voters matter discusses his group's priorities heading into the midterm elections. later, eleanor bartow from the federalist talks about federal oversight of gain-of-function research. ♪ host: this is the washington journal for may 3. we will get your reaction to a story released on politico that suggests the majority of members of the supreme court are ready to overturn the 1973 roe v. wade decision as part of a case involving mississippi's attempt to ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. here is how you can reach out to us about the story and larger implications of the decision if it is true. (202) 748-8000 for democrats.

(202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you wish to text us this morning, you can do so at (202) 748-8003. you can follow the show on facebook and twitter and follow the show on instagram. the story was released on the politico website in the evening hours. josh gerstein and alexander ward both writing it this morning. this is from the website, saying the supreme court has voted to strike down the landmark roe v. wade decision according to an initial draft majority opinion written by justice samuel alito circulated inside the court and obtained by politico. the story goes on to say the draft opinion is a repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed constitutional protection of abortion rights and a 1992 decision that largely maintained the right.

"roe was egregiously wrong from the start," according to justice alito. a link to the supposed draft written by samuel alito, part of it reads as such, part of this draft, saying, the state of mississippi asked us to uphold because additionality of a law that generally prohibits abortion -- the constitutionality of a law that generally prohibits abortion after the fee suit -- fetus is viable outside the womb. the primary argument is we should reconsider and overturn roe and casey. the draft says they must be overruled. the constitution makes no reference to abortion. the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

that was from the draft decision supposedly written by samuel alito attached to the story. we will read more of that as we go on throughout the morning. you will get your reaction to the story. call us this morning at (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you want to text us your thoughts, you can do so at (202) 748-8003, plus post on facebook and twitter as well. the story from politico says a person familiar with the court deliberations said four of the other republican appointed justices had voted with alito in the conference held among the justices after hearing the oral arguments in september and that line-up remains unchanged as of this week. the three democratic appointed justices are working -- and how

chief justice john roberts will vote and whether he will join the already written opinion and draft of his own is unclear, the story adding the document includes a notation circulated among the justices february 10. if the draft is adopted, it would rule in favor of mississippi in the case over the state attempt to ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. the website itself is politico.com. you can see the story itself including the draft by samuel alito. give us a call if you want to get your thoughts out there as far as your reaction to the story. again, politico making the claim the document is true and that the reporting is true. first, josh gerstein appeared on msnbc last night to talk about the story and how they came about getting it. here's part of the exchange.

>> this is an unusual if not unprecedented leak, a document that purports to be the draft majority opinion of the supreme court before they have issued any such ruling. can you tell us about your confidence in the authenticity of the document? >> we are very confident in the authenticity of this draft majority opinion, in the way that we obtained it and other information that we got that supports its authenticity and makes us believe it is genuine. it is not a final opinion. it is a draft opinion, circulated in the court as a first draft by justice alito in february, so it is possible there have been changes since then, but it is our best understanding of at least where the court stood at that time, about 2.5 months after arguments in this case.

host: to the phones, john in brooklyn, new york starts us off, line for democrats. go ahead. caller: i want to set the tone this morning. i am clergy and i want everybody to know -- i want those preachers, those saints and all those christians, i am blaming you because you do not call in and let people know abortion, homosexuals is no more sin to god than a lie, lusting after a woman, pride in your heart, not helping the least of us. i noticed that this abortion thing and homosexuality, -- it is just as much sin in god's eye to tell a lie. host: as far as this reversal, what you think of this? caller: i preach against

abortion. host: as far as the potential to overturn, what you think of that? caller: god gives a woman a right to make her decision. he will judge you for that. he said love everybody. treat everybody right. when i come, i will divide the week. host: we will hear from carrie in wisconsin, republican line. caller: first comment to the preacher from brooklyn who just spoke, i am a republican and also a christian and you are right. i think most christians would agree that if it is a sin to have an abortion and if it would be a sin to be homosexual those sins are no worse than lying in god's eyes. the premise of christianity is

that we are all sinful. host: to the politico story, what is your reaction to that? caller: i was shocked. i am glad i got on early because before a lot of democrats start saying that republicans -- i have heard this overnight -- are trying to make women second-class citizens and not having as many rights as men and what is next, could they ban birth control, from a christian, republican, conservative viewpoints i think everybody knows we are all agreed that we do not want unwanted children born into this world. of course that is no good, but i am not sure -- i have known a few women through my life who have had abortions, one who had two. the ideas that it really should not be used as a form of birth control. we would prefer it as ending a

human life just started to grow in someone -- is that the best way of birth control? host: let's hear from stephanie in brooklyn, new york, independent line. caller: i always thought it is supposed to be state separation against state and religion. i thing a woman has a right to their body -- i think a woman has a right to their body. most of the men doing this are old men. most young men agree with abortion and most of them have allowed their girlfriends and wives to get abortions. believe it or not, the majority of them are republican. host: what do you think about the potential of the supreme court overturning roe v. wade? caller: we are going to have an uproar and it is going to be

mostly the young ladies. i'm going to tell them, young ladies, young and old, do not start giving her body up to these guys. if they do not have respect for your body, you should not give up your body to a man. host: that is stephanie in new york. more from the draft decision post on politico. justice alito writing the decision and it goes on to say morel was wrong from the start. the reasoning was weak and the decision has had damaging consequences. as far as bringing about a national settlement on the abortion issue, roe and casey have inflamed debate and deepened division. it is time to return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives. you can find the story online at politico.com. mary in greenbelt, maryland, you

are next. caller: clarence thomas denied me equal pay because he was revolted by my catholic church. my mother was ordered by a priest -- since contraception is also banned by the catholic church. people should keep in mind that many republicans have talked about banning birth control as well, so i'm already living the dystopian tail, being disfigured by the catholic church. host: how does that relate to this story from yesterday regarding roe v. wade? caller: i have seen articles -- i think there was one regarding jamie raskin, who believes the supreme court will also go after birth control. apparently justice alito does not think that decision is valid

either. if they can claim that abortion is not in the constitution, they can also say that contraception is not. that includes all of modern medicine. it is a ridiculous argument, just because something is not specifically mentioned, to say it is not constitutional. it will set a bad precedent for health. host: from jonesville, virginia, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am rejoicing over this because i think it needs to be stopped, should have been stopped a long time ago. before over 60 million babies had been killed by abortion. it is the right thing to do. the first two people who called in, those fake christians, i cannot believe they would say something like that. the lady who was even raped -- that is the wrong thing to do,

but -- host: why do you think it is up to the supreme court to decide this? caller: because they are the legal judges for deciding what goes on in this country. and even i think they should stop the invasion we are having at the border now. we are being took over. all those babies, if we had them here now, they would be workers for america and they killed them and this is wrong. there was a woman on here a while back who was even raped and she was tickled to death. she said, my mother let me leave. host: we will carry on with your calls during this hour. for democrats, (202) 748-8000. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. joining us to give legal context

, mr. hurley. thanks for joining us. as far as the story itself, what do you think? but the draft decision was also attached. does it look legitimate to you? >> there are reasons to think it is not. it is unusual for this type of thing to happen, so it caught everyone by surprise because the court is good at keeping things under wraps until the ruling comes out and is published on the court website and so on, but the court had no comment on it last night. they did not push back on it, so as far as we are aware it could be a legitimate draft of an opinion. i do not mean a final opinion, because the story and politico made clear it was just a draft by justice alito that it seemed like he had a majority, but a lot of things can change between a draft being written and

circulated and the back-and-forth between the justices behind the scenes before it gets published. host: could you walk us through the draft process and what happens after it is released to justices? guest: usually when the court hears oral arguments, the court has a provisional meeting where they have their initial vote. the justice who is the senior one and the majority will assign the majority opinion to one of the justices or right at themselves. then that justice will write the draft and possibly there will be a dissenting opinion being drafted as well. then there will be back-and-forth behind the scenes where the justice who wrote the majority opinion might need to make changes to address questions or concerns that other justices in the majority might

have or another justice might try to come up with a new majority that would mean that majority opinion would not be the majority anymore, which has happened a few times. usually we do not hear about this until after the fact, not while the sausages being made. when they are done, the opinion gets published. that is the final ruling. as far as we are aware, this is a draft and possibly an early draft as it was written a couple months ago. we do not know if this is the final rule. host: is there any significance that justice alito wrote this versus the other justices? guest: justice alito is one of the most conservative justices on the court and based on his questions at oral arguments it is clear he would be interested in overturning roe v. wade.

if, as politico reported, there are five justices in the majority and the chief justice is not one of them, then it might make sense for him to be one of the authors, although clarence thomas would be the senior justice. he would have potentially assigned it to him. host: you brought up chief justice john roberts and what role he might play in this process. what is the supreme court usually do in these cases as far as reaction to this? guest: it is unprecedented for it to be leaked, about which way the court might be headed in a particular case. what is unusual is for the entire draft of the opinion to be posted for everyone to read. i do not remember that ever happening, so it is a breach of the court's internal procedures.

the court prides itself as being the most leakproof institution in washington, so i think there will be questions inside the court and in terms of the chief justice, there's an argument that he thinks they could uphold the 15 week ban in mississippi but he was not keen on overturning roe v. wade entirely, so he was more interested in a ruling that did not go as far. it would still be a huge blow to abortion rights even if he did that. host: is it required of the court to make a decision on the larger implications of roe v. wade or could they keep it to mississippi? guest: as expert have said, it is difficult to uphold the mississippi 15 week abortion ban without either overturning roe and casey were at least getting them.

the conservative argument has been the court will be intellectually consistent and want to uphold this mississippi band and strike down roe as well. the alito opinion reflects the arguments made by the mississippi attorney general in the case. host: as far as the document itself, is it transmitted via email? is it a print copy only? how does that work and how does that make it easy to make it available to the press or other sources? guest: it used to be they would hand out paper copies in the press room but they have not been doing that because the court is closed to the public. at the moment, they happen posting it online on the court website. this draft looks like maybe it was xerox or something, so it is not clear where it came from.

