education and the role of public schools with the president becky pringle and later, the american and prize institute talks about the education policies. host: this is washington journal for may the fourth and most respondents support the idea of the supreme court upholding roe v. wade. justice alito overturn the decision. in this hour, tell us what you think about the high court's influence on abortion rights. if you support roe v. wade

anyone a talk about the influence of the court the number to call is (202) 748-8000 , if you oppose roe v. wade that number is (202) 748-8001, you can text us at (202) 748-8003. the pole has charts talking to the respondents in the light of the decisions and the release of the draft yesterday. one of the questions asked about the influence of the court itself. this is what the poll says, two to one, roe v. wade should be upheld rather than overturn. abortion law is based on the 1973 supreme court ruling roe v. wade. if you think it should uphold roe v. wade or overturn it. 54% saying that the decision

should be upheld. 28% calling for it to be overturned and 18% taking the poll did not register an opinion at all. they said public opinion has not shifted since 2019 and 56% said that it should be legal in all or most cases. that is dating back to 1995. the supreme court influence over abortion rights in light of the news yesterday. we want to talk about your opinion on the courts. if you support roe v. wade (202) 748-8000, if you oppose (202)

748-8001. you can also pay -- post on facebook and twitter. president biden was asked about it and talked about efforts legislatively to put roe v. wade into law. >> will you do away with the filibuster to try to codify road? >> i think the codification of roe makes a lot of sense. does human life begin at the moment of conception is it six

months, is it six weeks? the idea that we will make the judgment that no one can make the judgment to aborted child is made by the supreme court. that is way overboard. host: senator schumer of new york loud -- vowed to bring legislation. they feel powerless. a texas law made all abortions illegal and deputized individuals, the democrats did

not have the power to bring the bill that would allow it to pass with a simple majority. senator joe manchin joined republicans in february to block consideration of the bill. we will talk more about that in the second. your thoughts on the court itself and its actions when it comes to abortion rights. the lines are on the screen, you can choose the line that is best for you. we have joel in wisconsin on our pro line. caller: the popularity that this decision might enjoy has zero relevance it is not relevant.

i want to say one thing, it would be a perfect example, being together would be eliminating. host: what do you think of the supreme court's action and of this. caller: as i tried to explain to the screener. i am opposed to roe v. wade. the reason for that is that there is no basis in our constitution or history to have such a thing. host: what do you think of the

courts actions overall? caller: i think they are great except for the staffers leaking the document. that has never been done in our history. they need to find out who did that. host: we will go to tony on our support line. tony, go ahead. caller: i just want to say that i support roe v. wade. whoever leaked the document, they deserve a medal. he or she is a hero. host: how do you feel about the court actions on abortion rights? caller: they are horrible. especially on the gop side.

80% of the people support roe v. wade. that person who leaked it, they are a hero and they deserve a medal. don't mix religion with the state. i am a christian, i believe in jesus christ. i call it the spanish inquisition. host: we will go to don. caller: we have spent two days

on this abortion stuff. report on the open borders. how many minutes have you spent on the open borders? host: let's stick to the topic at hand what you think about the court? caller: unbelievable, who watches you? host: honor support line. caller: i am really afraid that they can change a law that is been on the book for 50 years. are they going to take a woman's right to vote away? host: in the light of the potential decision? caller: not include rape and incense, a woman has a right to say no. a child does not have a right to

say no if a father is molesting her. host: how does that apply to yesterday? caller: what do you mean how does it apply? they said they had a right to say no. as far as i am concerned, any woman who is a republican is a fool. republicans are against women and every way. we don't even have equal pay. host: let's go to clarence in wyoming. caller: i don't know if i am opposed to as much as i think it should be restricted. at some point, it is viable. if someone kills a pregnant woman they charge them with the

death of a child. host: what do you think of the decision of the court? caller: after 16 weeks, at that point you should know if you want to keep the child. host: some of the opinions yesterday, taking a look at the issue of the release of those documents from yesterday. we are asking you about the courts influence and how it plays in the future of roe v. wade. we are talking about the leak of that report. what do you think about the courts influence? (202) 748-8000 if you support, if you oppose roe v. wade (202) 748-8001, you can post on facebook or twitter if you want to. congress yesterday had many discussions and one of the

people following that is scott mcfarlane from cbs news. they spoke to lisa murkowski about the news from yesterday but about how it played out when it came to the supreme court hearings that she overheard and the nominees that she voted for. here is from yesterday. >> i understand that this is unprecedented. roe v. wade is the law of the land. we don't know the direction that this is going to take yet. if this goes in the direction of the leaked copy, it rocks my

confidence in the court right now. host: that was from scott mcfarlane, comments from lisa murkowski of alaska. senator lisa murkowski and susan collins that was profiled in the washington post. the two gop senators on the defensive in their support of their supreme court confirmations. makowski voted to support amy coney barrett and bert cavanaugh. among a firestorm of controversy that was focused on the allegations of the sexual assault that cavanaugh denied. collins explained that the assault allegation should be set aside from the lack of firm

evidence. she believed that he would not overturn roe v. wade. cavanaugh explained that the president -- presented public and private statements that respected precedent. she said that she did not think he would overturn roe v. wade. that is how it played out in the halls of congress. how the supreme court plays out in all of this. on our support line, hello. caller: how are you? they knew this was coming. this was a long time coming.

they have a lot of things they want to overturn like brown v. board of education. this was going to happen. it was not a shock to me but i do support roe v. wade. abortions will still continue even if its back alley abortions. host: has this changed your opinion of the supreme court overall? caller: i have no support of the supreme court. it is conservative and they want to go back to the 1950's. host: this is keith on our oppose line. go ahead. caller: talking to you guys

before about this. you need to show people on tv what abortion is like, what they do. it is not cleaning out spur. it is going up inside and going after a little baby before they are fully grown. host: in what do you think about the court doctrines on all of this? caller: what did they say yesterday? host: that they would potentially turn roe v. wade? host: we have shown you stories

that included a draft document that was written by samuel alito , john roberts put out a statement that he will investigate who was behind the league. dorothy, in virginia. hello? caller: i am for abortion. i feel that is a woman's right. men talk about women should not have abortion, but we don't talk about men. men need to get a birth control pill. just like they have a men dysfunction pill. if they did what they should do, they don't want to wear condoms. go get you a birth control pill.

we would never have to talk about abortion again. those are my comments. host: one of the people talking on the steps of the capital. senator chuck shermer talking about the ruling on roe v. wade. if the decision comes down on that case later this year. here is senator schumer. senator schumer: i want to make three things very clear. first our intention for the senate to hold legislation to codify the right to an abortion in law. second, a vote on this legislation is no longer an abstract exercise, this is urgent and as real as it gets. we will vote to protect a woman's right to choose and every american is going to see which side every senator stands on.

third, to the american people i say this, the elections this november will have consequences because the rights of a hundred million women are on the ballot. to help find -- fight this decision, i urge americans to have their voice heard this year. call your senators, call them, and most of all caster ballots this november. if roe v. wade is overturned we have to assume there is more to come. the question is, what is it that these republicans will overturn next? will it be griswold where they would prevent women from getting contraception. will they have the supreme court

overturned obergevell so they can prevent same-sex marriage? they will turn back the clock to a time where women, people of color, lgbtq people are second-class citizens. host: those are the last part of the comments from senator schumer talking about that leak of information from the supreme court. it also makes clear that turning over roe v. wade does not signal other overturning's of other precedents. overturning roe v. wade will not

be the end of abortion it will turn it over to the states. if it is overturned, some states will ban abortion rights where others will make it easier. the supreme court's influence over abortion rights. jim is on our oppose line, go ahead. caller: the brainwashing of the democrats and the national broad cast networks is in full bloom right now. i object to roe v. wade not on the basis of whether the woman should have an abortion. i object to what is being consider is whether the states should be the ones to decide whether a woman has the right. they are not determining or

commenting on whether the right a woman should have an abortion. the question is whether the states, should this be a law enacted by voters not a ruling by the supreme court. that is what they are ruling on. all the justices might think that a woman does have the right to an abortion that is not what they are ruling on. everybody calm down because half of the states have legalized abortion. if you look at a map of the states that have legalized abortion and i determined that the longest drive a woman would have to make to have a legal abortion if roe v. wade is overturned is 300 miles. that is the longest one. half of the states have it legalized already. host: carolyn on our support

line. caller: after viability it can be restricted but before viability of a woman has that right. my grandmother had a mental breakdown after each birth, after child number five she went to a mental institution for six years. they call it the baby blues. when you have a child if you knew that you would have to go to a mental institution for six years? people are not thinking about the consequences of childbirth. host: let's hear from chris on our oppose line. caller: thank you for taking my call. the supreme court should push

this back down to the states. this does not stop abortion in america. in maryland, they put it on the ballot in the voters voted for it in maryland. there are plenty of states that will continue to have abortion, it will put it back down to the states. you can choose what state to live in. a lot of the federal laws should go back to the states. i think we should have our own choices. it will be funny to watch this debate play out because he will hear two sides. on the left you will hear emotions, name-calling, someone referred to amy coney barrett as the spanish inquisition. you will hear about rape and

incensed -- incest. over the last couple of years, the transgender things. we went through a pandemic where nobody had a choice. host: let's hear from tom in maryland on the support line. caller: i think most conservatives are against abortion until someone gets knocked up by their 15-year-old boyfriend. host: how do you feel about the court? caller: they are infringing on everybody's rights and nobody has the right to say what someone else has to do with their body.

host: this is on her twitter feed, "my opinion is not on the legality itself. it seems that the federal government pushing back to the states is ok with me." randy saying "if you want an abortion, if you don't want one you don't have to get one. that is the greatest measure of freedom and democracy and." lindsey graham saying that if the supreme court overturns roe v. wade, --

if you want to reference twitter. frank is in silver creek, georgia. caller: obey the law of your land. i am not a new testament believer. i am going to say this, this is 50 years too late. the end is coming soon. let's talking about the math of abortion. we should have a collision -- population of 600 million right now. we don't have support for the aging population.

people, wake up. host: let's hear from patty in pennsylvania. caller: i support roe v. wade and i believe that the minority is taking control. these christian conservatives are white nationalists and their political and social views are valid. they believe they should be in control of the political process. host: do you think the supreme court as a political entity? caller: absolutely. host: why do you think that? caller: because of who is nominated for the supreme court.

