empowerment. that is why charter has invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy. >> coming today on c-span, the house begins today at 8:00 a.m. eastern planning to consider a spending bill to keep the government funded beyond this friday. on c-span2, the senate is working on legislation setting defense policy and programs for 2022. debate has been held up most of the week over which amendments to include in the bill. on c-span3, biden administration officials testified before a house subcommittee about regulating fentanyl related

substances to prevent overdoses. you can watch everything at c-span.org or on our free video app, c-span now. >> america's dividing lines on the issue version were clearly visible yesterday outside and inside the u.s. supreme court. justice her arguments for and against the strict mississippi abortion laws, but the justices opened to the decision this term will not only decide the fate of that law, but likely where the underpinning of american abortion laws today, the 1973 roe v. wade decision will stand for all. good morning, it is tuesday, december 2, 2021. this is washington journal, an

abbreviated version because the house is coming in at 8:00 a.m. eastern this morning. we will spend this hour asking you about those oral arguments yesterday and your view on the future of roe v. wade. if you think the courts and ultimately or will ultimately overturn roe v. wade, maligned to call is (202) 748-8000. if you think that the court should keep roe v. wade, allied to call is (202) 748-8001. you can always send us a text at (202) 748-8003 and include your name and where you are texting from. we welcome your posts on facebook and look for your thoughts as well on twitter and instagram. the deal is with the house coming in in :00 a.m. eastern for morning our speeches as they face a spending crunch on capitol hill, we just found out about this last night, almost at 9:00 last night. the house now in earlier at 8:00

a.m. and again, we will take up a short-term funding bill prior to friday's midnight government shutdown deadline. no deal has been reached on the link, nor the details of the cr which has yet to be filed and last votes in the u.s. house to be determined. likely to be a long day. that is the reason c-span was founded, so we will go live to the u.s. house at 8:00 a.m. eastern for the morning our speeches. opening the phone here this morning on the supreme court case, the mississippi law. it was heard by the justices yesterday and the lines again for those of you would like to see roe v. wade overturned, (202) 748-8000. and to keep roe v. wade, that line (202) 748-8001. scotus blog covered the daily goings-on of the u.s. supreme court. anyhow writing this piece majority of court appears poised to rollback abortion rights. she writes it has been nearly 30 years since the supreme court's decision in planned parenthood

which reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion that the court first recognized in roe v. wade. only one justice who participated is still on that court now. clarence thomas, who joined arguing that roe was wrongly decided and that it can and should be overruled. on terms of the mississippi law, she writes that enacted by the mississippi legislature in 2018, the law known as the gestational age act has never gone into effect from the federal district court in the conservative u.s. court of appeals for the fifth circuit blocked the law, explaining that roe and casey bar states from banning abortions before fetal viability when the fetus can survive outside the womb. mississippi asked the justices to weigh-in after the court agreed to take up the case. the state began urging the court to overturn those landmark decisions, arguing for the state on wednesday mississippi's solicitor general told the

justices that roe and casey "h aunt our country and poison the law. abortion is a heart issue any question that should be left up to the people to decide." we'd like to hear your voice, and we will get to your cause momentarily, but justice kennedy -- justice kavanaugh, rather, was asking about the view that the court should get out of the contentious issue of abortion. >> the core problem here is that the court has been forced by the position you are taking and by the cases to pick sides on the most contentious social debate in american life, and to do so any situation where they say that the constitution is neutral on the question of abortion. constitution is neither pro-life

nor pro-choice on the question of abortion, and they would say therefore it should be left to the people, to the states, or to congress. and i think they also then continue because the constitution is neutral, that this court should be scrupulously neutral on the question of abortion, neither pro-choice nor pro-life. but because, they say, the constitution doesn't give us the authority, we should leave it to the states and we should be scrupulously neutral on the question and they are saying here, i think, that we should return to a position of neutrality on that contentious social issue rather than continuing to pick sides on that issue. so i think that is at a big picture level the argument. want to give you a chance to respond to that. >> a few points, if i may. those very same arguments were

