that's between her and her higher power, whoever she chooses it to be. my concern is this.

they have pushed it so far in several states that what's next? are we going to allow a parent to decide after a child is born that perhaps they decide parenthood is not for them, and they do not want the child? you know, my point is this -- i have seen it go from this stringent law of you having to see a psychiatrist -- host: i got your point that you brought up earlier. on this idea of where we are in this country on abortion, we talked about it last week, and we played this clip earlier, here is a justice correspondent

disagreeing with the idea that we have abortion on demand in this country. he talked about what was legally set during the roe v. wade decision. let me play that for you. [video clip] >> it is not on demand, that is not the legal landscape. but we have is before viability, we treat the woman as a full person. after fetal viability, we allow for some state interest. after the fetus can survive without the mother, we allow state interest into how that fetus moves on, or goes on, the point it can be extracted from the mother and have a chance of survival, we then have a state interest. that is what roe v. wade decided. when you move the line from where roe v. wade to any time before that, 15 weeks in mississippi, six weeks in texas,

you are obliterating roe. you are obliterating the legal line that we have drawn in this country at fetal viability and you are giving into morality, my morals say this, my morals say that. it willthen we cannot -- my morals say this. we can never come to a consensus, we can never find peace. if we keep the scientific line, like fetal viability, then we can move forward. host: that was last monday on this program. if you want to watch that in its entirety, you can do so at c-span.org. some comments about roe v. wade and the line set. dave saying, roe v. wade was unconstitutional, it should be overturned and sent back to the states.

another viewer saying, what if an individual does not believe in god or the same god? stephen on facebook, we should refer back to roe v. wade. do not make changes to that. one more from facebook saying, i predict they will not overturn roe, but they will give the power to determine when life begins to the states and that will gut roe and help the supreme court get away from politics. looking for your comments on facebook, twitter and on our messaging platform. you can send us a text. a democrat on the line. good morning. caller: how are you? host: doing well. caller: one thing i have not heard mentioned is a case of rape or incised. -- incest. a gentlemen called earlier and said something about a man and woman are procreation no.

-- are procreational. but that is assault. and to make mother carry a fetus to full term is unbelievably cruel. where is the help going to be for the child after it is born? host: the fetal heartbeat bill in texas, no exceptions for rape or incest. will you be listening to the arguments today? caller: i have a couple things to do, but i assume it will be on your website, so i will catch up if there is anything i miss. but, i mean, it is ridiculous to , like i said, punish a woman further after she has been through report incest, to punish her and have that child as a daily reminder. and in some states, you cannot

-- a prisoner can actually have parental rights. so, you know, that is -- you ca n't push a woman but so far. host: david in north carolina. it will be on our website afterwards, livestreamed as well, the oral arguments will be livestreamed on c-span2. and you can listen also on the free c-spannow app. donna in florida, republican. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have two slants on this situation. one, there are thousands of couples looking to adopt children. and they have to wait two or three years to get a child, unless they want to take a seven year old or eight-year-old, so

it is a difficult situation on that score. then there are women who have babies just to get a bigger welfare check. so, it goes from one extreme to the other. and i kind of believe that god intends us to live our life in a way that we can accept. and in the case of a young girl being raped, or whatever, there used to be homes where they could be cared for and the baby is taken and then put up for adoption. i do not see that anymore, at least i have not heard of any. and that kind of concerns me. but a woman's body is her own. and even if she is 15, she should have some sort of choices

to make. host: maggie, springfield, virginia, a democrat. good morning. caller: i want to add another point of the conversation i have not heard so far, which is really that abortion is a medical procedure. first, i am 100% an advocate of choice. i do not think there is a right or wrong reason to how you start your family, but one of the challenges of the texas abortion law is there are no exceptions for anything, which makes it impossibly difficult for doctors and providers and women to make a decision in the best interest of the patient. i read a story of a woman that had to drive to oklahoma to get a pregnancy terminated, and those are life-threatening situations, but a doctor would not take her in texas because of the ambiguity of the law. for the million and one reasons why women may choose abortion

when the choice is there is, it is also a medical procedure that is important in urgent situations to protect life, health and well-being of the mother, and also at times in the best interest of the embryo and fetus. to me, that is the complexity here. there was a comment earlier about the importance of science and medical writing in this conversation, and it is important because it is a medical procedure, it is a decision that should be made between a patient and a doctor, and the law in texas makes it impossibly difficult for that conversation to take place with trust and confidence at that there will not be legal retribution. host: we talked about the texas policy evaluation project looking at monthly data on total abortions in texas, they were able to get data from 19 out of the 24 facilities in texas where

abortions can be performed, showing a 50% fewer abortions in the month of september compared to 2020. they also found data showing an increase in abortions in those estates neighboring texas, perhaps showing people who have the means to go outside of texas to have abortions. speaking to the numbers that you were bringing up, have you seen those reports? caller: i do not know the specific ones you mentioned, but i have heard anecdotally -- and you made an important point, women that have the finances, the means, the ability to travel out of state are doing so. host: maggie in springfield, virginia. 15 more minutes for this conversation. but again, the live arguments today at 10:00 a.m. eastern, which you can watch on c-span2, and plenty more to talk about in

the days to come. jim in west virginia, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, john. all these republicans who call about the abortion issue, most of them men, how many republicans want tax -- the child tax care credit? none. how about all the little babies that were shot at sandy hook ? how many republicans changed gun laws? none. 85% of male republicans are homosexual, it is a proven stat. host: where do you get that stat? caller: fox news. host: we are taking your phone calls as we show you some live pictures from outside of the supreme court, activists on both sides gathering today ahead of

the arguments. and we are expecting that area in front of the court to be very crowded right around 10:00 a.m. we have seen the crowd increased over the past hour and 15 minutes. police presence there, and of course a very heavy media presence as well. the arguments very quickly moved to the supreme court after abortion providers and the justice department asked of the restrictive texas abortion law. the filings for the arguments due last week. and we have been bringing you snippets from some of those. this is the argument from the justice department, what they say will happen if the texas abortion law is allowed to stand with the enforcement mechanism that was designed here to allow private citizens to turn in abortion providers and are those who help women have abortions in

texas. this is what the justice department wrote late last week. the texas abortion was designed to nullify the supreme court precedents and shield it from judicial review, "and it has worked. the threat of a flood of s.b. 8 suits has effectively eliminated abortion in texas at a point." "no decision of this court is safe. states need not comply or even challenge what they disagree, they may simply outlaw the constitutional right they do not favor, and delegates the state's enforcement authority to members of the general public by empowering and incentivizing them to bring a multitude of harassing actions threatening liability or at a minimum prohibitive litigation costs." that from the acting solicitor

general, brian fletcher, the lead petitioner in the justice department, filing two cases. one brought by abortion providers in texas, the other brought by the justice department. we are not expecting roe v. wade to be overturned in this decision, this is much more about the texas law itself and how it is structured. roe v. wade is much more likely to be the focus of the mississippi abortion case being argued in front of the supreme court on december 1, though this is being seen as a pivotal one for the issue of abortion in the united states. richard, north carolina, a republican. go ahead. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: i want to say this. the federal government's involvement in this thing is like population control. nobody ever talks about the fact that the -- killing babies,

black babies, is extremely out of proportion. the government's involvement of killing black babies, compared to white babies, percentage-wise, is out of proportion. the fact that the government is involved in that is part and parcel what we have such division in this country. nobody considers the fact that minority communities are not -- uh, proportionately, um, out of balance when it comes to the wealth gap. host: this is terry in atlanta, georgia, a democrat. good morning. are you with us? caller: thank you for taking my

call. i have to address with the previous caller said about the disproportionate number of abortions performed. first of all, i would like to say i was raised a catholic, so we were taught that procreation begins at the time of conception. however, i do believe that both parties should be held accountable for an unwanted pregnancy. in the case of a legally -- ill egally conceived children, in the case of rape, incest, the man should be held equally accountable and he should be brought to trial. having said that, we do have a problem with the children who are allowed to live because of mother did not get an abortion, what happens to those children?