how trump and the republicans maneuvered that when they wanted republican appointees to the supreme court. as far as the leaker, they expose the liars and the justice system. host: that was patty in pennsylvania giving her thoughts on the supreme court. you can continue on in the next half-hour. (202) 748-8000 if you support roe v. wade, (202) 748-8001 if

you oppose it, (202) 748-8003 for texts. you can see actual give-and-take between legislators. if you can go to our website you can find all of that. to see the recent process of amy coney barrett, that goes back to 2020. the exchange that she had with legislators on abortion. >> will you acknowledge that planned parenthood versus casey, they talked about the reliance interest on roe v. wade, is roe v. wade a precedent? >> how would you decide a precedent? >> i am asking you. >> the way that it is used in

the scholarship and the way i used in the article is that cases that are so well settled that no political actors could overrule it. i am answering a lot of questions about roe v. wade and scholars across the spectrum say that does not mean that roe v. wade should not be overruled, it is not a case that everyone has accepted. >> you said that brown v. board of education is a super precedent. that is something that the supreme court is not said, if you say that why won't you say that about roe v. wade ed case that the court has described as a super precedent? >> i am using a term in that

article that is from scholarly literature that was developed by scholars that take a more progressive approach to the constitution. richard fallon from harvard said, roe v. wade is not as super precedent it is not mean that it should not be overruled. it just means that is one of those cases that no one questions anymore. host: you can hear more of that on c-span.org. you can see what they said about this topic but other topics as well. diane in connecticut on our oppose line. caller: i am opposed to

abortion. i think it should never have been allowed in the beginning because we have other alternatives to abortion. we have the birth control pills which does not kill a baby at all. i can understand why women are so upset that they can no longer kill their children in the womb. host: on the support line from pennsylvania. caller: i would like to comment that you were reading from the wall street journal. many of your viewers are not aware that the wall street journal and the new york post are owned by the same parent corporation. as far as the supreme court, we are going to have five catholic

justices that will rule on the majority of this country all perpetrated by a president who lost the election by 2.8 million votes. this will be forced on the majority of people in this country simply because we did not elect the president by votes. no republican has won the popular vote since 1988 and he would not have had the opportunity to win the presidency in 2000. host: abortion has long been an issue for catholic democrats and joe biden has been conflicted about it.

he has never used the word abortion, he finds it uncomfortable to do so. he is a supporter of abortion rights, some bishops refused to offer him communion. biden has received support from the vatican, the relationship could grow more complex. if you want to read that, that is from the washington post. rick, in new york on the oppose line. caller: i think you need one

more category, undecided. there is a lot of issue between religion. some people have to make a medical decision. if you are pregnant and there is a fetal heartbeat and someone no longer wants the baby. we are not here to wipe out a generation because we don't care for it. host: from brenda in pennsylvania on the support line. caller: as far as the supreme court, mitch mcconnell did his best to pack the supreme court because the pro-life republican leadership wanted to repeal roe v. wade.

in the 50 years of roe v. wade, how many times have the pro-life republicans ever brought repeal to the floor? they never brought it up for a vote. they never wanted to be on the record on how they feel about roe v. wade. mitch mcconnell did his best to pack the supreme court and have them do it. after the affordable care act, they brought up repeal dozens of times but not once did they try to repeal roe v. wade. in the first years of the trump administration when washington was republican control, they never once tried to repeal roe v. wade.

tens of thousands of women died during childbirth every year. maybe a woman is fearing for her life and safety and wants to stand her ground. host: matters of politics, the ohio senate primary played out and how that ended up. jd vance triumphed in ohio beating six other republicans. the associated press called the race at around 9:30. he will face tim ryan in november. jd vance got support from president trump. 32% voting for jd vance, josh

mandel add 29%. tim ryan is on the democratic side was the clear winner last night. he had 69% support. david from kentucky on our support line. caller: i would like to comment. i am 81 years old, a white man, or coalminer. i am talking to the religious group of the united states. adam was created and god breathed a breath of air and he

became a living soul. there are ladies out there who are facing death who are pregnant and the only way they can survive was to have an abortion. i am not for abortion on everything. when it comes to saving a person who is breathing air like the bible says, we have people in the religious group that says a fetus is a human being. a fetus is not a human being until it breathes the breath of air through his nostril. that goes back to the king james version of the bible. host: david from kentucky.

the washington dimes with the story by valerie richardson talking about abortion rates in the united states and how they compare historically. after peaking in 1980, the u.s. abortion rate has steadily declined. in 2019 fl to a historic low with 13.5 to 10,000 women. from 2010, 3 2019 abortions fell by 18%. the abortion rate dropped among women ages 15 to 44. that was from the washington times. from sarah in indiana. caller: the reason i oppose, i

think the democrats brought this out before the primaries and that is the only reason. i have a short story. my granddaughter was eight months pregnant. she was a runner in school and did not know she was pregnant. she told her mom i think i might be pregnant. she was eight months pregnant and they told her she could have an abortion. on the ultrasound, she had hair and fingers. you should abort a baby like that? that is nothing but murder. host: on our support line in minnesota. this is sharon. caller: thank you pedro.

the first thing i want to say is i am having a hard time seeing the separation of church and state. next comment, if any of these judges in their confirmation hearing said that roe versus wade is lost, these judges need to be held in contempt. i want to address the gentleman saying a woman has to drive 300 miles to get an abortion. what a gentleman want to get three -- drive 300 miles to get his erectile dysfunction meds? if we can have a separate line for women and for men because

the last two days it is been difficult for women to listen to all these white men that are calling in with their viewpoints. it has been very difficult. host: that was sharon from minnesota. she talked about the nominees for the supreme court. brett kavanaugh and his confirmation, being questioned by dianne feinstein talking about roe v. wade. here's some of that exchange. >> it is been reported that you have said that roe v. wade is settled law. the first question i have, what do you mean by settled law? i tried to ask earlier and you relayed correct law. is it settled precedent or could it be overturned?

have your views changed since you are in the bush white house? >> i said that it is settled as a president -- precedent. roe v. wade has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years. most prominently, reaffirmed and plan parent hood versus kc. when that case came up, the supreme court did not reaffirm it in passing, it specifically went through all of the factors of stare decisis in the joint opinions of kennedy, --

>> i sat on nine of these hearings. the person says i will follow starry decisiveness --stare deci ses and of course they don't. how you make a judgment on these issues, it is important to our view whether to support you or not. i truly believe that women should be able to control their own reproductive systems within some concern for a viable fetus. >> i understand your point of view on that and i understand how passionate and how deeply people feel about this issue.

host: if you want to see more of that testimony from nominee brett kavanaugh you can goad to c-span.org. he and other nominees that have gone through the process of being question by the due dishy airy committee -- senate judiciary committee. they said justice alito would further divide the country in every state house. the greatest casualty would not be the court or toxic pollen talks, it would be pregnant individuals stripped of their rights. some states are trying to outlaw

these practices as well, people would be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies and the risks they entail. more of that if you want to read the editors lots in the washington post. this is hermann in georgia on the oppose line. caller: i am listening to arguments and i am a preacher. all of these people who are calling in and calling a baby a fetus in all of this stuff, are we talking about a fetus? when you aren't -- when you are calling a baby a fetus, if you

are going to say that it is not a human being. do you remember when your wife was pregnant and she put your hand on her stomach to feel the baby kick? if it was not a live human being it could not cake. for these people who want to face judgment one day. the lord wants no murderers, no thieves. host: let's hear from sarah in kansas. caller: the lady who said

something about a white man. he can see a life and that womb. ladies, we as a society have got to stop doing evil. we protected these people from this horrible pandemic and won't protect you life. host: you are calling on the line that supports roe v. wade is that your position or not? caller: i support people making their own decisions but i want people to have a heart. this is not political. in my opinion, this is not a political issue at all. host: that was sarah and kansas

calling this morning. you can do the same. if you support roe v. wade (202) 748-8000, if you oppose (202) 748-8001, you can texas at (202) 748-8003. you heard the tweet from pramila jayapal. talking about the trigger laws, 13 states have bands on abortion that will go into effect automatically if roe v. wade no longer applies. the district of columbia has laws protecting abortion rights. if you take a look at the map, you can see the trigger laws in place. in purple, west coast states and

northeast laws protecting abortion. we will learn more about that in our 9:00 hour. if you want to learn more about trigger laws and how they are applied join us at 9:00. let's hear from rose in north carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. don't call this a conspiracy theory. the latest trend in the united states is convincing a child to have an abortion. my girlfriend loves getting pregnant and have an abortion. she is very sexually active. she has had seven abortion. they rely on people like that,

there is a ton of money selling organs. host: with all that in mind, with the court issue on this what do you think? caller: don't hide the fact that we have doctors, experimental doctors selling and extracting organs. host: how does this applied to this discussion and roe v. wade being overturned? caller: i want to start organ calling by conservatives. host: we will go to james in the louisiana. caller: i agree with the

gentleman that started this conversation. i wish we could stop being so emotional. objectively, there are definitions that we can't agree on. when does life begin? whether we call it a fetus, a baby, viable, all of these terms we can't decide yet. until we can get these definitions settled by law, then we can determine whether we can change this law or not. right now, we all will be judged one day. you say it is not political, how we picked these judges? that is not political.