made in casey in the court rejected them saying that the philosophical disagreements can't be resolved in a way that a woman has no choice in the matter and second, i don't think it would be a neutral position. the constitution provides a guarantee of liberty. the court has interpreted that liberate to include the ability to make decisions related to childbearing, marriage and family. women have an equal right to liberty under the constitution law and if they are not able to make this decision, if states can take control of women's bodies and force them to endure months of pregnancy and childbirth than they will never have equal status under the constitution. host: our program this morning focusing on your input on the future of roe v. wade, some comments from members of congress after the hearing yesterday. there's nothing more fundamental and sacred air constitution than the right to life. in 15 weeks babies pump 26 quarts of blood per day. please join the and praying for

the supreme court to uphold pre- viability abortion restrictions. just imagine if the same energy were dedicated to protecting unborn life was invested in protecting the lives of those already born. mark green, congressman as an er physician. i've done hundreds of ultrasounds on pregnant mothers, it's obvious that an unborn child in the womb is a human being. and steve cohen, the supreme court has diminished respect after today's pitiful show. nonsense bush v gore decision to give the presidency to the fives. standard party standard-bearer and six judges were devoid of any understanding of life's real challenges for women. shame. let's go to your calls again. if you think that roe v. wade should be overturned, aligned to call is (202) 748-8000. if you are for keeping roe v. wade, that line (202) 748-8001. first up is robbie in bronson, florida. caller: i just would like to say

good morning and thank you for having these calls. i can remember being 75 years old, wanting to get birth control. i had to get a note from either my father or my husband in order to get birth control, and that was right here in florida. young women today don't have any idea the kind of challenges that we have had to fight to break through so that we don't end up being like some of the women over in these middle eastern countries where they have to wear these full body coverings and they can't go out of their houses. we are stepping backwards with this court. they are showing themselves to be very political and it shouldn't be a political football. of course, i believe that it also should be argued on the separation of church and state because i believe, as most christians do, that we are a

spirit, not a body. therefore, i think that they are taking a lot on for the supreme court, and these three appointments that were made under donald trump after holding merrick garland off from being appointed for a year, mitch mcconnell, the republican senate and donald trump really damaged our supreme court. host: milton in philadelphia, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i'm pro-choice, but what i see this court doing, is not going to overrule roe, but it is going to we get to the point where it may not overrule it, to the point where a woman eight going to have a choice. you know, i find the right hypocritical on this point. they always claim "i'm for pro-life," right? by the same programs that would

help raise that child and help that mother raise that child as far as housing, food stamps, other programs to help that mother, those very programs they want to cut. i find the position to be hypocritical. if you are pro-life, then be pro-life from the time it is in the womb until that child turns 18. you want to cut education, you want to cut the very programs that help that child. and then another thing, too. we will ask them, especially the ones you had on yesterday, do you support any exceptions for rape or incest? they never answer that question. they always managed to avoid that question. you have a woman, let's say she is raped. she has to carry that baby to term and to carry that baby. no one questions that, no one answers. what if your child was raped. would you want your child carrying that baby? they never answer that particular question. host: jerry is in overton,

nebraska. good morning. caller: yes, it seems like there is a double standard or whatever. if you murder a woman that is pregnant, you can be charged with two murders. how can it not be a murder when you are aborting a baby? host: next, ivan in cape cod, massachusetts. go ahead. caller: good morning. i believe that anything that happens that takes away somebody's unbelievable power that the federal government now has over all of our lives is a good thing. i think we are much better off with state control. host: you are on the air, go ahead with your comment. caller: yes, i think that the federal government is way too strong in our personal lives and

if they do overturn roe v. wade, it will put this decision back into the state legislature where it belongs and i think that is the way the constitution was set up and founded. i think the federal government has become way too powerful, way too overreaching, and this is a great example of something that will try to correct that very, very dangerous trend. host: this is the washington post this morning. what abortion laws would look like if roe v. wade were overturned. a chart of the united states. there are about a dozen states that explicitly protect abortion. many of the others, about 22 states would ban or severely restrict abortions. they have an organization that focuses on reproductive rights. in kingsport, tennessee, good morning to rich. hello there. caller: good morning.