look at our foster care system, it is overcrowded. there's not enough foster care homes, there's children being turned out when they turn 18 every day because they are no longer under the protection of the country. we have several problems here, not just saving the unborn child. what happens to the unborn child when that child becomes an infant, et cetera. what will be done for the children we are saving? happy november, everyone. goodbye. host: we will go to texas itself, where this all began, the restrictive abortion law went into effect on september 1. deborah, can you talk about the abortion debate in texas and watching this over the past two months? caller: so, i want to talk about

aspects -- i'm in agreement with everything everybody has said about taking the right away from a child and mother, but something that has not been addressed is the spiritual and mental aspect of it. what about women who are forced to carry a child that they do not want to have, and what happens to that child, the spiritual capacity and mental capacity, being born to a mother who does not want it? we are talking about the pro-life, i am agreement -- i'm in agreement with those who are pro- life, but why have you taken away the choice of a woman who did not want to have a child. i do not want to force a woman to have a child. we have people available to adopt, but it should still be the right of the mother. and i would want to explore the

opportunity or the aspect of birth control. if you do not want to take care of a child, then we should have a mechanism in place for not just condoms, but something for more control for men. the spiritual and mental aspect of this has not been addressed, so i want to hear what we are doing, what are we laying down for the capacity of women who are forced to have a child against their own will? host: deborah in texas. we have time for a couple more calls as we round out the first half of the program today, and more to come at 10:00 a.m. eastern, you can listen to the oral arguments live on c-span2. an independent on the line, good morning. caller: hello. in most issues, i am conservative, but i am

pro-choice. there's nothing more sad than an unwanted baby. the dilemma is an ugly choice to have to have an abortion, but if there was no such thing there would be a million unwanted babies born, most of them born to parents with addictions or living in poverty. who would be terrible parents. instead of the bb suffering for a moment being aborted, that child may suffer every minute of their life at the hands of an unfit mother and an absent father. so, what about the baby's right to die? if i knew my feature was full of abuse and neglect, i would want the right to die. and those children given up for adoption have lots of mental and physical issues for their whole lives, and have a miserable existence. host: cindy in new jersey, an

independent. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm calling in regards to no one ever mentions about with abortion, that they say they are not a human being because they are in the womb, however, in the united states, people are being charged, that maybe were assaulted, murdered, with a hit and run, then they are charged with the death of a child and the mother. so where do we draw the line? that's my question. host: cindy in clayton, new jersey. a question about what the justices will ask when the cases are heard before the supreme court today, there is speculation on that front on which injustices -- which justices may be invoked.

some spotlight on brett kavanaugh, just two months ago the supreme court let texas outlaw abortions. the vote the first time around about 5-4 -- was 5-4, when this came before the court two months ago and the court allowed it to go into effect. if the outcomes are going to be different, the new york times writes one member will have to switch sides. this article focusing on brett kavanaugh as potentially being that key vote. one more call, a republican, jenny and lancaster, ohio. good morning. caller: i have a comment about abortions. ok, if you are a woman, you get pregnant, you abort it because he could not deal with it, but

what about the men who go to war for us? they are going to war to protect us. that's a human being. and i do not understand why women act like they can get an abortion, but it is ok for men to go to war and get killed because they are trying to defend our country. women need to be stronger, get a grip. host: what about the women who fight and die for this country? caller: what? host: what about the women in the military? there's women in the military, as well. caller: yeah, what about those women? i think most of them are lesbians, but that is all right. host: that is jenny and ohio. stick around, we have plenty more to talk about this morning, including up next, focusing on the path ahead for the infrastructure bill, the social spending bill, a busy week ahead on capitol hill, and we will

talk about it with scott wong. later, daniel suhr will talk about lawsuits challenging replace vaccine mandates. stick around. we'll be right back. ♪ announcer: today, the u.s. supreme court will hear oral arguments in two cases concerning the texas abortion law, which bans nearly all abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. at 10:00, the justices will hear a challenge to the part of the law that gives the law -- and at 11:00 a.m., the u.s. versus texas looks at whether the justice department has the right to sue in federal court to block the law. watch the oral argument live coverage on c-span2, live or on demand at c-span.org, listen on

c-span radio or on the free c-span now mobile app. . ♪ >> when the marquis de lafayette was 19, he came to america omers meeting major general by george washington. the year was 1770 seven and of the american revolutionary war was underway. political history podcaster mike duncan has written 471 pages of the story of lafayette, called "hero of two worlds." in his book is an account of his return to the united states, where he was celebrated in each of the 24 states. that year was 1824, and lafayette was 67. announcer: history podcaster mike duncan on this week's episodes of footnotes plus. listen to all of our podcasts on

our new c-span now app. ♪ announcer: download c-span's new mobile app and stay up-to-date with the video coverage of the day's biggest events, livestream of the senate floor, and key hearings, even our live interactive program, "washington journal," we we hear your voices everyday. c-span now has you covered. download the app for free today. "washington journal" continues. host: another busy week ahead in washington. scott wong is joining us from "the hill." let's go to how democrats and republicans will try to move these pieces of legislation, the infrastructure bill and the budget reconciliation bill, when and how will they be moved on capitol hill this week?

guest: democratic leadership and joe biden hopefully will be moved soon. we are near the finish line, we are rounding third base, and it feels like we have been stuck in this position for a number of weeks. but democrats i have spoken with feel like they are on the cusp of something really significant here. this comes, obviously, after joe biden's visit to capitol hill. there is pressure on the party now to deliver for the president, as he is embarking on -- as he's in glasgow for the major global climate summit. election day in virginia is a couple days away, tomorrow in fact, for the gubernatorial race, so the democrats are feeling enormous pressure to show that when they are in control of government that they

can deliver for the people who put them there. and so this is, we see this every week, that this is a significant week free democrats, but in this case i think it really is the week where they could get something done on both of the infrastructure package, as well as the major social and climate spending bill that we call the reconciliation package. host: we saw the framework of that social spending bill released last week, how different do you expect the final version that gets voted on, how different will the final version be from what we saw last week? how much flexibility is there to add and subtract? guest: there are negotiations happening, you know, even as we speak. the talks after president biden unveiled the framework for the build back better package on thursday, talks continued on friday and through the weekend.