the amount of money going into this issue, that is not political? it is. let's slow down and really understand what side we are on a make a decision. host: when it comes to the actual leak that you saw come out of the story from two days ago. justice roberts put out a statement as far as the document involved and what happens next at the supreme court. justices circulate drafts internally, although the document described is authentic it does not represent a decision by the court. the betrayal of the confidence of our court, if they tried to

undermine our court they will not succeed. this is an affront to the court. a community of public servants were cured, the marshals will launch an investigation at the end of the week. this is from the chief justice following the relief -- release of the political story. this is tony, and santa fe. caller: i would like to say that judge alito's opinion has no value because he said that corporations are people and money is free speech. and now he wants to take

abortion rights from women. i don't know why people haven't brought up amendment nine. maybe we should define what people are as different sexes. a woman should have a choice and no man should be tell a woman what she should do with her body. the majority leader in the senate, he has the answer. host: from new jersey. caller: i am calling on the

independent line. i do support it, the point of all of this is. does a woman have the right to control her own body? when did we become so fast is that we can dictate what people can and cannot do. host: this is matt on our oppose line. caller: can you define what a woman is? host: we are talking about the supreme court. caller: this has everything to do with it. we had a supreme court, a person who was being questioned by

senators who could not define what a woman is. i think this is more about equal justice for men and women. a woman cannot get pregnant without a man. i know a lot of cases where a woman killed the baby and the husband was against it. host: this is from bob on our support line. caller: if life begins at conception, other obligations properly apply as well. obviously, the male should be held accountable and provide assistance and support to the health of the embryo. spurn providers --sperm

providers must provide support. host: your response on the supreme court's ruling? caller: guest: -- caller: if the growing embryo as a child it other have all the rights of the child including things like receiving child tax credits for which they absolutely qualify. host: host: ok host:, we will even there. appreciate all of you who participated. if you want to make your comments known, feel free to join us. before then, two guests joining us to talk about education-related matters. our first is the president of the national education association to talk about education policy in public school. that conversation coming up later on in the program. the senior fellow director of education policy studies at

american enterprise institute. those conversations coming up on "washington journal." announcer: american history tv exploring the people and events that tell the american story. journalist jeffrey frank looks back at the president z in harry truman including the dropping of the first nuclear bomb with the extraordinary presidency of an ordinary man. then, on lectures in history, a college professor teaches a class about the mexican american war during the late 1840's. exploring the american story. watch american history tv

saturday on c-span two and find a full schedule on your program guide, or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of the brain, bringing you the latest from the president and other white house officials, the pentagon and the state department as well as congress. also international perspectives of the united nations and statements from war leaders, all of the c-span network. 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/. there are a lot of places to get political information, but only

at c-span you get it straight from the source. c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. america is watching on c-span. howard by cable. -- powered by cable. announcer: washington journal continues. host: our first guest of the morning, the president of the national education association. thanks for joining us today. guest: good to be with you again. host: can you remind reviewers about the scope of the nea? guest: we are the largest labor union in this country, representing 3 million teachers and support staff, nurses, counselors, higher education, faculty.

and we represent those college students who are aspiring to be educators. host: if i understand correctly, it is national teacher appreciation week and you engage the teachers on a regular basis. what is your sense from them about the degree to which they are appreciated these days? guest: let me begin with #thankateacher. we set aside and have for a long time set aside this week, but these last years have been incredibly challenging and stressful and the pandemic that has fueled so much loss and stress and uncertainty. this year more than ever, we have to be thinking about what showing appreciation for teachers actually need.

i taught science for over 30 years and i know there has never been another year where we have to the think about how we show that appreciation. we actually ask them to call in and tell us what appreciation looks like. we've got thousands and thousands of teachers flooding those lines to share with us what appreciation looks like so that they have the support and encouragement they need to continue to stay in this noble profession. host: some of the things recently, 91 percent of those saying that pandemic-related stress was a serious problem for educators. 55% of members saying they planned to leave the realm of education sued because of that pandemic. 86% of members saying they are seeing more educators leaving. if that is the case, what is being done to grabs retain them?

what is being done to replace those who would leave the profession? >> we were actually quite shocked at the high numbers that we got, the number of educators who were really planning to leave earlier than they thought they would. if you ask them why, they identified a wealth of issues like educator salaries that we did more research on, and they also talked about the mental health of their students. that falling on their shoulders, so many of their students come back with social and emotional needs and true mental health crises. they don't have enough mental health experts in schools or the resources to meet those needs. the last thing, the top three, that third one was that they need more of them. they need more educators, more

support staff, or counselors. they can do this job alone. that stress of stepping in and filling those gaps, not having enough substitutes covering just really made this crisis a five-alarm fire. it has not been around as a crisis for a while, but the pandemic has only worsened it. host: we saw money come from the federal government to bolster educators during the pandemic. what is being done with that money to help the issues that you are addressing? guest: it is still in the process of reaching the citizens, but we have so many incredible examples of how that money has been used to address the issues that i just talked about. hiring more mental health professionals so students have the support they need, raising teacher and support staff

salaries so they stay in the profession and they don't have to have other jobs and not have the time to connect with families or parents, and they also are just hiring more doctors and nurses, using the american rescue plan money to do just that. so we are working the nea, investing millions of dollars to establish what we call the erp network. we have people in every single state assisting our educators, making sure that they are at the table helping to make the decisions, that they know exactly what that money can be allocated for and they are part of plan to ensure that that money gets to our student and air schools and our educators. host: the bottleneckshost:, can you elaborate on that? guest: you know, early on there were some states who refused to accept the money.

as always, when we are talking about federal dollars, by the time it is actually reaching the locality about local school district, sometimes it takes a while for that allocation of funds to reach to the place where it is closest to her students. i've been working directly with the secretary of education to address those needs. if we find out that there are people either deliberately blocking, or just something usually, to make sure that we solve those issues so that our students have those resources. host: and what has miguel cardona said about those issues? guest: he has been absolutely transparent about the reality that sometimes it does take intervention to ensure that we get the money where it needs to go, for those who deliberately

block at the outset, but at the department of education is addressing the issues and can terms -- confirms that either the state or the localities have, they are freeing up that money and getting it to her students. host: if you want to ask her questions, we have divided the lines differently. if you are a student and perhaps want to give your perspective, (202) 748-8000. if you are an educator, (202) 748-8001. all others, (202) 748-8002. you can also text us your thoughts at (202) 748-8003. we are coming posted many schools finishing off the school year. how would you compare this year as far all the education, and what has to be made up because of the pandemic in previous years? guest: i've been traveling all over the country on what i call my joy, justice and excellent

store to find out what students are doing to address the needs that we know have only grown during the pandemic, hell they are thinking about social and emotional and academic needs of our students, and no matter where i go, i always run into educators. not just air teachers, but our support staff talking about the joy of teaching and learning, asking for that additional support, the support that comes from respecting them at the professionals they are, the support from getting the materials they need to provide that one-on-one help for all of our students, and so what i am seeing is incredible, incredible things by our students, but we know there are gaps that are still there. as we begin to go into the summer months, we will continue

our work over the summer to bridge those gaps, to the accelerated tutoring and collaborating to bring additional resources to her students so that we will continue to close those gaps over the summer. host: our first call for our guest is on a line for educators in arkansas. this is kevin. kevin in arkansas, go ahead. caller: thanks so much for taking my call. i wanted to bring up a topic and see what the guest has to say about i am a community college professor in one of the trends i see in education over the last 15 years or so is the use of learning management systems instead of the traditional in class environment. it amounts to something like can visit or blackboard or noodle providing an online delivery

system for students to use, it is completely electronic. these are online classes, and i've noticed a lot of high schools are also in operating this tool. in these tools like canvas or blackboard are very expensive for school districts, and also i've noticed some contradictory viewpoints among educators on these. for example, in my institution, we are getting contradictory messages. there are professional developments that we will hear usually from some kind of educational psychologist who says on one hand that use of online platforms is harmful for their development, the brain development, but also at the same time, the institution will say that they are the wave of the future, that we have to use them, they are in such demand that we are going to put more and more classes online to offer

more availability to these classes for more people. and so i'm kind of wondering what they have to say on the use of lms's. host: kevin, thank you. guest: pedro, kevin brings up a lot of issues. we've learned a lot during this pandemic about the technology and the tools that were there two years ago, the tools that have been developed since then, and how we can actually use tools to provide a more complete education for students, and meet them where they are. we have many students who thrived in virtual learning, many students who did not. we know now that virtual tools can help in some instances, and in some instances, it is not the best way for students to learn. what we have been advocating for is for educators to be at the table making those continuing learning decisions based on the

individual needs of the students. and something else, some of these tools are very expensive. we talked early on at the outset of the pandemic, we fought really hard for not only funding, but for the additional funding for the rate that would actually provide more access broadband to more students and families, particularly more areas, and we still, years later, we still have students and families who cannot connect to the internet. we still have students and families who do not have all the tools available, so there are always those issues of inequity that kevin raised that as a country, we cannot look away from that. as we learn more and we are able to use additional tools, and we should, we should always exploring new ways and opportunities to learn, but we need to tailor-make than to our

students needs. host: how did teacher salaries in the u.s. compared to the rest of the developed world? caller: teacher salaries have lost ground for about the last 2.5 decades since the early 90's, not only educators across the world, but within our country. when we look at professions that are similarly situated with teachers, we have what we call an income gap. that gap now sits at about almost 20%, so when you think about similarly situated professions, teachers make 20% less than those professions. we are talking about comparing them to professions with similar experience and similar requirements in terms of degrees

and education, so that has been going on for almost three decades. then if we go back 10 years, teachers make now, adjusted for inflation, two thousand dollars less than they made 10 years ago. we have lost so much ground in teacher salaries, and that is why honestly you saw them go out a couple of years ago where the country looked in horror and saw educators living in their cars because they couldn't afford to buy or even rent an apartment where they were teaching. teachers living two or three together just to get by. they were telling their stories about the reality that their salaries have not kept pace with their salaries in this country, let alone around the world. host: the line for thomas in florida. caller: thanks for having me on

and thank you for being on. i want to talk about the gender gap in education but real fast, just to touch upon the two previous points, i was actually a teacher in vietnam when i was 18 years old and i was making $22 per hour. something else that i agree with, need to have more practical classes for real-world subjects such as economics, taxes, government, computer science. anyway, to talk about the gender education gap, this is something that doesn't get a lot of media coverage. male students at every level are very behind female students at every level. boys of all ages get lower grades than girls of the same age. and men are only 40% of undergrad students. and when you look at why boys are falling so far behind in education, there are several reasons and several theories, but there are some studies that show that boys actually get

lower grades from the same work, and there is a grading bias in play. so my question, what do you think can be done to address the gender gap in education where men and boys are falling behind? thank you. guest: so we always are taking a look at any gaps, whether they be gender gaps or whether they be gaps in race or gaps based on economic status, because it is absolutely essential that we talk about the equity that we want to have in our system to meet the individual needs of students. as educators, we work very, very hard to ensure that we take a look at our own biases and we look at our classrooms, we

develop strategies to think about how we view our students and make sure that we are learning about that individual student, we are valuing the rich diversity they bring to our classroom, that we are providing them with that additional assistance and help so that if they are falling into any gaps, be they social or emotional or academic gaps, that we are diagnosing that and we are working together as collaborative teams to actually address those gaps. regardless of where gaps might exist, as educators, that is our professional responsibility to address those, and to identify them and to advocate for the resources that those students need and deserve so that we can address any inequity that exist in our system.