host: what are you looking for in the days ahead regarding not only the story itself but the larger issues at play? >> for those of us who cover the court, it seems clear the court is moving toward overturning or gutting roe v. wade so the content of the decision are not surprising and the reaction you're seeing varies as same as if the court ruled normally in june or whatever. there is huge reaction to it from both sides and i think what is one to be interesting is how the court handles any review or investigation into how the leak happened because this is something that is unusual and comes at a time when the court is -- there has been a lot of internal issues on the court where -- justice breyer's

retirement got leaked before he announced it and there was the whole justice gorsuch being the only justice who did not wear a mask during oral arguments in january and various leaks about that, so it seems the court has become a bit more civil -- sieve-like recently. host: mr. hurley, thanks for your time today. host: bill in maryland on our line for independents. caller: thanks for the opportunity. >> as someone -- as someone who supports life, i hope this leak is true, but what caught my attention when i saw it is why now? first of all, it is alarming that the court is getting politicized to the point where these leaks are coming out, but the second thing is are the

democrats trying to change the narrative? the political narrative, the headlines right now with the attack on free speech and this new office of home and security to attack free speech, this is not good for the dems and i see them potentially bringing this story up now. they had it in their back pocket. it was part of their political theater. they said now they are going to roll it out. the other thought is maybe it is the court itself and the government in general. they know this thing could blow up on the streets if it is true and they want to let off steam and gradually let the public be aware of what is and evidently going to happen in the future -- inevitably going to happen in the future so we do not have cities burned down by radical leftists. host: we will hear from of on --

ivonne. caller: when a man has a baby, then we will hear what he has to say. if the decision is between a woman and her god, she decides what is best for her. if she decides to keep a child that she has had from rape or insets or must to give her life, that is her choice. on the other hand, she decides she does not want to do that, it is between her and her god. when a man has a baby, then we will hear what you have to say. host: what do you think about the story and the potential of the court making these decisions? caller: the courts to have no say as to what a woman does with her body. the court has a say about that, the next thing they will be telling you what kind of birth control to take and who to

marry, who not to marry, then what kind of occupation you want to work -- ought to work. it comes down a slippery slope until you're living the life of a communist. the government should have no say as to how a woman regulate her body. it is between her and her god. host: we will go to lisa in kentucky. caller: i am so glad i followed him because as a woman a woman has the right to say no before she gets pregnant, so this court should have never had roe v. wade. as an ultrasound technologist of 15 years, a fetal heartbeat is seen in the first six weeks of pregnancy and science says when there is a heartbeat the brain controls it, which cannot be seen, so the court should have followed the science a long time ago and dispensed with roe v. wade. it is no longer a woman's right.

it is her right to say no to begin with. host: this says the white house put out a statement. there was reaction from house speaker nancy pelosi and chuck schumer yesterday. they wrote the republican appointed justices votes would go down as an abomination, one of the most damaging decisions in modern history. several of these conservative justices, who are in no way accountable to the american people, have ripped of the constitution at the expense of tens of millions of women who could be stripped of bodily autonomy and the constitutional rights they have relied on for a half-century. the party of lincoln has devolved into the party of trump. every senator who voted for trump justices pretending this day and never come will have to explain themselves to the american people. that is from nancy pelosi 20

house speaker, and senate majority leader chuck schumer. madeline is next. caller: i called before mr. hurley came on, but i thought the most important part of this story is the leak. i think this should be looked into and charges should be brought. they should find out where it came from. too many of these leaks are happening, and i think it is important. host: that is madeline in pennsylvania. you can call in on one of the lines best represented by you. call in at (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003 if you wish. we will be doing this until 8:00 and you can text us as well.

some members of congress putting statement and reaction off their twitter feeds. this is senator tom cotton, saying the supreme court must get to the bottom of this leak using every investigative tool necessary. in the meantime, roe was wrong from the beginning and i pray that the court allows states to once again protect unborn life. this says the unconfirmed scotus opinion would be devastating for a woman's freedom. congress needs to codify roe v. wade now more than ever. james lankford says i saw the supposed leak from the supreme court. no way to verify if it is accurate and if it is who leaked it and why. i reserving judgment until the real decision is released. bernie sanders also saying congress must pass legislation that codifies roe v. wade as the law of the land in this country. if there are not 60 votes in the senate to do it, and there are not, we must end the filibuster

to pass it with 50 votes. that is reaction from members of congress, again the white house supposedly putting out a statement sometime this morning. george in wisconsin, democrat line, go ahead. caller: thank you. first, to the caller from kentucky, with that apply to someone who is raped in one of the states that makes no exception? that will be my question. as far as my comments go, what concerns me is i have read the decision couple times. it almost seems as if language is there that any law, any right that we as the citizens of this country have can now be challenged and with the correct language could be overturned. to me, that could affect gay

rights, gay marriage, americans with disabilities. the list goes on and on of possible rights that can be taken away. thank you. host: from patty in florida, republican line. go ahead. caller: i am wondering if this is disinformation. we got this the next day or less than 12 hours that it has come out and we have this is what the law is going to be and we have everybody getting riled up. why are they saying this is accurate? have the justices come out and said this is accurate? when we had the washington post do this, it was a lie, so why is this now truth?

where is the white house disinformation bar coming out? host: there has been no confirmation from outside sources. politico is standing by their story as far as the reporting is concerned. caller: so did the washington post. and the question i have is with hunter biden. after that washington post came out, the next day did you talk about the laptop? host: ok. that does not go to what we are talking about this morning. angela and pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: good morning. first time caller. i love your show. thank you so much for bringing it every morning. i have to say this is kind of protectable. there is always something that happens during the primaries. my point is 54 years ago my

mother was faced with a decision on whether to keep the baby. she had had 10 miscarriages. here i am, alive and well. at the age of 16, i was brutally raped and gave birth to a rape baby. it is a hard decision to make. i took several trips back and forth. i want to know during all of this women's rights and abortion and where are the father's rights? should they have a say -- shouldn't they have a say on whether they want their child to live? if so, that woman should carry that child & her rights over to the father. host: what do you think about this potential decision by the supreme court? >> i think it is hogwash. if it is a leak, there is only one common denominator it could

come from. we have a new justice on the staff got new people. there has never been a leak out of the supreme court that i am aware of and i find it fishy. i do not believe it. if it comes to pass that it is true, it is coming most likely from one of the newer staffers. host: that is angela and pennsylvania. the initial draft has been described by politico on their website. part of it reads -- this is the draft of justice alito, that in some states voters may believe abortion rights should be more even, more extensive than the right that roe and casey recognized. the draft goes on to say our nation's historical understanding of liberty does not prevent the people's representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated.

this is from the draft that politico says is from justice alito. you heard our guest talk about the basis of a store you can find about the potential of the language of the draft, if it stays true to the final decision to overturn roe v. wade and the implications there. we have spent about a half hour doing this. we will do this for another half hour. (202) 748-8000 free democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. this is a representative from texas saying, i agree with abortion -- that roe was derived from the court and not the constitution. senator jacky rosen saying if reports of the supreme court moving to overturn roe v. wade are true, it will be devastating for women across the country. dangerous attacks on reproduction rights cannot go unanswered.

marjorie taylor greene on her twitter feed with a video comment but also writing the supreme court is repairing to overturn roe v. wade, the most significant and glorious news of our lifetime. join me in praying to god. we are getting a reaction in this hour. in indiana, independent line. caller: thanks for c-span. i enjoy watching it and getting a variety of opinions. as far as this decision or potential decision, i think is an overreach for individual rights. i think sexual desire is a natural, god-given desire to ensure our species. if anybody cannot afford mentally or economically when a pregnancy happens, they should have a right to regulate their

life accordingly. one lady earlier mentioned if one part of a union -- because it takes two people to make a baby, if one part is held responsible to have the baby economically and mentally, they are going to have to support that baby. what about the second partner in the sex act? what happens to him? shouldn't he be held responsible to help care for this child? host: i think you used the word overreach as far as the decision is concerned. what do you mean by that? caller: and that no one should be able to regulate a person's decision about sex because sex is a natural desire. you cannot regulate sex. a person will try to practice control because religion 2000 years ago dictated this and so they try, but the sex desire is a natural desire.

host: let's hear from rich, new jersey, republican line. caller: a couple things here. first, it was not leaked, it was stolen. that is a felony. number two, when the court says -- host: you have to keep going. stop listening to your television. caller: i will turn it down. what is in this draft is they want to give it back to the states, which it always should have been. this draft was stolen just like when john podesta's computer stuff was taking -- taken on a phishing scam. the democrats told the media, don't use this, it is stolen. i do not know why you guys are

all over this because this is stolen. the democrats have corrupted every department in d.c. host: what do you think about the potential changes to roe v. wade given the documents on the politico website? caller: i am 73 and always thought it should go back to the states, just like sanctuary cities and that that goes back to the states. they are not held accountable for that. host: let's hear from sandy, florida, democrats line. hello. caller: good morning. thank you. i want to say that women and men if they support women have to stop voting republican because every republican, especially the men, are anti-women and child care, anti-minimum wage. a woman earlier that said women always have a chance to say no,

that is not true. over the years -- i have learned that more and more rape happens inside marriage. host: as far as the potential of the supreme court overturning roe v. wade, what you think about that potential? caller: i am against it. i would like to say one more thing about the supreme court justices. they should be impeached for lying to the senate during the confirmation hearing when they testified that roe v. wade is settled law and now they are going to overturn it, so they lied to the senate and they should be impeached for that. host: sandy is from florida and mentions the supreme court justices as they were going through the confirmation process were asked about plenty of questions, including the topic of abortion. if you wanted to revisit their statements before their individual hearings, you're

welcome to go to our website at c-span.org. we archive those hearings, the questions, the back-and-forth particularly on this topic. if you want to revisit what each justice has said over the years regarding this, you can see it on our website. there is a follow-up story on politico as far as how the story itself, if it does come out to be true, could play out in the midterm elections, saying hours after the reporting on the opinion democrats predicted the potential decision by the five majority would energize their base and drive up turn out in november. senators and house members took to social media and the airwaves with reactions that ranged from pleas to codify roe v. wade to personal stories.

the republican appointed justices reported votes to overturn roe v. wade would go down as an abomination, according to speaker pelosi. a democrat of new york called it the central choice in the 2022 election. let's hear from calvin in alabama, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. there have been so many opinions and you're talking to an older gentleman. i was for women's rights and the e.r.a. my father passed when i was young. i was raised by a single mother and had very little education, so i knew how hard it was for her going through what she went through and i was always very and still am pro women's rights and equal pay and everything

that goes with the e.r.a. and what that stood for and stands for, but this, because of a daughter, my one and only daughter, going through what she has gone through with not been able to conceive naturally and the amount of money it has cost and what she personally went through with the injections and testing and miscarriages to now have two children and knowing now something i did not know and i do not believe most people knew when roe v. wade was passed , the science was not there, that now we know more than we knew then and babies can live 26 weeks or maybe even less than that and it is just too easy.