obviously, bernie sanders is working to get some of his main priorities, primarily being able to lower the price of prescription drugs, having medicare be able to negotiate lower prices -- that is still something we thought had been left out of the package, but it looks like talks are continuing among the moderates, specifically scott peters of california in the house working with energy chairman frank pallone in the lower chamber. and talks are continuing in the upper chamber between kyrsten sinema, one of the key senators who is holding the process up, as well as other more progressive senators. so, it looks like something that will get movement, at least on lowering the cost of prescription drugs. it might be a scaled-back plan than what bernie sanders had initially proposed, it may cover

not as many drugs as was in the original plan, but it seems like there are some tweaks that could be happening in these next 48 hours or so. they leadership, they have told democrats, look, if you want any changes to president biden's package, you need to move now and quickly. that's why you are seeing the flurry of activity happening, including kirsten gillibrand on the senate floor last week, who had basically cornered it joe manchin and was trying to twist his arm to get him to agree to some form of bringing back paid family leave into the build back better proposal. these conversations are happening throughout the congress, through text message and over the phone, and in person in many cases. it's crunch time for the democrats. host: a conversation this morning on the week ahead in washington.

if you want to join the conversation, 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. scott wong is with us until 9:00 a.m. you mentioned bernie sanders a couple times. he was on cnn's "state of the union" yesterday and he talked about what he is lobbying for to get into the social spending bill. this is from yesterday. [video clip] >> you have said there are major gaps in the plan, several of your priorities like paid leave, dental and vision for medicare, giving the government the power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, that is not in the deal. do you see a compromise? sen. sanders: it is not in the bill yet, but we spent all of

yesterday on the telephone. we are opinion the highest prices for perception drugs in the world. the pharmaceutical industry has spent hundreds of lands of dollars -- spent hundreds of millions of dollars to make sure that americans pay more. that fight continues. the fight to expand medicare, poll after poll shows the american people understand that it is not acceptable that people could not their food, they do not have the vision they need in order to read a newspaper, so we are continuing that effort. >> i want to make sure i understand what you are saying. you are continuing that effort, you want to add it before the house about? -- vote? sen. sanders: absolutely. we are working on two separate bills, you have an infrastructure bill which will

finally begin to address the reality that our water systems and bridges are crumbling, the second bill, the one that deals with the needs of our working class, that deals with the existential threat of climate, that is still being worked on literally today. and it will be worked on tomorrow. and we are making progress in making it even stronger than it is. host: bernie sanders yesterday on cnn. on the movement of these two bills and the timing at which they get voted on, explain why that is important and what could be significant once we learn what the timing will be. guest: the time he really has been significant. this battle between moderates and progressives has been less about policy and more about political tactics and strategy. we have seen that play out over the course of the last many weeks.

there's been movement on that front in terms of democrats bringing those two strategies together. the progressive caucus for weeks had insisted that they wanted a boot on te -- vote on the reconciliation package in the senate, before they would agree to back the infrastructure package. that is what has been holding up the roads, bridges and waterways package. in recent days, we have seen significant movement from the progressives. they have not only endorsed the package, saying we basically like what we see so far and we are on board and we will be there in the end to support president biden on the social spending package, they have also said, i do not need a vote on the senate. what i will take is a commitment from the president that he can

secure those 50 votes, including from joe manchin and kyrsten sinema. other progressives, including veronica escobar of texas, she says she needs even less. basically, she needs joe manchin and kyrsten sinema to verbalize or put out a statement saying that they support the package and that they will be willing to agree to a vote on the infrastructure bill. so, there has been movement. and that is why it feels like democrats are moving towards some finale here, because each side, the progressives and moderates, are starting to give a little bit of ground in the negotiations, and that is what the president has said, this is a negotiation and you need compromise to get to an agreement. and we are starting to see that from both wings of the party. host: if you have questions about how to read what is happening on capitol hill when

it comes to the social spending bill, the infrastructure bill, scott wong is the guy to ask the questions to. a senior staff writer at "the hill." remind us what other fiscal deadlines are hanging over these discussions? what should viewers know about the deadlines coming up? guest: there's one big date that voters or readers and listeners will be watching, especially people like us, december 3. that's when we face the threat of another government shutdown. congress has done a short-term patch, to find the government and extend the debt ceiling. so, we really face a big fiscal cliff on december that is when we could see3 the country default on the national debt,

although treasury has said they think they can use extraneous measures to basically pay the nation's bills, perhaps as late as february. so there may be a little bit of wiggle room, but when we get into the holidays people do not want to mess around too much with those types of issues. also, of course, congress passing another short-term bill to pay for transportation. so, we run the risk again of 3700 department of transportation workers being furloughed if congress does not act on the infrastructure package that biden has negotiated, which would cover funding for surface transportation. if that passes, we should be in good shape but that. but again, there are a number of issues congress is juggling, and so this next month or so will be

crucial to see if they can come through. host: we will let you talk with some caller.s -- callers. howard out of indiana, a democrat. caller:caller: good morning. this texas case concerns me a great deal, because it is hard to believe the supreme court will let an unconstitutional piece of state legislation go through like this. i mean, it is unbelievable to me in the sense that there is no justice in letting this case go through, for a young person who may find herself having to agonize about making a decision on abortion, only to find that that constitutional right she thought she had is now snatched away from her. i cannot believe the supreme court would let that happen.

moreover, this whole issue of abortion, it seems like an issue that society should not be debating over. the prohibition does not eliminate abortion, it just makes it more difficult for a woman that cannot afford to make other choices, to decide to have an unhealthy abortion. host: the argument is happening at 10:00 a.m. eastern, two cases at that we talked about in the first half of the program -- the caller is talking about the debate over abortion that will happen this week, definitely in the house judiciary committee, this is how they have titled the hearing, "the texas abortion ban and its devastating impact on communities and families." that at 10:00 a.m. eastern on thursday. i want your thoughts on how this case being argued before the supreme court, how the abortion issue is going to overhang what's happening this week in washington.

guest: as congress has been focused on these big trillion dollars spending packages, both for infrastructure and for social spending and climate, there are these other issues that are bubbling up behind the scenes, that will be playing out in major debates, not only across the street in the supreme court, but in the house judiciary hearing, as you mentioned. i think these issues, these culture war issues, reproductive rights issues, are really going to be front and center for the coming elections, especially in 2022, the midterms. we are seeing the fight start to play out right now. it will be full throttle in the 2022 election year, along with other issues involving, you know, schools and the education

of children that we are seeing in the virginia race just across the river. these are issues, that while a lot of the focus has been on economics and on the covid recovery, and on spending and fiscal responsibility, i think because we are heading into this 2022 election cycle, where both houses are up for grabs, many of these issues like abortion will be front and center as well. host: 24 hours until, or less, before the polls open in the old dominion for that gubernatorial race. play out what happens this restock capital -- this week if the democrats hold virginia and what happens on capitol hill if republicans take that see in virginia and turn it red. guest: i have heard a lot of democrats play up the