just a few quick points. the pro-abortion council's main argument seems to be, they keep returning to the sciences. when justice kavanaugh read a long list of precedents that had been overturned, the basic response to that was well, that is different in both cases. which i found interesting. each case always is different, but saying that it has been proceeding for 50 years is not reason enough to not re-examine. host: thanks for your call, rich. joy in cleveland, who is on the line for those of you calling for keeping the roe v. wade decision intact. go ahead. >> i actually do really agree with roe v. wade being continued for all women, since we really

have very few choices. we can't even get out birth control pills pay for in certain conditions, yet they pay for viagra for men. i just don't really see what the difference is between us keeping an abortion vs. um... host: this is from the wall street journal editorial this morning. justice sotomayor gets political on abortion. the sub headline, she loses her cool during the supreme court oral argument. this is justice sotomayor on what overturning roe v. wade might mean. >> there has been some difference of opinion with respect to undue burden, but the right of a woman to choose, the

right to control her own body has been set since casey and never challenged. do you want us to reject that and adopt something different? 15 justices over 50 years -- or, i should say, 30 since casey have reaffirmed that basic viability line. four have said no. two of them members of this court. but 15 justices have said yes. of varying political backgrounds. now, the sponsors of this house bill in mississippi said we are doing it because we have new justices. the newest ban that mississippi

has put in place, the senate sponsor said we are doing it because we have new justices on the supreme court. will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the constitution and its reading are just political acts. host: more of your cause and just a moment. in reminder again, it is a short program this morning. the u.s. house is coming in at 8:00 a.m. eastern for their morning speeches. a long day of action expected as they face a deadline. the threat of a government shutdown in the wee hours of saturday morning is very real. government funding expires at midnight on friday.

the bill would simply re-up funding of current government programs at existing levels, but here's the problem; some senate conservatives want to strip out the federal vaccine mandate as part of the bill. a super majority of senators favor funding the government and avoiding a shutdown, but without the blessing of a few senate conservatives, the senate can't expedite passage of the funding bills. the earliest the government would be funded is next wednesday morning, four days into the shutdown, and that is if the house and senate start advancing the plan today. back to your calls on the supreme court arguments yesterday in the future of roe v. wade. this is howard. caller: good morning. i support a woman's right to health care and i'm just very

horrified by the fact that my own country is still obsessing over this basic issue. trying to stop abortion is a cruel act. a woman has a right over bali,. it is her body. to argue about it once a woman is pregnant is just cruel and crazy. we are homo sapiens. we should be a thinking people. a thinking people should realize making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion, it just makes it very difficult for a woman to afford and do not have other resources to take care of this issue. in many cases they are very desperate and they choose

unhealthy sources. so this whole conversation is highly frustrating. it makes no sense for a free nation that has the personal liberty is that this country claims to have. host: let's hear from melinda next in memphis. caller: good morning. i was calling just because on both sides, the question would be really " is the fetus an american citizen?" because you are not an american citizen until you are born on u.s. soil. therefore, if the fetus is not a u.s. citizen, then you are forcing the woman who is already an american citizen to carry a non-american citizen in her body for nine months, and the only way they can survive is to become an american citizen and her to give birth. so who actually is right? is the fetus an american citizen

that has rights? or is it not? that is the basic question. host: here's christie in wichita, kansas. go ahead. kristi, make sure you knew your volume. caller: ok. i think that roe needs to be -- well, just updated. and i know you can't update without overturning it, but at the time that it was passed, we did not know that genetically, at conception, the new organism, tissue, whatever you want to call it no longer has the mother's dna, no longer has the father's dna, it has its own dna.

it's not viable at that point, obviously, it will be viable for quite a long time. it won't be viable for even longer affordably, but if you want to know when it becomes its own person and should have a right to life, it at conception. i wish there was better knowledge and -- i know i'm stumbling over my words. host: that's all right. caller: but, you know, watching the hearing, the pro-choice side or the proroguing wayside, very

articulate, very knowledgeable. they could come back in better argument, in my opinion. whereas mississippi was stumbling, stammering like i am but there's so much more we know now. so much more that everyone should have knowledge of going into procedures and to truly give a woman the information to make a very, very, very difficult choice. host: thanks for your opinion. a tweet from derek says over 70% of americans believe in a woman's right to choose. this will be a gross overreach by federalist society judges in stolen seats.