women should have the right over their bodies and what is done to them. host: that is calvin in alabama. the release of the story causing several protest to take place as of last night in front of the supreme court. several people posting on their twitter feed about some of the action in the building, which is not far from here, not far from the u.s. capitol. that is some of the video from last night. we continue to show this a little bit and take your calls for the next 18 minutes or so on this story, the potential implications if it is true. the draft decision is between now and the end of june, with the rest of the supreme court decisions are set to be released. the arguments regarding the mississippi case, you can also go to our website. when the supreme court meets,

they release oral versions -- audio of the arguments. we take that and use it to put pictures of who is speaking so you can follow along with the arguments, this case being one of them. if you go to the website, our section devoted to the supreme court, you can hear the arguments for yourself when it comes to the actual case. that is the basis of the draft decision according to politico. the implications will be played out later this year. in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: i want to congratulate the five justices that had the courage to look at this and look at the science. like the lady says the does ultrasounds, that is a human heartbeat at six weeks. that means it is not her body. it is a new human being, like all of us were in our mother's womb and it is time to bring it back to the states and time to

curb as many as possible. one lady who said a person might not be able to afford it, we started a charity, save unborn life. we pay women not to abort. we have saved over 130. pro-life people need to step up. join us. we can help save a lot of these babies, especially in this new climate. i am in agreement with the representatives who said it is a glorious day for people that were waiting for this atrocity to end and all we can do is one at a time step up and be there for women in need. host: let's hear from alexis in north carolina, independent line. caller: thanks for having me on. i woke up to this and i am devastated. i am 73. i had several abortions, legal and illegal. even that word -- i'm a human being.

it started off in the constitution, 3/5 of a person if you are african-american, and i am african-american, but it is my body. if i did not want it, what makes you think when it is born it is going to be loved, cared for, protected? if you did not want it, you should not have to have it. it is were body. -- your body. as far as this supreme court stuff, they are taking over the state legislators -- legislation. so you cannot get a referendum. people cannot get out and vote. get out and vote. thank you. host: alexis in north carolina.

this is robert in florida, democrats line. caller: in 1971, i drove a friend who was pregnant for an abortion. i would do it again. her body, her choice, no more coat hangers. that is all. host: robert in florida, line for democrats. ray is next, republican line. caller: i believe in abortion. host: ok. that israel north carolina. to show you some reaction from governors as they hear this story and react on their twitter feeds, the governor of north dakota saying if this report is true and roe v. wade is overturned i will call for a special session to save lives and guaranty that every unborn child has a right to life.

rick scott from florida, current senator, saying the court's decision process is sacred. the breach shows radical democrats are working to undermine the court. the justices cannot be swayed by this attack. governor roy cooper saying now more than ever governors and state legislatures must stand up for women's health care. we know the stakes and must stand firm to protect a woman's choice and access to medical care. from nevada, saying as governor i will do everything in my power to protect a woman's right to choose. that is some of the reaction from governors across the united states as they are hearing the story, particularly as the state level deals with the issue of abortion. you can follow along on their various twitter feeds. mary in wisconsin, republican line, you are next.

caller: a leak like this should not have happened. that is not right. i think the wisconsin people can make our own decisions. we should be able to vote whether we want to allow abortion in the first place and as far as how many weeks, etc. host: brenda is next in rhode island, independent line. caller: everyone should calm down because it could go back to the states, so it is not like abortion will disappear for those that want it. secondly, anyone who is not a stone who has had an abortion, there is mental health issues that crop up later in a women -- and women's lives in father's lives. if there were a crime scene where it was undetermined the body and they did dna forensics and they determined there were two distinct dnas and it turned

out to be a woman and a pregnant child, people must realize a pregnancy creates a completely unique dna, human. for those that want abortion, it will crop up as a ghost in your life later on, so god bless the united states. host: just some reaction from groups that take a look at this issue in the new york times, this is christen hawkins of the group students for life in america, saying we do not know whether rumors are accurate, but we know that ending and returning the decision to "we the people" from a few judges with an agenda -- until seven men solid to their -- saw it there. ending pre-born human life has always been a judicial error. this is christy roberts from the

democratic senatorial campaign committee, saying if the report is true the republican attack on abortion and women's health care has escalated the stakes of the 2022 election. we must protect and expand democrat senate majority with the power to confirm or reject supreme court justices. two outlooks of how any decision could impact elections later on in november. david in west virginia, democrats line. you are next about this story from politico yesterday. caller: everybody is looking at this wrong. those who are pro-life to -- should be forced to take the babies they are stopping the abortions on. if a woman does not want to the baby, she is not going to treated right. want to want to stop abortions, let them go ahead and adopt the babies.

-- the ones who want to stop abortions, let them go ahead and adopt the babies. host: tracy and texas, independent line. caller: good morning. i think i am piggybacking off the last call. this is an important topic and i feel like what they are saying about roe v. wade -- if you are going to legislate according to the bible there are other things in the bible, such as cheating on your wife -- there are ways we can legislate against that. that impacts society and social norms. homosexuality, we can start to legislate on a slew of things that have to do with the bible. that is why people keep referencing handmade -- "handma id's tale." host: the supreme court making

this decision, what you think about the court doing that? caller: the court is doing this based on the christian right movement. these people are out of control. i do not want to take up too much time, but these people are out of control. this has gotten ridiculous. have a good day. host: ann is from kentucky, republican line. caller: we need to find out who leaked the story. that is a big deal. another thing, if a lady over 21 chooses to have an abortion they should be sterilized at that point in time and also find the man and if he wanted the abortion sterilized him as well and then they would not have to worry about anymore unwanted pregnancies. host: shirley in richmond, virginia. caller: good morning.

my take on this, and i know you're trigger-happy with your finger but i appreciate you letting me say what i have to say about roe v. wade, i am against abortion, but i also think if they -- do you hear me? host: you are on. keep going. caller: if roe v. wade goes into action, are they going to take all contraceptives off the shelf? the man, if he has sex with a female, is that a form of abortion too? host: how does this relate to the story? caller: are we talking about the woman's right? why not the man's right? is and -- is it just as much his response ability for that child? if he wears one and has -- is

that not abortion? caller: my name is richard barber. i feel -- i am rejoicing. i am so happy they are not -- what abortion is in america is an american holocaust. there are millions of babies, you want to call them babies or not, does not matter, they are human beings and they are being murdered like crazy, millions of them. i am rejoicing. i cannot believe that roe v. wade was even allowed to exist. host: there is nothing official yet. caller: i understand that this is looking fantastic, but abortion in america is like a holocaust. it is a holocaust. millions of babies are being

killed, slaughtered, painfully. i am glad to see this. host: in washington, d.c., democrats line. caller: if this is true, we need to do something about media being leaked and not in given actual, factual appearance the point of being able to choose is being able to make the decision or not make the decision. i agree with that, but some of the rhetoric here about what life is -- if you took a six week feet is out of the womb, even though it has a beating heart, it would not survive. not without assistance by medical intervention. we have to begin to start thinking logically on all of this. host: last call that we will take on this topic. thanks to all of you who participated.

you will have another chance to do so later the program today. one other thing, the start of primary season and what that might do as far as november elections are concerned. joining us to talk about ohio's senate primary, seth richardson is a lead political reporter. thanks for giving us your time. a lot of attention is being paid to her stay particularly today. tell our viewers why. -- your state particularly today. tell us why. guest: it has been a knockdown, drag out fight between 500 top-tier candidates and a lot of it could come down to being a referendum on donald trump. donald trump endorsed a venture capitalist who was previously a critic of him, but that has not really clear the field. you still have the former treasurer who is pulling well. you have the state senator who is the only candidate who has said he does not want trump's

endorsement who has surged as of late. you also have a cleveland businessman here as well. there is a good chance that donald trump's endorsed candidates does not win this race. even if he does, it might not be by a landslide like everybody sort of thought it might be a year ago when people thought trump would weigh in in ohio. host: this is the ohio senate primary you are talking about. what does polling suggest? guest: it looks like vance has an edge right now. josh mandel has been near the top of the pack for the entire 18 months he has been in the race but you have state senator matt stolen who is along the more mainstream republicans. he has surged as of late. he is a little more familiar to a lot of republicans in the

state. there is a lot of suspicion in the republican party with vance and his former criticisms. he called trump an idiot in 2016 and said he might vote for hillary, among other things. he said a lot of trump voters were doing so for racist reasons, so there is a lot of bad will there for some voters for vance. host: when it comes to turnout, how much turnout -- how could that change because of the people involved? guest: this is going to be a low turnout election. part of that is because it is a midterm, but part is also because the state has been going through gerrymandering for the past nine months or so. it was not totally certain until a month ago that they may 3 primary was going to go forward. we are going to have a split primary we have the primary day

for congressional and statewide races and whatnot and then you have legislative races in august, so that was built in confusion for everyone. i think a lot of people might not even be aware there is a primary today and i do not expect turnout to exceed -- you're looking at maybe 20% turnout. 25% would be considered a victory. host: because there have been issues with elections goa how is ohio doing it? -- elections, how is ohio doing it? guest: you have to turn in an application and then you get your ballot and have to turn in your ballot as well. it is a relatively robust system. there are people who want it to be expanded via drop boxes and things of that nature, but generally a decent system as far as some voter advocates. host: you talk a lot about republicans who are running. once that is settled, who are

they going to run against? guest: probably tim ryan. he does have a primary today, but he has been the money lead since the beginning. the -- he has been very good fundraising. people are familiar with him. not so much his presidential run, but he has had flirtations with running for higher office. he is a clear-cut favorite. that brings an interesting general election landscape into play. democrats are hoping that they can reverse their fortunes over the last 10 years. only two democrats have won statewide in the past decade and that is jerry brown and barack obama. they are hoping that tim robin will talk about economic stuff a

lot more. he is from the youngstown area where former democrats are from. they are hoping he is a good matchup. host: mr. richardson, because president trump endorsed the candidate specifically, does he become part of the electric -- election process? guest: that will be interesting becauseguest: there are a number of ways where during most of the primary, almost all of the republicans were basically begging donald trump for an endorsement. jane tempting and josh mandel and both of them were i am the most pro-trump candidate. mike givens says a lot of the same stuff. jd vance said the same thing. the only exception has been met

dolan who polling has shown is surging as of late. donald trump has put out numerous statements against matt dolan. if he winds this primary, it will become a we are dynamic in a state that trump won by eight percentage points in 2016 and 2020. we have a guy who is not a never trump god, but he is not focused on getting their support. if any other candidates were to win the i would give them all endorsement but that does create a very intriguing landscape. host: i am curious because we were talking about this little story and the potential overturn of roe v. wade and some legislators are annual become part of the election cycle. how does that play out in ohio? is this a big issue for people as far as turnout? guest: it has the potential to be a big turnout factor. the fact of the matter is ohio

has gotten pretty conservative over the past 10, 20 years. i would expect that if roe v. wade is overturned that abortion would be outlawed in the state unless the risk of the mother's life is at risk. it very well could be a turnout factor especially as we have seen the dynamic shift in who women are supporting my suburban money --, suburban women. there is a pretty big organization of suburban women that i could see playing a big factor. you have to consider that tim ryan represents one of the only democratic pickup opportunities in this election cycle. i would expect a ton of national money to start flowing in here. host: seth richardson who covers politics for cleveland.com talking about the ohio senate primary. mr. richardson, thanks for your time today. . guest: thanks for having me. host: two guests joining us.

up, we will hear from cliff albright as he discusses priorities heading into the midterm election. later on, we will be joined by "the federalist" features editor eleanor bartow. those conversations coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasions of ukraine bringing the latest from the president and other officials, the pentagon, and the state department as well as congress. we have international perspectives from the united nations and statements from foreign leaders all on the c-span network, the c-span now free mobile app, and c-span.org/ukraine. our web resource page where you can watch the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine.

>> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. here many of those on c-span's new podcast, "presidential recordings." >> season one focuses on lyndon johnson. you will hear about the civil rights act, the 1964 presidential campaign, the tonkin incident, and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries new because they were taxed with transcribing many of those conversations. they were the ones who made sure that the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and there's. >> you will hear some blunt talk. >> i want a report of the number of people that were assigned to kennedy the day he died, the

number assigned to me now. if i can never go to the bathroom, i will not go. i will not go anywhere. i will stay right behind eastgate. >> "presidential recordings." find it on the c-span now mobile app or whatever you get your podcast. "washington journal" continues. host: here to discuss matters of elections particularly come november is cliff albright, the cofounder and executive director of black voters matter. thanks for your time today. guest: thanks for having me. good morning. host: tell our audience about your group, the reason it was formed, and the things you involve yourself in. guest: black voters matter is a power building organization and we believe in building power in black communities a we believe

elections are one way of doing that, but by no means, the only way. the best way to show that black voters matter is to mobilize voters to be engaged in organizing around her issues all throughout the year, not just around election time and in doing so that we have to prioritize according to local groups in that are doing this work 365 days per year. those are the messages that can best mobilize around voters in our community. we started in 2017 right around the time of the alabama senate race, which you may remember between doug jones and roy more where people thought there was no way to win that seat. we raise hundreds of thousands of dollars and put it directly in the hands of local groups that were doing the mobilizing and black voters came out and shot the country -- shocked the country.

it is a proven theory that if we get those resources and traveling and supporting them using them, if we support those groups, then we can really emphasize the issues that matter in our committees and encourage people to turnout. host: i'm glad you brought that up. as you engage with people with your group, when it comes to specific issues, what are they telling you as far as what is important to them about the choose -- the people they choose to vote for? guest: the issues that people in black communities care about, we see the same things repeatedly. we do this work in 20 states, 11 of which we have direct staff members, but in all communities we have the same issues. sometimes it is slightly different depending on what is happening. in black communities, we care deeply about the issue of police violence and criminal justice reform and mass incarceration. we saw that during 2020 when we saw a historic level of protests taking place. that was not just about one moment.

we see that repeatedly in the cities and counties and states that we go to. but we also care about housing issues. we care about environmental justice issues. not often will you talk about climate change but when you break it down, when you talk about what does this mean, what does climate and energy mean for your utility bills in black amenities or what does it mean about clean water? let me remind that flint, michigan still does not have clean water. it is communities all across this country where we do our work. we care deeply about environmental justice issues. we care about voting rights obviously. our partners just dedicated all of 2021 to talking about this issue of voting rights because we recognize that as senator warnock says it is foundational. it is the issue that lets us get advancement and progress on all of the other issues that we are about. these are the kinds of issues that we hear communities talking about and obviously economic

justice, employment, and wages. black unemployment ever since the statistic has been kept has been held at the rate of twice white unemployment. we care about all these issues and those are the issues that they want to hear us talking about coming up with solutions to. host: are you recommending specific candidates? are you telling them who they should be voting for? is it republican and democratic candidates alike that you emphasize and support? guest: that is a great question. we have a couple of organizational entities. sometimes we do what is strictly nonpartisan. we are at raising awareness, informing voters around the election changes that have taken place because of the voter suppression laws that have swept the country. informing people about those new laws and policies and requirements and sometimes just letting people know what the

process is come out reminding people when elections day is and when does early voting start and where can you go. a lot of what we do is just around informing people and motivating people to turnout and participate. but we do have our arm where we get into some policies. sometimes in our communities that do not really have access to information, communities need to know more about who exactly are these candidates and what are their track record and who is best for our committee. we need talk about the specific policies. sometimes we need to lobby and engage elected officials around issues like voting rights. we have whole campaigns where we are encouraging people, not just raising awareness, but telling them you need to call your senator and tell the that you want voting rights passed. we do a combination to penning on which organizational entity we are talking about, we do a combination of informing, mobilizing, energizing voters around this process. sometimes we have to be a little bit more poignant in giving them

solid information about the candidate. never on a party. this is very important because we are not just out here trying to lift up one party versus the other. if you look at the back of her shirt and the front of our sure, it has this message -- if you look at the back of our shirt and the front of our shirt, it has this message, "it is about us." it is not about the party. when you focus on a party or candidate, sometimes that turns folks off. when we sent to the discussion around ari community and -- around our community, that is what gets people engaged. especially when we talk about voters who are committed members who are usually engaged. some people call them low propensity voters. we call them high opportunity voters. we just call them folks. we really do not even step to the candidates, but we step to the issues. host: this is cliff albright

joining us. if you want to ask them questions about the group's efforts with election issues, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text at (202) 748-8003. how is your group funded and because of the name you use, are you affiliated with black lives matter? guest: great question. we are not affiliated with black lives matter. we are a separate organization. i am pleased to say we are very much in alignment with the principles of black lives matter. we believe that black lives matter. we were intentional around why we call the organization black voters matter. sometimes people get that name confuse and we tell them they are a lot of people that care about black votes who do not care about black voters. they won are both, they want to count us like jellybeans in a

jar but they did not care about the voters and the communities that the voters come from. yet, we are in alignment with black lives matter although we are two separate organizations. we have incredible diversity of funding sources. sometimes we get money from large foundations. some of those are foundations that you may have heard of. some of the big-name foundations. sometimes just from individuals. the first fundraising when we started long before the alabama senate race that i was mentioning was a school event for one of my oldest son's thousand high school. some parents -- one of my oldest sons that was in high school. we have a variety of sources from small donations that we get online every day from five dollars to $10 up to large

donations coming from large foundations and corporations. host: how concerned are you about what the end result could be as far as the november elections are concerned and as part of that, what is your group involved with leading up to that? guest: we are very concerned but we are also optimistic. we are very concerned obviously because we know that there is still this big lie that is out there. this bill that people are running on the notion of insurrection, running on the fact that they would have overturned the last election. we are very concerned about what is in the air. even if you look at, our organization is based in georgia. if you listen to the first gubernatorial debate on the republican side, the very first sentence was let me be clear, the 2020 election was rigged and stolen. they are still very much relitigating 2020. they are still trying to

rollback all types of rights. when it comes to the fundamentals of this democracy, this is just a statement of objective fact and reality that you have one party that is totally trying to tear apart the very notions of democracy. it has never been a perfect democracy. but to whatever extent it exists , you have one party showing that they do not care for it, that it is a cute notion but they are not committed to it. we are very concerned because the way that this election goes will predict what happens in 2024. there is no scenario given the current nature of the republican party, there is no scenario where if they gain control of the house that you guys can have a republican-controlled house that would certify an election where their candidates do not win in 2024. we are very concerned about those issues. we are concerned about the other will issues -- the other issues related to that.

women are under attack and have been under attack. we are very concerned about those issues. we are concerned about economic justice issues. we are concerned about environmental issues. all of these are issues that depending on how this election goes, could be issues where we are sent back decades in terms of policy. host: let's hear from our callers. tom in pittsburgh, independent line. you are on with cliff albright, the cofounder of the black voters matter fund. go ahead. caller: first of all, you should be an independent because democrats take you for granted. that is a fact. that is why i am an independent. an african-american is the one who urged me to become an independent because he was tired of being taken for granted. number two, in terms of voter suppression. if you are 18 and you are a legal citizen, you can vote. suppression is because we do not have enough machines but we

found $30 billion to send to ukraine, didn't we? if we can have $30 billion for ukraine, we should have money for machines so that people can vote. host: that is tom in pennsylvania. mr. albright? caller: -- guest: thank you, tom. i do not think i said that i was a democrat. i've not disagree with you. before starting black voters matter years ago when i lived in selma, alabama along with a group of friends and organizers, we organize a third party because we were so independent. i thank you for the suggestion of being more independent. in regard to voter suppression, i do not know how to answer that other than you have to believe what you see in front of your eyes. we have seen not everybody who is 18 necessarily has fair and free access to the vote. we have seen people being purged from voter rolls. in this state alone, it was

discovered that they encouraged 200,000 voters who should not have been purged because they said they had changed addresses but they did not change address because the state used the wrong info to verify addresses and a good portion of those voters were black. we have seen this repeated in state after state. but that is one form of the voter suppression. we have seen and documented the voter suppression bill that was passed in 19 states cutting days of early voting, cutting access to dropbox is, cutting access to all types of other things, making it harder for people to vote by mail. all of this is well documented, not to mention the policies that would actually allow people to overturn elections. in the state of georgia, the republican party is already using their latest law in order to target fulton county.

you could just take over one county's board of elections and that would tilt the scale in all of these elections that are usually won by razor thin margins. i would love to have a long discussion around voter suppression but there is lots of information out there that documents that suppression is taking place and historically target predominantly black committees. host: sean in maryland, republican line. caller: good morning. i have a different take on that. i have been complaining here in maryland because the black vote is being overtaken by others. they had us get real ids and they have taken the last names off of the drivers license. i just got my son's learners permit. he is not even 18. he is registered to vote in maryland. they have been doing this with nonregistered people and their ids.