significance of the virginia race in terms of what is happening on capitol hill, and others play it down. there is disagreement about what the significance would be for this virginia race if tammy: would win -- if the candidate -- if the democratic candidate would win or lose. many believe if he goes down in defeat tomorrow, that a lot of people will be pointing fingers at congress and congressional inaction as the reason why he failed. i think there are a number of reasons out there, just given history. normally in an off election year, the party that holds the white house loses that virginia governor's mansion. there's a number of other issues at that could alter the course of that race. but i think the narrative that will emerge, if terry mcauliffe

goes down, then the democrats on capitol hill will be to blame because they could not get a deal on this reconciliation package. that would show that the democrats in charge of the government could deliver for the american people, and deliver on those campaign promises that they promised during the 2020 election. host: in pennsylvania, tina, an independent. caller: how are you? host: doing well. we are on with scott wong. caller: i want to say that i have lost faith in our government. everything being put out there is ridiculous. we need to focus on what the americans need. you know, i am a victim of rape. i got pregnant by the rape. it was a very hard decision to

make, but i had the baby. it is between the woman and god. the government needs to get out of the doctor's office. you have people dying, and it really aggravates me, that you have people dying who are chronic pain patients, but yet the illegal drugs coming across the border, that's being blamed for the overdoses, which they should be, but chronic pain patients cannot get their medication because joe biden is leading in the bad stuff. nobody wants to talk about that. believe me, we have called almost every congressperson. this is going to be the year of america's demise. they have to start looking out for the american citizens and not for the migrants and the immigrants. you come here illegally, find. they are raping our welfare

system. what do you think will happen when 1.7 million people get disseminated into different counties? host: you are bringing up a lot of issues. on the issue of immigration right now and where we are on that, and if we are in a closer to action on either border security or immigration? guest: president biden did include, in parentheses, about $100 billion for immigration. we do not know the details of that, but that was in his reconciliation package. so, the democrats are deciding whether or not they can get that to pass with some senate rules, get past the birdbath. so, the democrats are trying to address immigration in the reconciliation package. whether they will be successful or not is another question.

i was with president trump at the border earlier this summer in southern texas, and with a number of house republicans. there is a reason why they want to talk about the border issues, people coming across of the border into the country without documentation.. there is a reason they want to talk about waging a fight on the abortion issue, because voters get animated by these issues, and it is evidenced by the people phoning in this morning. what we are not talking about is things like prekindergarten, which is in this bill for all three-year-olds and four-year-olds, the universal pre-k. $400 billion for that and for other ways to find childcare. half -- fund childcare. half $1 trillion to combat climate change, as the president is at this climate summit right

now. this has been a problem for democrats for quite some time, that while they do want to talk about the key priorities they say will be transformational for the country, it does not seem to be captivating the voters in the country, so that has been a huge challenge for democrats in being able to sell build back better. host: thehill.com is where you can go for scott's stories, including one on carbon emissions. a strategy for 2050, net zero goal, that from "the hill." scott wong is with us to answer your questions about yet another busy week on capitol hill. angela in maryland, go ahead. caller: i was hoping you could answer a couple questions about these two senators.

senator manchin, he's further to the right on this topic of free community college in them my republican governor, who gave our state free community college a few years ago. and i believe the price tag on that nationwide is something like $16 billion a year. the government wastes more money than that easily. maybe if the people in the state could get free community college, they would not be in the bottom few of the states economically. further, kyrsten sinema on drug prices, she is further to the right than donald trump is on prescription drug prices. of course, he never got it through the republican congress, but i do not understand how she could be further to the right than donald trump when it comes to negotiating drug prices, which actually costs nothing, but would save the government money and to seniors money.

it does not cost anything, that is income for the government. the only thing i could think of is, did she get a lobby contract with the big pharma so that when she is out of congress, after she does a year in the public she can go work for a lobbying firm for big pharma? i do not know why they are further than the right to those who republicans i mentioned -- those two republicans i mentioned. host: scott wong? guest: democrats are running into the political reality, and that is that they need every single one of those 50 democratic senators to vote yes, and they need nearly all of the 200 plus democrats in the house of representatives. and because of those razor thin margins to vote yes on these

packages, they are operating in a tiny window. joe manchin and kyrsten sinema, they believe that they are representing the issues or the constituents of their states. people every six years can vote them in or out, based on the decisions that they take. joe manchin is a very conservative, a fiscal conservative from west virginia. the caller is right, many of the programs proposed would help a number of west virginians, including free community college and west virginia is one of the states that's affected by climate change, although joe manchin has been resistant to any of the programs that would try to wind down coal production and the coal industry in his very coal friendly state. so, these are the challenges democrats are facing. they need every single one, and

that is why there has been give and take, especially with joe manchin and kyrsten sinema. and they ultimately, at the end of the day, will need to sign off and joe manchin was able to whittle down the price tag of this plane from $6 trillion, then they proposed $3.5 trillion and joe manchin ultimately agreed to $1.75 trillion, so half of that. there's many progressives frustrated and to say the number is far too small, and others say, $1.75 trillion is certainly not a drop in the bucket. it's transformational, it is a significant number, and it is a hell of a lot better than the zero that joe manchin originally proposed. host: let me try to get in lucy, a democrat. caller: hi, thank you for taking

my call. i'm calling because these congressmen and is senators are out of touch with reality, as far as the american people go. i'm all for climate change and everything that fixes it, but i do not understand why our congress and senate does not ha ve, on a bipartisan basis, enough care and concern about the american people. people are homeless, people are not able to work, people are not working simply because they are counting on getting a big, fat check. the congress and senate are like two teams playing baseball. host: final minute here, what else are you going to be looking for on capitol hill this week?

what else should viewers be ready for? guest: this is the end of the ballgame, to really see if democrats can push this across the finish line and get this deal done. i they that there is frustration in the party, frustration in the country. people want to see action, not inaction. so people are looking to the president, people are looking to the congressional leaders to see if they can lead and if they can bring this home to the finish line. it really does feel like they are right on the cusp of this thing, so i would expect to see some major action and some significant votes happening. host: you can look for it all at thehill.com, where you can find scott wong's writing, and his colleagues. we always appreciate your help.

guest: thanks so much. host: next, we will focus on vaccine mandates and we will be joined by the liberty justice center's managing attorney, daniel suhr. lawrence gostin will join us to discuss vaccines for children and the global covid vaccination effort. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ >> this week on the c-span network, president biden is in glasgow, scotland for the climate summit copy26. the supreme court will hear arguments regarding the abortion law. at 11:00 a.m. eastern, the court will hear the united states versus texas. our tuesday live on c-span.org,

campaign coverage from two governors races, the new jersey governor's race and the virginia governor's race between former governor terry mcauliffe and republican glenn duncan. -- glenn youngkin. wednesday on c-span three, countering domestic terrorism with testimony by lead officials from homeland security and the fbi before the house -- the house intelligence committee. live on c-span3, covid-19 and the next steps in the response with testimony from the cdc director and national institute of allergy and infectious diseases director dr. anthony fauci. friday from the c-span network, the memorial service for retired army general and former secretary of state colin powell live from the wash and national cathedral.