republicans want big government and a woman's womb but are dead silent when 15-year-old murder americans. let's hear from lloyd in brooklyn. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. i think we should leave roe right where it is. this is something because we have, the so-called rights people, they claim that this is a new person. but the bible clearly says that life begins at birth. earth is the beginning of life. and this is something that religious people get into. they are trying to pretend that they are so righteous. they are looking out for the unborn. the bible clearly says if you kill a woman who is pregnant, it

is considered as two murders. and the bible clearly says if you kill a woman who has been pregnant, it is one murder. so this claim that a fetus is a person is wrong. the bible clearly says life begins at birth. and when god put the breath of life into the person, then he became a human being. so for them to claim it begins at conception is wrong, and this is the big problem with roe v. wade. life begins at birth. that's why we have a birth certificate. we said life begins at birth and life finishes when the person takes their last breath. when god gave adam the breath of life, he became a human being.

host: let's hear from missy in arkansas. caller: thank you, c-span, i've been watching you since 1993. i do not believe a woman should be forced to carry a baby if it is going to kill her. any other reason for scraping that baby out of your womb as far as i believe is for in being ins. 2% were 3% are because they callrape and incest, but the rest of it is for convenience. they don't want the burden of a child but they want to get out there and have unprotected sex. it is your choice to spread your legs or not. all these people saying that life begins at birth. well, god also says i knew you before you were in your womb. so life begins before birth as far as what the word says.

why would he say i knew you before you were in the womb if it is not a living person? host: this is the reporting of the new york times on the arguments yesterday, the headlines. supreme court seems poised to uphold mississippi's abortion law. and they look at reporting and writing on the case, the supreme court seemed poised on wednesday to uphold a mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy and what would be a momentous and polarizing decision to rollback the abortion rights the court has defined over the last half-century. during sometimes tense and heated questioning, the six conservative justices signaled they are comfortable with the mississippi law even though upholding it would be flatly at odds with roe v. wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion a privilege -- and prohibited states from banning the

procedure before fetal viability. he adds that moving that line would discard decades of precedent. several conservative justices appear ready to go further and overrule roe v. wade entirely, letting states decide whether and when to ban abortions, an outcome that would transform regulation of abortion in 20 or more states that have been seeking to impose more restrictions, and that would further inflame the long-running political and cultural divisions over the issue. we want to remind you that of course, we covered the oral arguments on that case yesterday. you can listen to it, you can follow it, listen and watch on our mobile app, and you can also catch that online in the video library. the chief justice john roberts questioned julie rifleman, a lawyer for the abortion clinic in mississippi on the question of viability. >> if you think that the issue is one of choice, that women should have a choice to

terminate the pregnancy, that supposes that there is a point at which they've had the third choice, opportunity of a choice. and why would 15 weeks be inappropriate line? viability seems it doesn't have to do anything to do with choice but if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time? >> for a few reasons. first, the state has conceded that some women will not be able to obtain an abortion before 15 weeks and this law will are them from doing so and a reasonable possibility standard would be completely unworkable for the courts. it would be both less principled and less workable and some of the reasons for that are without viability, they will be no stopping point. states will rush to ban abortion. mississippi itself has a six-week band that is defending

with very similar arguments and there are states that have -- >> i know, but i would like to focus on the 15 week ban. that is not a dramatic departure from viability. it is the standard that the vast majority of other countries have . when you get to the viability standard, we share that standard with the people's republic of china and north korea. and i don't think you have to be in favor of looking to international law to set our constitutional standards to be conservative. >> i think there's two questions there, if i may. first, that is not correct about international law. in fact, the majority of countries that permit legal access to abortion allow access right up until viability, even if they have nominal lines earlier. for example, canada, great britain, and most of europe allow access to abortion right up until viability and it also

