>> the house is back at 10:00 a.m. eastern. members will work on extending government funding, which will expire friday night at midnight. members can hold a number of votes on bills involving the opioid epidemic and native american issues. you can find house coverage here on c-span. this morning, biden administration officials testified on a proposal to combat fentanyl related substances and reduce the number of drug overdoses in the u.s.. you can watch the hearing live at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3, online at c-span.org, or watch full coverage on c-span now, our new video app. host: opening the phones here this morning of the supreme court case heard by the justices yesterday. for those of you who would like to see roe v. wade overturned, (202) 748-8000.

to keep roe v. wade, that line (202) 748-8001. , scotus blog covers the daily goings-on of the u.s. supreme court. amy howe 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 dissent in casey, 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 "haunt our country and poisoned the law. abortion is a hard 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 calls momentarily, but justice kennedy -- justice kavanaugh, rather, was asking about the view that the court should get out of the contentious issue of abortion. here is part of his questioning. [video clip] >> 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 in a 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. at 15 weeks, babies have developed hearts that 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. not since 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, the line 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, at 18 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 weaken it to the point where it may not overrule it, to the point where a woman ain't 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 for life, then be for 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 woman you had on yesterday, do you support any exceptions for rape or incest? they never answer that question. they always manage 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: next up is jerry. 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 some of the 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 start sizes -- stare decisis 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. caller: 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 our birth control pills paid 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. [video clip] >> 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 are just political acts? host: more of your calls in just a moment. a 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. there is still no -- 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 -- a modern country is still obsessing over this basic issue. trying to stop abortion is a cruel act. a woman has a right over bodily autonomy. it is her body. to argue about it once a woman is pregnant is just cruel and crazy. we are modern people. we are homo sapiens. we should be a thinking people. thinking people should realize

making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion, it just makes it very difficult for a woman to -- who are poor 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 modern, free nation that has the personal liberties 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 and 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 mute your volume. go ahead with your comment or question. 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 won't 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 pro roe v. wade side, 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.

birth 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 breathed into adam's nostrils 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 convenience. 2% or 3% are because they call rape 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 the bible says 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. 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 roll back the abortion rights the court has defined over the last half-century. during sometimes tense and heated questioning in almost two

hours of oral arguments, 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 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 bar 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 ban that it 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, it 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 in question puts abortion in flux. this is from the washington times. conservative justices consider ending the standards held under roe. our opening question is about the future of the roe v. wade decision. 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: 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's got a little head, little crippled fingers. two beady, black eyes.

they go after it with forceps and it tries to get away from the forceps. host: more reaction from members of congress to the oral arguments yesterday. steve scalise the minority whip saying this is our moment. a pro-life ruling would save 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 attacks 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 granite state reproductive rights advocates. 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. that is 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. she eventually 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 when i was a young man who was 13 years old and had 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 cannot have i decided 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 would be extremely rare. i said, so is murder. the one thing i don't see is another six weeks of riots in the streets because people do

not get exactly what they want. host: outside the nation's capital in greenbelt, maryland, we hear from mary. caller: yes. abortion is considered liberal because of the egregious hypocrites like madison gilbert who is running against marcy kaptur 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 to 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 -- in 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

exit and the second high-profile one from the harris team in the last month. harris' communications director is also set to depart 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 frictions and disorders in the vice president's office. sanders was often the aide who pushed back on those storylines, defending the vice president and advocating for her both publicly and in one-on-one dealings with reporters. let's hear from anne in fairport, new york. welcome. caller: good morning. going back to what a caller a few people back said about 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. body autonomy and overturning roe v. wade is not going to end abortions. it will end safe abortions. it should be continued. host: next, pedro in virginia. hi there. caller: thanks for taking my call. 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 was looking at the video and 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. and the federal government and 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 and you should maybe recharacterize the argument as not being pro-or roe v. wade should be overturned, because that is not what they are deciding. host: midland, texas. caitlin is on the line. 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 months growing. i feel like -- 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 our 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 that -- 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. she tried to take a plow tool. 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 support it. 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 feel like knowing where your

kids are and having that interpersonal relationship, it leads them to not have that what if moment and go behind your back and have an abortion. host: appreciate 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 court's authority derives not from its ability to enforce its declarations but that americans respect its decisions. those decisions must reflect something greater than whim or political power in the senate. the court should 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. back to calls. we hear from greg in mechanicsburg, pennsylvania. go ahead, greg. 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. it is not. 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 referee in 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. wouldn't they be really happy about that? this is not a question covered by the constitution. host: did you get a chance to hear the oral arguments today, greg? caller: not all of it, no. host: what is your sense of 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 west point. i went to vietnam. i was an airborne ranger. host: glad you got through this morning. couple of comments on twitter

from members of congress. congressman 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 constitutionally 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. >> you can watch washington journal any at c-span.org or on c-span now. the u.s. house is about to gavel back in, working today on extending government funding, which will run out friday night at midnight. members could hold a number of postponed votes on bills involving the opioid image of mike -- epidemic.

live coverage here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by chaplain kibben. chaplain kibben: would you pray with me? just and merciful god, you have promised to open your gates, that the righteous nation that keeps the faith may enter in. lord, we confess our unrighteousness and our faithlessness, both as a country and as individuals. show us the paths of right behavior and restore our faith in you. gracious god, you give peace to those whose minds remain fixed on you, whose trust in you