watch this week on the c-span networks or you can watch our full coverage on c-span now, our new mobile app. also, heads to c-span.org -- head to c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> sunday, a live conversation with an author on republican politics and conservatism in america. his recently released book talks about his struggle with lyme disease. as other titles include the decadence society -- his other titles include the decadence society. sunday live at noon eastern on book tv on c-span two. before the program, be sure to visit to get your copy of his

books. >> washington journal continues. host: a conversation on workplace vaccine mandates now with daniel suhr. he serves as managing attorney at the liberty justice center. start by explaining what the liberty justice center does and how you do it. guest: good morning. we are online at libertyjusticecenter dot or. we fight to protect constitutional rights in the birdies. right now we focus on worker freedom and protecting parents' rights in education. we are a nonprofit organization. we do what we do for our clients for free. you can find us online. host: how? do you pick your clients -- how do you pick your clients?

guest: we have generous donors who support our work and our clients often come to us. they are americans who otherwise may be could not afford legal representation but find themselves in a tough spot. it is our honor to represent them. other times we reach out and partner with clients because we believe something the government is doing is illegal. in those cases, we are proud to represent our clients and push back on government overreach. host: what should viewers know about the vaccination mandates for nurses at riverside health care in illinois? host: -- guest: one of my cases is on behalf of 57 health care employees. these nurses have been heroes in this pandemic. they have been on the front lines every day taking care of patients, serving people. unfortunately, riverside is

willing to throw all of that to the side because these employees, these nurses, will not compromise their convictions. it is not just wrong. it is illegal. the law protects the rights of these nurses to continue in their job serving their patients while at the same time holding to their faith. host: what is the status of that case? guest: the judge gave us a temporary restraining order protecting these employees and their jobs. we are going to continue litigating in the coming months, but today they can all show up at work the day after the october 31 termination deadline. my clients will still be at work because the law protects them and their right to hold onto their religious beliefs and show up for their job. host: what should viewers know about the illinois health care right of conscience act? guest: it reflects this

important principle not just for illinois but for every american that our law protects the right of the individual to make important health care choices for themselves in line with their religious or moral convictions. the illinois law is one of a number of such laws across the country that protect people. in this instance, if employees do not have to choose between their faith and their work, but really for all of us as americans, many states have these protections so we are not coerced into making these kinds of decisions that are really impossible decisions, trying to choose between something as important as our faith and our profession. host: the governor of illinois trying to amend that law and response to this lawsuit and other concerns about the mandate and the defense of those

concerns, pointing to that act. a spokesperson saying that act was never intended to allow people to avoid public health guidance and jeopardize workplace safety during a global pandemic. the administration supports efforts to clarify the law so it is not being misinterpreted by fringe elements. guest: i think this law is especially important at times like this. the constitution does not take a vacation when we are in the midst of a pandemic. it is in the hardest moments that we need the protection of the law of the law the most. though my clients' believes mina -- might not be shared by the governor, they are their beliefs and they are sincerely held and deeply held. it is moments like this, when it is tough for our country, when we are in times of trial, that we need the law to protect us the most. when things are good, when your opinion is popular among the law

is not important for you because everybody is on your side. it is when your opinions are unpopular, when we are in a time of trial, that we need the law most to protect each of us and our rights to make these choices. host: what happens in other states that do not have the law you are depending on in illinois to protect these nurses? guest: federal title vii is part of the civil rights act. it protects every employee against discrimination in a number of ways not racial discrimination, gender discrimination, but also religious discrimination. the federal agency responsible for administering title vii has put out generally good guidance for employers to say employees in any state have a religious or ethical objection to a covid-19 mandate, then employers need to respect the objection.

if there are reasonable accommodations that are available -- we have all been living with some of these safety protocols. when we use those protocols we can keep people safe, achieve reasonable safety rules, and respect the right of employees in any workplace to hold onto their religious beliefs. host: daniel suhr with the liberty justice center. taking your phone calls on phone lines split as usual. -- sorry it is phone lines split differently than usual. employers can call in at (202) 748-8000. employees, (202) 748-8001. all others, it is (202) 748-8002 . we mentioned this story today to our viewers in our first segment.

thousands of new york city firefighters, police officers, and other employees stand to lose their paychecks starting today for failing to comply with mayor bill de blasio's covid-19 and eight. the mayor's office said about 24,000 employees remain unvaccinated and are subject to the mandate. your thoughts on that deadline in new york? guest: these workers in new york have been the essential workers that we have been applauding for serving us through the hardest time to this pandemic. i think it is a shame that that service is just going to be discarded by the mayor, just tossed aside because these folks want to hold onto their individual right to choose. this is something that has always been fundamental to us as americans, that we hold onto our freedoms zealously, fiercely

defensive of our freedoms. that includes our freedom to make these sorts of important choices between us and our dr. -- doctor without the government reaching into our lives, whether as citizens or employees. i think the fact that a lot of vaccinated employees are standing in solidarity with their unvaccinated colleagues represents a widespread american sentiment that even for people who are vaccinated they respect the rights of others to make a different choice and expect their government to respect that right as well. host: are you ok with vexing mandates if they include a weekly testing component -- vaccine mandates if they include a weekly testing component? guest: weekly testing helps protect people's right to choose but we need to move away from mandates overall. this should be about people's rights to make important choices for themselves in consultation with their doctors or faith

community but not have employers or the government reaching into their lives and telling them what to do. we would not accept that as americans and other ways and we should not accept that overreach here either. host: we are having the conversation as we wait for final rules from the osha rule being crafted for businesses of 100 employees or more on vaccine mandates and to include a testing option. the white house covid-19 response gordon nader -- coordinator talked about that. [video clip] >> on osha, the team has been working to develop the emergency temporary standard that covers employees with over 100 employees -- employers with over 100 employees to ensure workers are fully vaccinated or undergoing testing on at least a

one time per week basis to stop the spread in the workplace. the agency has submitted the text of the emergency temporary standards to the office of management and budget. while we do not have a specific time to provide today, the rule will be finalized soon. we know businesses are already acting. we have seen major companies and small businesses and other organizations step up every day with vaccination requirements. host: daniel suhr on that osha rule and what you're looking for when it does come out. guest: as soon the osha rule is published, we will see the biden administration in court. it is illegal and unconstitutional. the act is meant to protect people in their workplace against toxic substances.

these emergency rules are only available for the gravest of dangers. with the osha act is not firm is regulating our entire society when it comes to something like a pandemic. that is an authority for states. there is a reason we have seen all these orders come from governors rather than the white house. it is because public health is a state responsibility. while the federal government is proposing is an infringement on the fundamental state prerogative to be the responsible authority for public health. the biden administration tried to this before with eviction mandates. the cdc is not the nation landlord regulator. osha is not the public health regulator. like the supreme court struck down the eviction moratorium, i expect courts will strike down this moratorium.

host: about 15 minutes left with daniel suhr with the liberty justice center. we will start with catherine in south carolina, that line for all others. go ahead. caller: i have looked through the osha manual. there is no legality to what osha is doing at all. i have been through this manual 18 times. legally, they do not have the authority at all. the president has push this through osha with knowledge that they do not have the authority. and to mandate it to these corporations who are private corporations is illegal and he knows it. host: -- guest: i could not agree with you more and good for you for

getting through the manual. i think your comment is right. the president -- we saw this on eviction mandates, where the white house knew it did not have the legal authority. it was under pressure from far left elements of its party. it caved to the pressure and then they got struck down in court. we are seeing the same show again where the white house knows they are on the edge were beyond legal authorities. they have said in the past there would not be nationwide mandates. now there are. like last time, when they exceed legal authority, we are going to take them to court. states are going to take them to court. we are going to represent private employers and employees. courts are going to say this goes beyond what the manual permits, what the law permits, what the constitution permits. they are going to strike it down.