doesn't have the same barriers in place. >> what does that mean even if they have nominal lines earlier. >> some countries have a nominal line of 12 weeks or 18 weeks but they permit legal access after that for broad social reasons, health reasons, socioeconomic and they also don't have the same types of barriers that we have here. if the court were to move the line substantially backwards, and 15 weeks is nine weeks before viability, and may need to reconsider the rules around regulation because if it is cutting the time to obtain an abortion roughly in half, those barriers are going to be much more important. host: reflecting some of that argument, the headline this morning, viability and question puts abortion influx. this is from the washington times. conservative justices consider ending the standards held under roe.

if you are in favor of keeping -- of overturning, i should say, the roe v. wade decision, that line is (202) 748-8000. if you are in favor of keeping the decision, (202) 748-8001. here is kathy in frostburg, maryland. good morning. caller: morning. i just think it should be upheld. i respect the gentleman from indiana that talked earlier, that we are going backwards and not forward. it's just sad. i mean, i think a woman should have the right to decide to carry a child term. i mean, if you can't afford it for whatever reason. it is just sad that we are not going to have the liberty to be equal like everyone else. and if those don't remember the past, we are going to be condemned to repeat it. that's all i've got to say. host: keith in fargo, north

dakota. caller: yeah, i don't know why we keep going over and over this. i've seen abortion, i've seen it on tv. they go after an actual baby, that little head, little crippled fingers. two cap b, black eyes. soul -- two beady, black eyes. host: more reaction from members of congress, steve scalise the minority whip saying this is our moment. a pro-life ruling with they've

millions of unborn children remember the first of our three inalienable rights listed is life. val demings, congressman from florida. if the court overturns roe v. wade, it opens up attacked not only on the right to choose, but also in contraception, on marriages, children and families. our right to privacy and personal autonomy is fundamental to our freedom as americans. today, the supreme court is hearing arguments for the late-term abortion case, which limits abortion after 15 weeks when science shows an unborn child can feel pain. it is time to update the law based on that knowledge. and ann mclane kuster, today i joined great state reproductive rights, advocates in the sea. if the supreme court is poised to make one of the most controversial rulings in its history, we must codify the constitutional right to abortion and stop government interference in our personal lives. here in washington, d.c., next

up is ralph. caller: good morning. in my opinion, it is so binary. you know, you have unlimited rights or you have no rights at all. just because the politicians don't have the fortitude to go in and put restrictions. my wife used to be an abortion nurse. and they would abort late-term babies. and she basically walked away from the job. she said there was babies crying in the buckets. they were crying in the buckets. and the horror of that is just unimaginable. on the other hand, i know a young lady who was 13 years old and has had three abortions. her parents never knew.

since when does the state have a right to do a procedure on my child and not inform me? my point is you need a compromise. you need something in the middle. you can have undecided on the ninth month but i am going to have an abortion just as the baby's head crowns. i had a discussion with this with my daughter who is very liberal. she said that is extremely rare. i said, so is murder. the one thing i don't see is another six weeks of riots in the streets for the people getting exactly what they want. host: outside the nation's capital in greenbelt, maryland, we hear from mary. caller: yes. abortion is considered liberal -- liberal because of the egregious hypocrites like

madison -- who is running against marcy castor in ohio. madison pulled a very cruel stormy daniels on marcus gilbert right after she gave birth, and now madison and marcus can't be bothered to pay any child support to marcus' abandoned child. moreover, madison had no problem spreading miscarriage-causing covid pregnant women when she came from a super-spreader trump event. she puts her own vanity, not wearing a mask so people can give her compliments about her beauty queen face. she doesn't care if other women suffer injuries from her own behavior. she is really despicable. and i hope marcy kaptur's campaign staff are listening and because there is a treasure