host: on those classroom issues, a question from twitter saying there are way too many students per teacher. she offers the idea of having night school for kids. talk about the issue overall. guest: we know that far too many of our classrooms are overcrowded. we've been talking about class-size for decades. we know that it makes a difference how many students are in the classroom and certainly makes a difference if you go into a classroom and there are so many students that they don't have enough chairs to sit in. they don't have enough books to go around. they don't have the ability to have that kind of one-on-one attention from their teachers. and so class-size absolutely impacts every student's ability to learn. it is one of the things that when we were fighting and advocating for the passage of the american rescue plan funding that we do think class-size ended up on the list things that we could use the money for, and

we do see some districts hiring more teachers to lower that class-size, especially now. after these two years with our students coming back to us with greater gaps, especially social and emotional, we absolutely must lower those class sizes. host: this is philip from tennessee, a parent, go ahead. caller: yes, yes. i've got a question i want to ask you. i'm a student of the 60's and the 70's. we learned about history and civics. i was an underachiever in high school, but when i went to college, i was an over achiever.

i graduated with an associate degree, and i went to work not my -- well, i did go to work in my field, but it was in computers, but i go to work for the electricians, which i made more money. now, what i'm getting at is when i was in grade school and high school, i've seen teachers go to manufacturing because of the underpaying that they received as an educator. why... why is it that educators, they have to deal with the formerly of life with youth? why aren't they paid more, and i know they aren't psychologists.

guest: well, they should be paid more because we know the incredible work that our educators do. we know that they play such an integral role in the foundation of this democracy. we know that they dedicate their lives to educating american students, and they approach that work from that whole student. they are not only making sure that they are making waves academically, but they know how important it is for them to grow and develop, so they can take their place at the leaders of a just society. you're absolutely correct, they should make more, and their salaries should reflect the important work they do in the society. host: from jackson, this is on the line for others in virginia. caller: good morning, thank you

for taking my call. my question is around what is called tactics and techniques of resources. the caller previously, his question was about resources. i'm a veteran, i am a father of three daughters, very young, very smart, under the age of 10. as i watch the resource battle in the land of limited resources, my question to you is tactics and techniques that you are using or that you are going to use to ensure that the limited resources we have that are going to wars, that are going to helping rebuild and make other countries great, what are you doing in the federal system in congress to negotiate your piece of that pie, considering you are probably the most important people.

what are you doing to change that specifically inside our congress? guest: i always say that in this country, it is not a matter of wealth. it actually is a matter of wealth, that is what it is. if we truly believe that every student, every one deserves the resources that they need to move into their brilliance, then we will provide those resources. at the nea, we have and will continue to demand not only at a federal level that those resources are there for every student in every school, but we are advocating at the state level as well.

we are advocating at the local level, too. all three levels of government have a responsibility to ensure that we have an equitable, sustainable funding system with resources that allow every school in this country to look like the best public school in this country. over 80% of the richest people in america can send their students anywhere, but they send their babies the public schools because they are the best schools in this country. but not every school in this country has those kinds of resources of the best public schools, and so that is what we will continue to have, continue to demand at every single level. host: you've heard about what went on in florida passage of the life and education bill. what do you think about this

idea of teaching the topic of race at younger levels, which became the centerpiece of the ordinal legislation? guest: let me begin by saying, pedro, that teachers and parents have always been partners in the education of our children. we share the same core values. we want to make sure that all of our students are learning and are supported so they can thrive and grow and develop. we understand together that it takes a shared responsibility, and all of the systems surrounding our students, whether they be health-care or housing or food, all of those systems have to operate in a way that they are equitable and allowing students to come to school ready to learn every day. we work very collaboratively with our parents, and we saw that particularly during the pandemic. we of course partner with our

parents to provide what they so need and deserve. we know that for our students to be prepared that they have to have access to a complete, honest curriculum, so that they are prepared to make critical decisions, that they are prepared to collaborate in problem-solving. they must understand the history of this country so that they can take their rightful place in solving the issues that still confront us today because of that issue. the inequity that exist today, because of that. i have a 10-year-old grandson, he is in fourth grade. and he, like all other students, is always asking questions. and by the way, they are always watching. they are always listening. and they absolutely need to be

able to ask those questions about what is happening in our country and have the opportunity to have those conversations and age-appropriate discussions. absolutely. but it is important that our students ask questions or they share their reality about their families and who their families are, and what their families look like. we, as an education system, need to welcome all of our students, value all of our students, make sure all of our students are safe and healthy and thriving, and that is exactly what educators are doing every single day. host: let's hear from charles in new york on the line for others. hi. caller: i don't know how this union representative can justify salaries or pay increases. consider this.

they are behind 23 countries in science, 23 in reading, finland and estonia beat us in all three categories, and then math, probably one of the most important, we are behind 38 in slovakia, russia, vietnam, slovenia. you try to teach critical race theory. who do you represent? do you represent the student or the teachers? it is time to get rid of public school altogether. we can do better. guest: the national education association, we are a union of professionals who have made a decision to teach and nurture and foster the growth of students across this country.

we do that every single day. in is why this week is set aside to demonstrate the appreciation for what educators do every day to ensure that not one, not some, but every student has what they need and what they so deserve. we understand that one of those things is to have a caring and qualifying, committed educator in every classroom. to do that, we must attract and then we must retain those high quality educators because we know the difference they make in the lives of our students. and so as a country, we've got to address this real crisis that we do not have enough educators who are currently in education, and we don't have enough students were making that decision to go into education. as a society, we must address

that, not only about salaries, but about what our teachers are telling us every day. it is about respect, demonstrating that they are respected as the professionals they are, that they have the autonomy and collective authority to make teaching and learning decisions for the students they love. host: national education association, she serves as the president. thanks for your time today. guest: #thankateahcer. host: we are going to get another perspective from the american enterprise institute. they will join us in washington journal continues.

announcer: book tv every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 2:00 p.m. eastern from the institute energy conference, debate and discussion on climate change with the author of fossil future: why local human flourishing requires more oil, coal, and natural gas, not less. an introduction to modern climate change. in the author of false alarm: how climate change panic cost us trillions and failed to fix the planet. and dr. deborah birx provides her first-hand account of the trump administration response to the covid-19 health crisis. she is interviewed by the director of the institute for national and global health laws. plus, book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedule on the program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org.

now available in the c-span shop, see stans 2022 congressional directorate. this spiral-bound book is your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress. also, contact information for state governors and the five-minute ministration cabinet. order your copy today, or scan the code with your smartphone. every purchase helps support the nonprofit operation. there are a lot of places to get political information, but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from, where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for

word. whether it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. host: joining us now is rick, thanks for joining us. guest: good to be with you, thanks for having me. host: a recent piece of your op-ed takes a look at the topic of education under the headline: are democrats losing the advantage they had on education? what prompted this. guest: is a question between the fights over school closures and criminal race theory and virginia's election last fall. obviously, the entanglement between politics and partisan affiliation and education, and going back to president obama and president bush and president clinton, education has often

been an issue for parties to position themselves. i thought we would look back a couple of decades and see if we were the are seeing something different or not. host: when it comes to the advantage is being held by democrats, what would those be? guest: historically, democrats are the party of public education. teachers unions, working hard in the primaries to get out the vote for democrats. the democrats are the party of higher education, the party of more spending. this is usually translated to a really hefty democratic advantage. looking back 20 years of polling data, the democratic advantage is usually around 15 points. during 1996, bill clinton was ahead by more than 40 points. president obama had more than a 30 point lead. what we see when we look at the trend in data is right now,

democrats are doing worse than they have at any point in the last 20 years, under 45% for the first time since the data files begin. it suggested that there is potentially a real shakeup from being the party of public education after the school masking fights and extended school closure that is perhaps not the advantage of one was. host: is the data showing direct correlation about those issues and why they are decreasing, or are they anecdotal? guest: this is going back to 2003, done by the winston group using a consistent methodology. some years once or not at all, this is the same survey asking the same questions.

do you have confidence when it comes to education? no. two your larger question, absolutely no way to say this is changing the cause of that. we do see that there is a bunch of other polling out there, from gallup, wall street journal, and executive editor of a magazine, so there's a lot of other data points you can look to and reasonable people are going to argue about what looks to be a precipitous drop in democratics or in 29 dean. democrats have covered 55, 60% of what is happening in education for the better part of 50 years, and since 2019 for the first time, under 45% now.

we could talk about why that is and whether it is just coincidental, happening after the pandemic and after this culture clash, but i think it is an important data point for those of us thinking about where is the public on education? host: our guest with us, if you want to asking questions or talk a bit about the biden administration approach, you can call in. as you look at those trends as far as the biden approach to education policy, how does this differ from previous democrats? what phase of the administration if those numbers are going down? guest: one of the interesting things is that for most of the late 1980's, 1990's, to thousands, for president bush,

president clinton, the second president bush, president obama, education with the way that those parties played to the middle. for republicans, it was a way that they showed compassionate conservatism. when they talked about earned success, it wasn't just talk, it was the genesis of president bush's no child left behind. the idea was that they were a party of opportunity. they had to make sure that every child had than opportunities. for democrats, it was kind of the opposite. when you think about president clinton's campaign, he was trying to run against walker mondale, education is a way to talk about if you work hard, he wanted to be there for americans who work hard and play by the rules. he wasn't just for spending, he was for investing. president obama used his support for charter schools in very much the same way, to make the point

that his educational race to the top wasn't just about more money, it was about investing and transformation. what has been different both during the trump administration and the biden restriction is you no longer really see the demonstrations using education to speak to the middle. president trump very much in attacking common core was speaking about education in terms that we haven't seen and we absolutely seem that with the biden administration. the administration launched an attack on charter schools, talk of loan forgiveness, his push for free college and universal pre-k, these are all proposals, but are not calculated necessarily from that perspective. host: we will elaborate on this but before we go to calls, if you are seeing this decrease

amongst emigrants when it comes to education policies, does that automatically assume that republicans are taking advantages in that? guest: that is part of the interesting story here. as democrats have lost 10%-15% in support of the last several years, you would normally expect republicans to make those. most of that support has not gone to republicans. most of it right now is in the bucket that we don't have confidence in either party, and so one of the things that strikes me about the court is that democrats and some of these issues are very much a cross purposes with a lot of american assessments, including a lot of traditional democratic voters. a republican has not yet won those votes over. right now, republicans are very much reacting, they are firing

back, but if you try to think about what republicans are offering that is going to make the lives of american families that are, that is going to help solve the problems of students and caregivers, it is harder to think of a full-fledged agenda. i think one of the things that the data might suggest is over the next six months and then as we look at 2020 or, there's going to be a real opportunity for whichever party can make the case that is focused on solving the problems for the vast majority of americans in the middle. host: we will take some calls for our guest, this is kyle in new york on the line parents. you are on with our guest. caller: good morning, c-span viewers. i was listening to the segment earlier and some of the stuff that you were just talking about right now. something that always thought, that i don't know why we've had is the department of education, it would appear that each state kind of makes their own choices.