host: phone lines split by employers, employees, and all others. paul in indiana, good morning. what kind of work do you do and is there a mandate for vaccines at your work? caller: there is not, but i am for employee mandates. i thought this was for the federal court to rule. i do not want to go to a workplace where people are infected. people's rights end at their nose. they do not have a right to spread a disease. god forbid i have a stroke or a heart attack or i am in a car wreck and i cannot get an emergency room because 10 people , 10 medical workers are tied up handling a person with covid-19 when they could walk into a pharmacy and get a covid-19.

i do not see the problem. i had the flu shot, the smallpox vaccine, and the last shot was for smallpox given to school-age children in 1972. i do not see what the problem is. people go to school and everything. they should have their shots. host: go ahead, daniel suhr. guest: thanks for calling. we all want and deserve safe workplaces. that can be accomplished without infringing on individual rights and liberties. we can have reasonable accommodations like masking got regular testing, social distancing.

sometimes people can work different shifts. there are ways we can adapt smart, simple tools we were using pre-vaccine that help manage the spread. we can respect the right of people to make these choices for themselves. you make a good point about concerns for hospital capacity. one thing i am about is is -- is if they lay off these nurses and doctors and health care workers who are not willing to compromise their convictions. if they had terminated these 68 employees i represent, they would not be available to do their jobs and health care. think about the new york example . we are talking about tens of thousands of city workers who are essential, who pick up the trash, who provide public safety , who work in fire departments. if we lay all those people off

because they are not willing to compromise their convictions, we are going to see problems in hospitals and other places in an already tight labor market. i think mask mandates are different because they are less invasive. problematic about vaccines is that is the sort of irreversible medical decision that is something people can do only i think in consultation with their doctors based on individual circumstances. mask mandates are different. they should still comply with the law. we have seen some courts rightly strike them down because they exceed the power of an executive without some other democratic oversight or involvement from the legislature but i think they are different from vaccines. host: james, go ahead with your

question or comment. caller: i am going to say it seems like the anti-vaxxers are politically motivated. they say the vaccine can be deadly, but they do not know if it is or not. until dr. fauci and the other scientists say it is dangerous, we should go off their word. guest: i want to be very clear. i am personally vaccinated. my wife is vaccinated. i am not anti-vaccine. i am antigovernment overreach. that is an aborted distinction. we should respect medical science. i am grateful for the work medical science and health overall has done to protect us

in the midst of this pandemic, but i think you can be respectful of my right to choose to be vaccinated and at the same time respect the right of other americans to make a different choice based on their personal medical condition or their moral or religious belief. we can respect each other's rights, including respecting each other's rights to make the choice for ourselves. host: on thursday this week, dr. fauci will be back on capitol hill alongside the head of the cdc testifying on the biden administration's covid-19 response before the senate health committee. you can watch live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. you can also watch online at c-span.org and full coverage on our c-span now video app. philip is in minnesota. caller: i have two questions.

i am 70 years old and vaccinated, just received my booster shot. the lawyer talked about religious conviction. apparently people are protesting on religious principle. i was curious if people respond the same way now they did to the polio vaccine -- you talk about freedom of choice but your freedom of choice can affect other people so they can die. to me, everybody wants freedom of choice. what about the responsibility to protect other people's rights? guest: those are both good and fair questions. for my client in illinois, the religious objection to the vaccine stems from their pro-life convictions. they are not all catholic. many of my clients in illinois

come from a variety of christian faith backgrounds. they are all deeply pro-life. that conviction is not a political conviction. it is a religious belief about what the bible says about life in the womb. they know how these vaccines were developed either from a research side or a production side involving fetal tissue. they have a religious, moral objection to these vaccines. it is similar to the flu in that way. there are people who have moral or religious objections to flu vaccines because of the aborted stem cell tissue involved in the development. like the illinois department of public health has a vaccine exemption for the flu, we should see the same for covid for people's deeply held religious beliefs.

your question is equally important to tackle. this is why the concept of reasonable accommodation is so important. we have an obligation to our neighbor come out to our coworkers to keep that person safe just as much as to respect our own individual choices in this matter. that is why doing things like masking or regular testing can be good steps that can respect the rights of others in a healthy workplace environment while still recognizing each individual's right to make that choice for themselves in consultation with their doctor or faith leader. host: the use of fetal cells -- it is my understanding the vaccines do not contain fetal cell components. you're talking about the testing phase here of the vaccine? guest: as i understand it, one does use fetal, stem cell tissue

and the way the vaccine is physically developed, but even for the pfizer and moderna vaccines for the research component of that process took place using fetal stem cell research from aborted fetuses. for people who are deeply pro-life, the research method itself is deeply problematic because of the physical tissue used in doing the scientific research in the lab. they have a religious objection to this. to some extent, it is not even necessary for them to be able to defend on a rational or philosophical basis there conviction. we do not ask people to defend the rationality of their religious convictions. we just ask that they be sincerely held. for my clients, who are willing to lose their jobs over this, these are sincerely held beliefs

and the law respect them for it. host: two more phone calls on that line for employers. ron in new hampshire, good morning. caller: westchester field, new hampshire. i have a suggestion. it would be awesome if you guys went back to having another talking head on the other site of things present. that way your viewers could get both sides of everything from the top of the line people that know things. host: i appreciate that. i assure you we do try to put those roundtables you are talking about. it will be easier once we can have people around the same roundtable again when it is safe to do that and have folks back here to talk with each other the same table. we are getting there. caller: i am very honored to speak with your guest this morning. daniel, thank you very much for

coming on and speaking with us. i believe the nurses and any woman that does not wish to be vaccinated should not have to be vaccinated. at the same point in time as an employer, i believe employees and workplaces should have their own safety protocol because they have osha guidelines they have to go by as well as other things. the way i see it is people who do not wish to be vaccinated should not get vaccinated. employers should be able to mandate. if people that do not want to be vaccinated wish to still work, maybe they should find in these nurses' cases a hospital that allows unvaccinated people to work. as an employer, i would not want someone coming to work you just drink a case of beer. it is their right to drink a case of beer, but they are a

danger to themselves and possibly to others. i believe they both have rights, but i believe the hospital is within their rights to mandate vaccines if they wish for the safety of employees and customers. host: what line of work are you in? how many employees do you have? caller: right now, not many africa covid and everything that has hit and the way the economy has been. i have a small cleaning company in the northeast. host: sir -- daniel suhr? guest: as a general manner, i am a free-market guy. one of the other things we do is we defend small businesses like yours from overreaching government regulation. we need to respect the rights of employers in this context, but our national government has struck the balance on how the respect should work with title vii of the civil rights act.