trove they could find out about madison. i hope that madison loses the primary that is coming up in ohio. host: some changes in the administration reported this morning in politico. simone sanders, a senior adviser and chief spokesperson for vice president kamala harris is expected to leave the white house at the end of the year. they reported wednesday night "it was not immediately clear where sanders is heading next or when she will be leaving the vice president's office." sanders is the highest profile and the second hope -- high-profile one from the harris team in the last month. harris''communications director is also set it apart in the coming weeks. sanders, a 31-year-old african-american strategist and one of the administration's most recognizable advisors leaves amid a flurry of stories about internal actions and disorders in the vice president's office. and it was often the aide who

pushed back on those storylines, defending the vice president and advocating for her but publicly and in one-on-one dealings with reporters. let's hear from anne in fairport, new york. caller: good morning. going back to what a call or a few people back said heather,, -- women spreading their legs, etc, i think a lot of the subtext of this is predominantly males wanting to punish and control women for having sex on the woman's own terms. we have or should have a separation of church and state in this country. you are allowed to be an atheist in this country. you are allowed not to think that birth is god's will. if you have limited resources and do not want to give birth to someone with a severe disability with a low quality of life, that should be your choice. finally, no one is forced to donate a kidney or other organ

or body part to someone to prolong that other person's life. this is the same thing. bodily autonomy and overturning roe v. wade is not going to end abortions, a blend safe abortions. it should be continued. host: next, pedro in virginia. hii there. caller: interesting anecdotal comments from the previous couple of callers. i got lost in them about their stories. hey, so, this isn't really about roe v. wade, this is about a state's ability to truncate their own laws. for example, roe v. wade does not make any laws. what it does is prohibit --how do i put it --it prohibits you from -- no, it allows for states

to pass laws that would allow abortion. it doesn't require that they pass laws to allow abortion. now, i know you don't comment and you're going to push the button on me, i can see your hand down there. host: i'm not doing that. i have to eventually. caller: i'm going to the video, there is a time delay, sorry. one more point and i will get off. why can't mississippi make its own laws? i will tell you why. because we fought a civil war. in the federal government in the north won. and the south is under that defeat and it hasn't changed. i believe mississippi should be able to make its own laws, i mean, i'm not pro-abortion, either, but we need to kind of keep within the boundaries of law, you should maybe recharacterize the argument as not being pro-or

roe v. wade should be overturned, because that is not what they're saying. host: midland, texas. good morning. caller: i just wanted to say, so, my daughter's birthday is today and i didn't find out she was inside of me until she was four month growing. she is my youngest, and i feel like she wouldn't even be here today if it wasn't for the fact that i don't believe in abortion, but i feel like our federal government should be allowed to uphold the law so that we have somewhere to take things when we need to talk to higher-ups. that is part of the hierarchy. i live in texas where they have put a ban -- and i appreciate

the bans on abortion that they have put. she is the youngest of a few children and i can honestly say there are so many people i do know. my dad was born in 1937 and they didn't even have roe v. wade back then. his mom tried to kill him seven times before he was born. by many disgusting stories -- host: did you say seven or several -- not that it matters. caller: seven. one of them was jumping off of a barn. this was during the depression, right before the depression. he was the youngest of five kids. one involved a coat hanger that she tried to take. i mean, he still survived, so i'm here. host: and obviously your grandmother told your dad these stories about all this. caller: yes, it was only because

of him they could keep a cow. so she was actually grateful because -- i mean, i just believe that we are a nation that was formed under god. it says in on our money, it says it on our bills. i feel like -- my father was also a preacher, so i know isaiah very well and i know that we were formed. host: bringing it to current day, we are talking about the mississippi case and the overturning of roe v. wade. the texas case went before the supreme court, a restrictive law in texas. do you support that law? caller: i do support it, and i have four girls and i supported. my youngest just turned 11 today and i am a good parent, so i know what each one of my kids are doing. i'm very in touch with them and i feel like, you know, we should have restrictions on abortion. host: so what happens in the

worst case scenario, what happens if one of your girls gets pregnant at a young age and isn't ready to take on motherhood? what do you think you would do, have you considered that? caller: i was actually raped when i was 13 but i didn't do anything about it. i prayed and i had a miscarriage. i feel like we should provide good parenting for our children and if we have good parenting for our children, we won't need to worry about where were they and what happened to them? i mean, i've been a homeschooling mom for years and i've felt like knowing where your kids are and having that interpersonal relationship, it leads them to not have that moment and go behind your back and has abortion. appreciate host: you getting through this morning. they write that the other shift