i am fortunate because i have three kids, two in college and i'm also a teacher as well, so i have been listening to a lot of the people bashing the teachers. but as a parent, if you look at the different states, i'm sure the numbers will be different, and the funding that goes along towards i believe just funds the public schools states, but the main funding of the public schools comes from the local districts as far as property taxes. someone had mentioned earlier that teachers are overpaid. in that case, i think we should lower the standards for what teachers need to become. they don't need a college degree and they really shouldn't have a masters degree because if you are wiring a teacher to go to school, college, and have a masters degree, then they should be paid masters degree levels.

the work of average teacher pay is about $70,000 per year. i don't think that is a lot of money. someone in new york city last week, they called and said the teachers are making one or $20,000. i mean, i would love to make $120,000. i go back to my original, -- host: thank you, we will let the guest answer. guest: first, just for viewers who are curious, state finance is a very big thing. a big proponent of local property taxes, it is hard to move property away. but every state has these equalization's which spread out money across the state. they differ in how much. some states, it is down to about $7,000 or $8,000 other states, as high as $20,000 that a $7,000

per kid per year, not overall. federal department of education, the short reason why we had jimmy carter on the campaign trail, he said if he got elected, he would create the department of education, and he did. but since 1980, ronald reagan has promised to dismantle the department of education and never did so. the case for a federal department of education is something we talked about for 30, 40 years. one issue, a bunch of federal activities at this point, this funding for children with special needs. this funding for schools with a lot of low-income children. there's the pell grant program. right now there is a highly contentious student lending program. even if you dismantle the federal department of education,

these programs will still exist, or you could just move them over to the health and human services and basically re-create the health, education, and welfare department. at some level, it is less useful to argue should be have a federal department of education, and probably more useful to argue about do we want washington to be running these programs, whether or not there is a federal department? host: on the line for all others, this is from maryland, this is ricky. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have found out that the politicians are using teachers to play politics. at one time in their lives, -- to be where they are today. politics should not come into our children nation. we should try to help the

children. today i found out that america has --. there are two types of --, one trying to promote teacher education, one trying to destroy them. that is what is going on. students are not being taught well. to make these children responsible, make them respectful and show them how to live their lives. but i wish that we would stop using our children for politics. host: thanks, ricky. guest: you know, i think one of the things the caller was touching on his right now, you and i mentioned their seated calls for changes in america's schools.

fights over masking for much of the school year. we seen these fights about critical race theory. we saw it in the recent controversy around florida's bill regarding how teachers should address issues of gender and gender identity. i think one of the problems, and here is where i would take some issue with the caller, while i very much support your sentiment, i think one of the problems is very much one of caricature. i think a lot of the press coverage hasn't helped. we hear a lot that the fight is run critical race theory, about whether to ban topic from american schools. the piece last fall, 100 plus major media news stories, that

is how you understand critical race theory. the new york times and the washington post and major education outlet that is really not the fight. more than 90% of republicans say of course schools should teach jim crow. that is not actually what is in dispute. what is in dispute is the new york times, you have a high profile enterprise-winning project. creator of that project explained that the point was to teach students that america, charter schools abandoned their slogan two years ago, work hard, be nice because they said this was a legacy of white supremacy culture. schools have professional trainers were coming through, telling teachers that things like asking students to show work or asking students, expecting students to show linear cognition, that these

things are racist attributes. i think when you do focus groups of parents, this is the stuff that has really triggered the debate. not the idea of teaching kids history, the ugly and the good of the american story, but the idea that there are people who think that helping students understand history is actually dealing in what feels to many of us like racial caricatures, like ideological --, like something that is actually not about helping kids understand history, telling students one very particular version of the american bill and a very bleak and disheartening one at that. if we want to argue about whether or not it is useful talking about race, to tell kids

that hard work is a legacy of white supremacy culture, we should have that debate, but we shouldn't imagine that anybody is trying to keep talk of jim crow out of american schools. in fact, i just interviewed the superintendent of louisiana a couple weeks ago. they just redid louisiana social study center. louisiana is a very red state. interestingly, the superintendent who runs louisiana's entire state system told me they did not hear one complaint about having anything included in their curriculum from right or left. all of the complaints were about the way in which the topics were being framed. host: from julie in baltimore, the line for educators. you're on the wreck of american enterprise. go ahead. >> thanks for having me on.

there is a frank need firtash to be used by public school teachers. host: julia, you are going to have to keep going and stop listening to your television. caller: frankly, there is a great need for educators to use zoom and also to use alexa. also, the tv and telephone are very important. thank you. host: what about incorporating these means of technology when it comes to today's education atmosphere? caller: it is a wonderful question. like every other school, from the pencil to the chalkboard typewriter, these tools can be used for good learning or bad learning. we also set a two-year crash course in how to use them to promote bad schooling.

any parent who has watched a kid sit in front of a computer for five hours will understand -- during the pandemic needed with their camera off and just kind of scrolling their phone understand what bad technology looks like. on the other hand, reality is tools can always be helpful, no matter how we use them. if we are just telling teacher to let your kid for 60 minutes on the computer screen, that is not going to work for anybody. on the other hand, if you wanted to tutor a kid, you had two choices. you could take the kitchen phone off the wall, or you could drive to the house. nowadays, you can get a kid a one-on-one tutoring in chemistry for $15 per hour from somebody with a phd halfway around the world. that is phenomenal. but what it means is we need to think differently about how we organize students, about how

schools are stabbing themselves, about what they are asking teachers to do, and what they are allowing technology to do. here is a simple lesson. not everything teachers do is equally valuable. when a teacher is putting their kid on the shoulder, sitting down to talk to a small group about an essay they have just written for half an hour, that stuff can change lives. having teachers stand in front of the class and read off the right answers for a 15 question quiz has never changed a life in the history of american education. what we want to do with technology is to rethink what we're doing with kids, what we're doing the teaching so they're spending more time on the high-impact stop and that we are allowing technology to carry the ball on some of the things that are more routine and rote,. host: barbara in michigan, the line for parents. you are on with our guest. go ahead.

caller: good morning, i am the mother of a special needs child. he has autism and a few other things. he has always held a 4.0, always. he's is a good student. he loves school. we found out a few years ago that children with special needs, when they graduate the 12th grade, they do not get a high school diploma, they get a certificate of completion. he has also earned a full ride to college. those two things don't go together. our kids work twice as hard to get to where they are at and i don't think it is fair that the education system has pulled this diploma away from them. what can be done about it? guest: first off, that of in amazing story. these are the stories that make education worth it. good for you guys, good for you.

first off, it would depend on the state. that doesn't sound entirely right. partly, it depends on how school district are handling their wording, -- reporting, how they are handling their special needs able knowing no more than you just told me, i can only say that sounds very strange and inconsistent to a special education law, and you should chat with somebody who helps families with her. fundamentally, this is one of the things that we need to think about. coming out of the pandemic, certainly so i hold a lot of stuff we take for granted, we don't need to take for granted. a lot of parents were saying my goodness, i had no idea how hard teachers work, this is nuts. we have to figure it way to give them more support and to pay

teachers in a way that reflects values. i heard from a lot of other parents it looks like only 40 minutes of learning, what is going on here? what happened because we have seen the over the course of centuries, the one-size-fits-all institutions are not right for many kids. they are not right for kids who get bullied, they are not right for kids who are seeking more challenges, they are not right for kids who've already gone past proficiency, they are not right for many kids with special needs. what we need to do is instead of trying to figure out how to readjust and buckle down and do more of what we've been doing, post-pandemic there is an enormous opportunity to look at all of our children, including situations like the caller and say wait a minute, even the tools at our disposal, given the new options that have emerged, given changes, are there better ways to take care of the students? host: rick talked earlier about

the potential of republicans, the advantage that republicans can take when it comes to the role of education. guest: historically, republicans have been at a disadvantage are not the party of public schools and of teachers unions and higher education. at this moment i think that could be an advantage for republicans. democrats are very much constrained by the need not to annoy various parts of their coalitions. republicans can talk about choices for all kinds of families. you might like your school like 75% of american families, not like the leading program. choice in about a dozen states, families keep their schools but opt into new things. things like hybrid schools or micro-schools. coming out of the pandemic 60% of more parents, especially those with children with special needs, say they would need their

kids home at least one day a week. they want to have more contact with their kids. republicans don't have to worry about the homeschool community or innovative schools community. republicans need to talk about the college cartels. the fact is, college is a wonderful thing. i had a wonderful experience at college, it should not be a place you have to go to get a job. republicans should invest aggressively in high quality technical education and apprenticeship programs. college should be something you do because you want to do it, not because you have to do it to get a job. i think it their piece is republicans have to defend excellence for every child. we have seen democrats in california try to eliminate advanced math in grades one to 10. they have gone after gifted programs in new york city public schools. they have called for colleges to do away with the sat. i think conservatives need to

say, look, we need to make sure every kid is getting a fair shot at gifted programs. because there are kids who need them. of course we have to defend advanced math. we have to make sure all kids are included, but we can't fight against excellence. i think the republicans do those things they are on the side of the lions share of americans, including many democrats who, you know, tend to lean left on a range of issues but are worried that some of what is happening right now in the democratic party is not actually providing responsible leadership for their kids. host: one more call. this will be from patrick in maryland. caller: thank you for accepting my call. essentially what i would like to do is say that no one backs the teacher. when i was in school everyone respected the teacher during they respected the guideline that the teacher set forth in

order to educate children. now it is really just the opposite. teachers have no control at all. and it kind of bothers me when i hear about, this is a democrat versus republican, or is was something done in 1993 after the present day. actually, what it is is, teachers are not respected anymore, and all of these little darlings or all of these little children know how to work the system. nobody wants to say that. the system is, essentially, broken. and instead of republicans and democrats saying, you know what, let's set a separate bill. let us concentrate on what we can do in order for the teacher to get more respect did and control of the classroom, teachers cannot actually properly educate, because if they say, for example -- host: we have your point, caller.