why don't you go through and make sure that the vote are actually black people because i was with you at first but now i am with this -- most black voters do not like to vote because they think their vote does not count. why don't you work on that and getting the people who should not vote out and let the voter rolls count for the amount of people, the people who are registered to vote in the state, not others. host: that is sean in maryland. guest: thank you. i appreciate the suggestion that we do more work to reach out to get more black folks to participate. perhaps you have heard of the state of georgia where we did a pretty good job mobilizing black voters that came out in record numbers in the midst of a pandemic and that flipped the state in terms of the presidency and also in terms of two senate seat. we do the work of educating and

mobilizing and talking to voters who often do not receive a door knock or a text message. these are the voters that are not super voters that a lot of candidates in the party look past. this is the kind of work we do and we do it in a space where a lot of people take for granted and think that our competitive state and counties where -- that a lot of people ignore. we do this work in all the states that we do. here in maryland, we would not just be in baltimore, we would be in the smaller pockets that people ignore. the same thing in georgia. yes, we do the work of reaching out and trying to get more people involved. that is the reason we exist as an organization. our track record shows that we have done a pretty good job of it in regards to noncitizens voting, that is simply not a thing. there is no evidence of that type of fraud taking place. the only fraud we have seen over

the past couple of years as we have been hearing all this was about fraud has been cases like the one that recently came to light, the trim supporter who used her dead mother's name to vote twice in an election. those are the stories you hear but you do not hear them coming out of the media outlets that like to talk about voter fraud. they did not like to say anything about that. noncitizens voting is not a thing. host: what will your message to democrats on capitol hill who tried several times to give voters rights legislation on the federal side passed and no success on that front? what you think the cause of that is and what would be your message to legislators? guest: great question. we were very active throughout 2021 pressuring not just the senators, but also the white house. i was involved in civil disobedience along with our national coalition. i think i was arrested four or

five times with direct actions in front of the senate offices and the white house. our message remains the same. this is not optional. we have to have voting rights legislation of the federal level. we cannot continue to fight this state-by-state. we have to have a boeing rights act and they should not be giving up on it. we are thankful that they had a debate and vote on it in january. that is something that would not have taken place without the pressure that came from voting rights organizations that have been pushing for that throughout 2021. we throw out the same message. what we are seeing is that these two issues of the voting rights legislation and this election cycle, we are saying we want to see candidates running for senate, we want to see candidates that are running to sign a voting rights pledge that we will be advertising within the next days in weeks. we want to see them sign a pledge where they commit upfront

that they will support the freedom to vote act, the john lewis voting rights act, that they will support filibuster reform. otherwise, and d.c. statehood, because that is one of the oldest forms of voter suppression. we do not want to see a situation where we mobilize black voters and we get certain turnout in the senate and congress and we find out that in reality we just built two more -- sent two more manchins to the senate. even in the midst of this election cycle where there are so many issues being discussed, we cannot move voting rights off the stage. it has to be top of the discussion. host: you mentioned those two senators. both have said supportive things about voting rights but both would not go so far i the filibuster to do that. why use that tactic to get that

done? guest: at the end of the day, you are not going to find 10 republicans, 10 reasonable senate republicans that live in this reality, in this universe, you will not find 10 republicans that will vote for voting rights. you cannot find them to even investigate what happened on january 6. joe manchin repeatedly said they are out there and he came up with his own compromise. keep in mind that the version of the bill that they wound up debating and voting on in the senate was not the original version. it was a compromise version that really was joe manchin's compromise. he could not find republican friends to vote on his own compromise. it is not going to happen. the filibuster cannot work when you've got a party which is simply not committed to the notion of voting rights to begin with. the only way to get voting rights passed is going to be to modify the filibuster in order

to select 50 democratic senators that did support it, joe manchin supported the bills, kyrsten sinema supported the bill, they did not support filibuster reform. the need to be some type of filibuster reform to get that done. we are glad that the president came out in support of such filibuster reform when he gave his speech in georgia in january, but we need the white house and to continue that debate so we can get the filibuster reform and that is why we want these candidates to address this upfront so that when they get there that the filibuster no longer continues to be an issue, particular human guards to voting rights. there are some other issues, again just looking at last night, you will need the same thing if you are going to get the rights that have existed and been the law of the land for 50 years, the only way to protect that given what it looks like the supreme court is about to do is if there is some legislation dealing with that and that is going to require filibuster reform. host: cliff albright, our guest,

the black voters matter fun, cofounder and executive director. we will hear from david in north carolina. caller: i was just wondering why you think black lives matter. i just want to know, just do a quick check on black women in senate. how many of them? they are not white people. you are putting out a statement that is biased. you are having companies that you have bought into that bought into black lives matter to supply you with your funds that you can try to overthrow our nation. i fought in the navy. i served my time. i did not see color when i was there. i saw a brother in arms that was defending our nation. now i see people like you that are trying to tear us apart

because you think that segregation is the way to go. you are our problem. host: thank you. mr. albright? guest: thank you for the call. at the end of the day, we thank black voters matter because it is black voters who disproportionately have been treated like they do not matter. we could go back to the origins of where the black vote comes from. we needed a 15 the minute for a reason. some people think that we did not get the right to vote until 1965. there was a 15th amendment after the civil war, after the 13th amendment which ended slavery, after 14th amendment granted citizenship. but that was not enough to protect black voters and that is why a 15 the minute was needed to deal with -- 15th amendment

to deal with denying the right to vote on the grounds of race. we can go all throughout the history of jim crow and segregation and how that showed up in regards to voting rights but more importantly, we do not have to go that far. we can look at the continued onslaught against black voting rights. people in florida where black voters were is fortunately impacted which immediately affected the results of the reaction -- results of the election. we have seen in black communities if you had the kinds of long lines that exist in black communities, if you had that in white communities, we would not have to say black voters matter. but the reality is that the things that we see among the long lines, the machines that don't work, disproportionate purges, the closing of polling places and data shows when you close the polling place, the further you make the community travel, the lower you have turnout in those communities.

if all of these things existed equally in white communities, then we do not want to see it happen in white communities. we do not want to see it anywhere. if all of these things existed in the white communities the same way it happens in the black communities, we would not have to say that black voters matter. that is not the case. i could go to any community and if you go to a y community on election day -- white community on election day, most of the long lines in many of these committees, for the most part, predominantly white communities, you will not see three hour, four hour, five hour waits. you see that traditionally and consistently in black committees. there is a reason we have to say black voters matter. that is because we have been treated in such a way as to make it necessary to proclaim that and we just do not proclaim it for the people that are doing wrong by treating us that way. we have to proclaim it for the folks that live in their communities so that they know

regardless of how certain election officials may treat them that they still matter and that they still have power and the power to control the politics in their communities. host: pat in virginia, independent line. hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want it noted that i listen to fox news and what they are projecting and i listen to msnbc and there is only one talking about immigration, abortion, and they are indicating that the reason we are talking about abortion because the two immigrants coming into those countries happened to be a certain race. by the year 2040, the minority will not be the majority. we are talking about black

babies. that is why we are talking about this. host: mr. albright, do you want to respond to that? guest: i had difficulty hearing that. i think i got the gist of it in that a lot of this debate around abortion or even these other issues, i heard her say something about immigration, is attached to this fear of a changing demographic. i think that was the gist of the question. there is truth to that. as the demographics are changing, you need only look to one of the well-known conservative commentators talking about male fertility to know that there is an obsession with reproductive rights and the demographic changes in this country and that is driving a lot of fears around immigration whether it is fears around voting and voting power. when you know that your group is

no longer going to be the majority, then it will cause you to start pursuing policies that suggest that majority rule no longer matters, that elections should no longer be about who gets more votes but instead, can be about who can overturn an election because they have the power to do so. that is a very dangerous place for us to be in and anybody that thinks that is something that is just that type of authoritarianism is just limited to being anti-black or anti-brown or anything else needs to realize that with all forms of structural racism, it eventually spills over and pollutes the entire system. that is something that people have to be aware of. it cannot just be about -- we do not mind the cruelty. we just want them to be cruel to these folks because we support that type of cancer growing. it is only a matter of time before it infects everything. host: because elections are often influenced by whoever is at the top of the ticket, i want

to talk about president biden. there was a pole talking about president biden's approval rating particularly among black americans starting at 87% back in january 2021, going down to 74% from july to august and now to the 7% from september to march of this year. what you think is happening with those levels and how much does that concern you? guest: it is concerning. at the end of the day, there are reasons for it. some of them are legitimate and some of them are manufactured. you have constant news out there talking about the economy and talking about inflation. i have criticized president biden for a lot of things in jiggly in the space of police violence and police accountability, particularly in the space of student debt forgiveness. at the end of the day, there has

been more job growth during his brief time in office and what you saw in a similar period during the trump years. that is not across the board. you asked about the black approval rating as the rest of the country is coming out of this recession, how do you define that. that is not impacting the black community. black women were more harshly impacted by the economic downturn than any other group in the country. it is not enough to just say we are doing better. the black community wants to see what you are doing to deal with the harsh realities, the harsh economic realities in our community so there is some truth to that but also i talked about the manufacturing part. all of this talk about inflation and is this something that is

caused by wages being too high. one of my biggest frustrations is it is not just this abstract rise in prices, companies are making record profits. companies are exceeding their profit margins in such a way that it is causing a manufactured increase in these prices. there is no other way to say it, corporate greed. it is going to take bold action in order to deal with it. part of it is, part of this decline in the popularity you have seen is because of some made-up reason. it is because covid is still an issue but why is it still an issue?

because you have people trying to keep it an issue because they refuse to support wearing masks and getting vaccinated and things of that nature. some of it is very real. there was not passage of voting rights. there has not been to george floyd bill for plays accountable it was not passed. really wasted time for years dealing with tim scott as if he were a legitimate negotiator. that was never going to happen. time was wasted on that. that last minute he is concerned about that action. i mentioned the student debt forgiveness. we are waiting to see if he keeps his promise of $10,000 and others suggest going into $50,000. that would have an immediate impact on black voters, young voters and it has a racial justice component because of the way that it is structured and who receives student loans in this country. you can reduce the racial wealth gap just by dealing with that one policy alone. we are looking at these policies

and we want to see more action. that is what the black committee is saying to us. he had to deal with it as a president. the party have to deal with this. they had to develop policies around this. at the end of the day, this is a balancing act. we have to hold folks accountable and make them be responsive. we also at the same time have to make sure that voters are very clear that while we have to push these folks to do right, that you have some other folks out here that are very much anti-black. there is a balancing act. how do you call out one side that is directly, has been in terms of policy against our interests, but not doing so in a way that you become a cheerleader for some other folks. that is a delicate balancing act. that is why this takes deep conversations and the organizing. this is not the kind of thing that can be done with one text message. that is why we have to invest in

the groups on the ground having those conversations. they are the trusted messengers that best know the community. host: let's hear from eugene in north carolina, democrats line. caller: i want to correct your guest. he said he was not a democrat but words matter. also, you are telling the black community, actually speaking out to them, and dictating to them how to vote rather than get the truth out there. the truth and nothing but the truth. we cannot get the truth due to the fact that they are blocking. why don't you work on that instead of trying to dictate to the people how to vote? thank. guest: i don't think we dictate to anybody. the communities we do our work in, it is very hard to dictate

to anybody how to vote. i appreciate the caller thinking i have that much power. we engage in having the kind of truth telling that he is talking about. i would have loved if there was something i said that was untrue, that he would tell me what i said that is not true, whether it is voter suppression or any of these other issues. we believe that we have to tell our community, even when it is some truth. we have to have hard conversations. that is how we grow. that is how families have their discussions. i agree with what the caller is saying. i disagree that somehow we are just out here dictating. we are about having conversations and dialogue and a dialogue is a two way conversation. we could not do this simply by telling people what to do. that would not be received well. i guarantee that in the

communities where we do our work. people want to have discussions. they want to know why you stand where you stand. sometimes when we do not see turnout, it is because some voters do not know a lot about the candidates. they have not seen them, they have not seen commercials because they did not spend as much on tv or radio or other types of advertising. part of what we do is give people the tools they need so that they can give accurate information so that they can know who the candidates are, so they can know where the websites are and what this particular office does. if we get that information to our folks and we have legitimate conversations from trusted messengers, then folks will make the right decision that they need to make. when you look at 90% of black voters that tend to vote democratic in presidential or other elections, that is not telling them they have to vote democrat.