has been the makeup of the supreme court reshaped after the addition of several conservative justices due to a mixture of underhanded politics and pure happenstance. the courts authority derives not from its ability to enforce its declarations but that americans respect its decisions. those decisions must reflect something greater than women or political -- whim or political power in the senate. the porch and overturn precedent only in exceptional circumstances. the justices must exercise particular care because the court previously reviewed and reaffirmed it in casey, reinforcing its status as the law of the land. in such circumstance, the court should reverse only decisions that have proved with the wisdom of hindsight to be wildly bad. that is not the case with roe or casey. greg in mechanicsburg, pennsylvania. go ahead.

caller: good morning. stop citing the washington post on anything. we know exactly what their position is. go to other media sources. it seems to me -- i'm a lawyer, i've been a lawyer for 42 years. i'm the oldest of seven kids. my ex-wife would have aborted my third if -- i don't know why she didn't. during the divorce i found out that she was contemplating that. i wonder what he thinks about this. this whole issue of abortion is -- it is not all black or all white. there are good arguments on both sides. the question is and should be "is this in the constitution?"

that is what the supreme court is all about. they are not another house of representatives or senate. their job, their only job, just like an umpire in baseball or a refereeing football, is it a strike or not? is it holding or not? is it a catch or not? that is their job. if 70%, according to the washington post and all the liberal sites that you quote all the time support roe v. wade, then what is the problem? when it goes back to the states -- by the way, there is a ninth and 10th amendment. please put those up, mr. scanlon, so that people understand that the ninth and 10th amendments are relevant to this question. and if 70% support it, knows?

they may be able to abort kids after birth in some states. with baby really happy about that? this is not a question covered by the constitution. did host: you get a chance to hear the oral arguments today, greg? caller: not all of it, no. host: what is your sense with what they might do with all of this? caller: my sense is it is too early to say. i've been a lawyer for 42 years. i went to vietnam. host: glad you got through this morning. couple of comments on twitter from members of congress. congress and kasten says nearly one in four women get an abortion before the age of 45. someone you know or love has had an abortion or will need one in the future. the supreme court must strike

down mississippi's radical attempt to end women's constantly -- because mandated right to choose. senator thom tillis says each of us has a duty to protect the most vulnerable among us, even those who are not yet born. i couldn't be more proud of my work to stop the ending of innocent, unborn lives. and bill of new jersey, the congressman with their plan, republicans on the supreme court want to destroy roe v. wade and hope you won't notice. and from congressman lloyd smucker, i will always be a voice for the unborn in congress. it was great to meet pro-life constituents who traveled to washington today. carol is in chicago. , good morning. caller: mi on? -- am i on? host: you are. caller: it's not but i don't want overturn roe v. wade, but i want to make a different approach on the whole subject.

when roe v. wade was first founded and supreme court made the decision, it was whether or not something they did was based on the surgical procedure which is in the hands of a medical professional or the hands of your girlfriend. basically, roe v. wade, taking all the other issues out of it, they took the criminality out of it. they would lose their medical license, be convicted of malpractice. they would be removed from the ama, and they would go to prison for the minimum of 2-5 years. by doing what they did, it took the criminality out of it. but only to the clinical level where you'd have to go to a hospital.

so the question is that for all this time, the supreme court has founded a very difficult thing if they can overturn it or they can't because it has been on the books for so long. and my question would be even if the supreme court overturns roe v. wade, do we give all this up? host: to john in mclean, virginia, good morning. caller: i agree with the lawyer who called in. this was a constitutional issue that basically questions whether or not the federal government should be making these decisions , these political decisions, and legal decisions, or whether or

not the people of various states or republics should be making this decision. i would hope that the u.s. supreme court would decide that this belongs back in the states. secondly, i think what we are dealing with here broadly speaking is a legal and political issue with regards to men and women taking responsibility for the liberty that they have. in other words, the basic law is if you commit an act that creates a life, you are responsible for that life. male and female. if a man gets a woman pregnant, often times he is held responsible for the next 18 years of the man's life, the father's life, to take responsibility for that child. so i don't really have a problem