we are running short on time, so we will leave it there. mr. hess, go ahead. guest: it is a fabulous point. unfortunately all of the callers -- look, we don't want to be part of it. i suspect you and i agree, but the reality is that some of the folks at the department of education under president obama and some of the same folks are back under president biden, have absolutely make it harder for schools to enforce discipline. they talk about these programs with nice names and nice ideals, things like restorative justice, but the consequence is they have made it harder for teachers and principals to maintain control in schools. the larger backdrop here -- why don't we close with this? i think it is an important lesson about school improvement. when i used to teach high school in the last century, it was way too easy to find teachers who didn't think all kids could learn. i would be sitting with a

teacher, and a student teacher, and we will be talking about the job they had done and i would point out a bunch of kids and the teacher would say, those kids are not here to learn. one of the great victories of this century -- a bipartisan victory -- no child left behind. you don't sit here teachers say that out loud much. -- you don't hear teachers say that out loud much. the downside is that in telling educators they have to do their job, we have, i think, made it too hard for school leaders and public officials to remind kids, to remind parents they also have to do theirs. part of that is making sure teachers are respected and supported. because your kids are showing up on time and doing their part. schooling is always a handshake. teachers have to do their job. they have to do it professionally. it also kids and families have to do their job. otherwise you are putting teachers in a position where we are asking them to fail.

and i don't think that is fair to kids or to educators. host: you can read the work of rick hess at aei.org. he is with the american enterprise institute. he is also the director. thanks for your time today. guest: my pleasure. host: we will finish the hour in the way we started. you want to get your thoughts on the supreme court's influence over the future of roe v. wade. if you support roe, (202) 748-8000 is the number to call. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . text us your thoughts at (202) 748-8003 we will take your calls when "washington journal" continues. ♪ ♪ >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. many of those conversations on

c-span's new podcast, presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on lyndon johnson. you will hear about the civil rights act, 1964 presidential campaign, the gulf of tonkin, the march on selma, and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries knew, because we were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, 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 also hear some blunt talk. >> jim, i want a report of the number of people assigned to kennedy day he died and the number assigned to me now, and if minor not less i want them less, right quick. if i can't ever go to the bathroom, i won't go. i will stay right behind these black gates.

>> residential recordings. find it on the c-span noma -- c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcast. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter 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 right bottom to sign up for this email and stay up-to-date on everything happening in washington each day. subscribe using the qr code or visit the c-span.org/connect to subscribe anytime. >> "washington journal" continues. host: if you want to let us know about the future of roe v. wade on the supreme court, pick the line that represents you and give us a call. if you have called in the last 30 days we will ask you to hold off today. you can text us your thoughts as well. one of the discussion points

coming out of that story leaked by politico two days ago is what happens on the state level, particularly for what is known as trigger laws. here to join us to talk about that and help us educate us about it is kelsey butler. she is with bloomberg. she serves as a quality reporter. thanks for your time today. guest: thanks for having me. host: when it comes to the trigger law, can you explain what it is and how they came to be? guest: sure. a lot of states have laws on the books that predated rowe, which essentially said that abortion was the law of the land, the right to abortion was the law of the land. but these laws are still on the books. even still there are laws on the books that have been deemed unconstitutional and there is 13 states, including south dakota, north dakota, texas that have laws on the books that would essentially be triggered or immediately going to affect if

roe is overturned that would ban or make abortion nearly impossible within their borders. host: it does not take any additional legislative work or sounding by the governors, this takes place automatically if roe v. wade is overturned? guest: yes, exactly. there is an interesting example, michigan, governor gretchen whitmer is suing to try and have a law that predates roe done away with. host: you talked about 13 states specifically. do other states have them or could they put them into play? guest: certainly. about half the states in the country have some type of law on their books that would restrict abortion access within their borders, and within that mix of

states there are some that have telegraphed their moving in that direction. one example is florida, and there is research that shows, basically, it has all of the elements or political components that could be a can pleat ban in -- a complete ban in the state eventually. host: do we know states that are motivated because of the story two days ago because of politico? guest: we have already seen copycats that have followed in the footsteps of the texas law, which banned abortion after six weeks. some of those include idaho and oklahoma, so we certainly know that as things are successful in restricting abortion access those states are following that pathway. host: i'm curious to find out, miss butler, since these trigger laws were put into place, i suspect this was done long before this idea that roe could be overturned.

when did this trend to start as far as it states putting these plans into place? guest: the michigan example i gave, that expect to something from the 1800s, and then the law went into effect in the 1930's. we are talking about things that are long in the past but still exist on the books. that is why the supreme court decision is so impactful and important. host: when it comes to states, as far as codifying abortion laws, how many have done that into their state laws, generally? guest: it is 16 and washington, d.c., and we have seen some states, to your point, that are motivated because they see the political landscape and are doing the opposite. they are trying to really ensure and shore up abortion access within their borders. recent example includes new jersey, where i am calling from, and colorado. there are other states that have taken those steps as well.

host: have we seen states become interested in expanding their access to abortion, particularly because of the last couple of days? guest: not necessarily because of the last couple of days, because of some of this has been going on for months and years. an interesting example is maryland. the right to abortion was already sick -- already secured within the state, but they did a legislative package that expanded the types of people that can perform abortions, they took away their physician-only component, so midwives can perform abortions in the state, and it also allowed state medicaid funds to be used to pay for abortion care. a lot of states, including california and others are doing things to shore up access for the residents, and people who are traveling to their state. host: thank you for bringing up california's example. what are they proposing? guest: california's governor, gavin newsom, has been very

vocal on this issue. he says he wants to come a kind of, make the state almost a haven for people coming and traveling there for abortion care. macron interesting thing passed earlier this year is eliminating the pocket cost for those seeking abortion within the state. so, taking way that financial barrier. not only making it legal, but also acceptable to people. host: i think we have seen similar actions come out of the state of new york? guest: yes. new york has taken similar steps, and governor kathy hochul has wanted to basically open the state up for those traveling there for abortion care as well. host: news as of yesterday -- and we should probably add it into the mixture, oklahoma's governor signing an abortion ban into law. guest: that is one of the copycat laws that has followed in the wake of the texas band, which went into effect last year.

we really are starting to see already, even before the supreme court decision, a tale of two americas when it comes to reproductive rights and abortion access in this country. host: i think we also saw in maryland that used to be practitioners to perform abortions were physicians. that got expanded to nurse practitioners, but wives, and the like -- midwives and the like. is that just maryland or other states considering an expansion as well? guest: other states are taking a look at what they're doing. i spoke with a state representative from oregon and he said that state has moved a lot on reproductive rights and shoring up abortion actual -- access. he said states that have the kind of approach really have to be flexible and move with the changing landscape. it is a real possibility. host: kelsey butler -- i hate to use the example this way -- is this more of a red state/blue state kind of approach as to how

they deal with these issues? guest: it definitely tends to fall into that camp, but there are states that fall outside of that that you necessarily would not expect. i spoke with a maryland state representative also not too long ago about the legislation they are doing, and she really pointed out the fact that, you know, no state works in isolation. if your neighbor state has restrictions it is going to impact the health care system in your state, because people are going to be putting pressure on the system there too. it is a red state/blue state issue, but not really because people drive and go from state to state. host: as far as the way you watch these things play out over the next couple of days, particularly what the supreme court might decide later this year, what are you particularly interested in viewing and watching as the weeks and months go by? guest: being an equality reporter i'm always interested in who gets left behind.

whenever a safety net or some type of move, is it going to be, you know, who are going to be those people left behind by any of these changes? he often see it as those who live in rural areas, low income, people of caller. i will be watching to see the impact on them. host: kelsey butler who reports for politico. you can see her work at bloomberg.com. here to talk about how states are dealing with their abortion laws, particularly in light of the past couple of days. ask for your time. guest: thank you. host: for the remainder of our time, your thoughts on the supreme court's influence on the future of roe v. wade. pick the line that best represents you and you can call us. tom in buffalo, new york on our support line. you are first. go ahead. caller: yes, i was watching tv last night and i was watching the demonstration in washington. i saw a sign that said, "you can only ban safe abortions."

boy, that speaks volumes. i'm old enough to remember when it was called back alley abortions, and that is what they will get back to again, where women will be getting abortions and -- i don't know, i'm just so fed up with this. for this -- for the three supreme court justices who lied to congress, how can we ever trust the supreme court again? this is unbelievable. that is all i've got to say. i'm really upset. host: this is from our oppose line. we will hear from blake in michigan. caller: i apologize. i thought this was opposing the decision, but i think it is funny how the party that cried about audibly it's on ami and personal freedoms are personally ok with getting rid of roe, and preaching to the world about human rights. it doesn't make sense. once again we look at the joke on the rural states because they can never make the right decision. because everything is so

political and there is so much money within our government we do not know what is going on half the time. host: the washington post gives the historical context when it comes to the nature of leaks. this is a story talking about the 1973 decision that was also leaked to the press. he writes, the supreme court clerk who leaked the story told a but when i interviewed him for my book. hamman clerked for justice lewis powell and played a role in convincing powell that the viability standard was the most supportable line to draw in determining when a state may not regulate a woman's right to an abortion. he privately convinced justice blackmun to adopt the viability standard that has been the heart of roe and casey. hammond confided in an acquaintance that the robed ruling was forthcoming. a times staff reporter was given the information "on background"

and was supposed to write about it only wants the opinion came down from the court. a slight delay resulted in the article that appeared and hit newsstands a few hours before the opinion was red. on january 22, 1973 -- 1973. if you want to read more of that, go to the washington post this morning. alexandria on our support line. go ahead. caller: hi. i absolutely think roe v. wade should be left alone. the supreme court, if something has stood for 50 years you need to leave it alone and let it continue to work. those who oppose abortion, what do they value the life of the child, but what about the life of the mother? what happens when that child grows up and was never wanted by that mother? who is that child going to be? there are so many children waiting in orphanages to be adopted, it is such a problem.

and what do you think having more unwanted children born is going to do to their precious economy or their faith? my understanding of faith is that it is between you and your god, nobody else. you apply it to yourself, not to anyone else. and i would just like to see more of that. host: that is alexandra in washington state. in the december 1 mississippi abortion case, which was the basis of the brief justice alito would eventually right, he was questioning julia rockman of the center for reproductive rights about fetal viability. you can see that on our website at c-span.org. here is a portion of the debate. >> if a woman wants to be free of the burdens of pregnancy, that interest does not disappear the moment the viability line is crossed, isn't that right? >> know, your honor.