that is because they are looking at the issues. black voters are smarter than that. we did not just go around dictating stuff to them. that voters know what the issues are and when we have accurate information and complete information, we can make some pretty well-informed decisions. black voters tend to look at what the issues are, who the candidates are, and what is their track record. that is why they tend to vote a certain way. if there was a republican that will lead the vote to give voting rights act passed and lead police reform and seriously lead on police reform with support on other racial justice issues, that is what they are voting for. you cannot find one. host: what was wrong with tim scott's approach? guest: i do not think it was ever an honest approach. if you look at the way they handled, communicated after the approach and focused on tim scott alongside cory booker over

the george floyd act and ultimately falling apart and then he said it was because democrats wanted to refund -- defund the police. that is not an honest response and i think it is a sign that all of those negotiations were not coming from a place of honesty and trying to solve the problem. it was coming from a position of we have to at least act like we are trying to do something about this police accountability after there has been protest that has took place in 2020. there was never an intention that they would have real police accountability. cory booker said that you even have law-enforcement that was supporting the reforms they were talking about. to be clear, even from my perspective, it was not going far enough. if there was a real honest negotiation taking place, but when tim scott eventually pulled out and tried to make the

argument that it was because they were trying to defund the police to which we know was not part of the discussion, although i might like to see that, that was not a part of the discussion. it was not coming from a place of honesty. host: to put out a statement after the negotiations. "i offered a bill that included compromise that law enforcement could support. despite agreement, democrats said no because they could not let go of the push to defund law enforcement, their misguided idea of perfect legislation." guest: exactly. that statement, as he has done another statement -- in other statements, talking about how democrats are trying to defund the policeman it is the opposite.

including president biden himself. in the save speech when he said from the police, that is in exact opposition for what the movement was calling for. again, you cannot connect the dots between what the words and apologies that the president or the democrats of the senate support and what tim scott has said they were trying to support. those two things do not square out. host: let's hear from richard in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: i would like to take you back to your conversation on voter suppression. i hear a lot of denigration of one party. voter suppression. i am thinking what is wrong with compromise here. the matter of voter id.

what is wrong with the person using a voter id to go into a polling place and prove who they are? i do not mind doing it. you do it every day. you go to a bank, a hospital, and you need a voter id. but there is a big problem is asking for voter id to go vote. id to go vote. could your guest comment on that? guest: on the issue of voter id, and then ideal world, voter id -- in an ideal world, voter id would not be necessary. not everybody has equal access to it. i will give you an example --

when alabama tried to pass their voter id law, they shut down. they shut down the very places where predominantly black communities could get an id. the process of getting an id and even choosing which id's can be used, but students cannot use their campus id. the way these voter id policies are designed are because they're targeting younger voters. they are targeting people the people designing these policies know will vote a certain way. voter id does not exist in a

vacuum. there are other policies. the c -- that dictate which groups will be able to produce it. the poll tax on the face of it was something that everybody -- everybody had to pay the poll tax, right? it was designed to target african-americans. cynthia with all of the -- same thing with all of the policies that go back to the jim crow era. that is the first piece on voter id. the bigger issue, you get people challenging the notion of voter suppression. they say " this is reasonable. there is a whole spectrum of

suppression we talk about that includes voter id and includes cutting down early voting. it includes the requirements on how it is that you can even vote by mail. methodology republicans never had an issue with in states like florida. then comes the most recent election where box letters used it in record numbers. there are all these different things, up to and including being able to take over boards of elections and criminalizing election officials. intimidating at polling places in texas where they made it ok for people to go and surveillance and harass voters, even being able to videotape them.

they went out and actively begin recruiting some right-wing activists to get them to go to polling places. whenever somebody says " how hard is it to get a voter id?" that means we are not having a discussion around the full range of voter suppression. when you look at all of these things, you see all of these policies are targeted in a way that impacts young letters and other marginalized voters. even attacking our dissident -- disability community impacts them as well. host: cliff albright serves as the cofounder. thank you for your time. guest: thank you for having me.

host: coming up we will hear from elinor bartel about " gain a function research," and how it is used. the discussion coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> c-span's 2022 congressional directory is no available. this spiral-bound book is your guide to the federal government with bios and committee assignments. order your copy today on c-span shop.org or skin -- repurchase

helps support c-span's -- every purchase helps support c-span's mission. >> there are a lot of places to get political information, but c-span is america's network, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. it happens here or here, or here, or anywhere that matters. america is watching on c-span, powered by cable. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter word for word recaps the day for you from the halls of congress to daily press briefings to remarks from the president. scan the qr code to sign up for this email.

subscribe today using the qr code. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine, bringing the latest from the white house, state department, and congress. s from foreign -- we have statements from foreign leaders. our resource page where you can watch the latest videos on demand and read tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. host: joining us is eleanor bartow. she is here to talk to us about

" gain a function" research . what is it what is the federalist -- what is the federalist for people who do not know about it? guest: it is a website. it has been around for decadess. host: is there a point of view in the reporting? how would you describe that? guest: i would say pro america. it might be considered conservative to some people. host: you cover science and research being one of those topics. you wrote a series of stories looking at something called " gain a function" research. guest: it is when research is done on a virus to make it more deadly are transmissible. the goal is scientists would try

to protect how a virus might evolve and come up with a vaccine ahead of time. this idea would have being great during the pandemic to dictate things and come up with a vaccine sooner, and it has risks involved. what has happened in 2014 we paused this kind of research in this country. the office of science and technology came up with this new oversight framework that made sure we were not funding risky research without taking a look at it. now it is basically we have this committee that is supposed to review grant proposals to do this kind of gain of function research. when i first heard about it, i was reading this article pretty early in the pandemic, one of the first saying " we should consider this theory that covid came from a lab, and here is

why." one of the details was this committee. there was no media coverage of it whatsoever. i had to find out from nih, " how many of these grant proposals have you approved? how many have you rejected?" nih said only a couple. that did not give a sense of how much of this research is going on. they referred us to this big database with all these grant proposals. it could be none of these proposals are rejected and it could be that the committee is not seeing many of these proposals. these funding agencies are just going around the committee and that is a concern. one of these grants is the eco-health alliance one.

u.s. taxpayer money was going to the u.s. -- wuhan center of virology. we have tried to look into this. at this point it looks like they committee's definition of gain of function is to narrow. -- is too narrow. the definition of " gain of function," is to narrow. we are not seeing a lot of this research. when this came up in the media a while back, we used to see senator rand paul spar with anthony fauci. it was not gain of function research. we do not fund gain of function research in wuhan. according to this link the definition the government came up with could be considered

true. was this risky research that should have had more oversight? the washington post did a good investigation into this last year. fauci and francis collins, they were integral into coming -- in coming up with this definition and stripping this committee of its power to veto research. we did not really see a lot of detail on how they had come up with this oversight mechanism for this kind of research. we do not know the process. now that we have had this pandemic ended has received more public attention how -- host: what makes it risky as far

as when the -- as far as the actual science is concerned? guest: scientists are going out into nature and finding novel viruses and bringing them back to the lab. we have them somewhere where they can come into contact with humans in a variety of ways in a lab accident. that is what led to this oversight committee. one of the things scientists will do in a lab is quick and the evolution of this virus to see what it is going to do. you can make it something easier for a human to get from an animal virus. this definition of gain of function, we are talking about bureaucracy and definitions, it is really what kind of federal

funding do we want to put toward this research? a lot of scientists would say " if you're going to take a potential pandemic pathogen and make it more dangerous, that is something the public should know more about." that is something this chairman of the committee has said, there probably should be more transparency to this. we doing -- trillion he said transparent -- he said transparency would be good. more transparency for this committee would be good. what has happened more recently, last week was the first time nih had a public hearing on this committee and got the debate going again. there was a scientist who said " we do not want to slow down their research with more oversight." others said " we want the public

to know." host: if you want to ask questions about this gain of function research, how it is working,'the federal government -- working, the federal government's oversight on that, you can call in. (202) 748-8000 four democrats -- (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. you can text in your questions to (202) 748-8003. guest: not that there are not safety protocols with research

that does not go to the committee. the eco-health alliance grant never went to the committee for review so that gives you the tip of the iceberg. we know people inside nih have said these new regulations are shrugged off. if you been gain of function, you been a lot of virology. one of the problems is scientists do not want to criticize this kind of research. scientists do it. they get funding from the nih. tony fauci is a supporter of gain of function in general. he agrees that should be something we are very careful with. he has not people have- not wanted to criticize this kindof research- -- people have not wanted to criticize this kind of

research. real lab leaks were from scientists studying avian flu and trying to make it more airborne. the washington post did a good investigation into this. in light of what has happened, and in light of what the committee has done in recent years, what would be worth looking at again. the committee is not public, but we know there was another chairman that spoke to the post. this committee did not have the scientific wherewithal to prevent bad things from happening. that does not give you a sense of confidence that it is doing much work. host: because of the nature of the science, it became popular of the connections to covid.you described an organization known as eco-health alliance and

the wuhan institute of virology. explain the relationship between the two? guest: nih gave a grant to eco-health alliance. they were subtracting some work to the wuhan institute of virology. it was experimenting with bat coronaviruses. bad viruses are known to be able to transfer -- bat viruses are known to be able to transfer to humans. they described it as gain of function research in an email. that is one way you can bypass this committee, where it is not really giving input in the first place.

with eco-health alliance, they continue to be funded to do this kind of research, not at the wuhan institute of virology. viruses around asia, they have been bringing them back to a u.s. lab. one of the things that happened with the wuhan institute of virology is that there were warnings there was some lax security there. how well is this system working ig and official -- if and official in china wrote a wire to say " i looked at some -- the people who were working there were asking for basic help with sanitizing things.

how well is this system working that that could happen? the next step is having more international standards for these labs. international standards that people have agreed on. we have a bio security committee in the united states. host: is there a sense then, because the eco-health alliance gave money to wuhan, was eco-health kept in the dark about wuhan's work? guest: that is where we do not have a lot of information on the exact work that was done in that grant. that is why there is some suspicion. what exactly were they doing? eco-health alliance was supposed to have an annual report. when the pandemic broke out in 2020, na at -- nih realized they

did not have a report from the previous year. they had outsourced it to china to this institute of virology. the chinese were the ones sequencing these viruses. they were trying to figure out if they had something new. they would put them in this database. the database was taken off-line in september our october. some said it was because it was being hacked. tons of research is going on there. the state department under the trump administration said there was military research going on there. we do not really know. the nih has said to the eco-health alliance " we would like to know more about what you are studying over there," and the eco-health alliance has said