that says when an employee has a sincerely held religious belief the employer and employee should figure out if that belief is an undue burden on the employer. if it is not the employer and employee should work together to find a reasonable accommodation that allows the employee to continue living out their faith while at the same time continuing in their job. that is the balance the law has struck. i think that is a good balance and reflects our country's commitment to religious liberty for all of us. this is one of those instances where people are willing to show a little grace and goodwill toward one another. we can come to reasonable compromises. as much as we can, keep the economy moving, keep businesses in business and hiring and allow people to continue working. host: daniel suhr, the managing attorney at the liberty justice center.

we appreciate your time. let's chat again as these cases move forward. guest: thanks, john. i grew up watching c-span as a kid. host: there will be more to talk about on the covid front. we are going to talk with georgetown university law center's lawrence gostin to discuss vaccines for children and global vaccination efforts. we will be right back. ♪ >> today, the u.s. supreme court will hear oral arguments in two cases concerning the texas abortion law, which bans nearly all abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy. the justices hear challenges to part of a law that gives public power to enforce it via civil suit. at 11:00 a.m., united states

versus texas for whether the justice department has the right to sue to block the law. watch live coverage on c-span2, live or on-demand at c-span.org cannot listen on c-span radio, or on the new c-span mobile app. >> get c-span on the go. watch political events live or on-demand anytime, anywhere on our new mobile app. access top highlights and discover new podcasts, also free. download c-span now today. ♪

>> c-span's online store. browse through our latest collection of c-span products and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> washington journal continues. host: lawrence gostin joins us now. he is the author of the new book "global health security: a blueprint for the future."

i want to start where we ended the last conversation on the issue of vaccine mandates. do you believe vaccine mandates in the workplace are legal and appropriate at this point the pandemic? guest: they are legal, ethical, and essential for getting us back to normal. we have had a history of requiring vaccinations from the beginning of our republic. george washington required troops to get a smallpox inoculation. the supreme court has twice upheld compulsory vaccination. it boosts and maintains high unitization -- immunization coverage, which protects us all. host: what are your thoughts on sincerely held religious belief as a reason to not get the vaccine? guest: there are certainly some

people who have sincere religious beliefs, but many people who try to get exemptions for religious beliefs really do not have genuine ones. i say that from experience and from knowing what goes on around the country. many people first try medical exemptions. that fails and they try religious. we tend to get new affidavits from the same texas church for everybody who has not even met the individual. many of these are not authentic. the pope himself has urged all catholics to be vaccinated. the truth is there is no major religious practice that i know of that as its core is against vaccination. the key value is life, and vaccines save lives. there will be some sincerely

held beliefs, but very narrow. host: tomorrow, the advisory panel at the cdc is meeting to discuss covid-19 vaccines in children five to 11 years old. what are your expectations for what happens in the meeting tomorrow? guest: it is almost certain the cdc is going to follow the fda decision to authorize this. the cdc will then recommend it, and i expect the vaccine for children age five to 11 to be rolled out in the coming days, certainly this week it will start to be sent to pharmacies, pediatricians' offices, family practitioners. there will not be mass vaccination sites the way we saw early on. we will try to do this with

local pharmacies. >> should we be vaccinating children right now, children at a lower risk of severe covid at a time when worldwide vaccination rates in other countries are a fraction of where we are? should we concentrate more on the global effort of those most at risk? guest: let's stick with the united states first because we have already started to do boosters for the elderly and now we are rolling it out for pediatric. for the u.s., i would like to do that for now. it makes sense to have a five to 11-year-old vaccine. it is true that young kids have a lower risk of serious z's, but many thousands have gotten very seriously -- serious disease, but many thousands of got very seriously sick. about 100 kids of that age group

have died, which makes covid among the 10 leading causes of death among that age group. getting covid is more dangerous than getting the vaccine to these young kids. it has multiple advantages. it protects our children. that is the most important. it also protects their parents, their grandparents, their families, their communities. at the same time, it gets us back to normal a lot quicker and insurers educational continuity -- ensures educational continuity. host: dr. lawrence gostin with us until 10:00 a.m. eastern, phone lines split regionally if you want to join the conversation. (202) 748-8000 if you are in the

eastern or central time zones. (202) 748-8001 if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones. i want to focus on some comments last week -- i guess two weeks ago during the fda advisory panel when they met to consider vaccines for children. there were comments by dr. eric rubin of harvard university that caught the attention of folks who are concerned about vaccinations for children so young. this is a minute from the end of his comment from that meeting. [video clip] >> we hear it is a personal choice. if i had a child who was a transfer recipient -- there are kids who should be vaccinated. the question of how broadly to use it is a substantial one.

i know it is not our question. i do think it is a relatively close call. as dr. leavy just said, it is going to be a question -- we are never going to learn how safety vaccine is unless we start giving it. that is the way it goes. that is how we found out about complications of other vaccines. i think we should vote to approve it. host: to those comments that we are never going to learn about how safe it is until we start giving it. guest: it is a valid and fair point. i have been reviewing the data carefully. the fda advisory committee voted unanimously with only one extension to authorize this.

it was not a close call. the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion is it is far safer and better for children, for families in our community to roll out this vaccine for everyone as opposed to risking getting covid. the delta variant is so contagious that one day or another everybody is going to get it. it is better to be vaccinated young, like with other childhood immunizations. here is where i stand. you just heard i am absolutely in favor of vaccine mandates but i would not mandate the vaccine for children yet. the reason is i do want to see more long-term safety data.

we know these vaccines are safe because billions are being given around the world safely to my but children are different. they are not young adults. they have a different biology. i want to see whether there are any adverse effects that emerge. we are not expecting them other than those we know about, certain cardiac events. the cardiac events are really very rare. they are resolved quickly. the truth is that you are more likely to get a heart condition if you get covid than if you get the vaccine. host: professor lawrence gostin with us with georgetown university law center institute for national and global health law, the director of that center and the author of the book "global health security: a

blueprint for the future," that book coming out since we had you on in the summer. what is the blueprint you lay out? guest: i started writing this book about six years ago, well before covid. in it, i predicted there would be a pandemic. my wife sometimes joked with me i have got the pandemic i have always dreamed for, but that is not true. there are many existential threats we face. there are laboratory accidents, bioterrorism. we have antimicrobial resistant viruses so that even our best antibiotics are losing their impact. a virus can spread around the world within 72 hours after it

first presents. we have all of these existential threats, but we have answers for them. we have seen good research and development can get vaccines quick. we can get them even quicker next time. we can get treatment quicker next time. we need more robust health systems so we can better detect and respond. we need to prevent the so-called zoo not it -- zoonotic spillovers by separating animals , by regulating or banning wet markets and live animal trade, by preventing deforestation and other tools. we can also steward our antiviral medications better so viruses and pathogens do not

become able to evade our best medicines. there is so much we can do to make our world much safer, but the truth is we have lurched from panic to complacency and back to panic. i hope covid teaches us some hard lessons. host: "global health security" is the name of that book. professor lawrence gostin is our guest taking your phone calls. caller: i appreciate the professor's perspective. i am double vaccinated myself. many children, up to 40%, have been infected already. in the pfizer study we saw no reinfection's of those who had previous infection.