and if i may make a few points, first i think the state use i ability as arbitrary because it discounts the woman's interests. >> but does the woman, upon reaching the point of viability, does not the woman have the same interest she had before viability in being free of this pregnancy that she no longer wants to continue? >> viability as a principal line, because in ordering -- >> i'm trying to see whether it is a principal line. do you agree with me on that point? that a woman has the same interest in terminating her pregnancy after the viability line has been crossed? >> yes, your honor, but the court balanced the interests. >> look at the interest on the other site. the fetus has an interest in having a life, and that does not change, doesn't? from the point before viability to the point after viability? >> in some peoples view it

doesn't, but what the court have said is that if those philosophical differences cannot be resolved -- >> that's what i'm getting at. what is the secular philosophical argument for saying this is the appropriate line? there are those who say that the rights of personhood should be considered to have taken hold at a point when the fetus requires certain independent characteristics, but liability is dependent on medical technology and medical practice. it has changed. it may continue to change. host: again, that complete debate over the case and with all of the justices available on our website at c-span.org. let's go to darlene in gold hill, oregon on our support line. caller: yes, i support roe v. wade, because it also continues with women's other rights. but i want you to know i have no faith in the supreme court anymore.

it is obvious it has become a political arm of the republican party. so it is no longer represent all of the people in the united states of america. women are here, and they have to be able to make decisions about their bodies, just like men make decisions about their own bodies . they should not be allowed to make decisions about another person's body. or they can say, i don't like the way that person lives, so they shouldn't be here. well, they don't have that right. we need to continue to separate church from state. that is what this government was founded on. host: we will go to paul on tampa, florida on our oppose line. you are next up. caller: how are you doing? yeah. i oppose the roe v. wade constitutionally. i don't think it is in the constitution. this is something that has to be cited by the people. saying that, actually support a

woman's right to have an abortion, at least for the first trimester. based on only common sense that, you are asking this woman to bear this burden, ruin her body, maybe lose her job, pay money, go to the doctor, maybe lose her life in childbirth. she has to bear all of this burden because these certain people don't like it. i used to be totally for abortion, almost unlimited, but i have modified it. i think the first trimester, 15, 16 weeks sounds reasonable to me. but this has mostly been a scam by democrats, because they want the court to do their dirty work. i just looked it up. jimmy carter had 293 congresspeople and 61 senators. they could have passed that, made it the law of the land. even more recently obama had 233 congressmen and 60 senators for eight months.

they could have made it the law of the land. people like pelosi and biden, they do not want their name on abortion, but they want to say it is the law, i can't help it. host: ok. that is paul in florida. he mentions president biden. he was asked about this yesterday after the leak from the political story. here is part of his response. pres. biden: it concerns me a great deal that we are going to, after 50 years, decide a woman does not have the right to choose. within the limits of the supreme court decision. number one. but equally profound is the rationale used, and it would mean that every other decision related to the notion of privacy is thrown into question. i realize this goes back a long way, but one of the debates i had with robert work was whether griswold versus connecticut should stand as law. the state of connecticut said that the privacy of your

bedroom, a husband or wife, or couple, could not use contraceptive. to use contraception was a violation of the law. if the rationale of the decision as release were to be sustained, a whole range of rights are in question, a whole range of rights. the idea of letting those localities make those decisions would be a fundamental shift in what we have done. so, it goes far beyond, in my view, if it becomes the law, and if what is written is what remains, it goes far beyond the concerns of whether or not the right to choose. it goes to other rights. the rights to marry, the right to determine a whole range of things. host: the biden administration making those arguments in a story highlighted in the new york times, saying the administration brief argued that overruling roe would --

"none of those practices is explicitly mentioned in the constitution, and most of them were widely prohibited when the 14th amendment was adopted." the story goes on to say justice alito -- justice alito -- we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other rights. nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion, and it goes on from there. if you want to read more, that is in the new york times this money. eric in minnesota on our support line. caller: yes, it is my opinion that these actions on behalf of roe v. wade by the supreme court are a smokescreen, and i believe the invasion of ukraine was a smokescreen. the trump handlers include the oligarchy of the world, and i believe they are throwing some of these tantrums to divert attention from the very important work of the january 6 committee. please listen in, because that

is where the central attention should be directed right now, not these smokescreens. thank you. host: don on our oppose line in washington state. caller: yes, i have a few comments. it may not be popular, but it is something to think about. i'm concerned that fathers have no rights. they don't get asked any of these questions when it comes to abortion. women get their rights, men get their rights for different things, but it takes two to make a baby. i don't need to follow the signs or be told that anyway. so, he comes down to courts. he comes down to big money. you know, i don't think it is right that it should be searched -- be such a closed-door exclusion of men and our rights,

and our choices, and our decisions, because we do not get any. we don't get to decide about abortion, we don't get to decide about child support, we don't get to decide about parental plans, rights, anything. host: ok. let's hear from pat in pennsylvania on the support line. caller: hello, i wanted to say that abortion has existed since the beginning of time. people want to impose their interpretation of religion to the rest of the world. i want to tell these people that the only mention of abortion in the bible is a mention of a recipe. the priest can create a recipe to make a woman have an abortion. that is in the book of numbers, chapter five, versus 11-31. it shows that god gave a recipe for an abortion. since it has existed, and women

need to have control of their own bodies, we need roe v. wade to stay the law of the land. host: we have about a half-hour more of this if you want to comment. you can choose the line again if you support roe v. wade, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001. if you want to text us, (202) 748-8003. news happening elsewhere outside of the world of abortion rights, inflation is set to be the topic of jay powell, he is sent to hold a press conference today. expected to increase rates. the new york times is reporting the fed chair and his colleagues are expected to raise interest rates a half percentage point today, the largest increase since 2000. officials have announced they will release a plan for shrinking their balance sheet, a policy move that will push up borrowing costs.

policymakers have said that they hope to get rates above 2% by the end of 2022. taken together, the moves could be the fastest withdraw of monetary support in decades. that is in the new york times this morning. when it comes to the topic of student debt, the wall street journal reporting president biden is considering limiting student loan forgiveness for borrows who make less than $25,000 a year. the administration nears a decision on an issue that could affect millions of americans and reverberate in the upcoming midterm elections. it was during his presidential campaign that president biden proposed -- as well as schools that historically serve black and minority students and earned up to 125,000 dollars a year. president biden said last week he was closing in on the decision but stressed loan forgiveness would be less than $50,000 per borrower. that is in the wall street

journal. the new york times and others reporting the transportation secretary that served under george w. bush and bill clinton passed away yesterday at the age of 90 years old. it highlights mr. minette's experiences over the years, saying for decades after scarring experiences in an american internment camp -- authorized payments and apologies to the survivors and heirs of people of japanese ancestry that would have been incarcerated as potential saboteurs or spies after the japanese surprise attack on pearl harbor in 1941. reparations were eventually paid . two things that you should be watching for, at 10:00 we will deal with the topic of inflation, specifically when it comes to credit card debt. you can take a look at that as

they target abou -- talk about the target fees. you can see that on c-span, c-span.org, and c-span now. al hunt, orca testify this afternoon in front of the senate homeland security committee. you can see that on c-span.org and our c-span now app. let's hear from rudy in sun city, california. caller: good morning, pedro. personally, i don't like abortion, but it is the woman's right to choose, and i will always take that stance. to all the people who oppose it, instead of giving lip service, maybe some of them would take the path of carrie and gary harrison who have two biological kids and nine adopted kids that they took into their home. by the way, one of their kids i

s an olympic champion. we will see if this thing is passed by the supreme court how many people step up in this country. host: in spokane, washington on the oppose line. caller: good, pedro. my belief is, the u.s. supreme court did not ban any abortions anywhere for any woman for any reason. all they did would put it back in the hands of the american people, the states, to work with their elected officials to decide which laws or rules should go with abortion. that would be giving all people a right to decide. where the democrats get everybody is they get so extreme. abortion on demand, blah, blah,

blah, give us money, money, money. pregnancy is very, very preventable, yet they are not concentrating on that. instead, they want to get money for abortion. there is no abortion being banned. people will have the right to make the choice for themselves and not be dictated to. host: florida, on our support line, go ahead. caller: hello? host: irving in florida, hello. caller: yes, hello. good morning. i will be synced into the point. -- will be succient and to the point. abortion should be a woman's choice. no man, unfortunately we make up most of the supreme court in state governments, should be

deciding for a woman. a woman should be the one to have that right, whether you agree to an abortion or not. it is the woman's decision to make that. if you leave this decision up to the states, some states will refuse, disallow abortions even in cases of rape and insist. can you imagine telling a woman who had been raped, and then tell them you can't have an abortion? no, no, that is a woman's decision to make. period. thank you. host: barbara on the support line in oklahoma city. caller: i just really, it amazes me how the republicans ignore the filthy rich, we are not going against abortions for them. the petri dish, they have babies and fetuses in petri dishes. they throw away thousands of them every day.

are we going to wipe out the fraternity clinics? we can't have these frozen babies. what is going on? they never, ever say a word about that. the rich will always have babies when they want to. but when the poor have that right, oh, no, we will take that away. thank you. host: that is barbara in oklahoma. courtesy of our c-span archives you have the ability to watch the confirmation hearings of various people who have appeared before the senate as the nominee of a president to become a member of the supreme court. one of those is neil gorsuch in 2017 -- neil gorsuch in 2017. here's part of the exchange. [video clip] >> i think the case that most people are thinking about right now, and the case that every nominee gets asked about, roe v. wade. can you tell me whether roe was decided correctly? >> i would tell you that roe v.

wade, decided in 1973 in the united states supreme court has been reaffirmed. interest considerations are important. and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. it is precedent of the united states supreme court, reaffirmed with casey in 1992, and in several other cases. a good judge will consider as president of the united states supreme court worthy as treatment of president -- of precedent like any other. host: suburban women can now tip the balance in the midterm elections. that will decide control of congress. their votes help determine the winner in the last two presidential contests. with republicans position to see

if the house and the senate, those with most at stake on an issue that has become a fiercely contested partisan issue. the fight to win them over and get them to the ballot box will be the most heated in the 24 states where the vans would take immediate effect. the country is in uncharted territory on the issue of public policy. it has been relatively stable since a landmark decision almost four decades ago. that is a bloomberg story. on the air in texas on our oppose line. hello. on the air in texas, hello. caller: yes, hello. thank you for taking my call. first, the issue of abortion being a factor in the health of a woman.