" we will need to ask china, and china is not sharing any information about this." what they were gathering up in nature, what they had sequenced, because they were finding dozens of new viruses. there is a project to try to find the mall and create a big -- them all and create a big catalog, and figure out which one to worry about. host: the numbers, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002, independents. (202) 748-8001, republicans. let's hear from kim in iowa. caller: [indiscernible]

host: that is kim in iowa. how much was known to was ultimately about this work? does the nih have more information today? guest: eco-health alliance has said " we do not have that information. it is in china. we cannot get it back out." as you heard when the world health organization tried to look at this lab, they were not allowed to look around very much. china has censored reporting on this topic. they have admitted to destroying lab samples in the past. i mentioned that database. there is reason to think any evidence that might link that lab to covid would likely have been destroyed at this point. some people think " maybe nih knows more about what was

happening under this grant." house republicans on the energy committee have a covid investigation. they have been trying to get more information from nih and others and eco-health alliance. they have not gotten a whole lot of information. as the minority they cannot just subpoena information from eco-health alliance or others and the democrats have not wanted to do that. that is something that could change, if republicans win the house. that is something we might find out more about. host: cathy mcmorris rodgers wrote this -- " the framework was instituted in response to the policy guidance from the national science advisory board to oversee pathogen oversight. are oversight of the framework,

including what has been revealed about the inadequate management of the risky research at the wuhan institute of virology, has raised concerns about the process." can you elaborate? guest: they have dungan work -- done good work. without a subpoena, they are limited. sometimes -- the committee has tried to talk to some key officials in the nih, and they have not been permitted to really talk to them. naiad employee who warned about this plant --that is information we do not have. it is through their work that we

know the current chairman has said he thinks the system needs to be more transparent. host: let's hear from david in arizona, republican line. caller: i have a quick question -- have you ever heard of something called event 20 or 21 that john's hopkins put on that studied -- it was an exercise to study what a virus coming out of south america would do? it was a panel or roundtable type exercise, and low and behold, a couple of months later we have a pandemic. that is item one. item 2 the senator has been asking for an investigation and i am wondering if anyone is taking him serious about investigating the sources and

the people behind the possibility that this might be deliberate. guest: 2 good questions. the pandemic exercise, i did know of that. it looked coincidental they are practicing for a pandemic and then it happens. that is something scientists regularly do. it was a very interesting coincidence. we do not have any information that anything was planned in any way. senator paul has done a good job of bringing attention to this issue. we saw him talk to fauci about it. not much has resulted from that. congress has passed legislation where the department of defense will not send -- there is a china competition bill in

conference right now. that would restrict this kind of gain of function research in china, but should we be sharing that kind of technology with adversaries? there is a bill out there that would restrict it more than it has been. waiting to see what congress will actually do with this. it has been a couple of years. 2017 is when we came up with this new committee. host: jane, and maryland, independent -- in maryland, independent line. caller: i am pleasantly surprised c-span is even discussing this. for about a year or two it was verboten on social media to

even suggest that covid came out of a lab. on twitter, they were tagged as disinformation or band and censored. -- banned and censored. dsl level 4 labs, tell us about the ones in ukraine close to the russian border. they identified at least 4 of these labs. were these dsl level 4 labs and were they potentially conducting gain of function research? caller: there -- guest: there are dsl 4 labs all over the world. there were some in ukraine. scientists can be doing nonresearch on virus -- doing

research on viruses for good reasons or it can be dual-purpose research. a bioweapon is a comparatively affordable weapon compared to nuclear weapons or chemical weapons. we should be concerned about sharing that technology. if our competitors will continue to advance in that field, we need to as well. in the case of ukraine, i would hope that the ukraine government had done what they should to secure that area. that is what we have yet to find out. there was probably research that some people considered gain of research function there. -- gain of function research there. host: dr. fauci appeared before a committee. one of the topics was gain of function research.

i want to play a little bit of the interaction. [video clip] >> why did you tell the committee that your agency has never funded gain of function research? why did you grant this finally-- , will you commit -- finally, will you commit to releasing all records unredacted so the american can people can know the origins of covid-19. >> it pains me to have to point out to the american public how incorrect you are. what came out last night on project veritas was a grand that was submitted to doppler. you distorted and said " we funded the grant." we have never seen that grant,

and we have never funded that grant. you are completely and unequivocally correct when you join -- the doppler proposal was a grand we never saw and never funded. >> our social media will have all the supporting documents. >> you are backing down on this? why don't we look at the very tough statement, that we are talking about a grand that was submitted to doppler -- >> are you saying this was viral gain of function research? >> by the definition that you are very well aware - -- >> the 3co function is -- >> it is misinformation that they guide rails for what can be done were not established by me.

they were established by a three year process led by the office of science and technology policy for the white house. host: how would you respond to that? guest: coming back to this function of gain -- definition of gain of function, fauci says it is not gain of function by his definition, but it has a lot of loopholesin it. an early version of the definition what applied to virus that could -- viruses but could be transmitted between animals. it became only viruses that could be transmitted to humans. the nih are looking at viruses that could spill over from animals to humans.

eco-health alliance was proposing to do research that a lot of people said was much too risky. it was declined by doppler. there are some other grants we may not know about that eco-health alliance has done. they have done work for more than just the nih. they are continuing to do research, combining viruses. is this research too risky and doesn't have enough oversight? host: is there evidence that covid was from a lab or from markets? guest: no. let's hope we can one day, but sometimes it takes years and years. the 2 leading theories are

definitely a lab leak or animal crossover. we do not have proof for sure of either one of those. there is a lot more circumstantial evidence that it came from the wuhan lab. this virus broke out in wuhan and all of these other reasons. the evidence could have been destroyed. maybe there is a whistleblower that will come out one day. maybe we will find the animal crossover. enough time has passed that, that makes it difficult. there was a time when people were practicing for a pandemic. we have seen it happen. no one denies that this research is risky potentially and viruses escape from a lab. let's look at this committee and have a bit more transparency, as

the current chairman has said to do, is the former chairman has said. they need to -- as the former chairman has said. they need to have more expertise on this committee. let's have the members of it be public. host: eleanor bartow, you can find her work at the federalist.com. she serves as their features editor. we will finish the program with the question on which we started -- politico putting a story on their website saying they have documents from the supreme court that, if stands true, has the potential for roe v. wade being overturned. we will ask you to comment on the story. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. and independents, (202) 748-8002.

we will take those calls when washington journal continues. guest: thank you for your time. ♪ >> no available to the c-span shop, c-span's 2022 congressional directory. this book is your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress. also contact information for state governors and the biden administration cabinet. order your copy online or scan the qr code on your screen with your phone. every purchase helps c-span with its nonprofit operation. >> there are a lot of places to get political information, but only on c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network.

unfiltered, unbiased, word forward. it happens here, or here, or here, or here, or anywhere that matters, c-america is watching on's -- america is watching on c-span. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter word recaps the day for you from the halls of congress to daily press briefings to remarks from the president. scan the qr code at the bottom to sign up and stay up-to-date on everything happening in washington. visit c-span.org/connect to subscribe anytime. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to the russian invasion of ukraine, bringing responses from

congress. we have international perspectives from the united nations. all on the c-span networks, the c-span now free mobile app and c-span.org/ukraine where you can follow tweets from journalists on the ground. >> washington journal continues. host: a crowd gathering in front of the supreme court this morning, likely because of a story from yesterday found on the website of politico looking at a reported draft document authored by justice samuel alito, which if stays true, when the justices release their decision could overturn roe v. wade. " the court has decided to

strike down roe v. wade according to an opinion written by samuel circulated within the court. it is an in flinching repudiation -- unflinching repudiation of roe v. wade and planned parenthood versus casey ." " the state of mississippi asked us to uphold the constitutionality of a law -- in defending this law the state's argument is that we should consider an overrule in casey. the document going on to say 'we hold that roe and casey must be overruled.'

the due process -- that is the story, that is the draft document that was attached to that political piece yesterday. we are showing you photos from the supreme court this morning. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. and independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us your thoughts at (202) 748-8003. as far as we know there has been no official response from the supreme court. the white house, there is no response from them as of yet. if those come through in this final half hour, we will show them to you. , dayton ohio -- , dayton, ohio,

daphne is next. caller: hi. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: i'm against roe v. wade because we have so many rights. to take away the rights of a women's body is wrong. why take away the right of roe v. wade? host: patrick is next. lady likes, florida -- lady lakes, florida, independent line. caller: you guys must be high-fiving each other over roe v. wade. host: caller, how would you react to this story from politico yesterday on this and the potential changes? caller: anything to take away from c-span's ignorance! there are 21 states that still

have -- that means a rapist can showup at a woman's door and say -- show up at a woman's door and say " i want to see my kid!" caller: i have a bone to pick with you. you took a color >> -- was a, he didn't follow-up the question. he should have answered how about the cases of rape and incest. host: what you think about this potential story? caller: it is a violation of a woman's 13th amendment rights. to force her to have a pregnancy. host: how does this apply to the

14th amendment? -- 13th amendment? caller: slavery and involuntary servitude is hereby abolished in the united states. host: we had at chance to talk -- with reuters. talk little bit about this story with political -- does this business. here is that interview from earlier today. >> it made it unusual for this thing to happen. a cut everyone by supplies -- it cost to by surprise. -- caught everyone by surprise. the court had no comment on it last night. they did not push back on it. as far as we are aware, it could be a legitimate draft but i don't think it is the final

opinion. as politico made clear, it was a draft. a lot of things can change in between a draft being written and the -- talk before the justices. host: could you walk us through the processes and how it circulated and what happens after it is released to the other justices? guest: when the court hears an argument in the case, in this case it was in december, the court has a provisional meeting after -- afterwards after a initial vote in the justices will find the majority opinion to one of the justices. that justice will write the draft -- and there will be a dissenting opinion being drafted.