the study was not large enough for me to expose my children to a vaccine if they have already had the virus. i am going to have them check for anti-bodies first. another concern i have is the ramifications of continuing to move the goalposts. i am in a county with five to seven preventable cardiovascular deaths per day, one or less for covid. where do we draw the line? there are 400 or so sudden infant syndrome deaths per year contributed to smoke. where do we draw the line? the virus is going to be endemic. it is going to be with us and we have to let it fall and the risk spectrum and realize the risks of continuing to invoke fear when the relative risks to other risks of death is higher at this point. host: professor gostin? guest: you are making a lot of

reasonable points. all of the data we know from adolescents and adults is if you have had covid you could have -- it can confer fairly robust immunity or it might not. at the same time, what we know is if you are vaccinated after you have been infected with covid you really have quite robust protection. the vaccine is extraordinarily safe and effective. pediatricians around the country , public health professionals and experts, the fda, the cdc, all our trusted public health agencies are recommending a covid vaccine for children age five to 11 whether or not they have already been infected with the virus. that is sound advice.

the only reason i am not recommending a mandate, and i am not, is because i want to see longer-term safety data. once the fda fully licenses it on the basis of longer-term safety data -- the trials had few participants in them. we need to have more understanding. from what we know now, we should be approaching parents. get your kids the vaccine. it is going to make your child safer and everyone around her safer. host: this is steve. caller: good morning. i have two questions. my first goes to the fact that in the declaration of independence i am pretty sure it starts with we the people. the american people, me included, are fed up with unelected bureaucrats telling us

what we should do. if this is so important and crucial to the american health system, congress and the senate should pass a law. the president should sign it. then we can all get vaccinated because we are being represented by our voted in individuals representing we the people. speaking of democrats, the poster child is dr. fauci. why is it now we have the nih admitting we did fund with u.s. taxpayers -- we the people paid to the chinese to do research on covid vaccines. guest: those are two separate questions. let me start with tony fauci, a close friend. i have known him for 30 years.

this is a sincere, decent, honest, hard-working, super intelligent, honest person. he did not deceive the american people. from what he understood, there was no gain of function research in the wuhan to due to virology -- institute of virology funded by nih. in terms of we the people, the declaration of independence does say that. our constitution -- the federal government has no authority to mandate a vaccine. it is basically at a city and state level. president biden's orders are based upon the federal workforce and contractors. and the occupational health & safety act. all of these things were actually part of the democratic process.

nobody is suggesting an autocratic or extralegal form of vaccination mandate. mandates have to be lawful and thus far the courts have upheld them almost uniformly. host: about 10 minutes left with professor lawrence gostin this morning. dr. anthony fauci will be on capitol hill this week testifying before the senate health committee. that we are airing on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern thursday. today in about 10 minutes, the supreme court will hear two oral arguments on the texas abortion law, the first challenge brought by a group of health providers, the second by the justice department. that is getting underway beginning in about 8.5 minutes. we are going to air it on c-span two this morning. you can also listen to it on the new c-span now app and our

website. until our program ends at 10:00 a.m. eastern, your calls with lawrence gostin. this is melissa and iowa. -- in iowa. caller: i have a question for your gentleman on here. he said his wife said he finally got the pandemic he wanted and all he has wanted. how do all these folks in 2015 know that if president trump got elected there was going to be a pandemic? guest: first of all, my wife was just joking, literally a joke. nobody wished the pandemic on anybody and we have all suffered. so have i. it has been a horrible thing for the world. we all knew there would be a pandemic that would occur, but nobody knows when. there will be another one coming

up beyond covid. we cannot tell you whether it is going to be next year or in 100 years. biology and ecology and nature do not follow political cycles. nobody knew who would be president. these things just literally form in nature and have an unexpected leap. what probably happened -- we do not know for sure because china is not allowing us to really investigate on the ground whether it was a lab leak. most likely what happened was there was a bat in southern china in one of the batcave's that had a novel coronavirus somehow and bit an intermediary animal sold in the wuhan wet market. we then had an outbreak in wuhan

that quickly spread to hubei province and the rest is history. these things just show us that mother nature is awfully powerful and we have to respect her and prepare for those kinds of events. host: to new york, this is michelle. thanks for waiting. caller: i have been a health care worker for 21 years. i am vaccinated. my question to you is in the hospital right now there are 10 out of 12 patients who are vaccinated in the hospital and now they want us to give this vaccine to our children five and older. i do not know if i would be able to as a health care provider do that seeing the ramifications for people who are taking the vaccines. 10 out of 12 patients in the covid units are vaccinated people.

as someone who is vaccinated and i have to make a choice for my child, i have to know where i would get the science because i called to the cdc. i called the fda. them saying we need to give the shots to get the information seems like a double edged sword because we are going to give them the vaccine and then get the data. that is confusing to me. host: michelle, you're from new york. then your times today taking a look at -- the new york times today taking a look at comparisons of those who are vaccinated and unvaccinated at the rate at which they were infected by the delta variant and at which people died of the delta variant. among those fully vaccinated people, they were six times less likely to catch the delta variant. among unvaccinated people, they were 12 times as likely to die of the coronavirus as a fully vaccinated person as well, some of the comparisons there.

it was 12 deaths per 100,000 among the unvaccinated at one point in august. guest: you have answer the question beautifully. the truth is vaccination is not a bulletproof shield. you do have some breakthrough infections and some people who are particularly immune compromised, who are very elderly, sometimes they can get back in the hospital. sometimes they can die. for everyone from age five to eight 100, if you get the vaccine you are going to be far better protected than leaving yourself vulnerable to the disease. this is a very serious disease. it is for every age group. i do not want my child, my granddaughter, my grandson to get covid. i would much rather they get

vaccinated and keep safe and have them in a safe school and safe family. host: dr. lawrence gostin is the author of the book "global health security: a blueprint for the future." we appreciate your time. that is want to do it for our program today. on c-span two in less than two minutes, we are expected to get underway at the supreme court can't live oral arguments of those two cases surrounding the texas abortion law. watch on c-span two. you can c-span.org watch on our website at -- you can watch on our website at c-span.org. we will leave you with a live shot at the scene outside the supreme court now and see you tomorrow morning back here on washington journal at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. ♪ [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 is building infrastructure, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up live today on c-span, we will bring you a briefing by the white house

covid-19 response team and public health officials. they are expected to give an update on booster shots and covid-19 case numbers. you can see it live on c-span, at c-span.org, or with our new video app, c-span now. >> the house returns today at noon eastern for speeches with legislative work at two -- 2:00. any requested vote will take place at 6:30 p.m. eastern. it is possible the house takes up the infrastructure bill that was passed in the senate and the president's social spending package later in the week as well. across the capital, the senate resumes work on nominations at 3:00 p.m. eastern. currently on the calendar, jonathan davidson to be a deputy undersecretary with the treasury department. watch online at c-span.org or

follow congress with c-span now, our new video the head of u.s. special operations command, general richard clarke, talked about the role of special forces and how they are preparing for the future. >> this is about to begin. please take your seats. we are ready here. >> my name is howard, and it is my distinct honor to introduce the 12th commander of the u.s. special operations command, army