in 2010, he has operated for many years, but he was a terrible abortion who harmed many women. he was busted for illegally dispensing drugs. thank you for taking my call. host: this is true. in north carolina on our support line, hi. caller: thank you for taking my call today. i am very concerned with the breach of the supreme court decision on roe v. wade. for me, it is really a very big turning point in our country. i think it is very scary. i hope it encourages a lot of americans to wake up and become more active in policy and letting your voice be heard, because this really is the time. we are in crisis mode. the supreme court is on the

verge of taking women's bodily autonomy from them. next, it could be incensed, marriage, after that they could come for intimacy within same-sex marriage. this is grounds of the argument made in the breached conclusion, which is bogus. it is a bogus argument. the fact that we did not have abortion when the founding fathers made the country. well, they are not here. it is us now today. it is time for us to be the adults, it is time for us to be -- i don't know -- think about each other beyond just ponds and pieces -- pawns and pieces. it hurts my heart. host: news reporting this morning that several providers telling the publication of substantial increases in activity in the past couple of days. one organization saw fivefold increase in web traffic. i should add that this is over

the abortion bill, they saw fivefold increase in web traffic. some seeking the pills are not even pregnant but hoping to have the medication on rise if the need arises, like having plan b in your cabinet. now we are having plan c or abortion pills in your cabinet. that is on the newsweek website. let's hear from adam in brooklyn, new york on our support line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have two points to make, especially to everyone who is against roe v. wade. it has to do with the freedom of choice, and i guess that is what the constitution is for. no one tells you that you have to do abortion, but you shouldn't be in a position where other people, especially when it comes to something so personal,

takes that choice away. that has to do with the religious people who think that they know better for all the people. that is not the case in this country. my other point, when it comes to the supreme court, this was the last establishment after trump and everything else where we thought that the law still prevails. at this point liars who get on the supreme court and live through their teeth. they present the minority in this country, not the my -- not the majority. just look at yourself first. host: on the oppose line, barbara in south carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am not for abortion, i am a christian, but god gave us 10 commandments and it's not fair that a woman cannot choose to

break a commandment the way that she needs to. we all live, we all cheat, people cheat on their taxes. we do, we break every commandment that god has given us and he forgives us. i believe that women today should turn around and tell their husbands when it comes time to vote, if you guys vote for the republicans who want to get rid of abortion, you are not having sex anymore. host: barbara in south carolina. a couple of other stories. this is ukraine and what is going on there. testimony from defense secretary austin about weapons, saying that he and general mark milley, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, told a group of u.s. senators that several hundred ukrainian troops were pulled out of the country and trained in how to use weapon systems sent by washington. they have returned to the front lines where they are putting their supply to "very good use,"

according to defense secretary austin. adding that the ukrainian troops are embroiled in fierce fighting in the south and east where officials say that russia is struggling to advance militarily and annex vast swaths of land in the coming days. that is the washington post. if you go to the wall street journal, the story about the basketball star brittney griner, the state department is now determining that the star is being wrongfully detained in russia on drug charges. it is a significant change that puts the weight of the u.s. government behind her campaign for release. they hope that it deal may be possible for the release of brittney griner, who had been in jail since she was detained at a moscow airport on february 17 accused of carrying electronic vapor cartridges with hashish oil traveling back from where she had played during the wnba off-season. let's hear from chris in louisiana on the support line.

caller: i just wanted to make a point real quick. i don't think anyone really touches on this. this law, the reversal, implementing or keeping it or reversing it, it can affect a minuscule amount of americans. the amount of, i guess you would say, media coverage and that type of thing that would be, i guess you say, could be pushed towards this issue, is a waste of time for everyone involved. that is just my opinion. host: dennis is next in indiana. on the oppose line. caller: i just have one thing to say. i keep hearing woman's choice. it shouldn't be a woman's choice whether to murder an innocent child in the womb. the choice is whether to lay down and spread your legs -- host: in detroit, michigan on

the support line. caller: hi, first of all i'm old enough to remember how it was before roe v. wade. i wrote a paper in high school on abortion and child abuse. i was appalled at the links that women had to go to to get an abortion. using scissors and coat hangers, taking potions. the bottom line is this, women got abortions before roe v. wade , and they will continue after roe v. wade. the thing is that doing away with roe v. wade will make them back into criminals, make them go underground, possibly more women will die at the hands of butchers. we all have to realize that we are accountable for our own actions. i might not agree with abortion, but the woman who has is the one who has to answer to god.

to me, a person, that is like saying that a person has the right to come into your home and tell you what you can and cannot do. i think that that is wrong. host: let's hear from darren in alabama on the oppose line. caller: is it me? host: if you are darren. caller: yes, i didn't hear my name, it beeped. sorry. if you've misconceptions about the pro-life movement, biology, i would like to quickly state that biology, i learned as far back as fifth grade, dictates to specific requirements to be considered living. one is consume energy, and two barring mutation, mutilation, or what would prevent to produce offspring during sexual or asexual production. another misconception is whether or not it is human. that is a multicellular

organism. you need to go through five levels of life. cell, tissue, organ, organism -- organ system, then organism. one that a fetus is is an organism, a member of a specific feast -- specific species. support of the mother, for starters, i would make it illegal to abandon the mother if you are the father. that is completely unacceptable. you are as responsible for the child as the mother. in cases of rape, i would be against capital punishment for the rapist. that is an extreme immoral act. host: i'm calling in support of woman's right to choose.

like any adult in our country, the woman has a right to make important choices, important decisions come about her own life. in this country, we've had that right for almost 50 years. roe v. wade was a decision that was affirmed in casey, it was a decision which the majority people in this country still agree with with different variations. but, most people in this country agree that a woman should have the right to make that decision. it is between her, her partner, her doctor. the idea that it is somehow ok to take it away, it stopped being a federal right and restart back to the states, what is wrong with that is if you

listen to the callers. this morning and any other morning, there are millions and millions of opinions about this should be so, or this should not be so, this should be allowed, this should not be allowed. a woman has the right to make that decision for herself. host: let's go to rick from idaho on our oppose line. caller: good morning, pedro. housewives, this is a gift for every mother in the united states of america come sunday, may 8. this is my executive order if i was the president of the united states of america. by the powers invested in me women in the united states of america should rewrite the entire script on abortion, all authorities and decisions will be made by women only and there should be no mail intervention will stop you haul it, you call it, problem solved.

host: comments from that republican minority leader in the senate reacting specifically to the leak of the supreme court. here are some of his comments from yesterday. [video clip] sen. mcconnell: for years -- last night it appears their campaign hit a new low. historically, the justices, clerks, and staff have prized and protected the court's confidentiality. the justices must be able to discuss and delivery -- and deliberate in an environment of total trust and privacy. americans cannot receive a fair trial if politicians, pundits, bullies, and mobs get a say in court. judicial independence is vital,

but the far left has spent years shamelessly attacking it. democrats in congress have endorsed plans for partisan court packing, they have sent to justices threatening legal briefs, they have scheduled chan hearings to smear judges -- sham hearings to smear judges. in 2020 the democratic leader marched to the supreme court and shouted threats at multiple justices by name if they did not rule how he wanted. in 2018 activists literally chased senators around the capitol. last night, a shocking, shocking new breach. somebody, likely somebody inside the court itself, leaked a confidential internal draft to the press.

almost certainly in an effort to stir up an inappropriate pressure campaign to sway an outcome. the radical left immediately rallied around the toxic stunt. the cheerleaders for partisan court packing applauded what they suggested was the work of "a brave clerk making a last ditch hail mary attempt to cause a political firestorm and cause the court to reconsider." liberals want to rip the blindfold off lady justice. they want to override impartiality with intimidation. they want to elevate mob rule over the rule of law. host: a story in usa today takes a look on whether the leak is an illegal act or not, asking legal

experts about that. you can find it online, but it quotes a former u.s. attorney in detroit that there is no basis for a criminal investigation. the leak does not involve any classified information that is protected from disclosure by criminal law. chief justice roberts issued a statement saying that the court-martialed to conduct an internal investigation and an employee who leaked could be terminated, but likely not charged with any crime. a lawyer who has defended clients also saw no crime. it is a breach of trust but i don't think there's any crime involved. you can see more of those legal experts' opinions on the website of usa today. to in california. on the support line, go ahead -- teresa in california. on the support line, go ahead. caller: i'm calling because when i was 14 years old i put

grown-up shoes on and i couldn't tell anyone so i had to take care of it myself. years have gone by and we get to listen to everyone talk about things. republicans do not want to raise pay wage. texas still has a $7.25 an hour wage. how are they going to make people have babies been not give them a living wage? i was making the same money when i went to texas with my uncle as a truck driver. what everyone is trying to do about people have to make their decisions for themselves, but the republicans don't want to raise money, they don't want to help people, they don't want to give people any type of support. host: let's hear from john -- from marcy on our oppose line. we are just about out of time, so go ahead. caller: yes, people, americans,

we are fighting over killing babies. on february 13, 1975 jesse jackson said there are those who argue that the right to privacy is of a higher order than the right to life. that was the premise of slavery. you could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned. we are having the same argument of killing babies as we had over slavery. take that in. host: let's go to john, our last call, in pennsylvania on our support line. caller: good morning. i am pro-choice. if this law goes through, the overturning of roe v. wade, it will be like prohibition. sometimes -- you didn't stop

drinking. this is not going to stop abortions. the old saying is that sometimes to change a law you have to break a law. i guarantee that abortions will be legalized again even if roe v. wade is overturned. it has to be. abortions will continue on and it will be just like it was before when it was illegal. host: john in pennsylvania finishing off this hour of calls.thank you to all who participated this morning. that is the end of our program. we take you to the senate hearing on inflation as it deals with credit card debt and other related issues. you can see it now. if you don't have a chance to watch now, watch on our website and our c-span now app.

>> good morning. this hearing will come to order. american consumers today are worried about inflation and rising prices for the goods the by -- they buy. we talk about a hidden fee that fuels the fires of inflation across america every day. what they may not know is this slight fee is contribute into the problem of inflation. when swipe fees on credit and debit cards go up as they recently did, it increases inflation. consumers ultimately pay the price. ironically, this journey for me started in this very room 16 years ago. our inspector was a chairman at the senate judiciary many. he called the hearing on swipe