with the basic idea that women should be held responsible for their acts. and i'll finally say that i think abortion should be made available, but it should be restricted because we should be held responsible for the acts and the liberty that we also want. host: thanks, john. this is the opinion of carol thomas in the opinion pages of the washington times. supreme court can correct a great legal and great moral wrong in regards to the unborn. the supreme court on wednesday heard oral arguments for and against a mississippi law that would and abortions after 15 weeks. the arguments are familiar but there is a greater argument to be made for upholding the law and should a majority of justices decide to do so, overturn roe v. wade. he writes the greater argument begins with several questions that may be connected to

abortion. they include why is this a much looting? white about the indiscriminate destruction of property? why are there so many shootings in our major cities? disrespect for and devaluing babies yet to be born has led the disrespecting of lives of those already born along with property that belongs to others. how else could describe what looks like anarchy in our streets? bob is in baltimore. go ahead. caller: the first point is to make sure our viewers know that this is not overturning roe v. wade. they are trying to reduce the number of weeks before a woman can have an abortion. i think the previous caller made a good point. many men are held accountable for taking care of that baby. just make sure, i'm against abortion. i don't like it. but you've got to have

revisions. if something happens, if a child will end up in a life that they are not going to live a quality life. that's my first point. this isn't overturning roe v. wade. everybody is calling and saying god this and god that. i am a christian, i love god, i love jesus. this has nothing to do with it. the second point is that you have so many people out here saying that the government shouldn't make me get a vaccine, and then they are saying i should be in control of my body. you can't have it both ways. if you are going to follow a maniacal maniac and follow this doctrine, you can't have it both ways. you can call here saying i'm supporting this satanic verse but i don't want people to be able to control their bodies, but i want to control my body. you are impacting lives because you don't get the vaccine. you can't have it both ways.

host: five more minutes of calls now. we go to jamaica and hear from rory. caller: good morning. i'm calling because i've been listening to the callers and i'm hearing the mention of viability and this question comes to me. when does life begin? some people say it is at conception. my question is to babies born in nine months after conception, does life really begin at conception, why at nine months when the baby comes, nine months and one day? i would like them to respond to this one because i'm kind of puzzled with it.

but like the person said before, there should be ruling and everything. we can go one way and the other way. we should stay balanced. i'm not against ruling it, but overreaches a problem for me. and i don't know whether or not these people are going too far because i'm not an expert. i'm not a doctor or a scientist. but my question, again, why, after nine months, is not nine months in one day? host: the next call is from roseville, michigan. welcome. caller: i have been a proponent of a woman's right to choose. i'm always part of the group that has private decisions,

whether it is abortion or assisted suicide or getting a vaccination or whatever. if you are expecting a child and you find out that that child is going to be defective in some way, you should have the right to say i want a perfect child. i don't want to have to have that child being ridiculed or bullied or anything. the child should be the way you want it. and when somebody comes along and says you can't have an abortion, who died and left you the boss? this is a private decision, a decision between a woman and god, and they have to say lord, forgive me for ending this pregnancy because my child will not be perfect. and i have been a proponent of a woman's right to choose ever since they had roe v. wade past, and i don't want that law taken away. a women should have the right to

make up her own mind should she should without have anybody butting in. host: sean, the house is coming in. caller: the supreme court is returning to the dark ages of abortion horrors, mutilations and death. i want to see them recognize the pain of children having children through rape and incest. they give little thought to the survival about life. medical, housing, education for both mother and child. the job is done when their little conscience is a pledge. they ignore the reality is that there are two people involved including a life. no one mentions responsibility for the other person. well, we do now. we want to see action. any unwanted pregnancies will result in immediate castration of the perpetrator. host: we will let you go there and wrap up the program. it is a short one this morning

because the house is coming in. of course, that is our main responsibility here on c-span is live coverage of the u.s. house. going to be a long day, we expect fewer. we are back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we hope you are, too. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the