it will be back and forth behind the scenes where the justice who writes the majority -- may make changes to address questions or confirm other justice in the majority might have or another justice might come up with a new majority which means that majority opinion will not be the majority, which has happened. we don't hear about this until after the fact. not rock the sausage is being made. -- while the sausage is being made. as far as we are aware, this is a early draft because it was written a couple months ago and we don't know if it is the final ruling. host: is there any significance that justice alito wrote this versus the other justices? guest: justice alito is one of the most conservative justices

on the court and based on his questions and all oral arguments, it has been clear he was interested in overturning roby wade -- roe v. wade. it -- might make sense for him to be one of the offers. while clarence thomas would be the senior justice -- host: -- now only with the ultimate decision but now that this leak is out, what does the supreme court do in these cases and far -- as far as the reaction? guest: it is unprecedented for the court to have -- weeks, which way the court might be headed with a case, and it happened recently but what is

unusual for the entire draft of the opinion to be posted for everyone to read. it is a huge breach of the court's internal procedures and the court prides itself as being the most leakproof institution in washington so there are a lot of questions inside the court. in terms of the chief justice, there was the oral argument that he thinks they could uphold the 15 week ban in mississippi but he was not keen on overturning roe v. wade entirely. he was more interested in a rule that didn't go far. it would be a huge push to abortion rights if he did that. host: -- good bait just keep it narrow to mississippi's decision -- could they just keep it narrow to mississippi's

decision? guest: it would be difficult to uphold the mississippi abortion ban without overturning roe v. wade or gutting them. the conservative argument is that the court will be intellectually consistent. alito's opinion reflects the argument that was made by mississippi in this case. host: as far as the document itself, doesn't get transmitted via email or how does it work and how does it make it easy to make it available to the press or other sources? guest: used to be that we were -- handed paper copies to the past -- pressroom but they have not doing -- done that because the court -- it is close to the

public. they posted online. this draft and it kinda looks like it was xeroxed. it is not clear where they came from. host: from looking and reporting, what are you looking at in the days regarding this? guest: for those of us who come to the court, it seems that the court is moving toward overturning or getting roe v. wade. the context of the decision is not surprising. the reaction that you are seeing right now are statements that he would see at the court ruled in june. the huge reaction to it from both sides but i think will -- what will be interesting is how the court handles any kind of review or investigation after

the leak because this is something that is unusual and he comes at a time where the court -- there has been internal issues where the justice briar retirement that leak before he announced it. there was the whole flak at the court with justice cortes -- gore checks -- didn't wear a mask. the court has -- host: the larger implications. mr. hurley, thanks for your time. the political story released and here's the scene today. reporters in groups representing various takes on the larger implications of abortion. we will show you that. get your calls on the political -- political story. mike in cocoa beach. independent line. caller: yes.

i am a staunch believer in individual rights and i sympathize with women who do want to have an abortion but one much follow the logical pattern. the baby has rights also. i believe that abortion should be illegal. because the baby, the fetus -- and i think it begins at the moment this permit enters the ache because that is when life begins. --sperm enters the egg because that is where the light begins -- life begins. in cases of rape and incest, rape is a state of mind.

it has -- it has no impact on the rights of the fetus. that should not be a valid argument and insist --incest, there is a biological -- that should be considered. host: color. -- caller. caller: i understand there are people with strong opinions and the wonderful thing but this country is that if you don't believe in abortion and you don't want abortion, he should not have one and you don't -- you should not have one and you don't have to have one but if you are a member who are -- mother who was born drug addition, a prostitute, drunk, unable to care for a child and

homeless and reading, and she gets pregnant, what happens to the baby? the baby will be born with -- in a awful way. with lots of problems. i believe in my heart the woman should have a abortion and god will take care that baby. god will take care of the baby and give it to someone who can handle it. if a woman should not have a baby, she should not haven't. -- half one. if you believe in god, you think one minute god would late -- let the aborted baby suffer? no. host: republican line. caller: the fourth amendment says that you should be safe in your papers, everything personal. i think that includes you cannot have abortion laws to limit

people if they want to have an abortion but that is just me and i am just -- a republican because democrats have been stealing from us. host: in georgia. there is a story on cnn -- they put a couple of graphics. if roe versus wade is overturned, 20 six states has intended to ban abortion. 9th street -- 13 states have trigger bans in place, meaning that abortion will almost immediately be banned if roe is in effect. they highlight the trigger bans in place. texas, missouri and other states and it takes a look at ban abortion prior to roe v. wade. though states including wisconsin and west virginia and other states have highlighted the trigger bans and is as past bands have -- the host of states

there as well. you can see how this can impact the state level. let's hear from brad in london, kentucky. independent line. caller: we should have some contacts with the discussion. if the roe case, -- with jane roe and the court is looking at the fact that in the case, it says she was raped instead she had to have an abortion but it came out that it was a lie. she was not raped. she did not have an abortion. there was a study on the reasons women have abortions and 25 -- 25% are not ready for a child

and 23% cannot afford a baby. 19% have completed their child bearing. a percent do not want to be a single mother. there are a couple of more but less than .5% of those are rape. it seems rape seems to dominate but is not necessarily -- it is less than 5% that women have abortions. host: brad in london, kentucky. elizabeth in san diego. democrat. caller: i think this whole exercise in the supreme court is taking us back 50 years. one of my earliest memories in high school was hearing of plaintiff sobbing in the morning. at the lockers. as a young girl sobbing because

her sister died from an illegal abortion and she was a beautiful young girl. christian family. that was the state of things 60 years ago. i myself had an iud. at the peak of the sexual revolution. the state health services -- sitting room only for women at that age. two weeks after roe came off, i had an abortion because my birth control had failed. republicans will be taking us back. earlier, one woman talked about forced sterilization. this other guy call about rape is a state of mind? what kind of ridiculous question is that?

this is a -- of the door. they are saying possibly there will be new laws introduced in these republican states. outlawing birth control. young women need to be on their toes. host: elizabeth in san diego. allison in new york -- alex in new york. republican line. caller: i think this decision is a real shame. putting aside the facts, it is a shame because of road trust in the courts. it highlights the ideas that laws are fiction and there's no predictability and judges find a decision they want and find a way to reason to that and is a slap in the face of democracy because alito's draft is saying that they will come after same-sex marriage and other social issues.

where, there is a large concessions -- consensus. the only place it isn't settled is among punish tree and law professors and lawyers of a certain colleybille. -- caliber. if this decision comes to pass, will have terrible effects. i cannot imagine this happening any positive impact on people's trust in loss in the --laws and democracy. host: we will take a look -- we are looking at the supreme court. we will take a few seconds for you to have a look. >> roe v. wade is going to go.

hey, hey, ho. ho. roe v. wade is going to go. host: we will continue to show you video in light of the story release yesterday. the white house releasing its own statement. this saying that we do not know whether the draft is genuine or it reflects the final decision of the court. with that caveat, i want to be clear on three points. my administration argued in defense of roe v. wade. i believe that woman's right to choose is fundamental and has been the law of the land for over 50 years. it demands that it is not

overturned. after the enactment of the texas law, -- i directed my gender policy counsel and white house counsel office -- the continued attack on abortion -- the cases pending before the supreme court. we will be ready. if the court does overturned role, it will fall on our officials to protect officials -- women's right to choose. at the federal level, we need more quote -- pro-choice senators. i will work to sign into law. gaithersburg, maryland. we will hear from david. caller: i appreciate c-span's press reporting on this and some of the colors providing context because i think a lot of the reporting has been

irresponsible. i understand it has been unprecedented. reporting as if it is a done deal but if you read about -- kc, it went down to the last and it with kennedy and o'connor and i think the media taking hold of this especially with the -- it is a negative thing and a bad move on whoever thinks this but at the end of the day, i encourage people to look at ritual the connecticut. listen to the oral arguments and think about things like dred scott and brown and maybe the people do not want to integrate and i want to encourage people -- to do the legal thinking that works across issues. it is a chance to refocus on the state because people on the left -- state constitutions exist.

i hope roe stays and casey's days. i think it is an opportunity to -- for people to stop relying on the 14th amendment on everything and go to the state level. host: democrats line. caller: i don't have a lot to say but everyone should realize that years ago, there were abortions performed on somebody's kitchen table and it led to a dead body. two dead bodies. abortion is an necessary 80 that's people that provide safe health care for women. -- necessary evil that provides self -- safe health care for women. it will be a lot more dead women because if a woman has something

in her body that she does not want in their, she will find a way to get it out. host: that is mary in richmond, virginia. some responses from twitter. planned parenthood putting out on their twitter feed, let's be clear, this is a draft opinion, it is outrageous. it is not final. abortion is your right and it is still legal. represent of tom bacon. we dispensed -- if roe v wade is overturned, it will be left -- senator bill hagerty -- hackers -- senator vitter -- senator bill hagerty saying -- representative cheryl marilyn --

cheryl miller -- let's hear from maxine. baltimore, michigan. independent line. caller: good morning, c-span audience. folks lining up on either side of the line. i like to speak to those that are for abortion. those that are against abortion should not have them. it is simple. if you are for abortion, you have to consider, you are aborting a hearing -- human being. they may not be fully developed but it has a brain that is being developed. the brain can turn to anything and it could be an einstein that could find cures for many diseases. you never know.

you are taking a chance. are you willing to take that chance with humanity? that is all i have to say. host: the mother legislative response -- sylvia garcia saying i urge -- at the scotus leak is real, it is not only disturbing but it is on president -- unprecedented. congresswoman deborah while saying -- deborah ross saying -- let's go to fred in maryland. republican line. caller: that leak yesterday. it is obviously -- they're trying to influence the court like they have done in the past

over obama. biden is a -- the same way. a left-wing activists. up is down and down is up on abortion. i always have been pro-life. -- it comes down to choice. if they have sex, you have to take care of the baby. you guys are more worried about kids using -- using puppies and babies are nothing to you guys. this is a human -- human being that you are getting rid of. sex has consequences. remember that when it is time to vote. host: earl is in georgia. democrats line. caller: let me say, everybody that is hearing this, please go to numberofabortions.com.

in the beginning, my great-grandmother was a half blood cherokee indian, great grandfather was white. he married her and she did not have to go with it indian remove at -- act. she brought a lot of property. in cherokee county. women, the cherokee indigenous people of this country, the women had control of everything. the property, everything that was decided it was true the women. the man was a warrior, the provider and the protector of his family. host: how does that relate to the story? caller: the women will take this country over. the government will take -- will be taken over by women. because of this right wing but --budge.

women will control this country. host: let's hear from the independent line. caller: my thoughts break down to three questions everyone should ask. one is when the opinion -- congress should just do their jobs and codify it if they wanted, why is that a bad thing and how is that harder when democrats have the white house and the house? i would like to know if the journalist who stole this opinion -- is he going to get any knocks on the door from the fbi like roger ferret off -- and having the fence go up before the leaked opinion came out, if

everyone had no idea it was going to happen, why would they put the gates up ahead of time? did they know there would be plan demonstrations? host: andrew in new york. the house is coming in for a session. we will take that when the house comes in. you will hear from eva in dale's city, california. caller: i am against the court's decision and i have some comments. who will care for the babies when those kids don't have medical coverage or ways to help themselves. 1943 -- many times when i grew up, i asked my mom, why did you have us? you didn't have to feed us and

she said america -- i got married and i have two kids. one of my kids question me because of my health and mental problems. why did you have me? -- so there are many reasons why women has an abortion and let's leave it to the women if -- and if we will care for the babies, we should care for the kids -- host: eva in dale salie -- dale city, california. 10:00, pete good -- secretary pete -- secretary pete buttigieg will testify. live coverage of of that on c-span and c-span.org and c-span now. he comes to politics to the

november election. george's -- they will be participating in a debate hosted by the length oppressed club. you can see that at 7:00 on c-span.org and you can also watch courtesy of our c-span now app. the house representative is coming in for a session. we will take you to them now. >> the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house of communications from the speaker. >> i approached the honorable teams -- signed nancy pelosi p -- speaker of house of representatives. >>