>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> buckeye broadband supports c-span. along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> this morning "washington journal" political correspondence jonathan martin and alex burns talk about their new book this will not pass

which covers the 2020 presidential election, the january 6 riot in the first year of the joe biden presidency. online opinion editor on her book rocked out the socialist plan to take away your freedom. ♪ >> "washington journal" from a tent. a belt -- a bill trying to pass abortion rights as federal law. c-span2, c-span.org and c-span now cap. this comes as many of the supreme court justices handout a decision that would overturn roe v. wade. first hour this morning we want to hear from women only. on your view of roe v. wade in the future. there is how you can call and

let us know. (202) 748-8001 -- democratic -- for republican women. (202) 748-8000 democratic women. independents (202) 748-8002. you can text out (202) 748-8003. and you can follow the show on instagram. washington post highlights some of what you might expect tomorrow with this debate over this bill. majority leaders to up the vote this week writing the abortion provisions and to law. the supreme court is poised to overturn roe v. wade. it will ensure that the issue remains front and center. scribble for the politics of the upcoming maternal election. on the senate floor yesterday chuck schumer talking about the pending vote and the political

ramifications. here is part of the statement from yesterday. [video clip] >> this is not an abstract exerciser. it is a real and as high-stakes as it gets. senate republicans on the longer be able to hide. after spending years passing right-wing justices after changing the rules of the senate to push three conservative justices after stealing the nomination of merrick garland the time has come for republicans, this new maga republican to answer for their actions. senate republicans allow the decision to stand it will be open season, open season on women's rights in america. a few days ago, leader mcconnell himself acknowledged that a federal ban on abortion is now

possible should the supreme court overturned roe and republicans take control of the senate. let me say that again because it is so dreadful. in light of the supreme court decision, upcoming decision, leader mcconnell acknowledged that a national ban on a portion -- abortion is now possible if republicans reclaim the majority. to hear that america? total ban. a total national ban on abortion. not any republican provider -- again you can watch the debate wednesday. host: you can go to c-span.org and you can watch a few it on our c-span now app. i can for women only your view of roe v. wade in this hour. democratic (202) 748-8000 is the number to call. republican (202) 748-8001. an independents (202) 748-8002.

cbs news along wife you give took of paul looking at the topic of abortion especially in light of the lake and dave this question particularly at women. among women, when asked a question what should happen to roe v. wade and they did this by party 90% of democratic women's that it should be kept as it is versus 68% of independents and 38% of republican women. when it comes to the topic of overturning a 10% of democratic women said it should be done due to percent of independents and 62% of republican women. when asked amongst women the question of if impacted -- with the impact of their lives with the if roe v. wade was overturned among women generally 54% of those responding say it would meekly force. 17% saying it would make life

better and then 29% from cbs you gallup poll saying schism -- saying there would not be much difference. it will show you this are when it comes to roe v. wade generally at its future women only in this hour. we will start with marion in north carolina on the line for democrats. your first step go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. i have been there all along. i will be 80 in august. i still have my copy of the washington post with the headline about roe v. wade passing. it's packed away in a box somewhere. but i have supported the abortion rights all along. my mother named me marion for her mother who died when my mother was two years old after giving birth to her seventh child in eight years. the baby died as well.

this is something i learned as a young woman when i was probably in high school. but also, this just effective, you know? my body, my choice. i am outraged at the supreme court opinion. well, actually, it's alito. i never cared for him at all. we have two perverts and what is she called? host: you think the draft opinion that was a release will be the actual opinion? caller: well, i think, let's put it this way roe v. wade is going to be overturned. i don't know what the exact fact i think it will be changed somewhat. but, you know, i just fear for our country. host: ok. let's go to apollo -- paula in

silver spring, maryland. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i'm fine, go ahead. caller: this is what i have to say about it is overly for government to be involved to that extent, right? people [indiscernible] republicans. if you're going to be pro-life this is kind of [indiscernible] great? i would assume there's nobleman who gets an abortion emotionally damaging on woman. no woman is excited about getting an abortion. at the same time here is what i have to say the caveat is abortion should not be a form of birth control either.

i think there should be laws in place to regulate. host: you said that government should be controlled if it gets turned back to the states? do you think the states are the ones that should be making these decisions? caller: now. on even think states should be -- it is excessively extreme. i don't know anything more personal than that for a woman. you know, it's personal. government should not be involved at all. at all. host: ok. caller: you can be pro-life, people will say being prone penalty if they commit a current. we all have in some way or form

if you're pro-life, you going to be pro death penalty? you can't be pro-life when it comes to kids. host: paula there calling on the republican line let's hear from lisa on the republican line. again, women only on this hour. you can think of this talk about what you think the future is. caller: hi. thank you. i'm conflicted on roe v. wade. i believe with her trying to do is take the power away from the federal government and giving effect back to the states. they are looking at it as a constitutional effort. i would like to see a culture of adoptions in this country. there are lots of people that want babies. i believe we need to do a massive overhaul with regard to

education. the woman that spoke earlier is absolutely true. a majority of women who have abortions dislike a lot fickle counseling after they have them. however, i do believe it is important for men to be able to have the choice -- for women to be able to have the choice over their bodies. there are many women who find themselves pregnant but cannot be. they are in circumstances that they just cannot have a child. however, my bottom line is we need to reeducate, get a better situation with regards to our

culture in america. and i would love to see more the culture of adoption because there are so many people that want babies that can have them. host: ok. lisa and california. you can express your views during the course of the 50 minutes we have on this. again, for women only. democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. this debate comes as protests taking place by several members of -- at several justices homes. activists as they are described in front of justice alito some. that is just one of the pictures he saw there. on twitter if you go there there are several videos including a protest that took place at justice kavanaugh's home

recently. here is a bit of that protest. [video clip] [indiscernible] [chanting] host: you can find that video on politico's twitter feed. you can put that into your comments this morning if you wish during this hour. this all leads up to the debate that senator schumer was talking about concerning efforts to put

federal abortion protection into law. the debate beginning wednesday. you can see that on c-span2. also when it comes to the topic of the supreme court justices themselves, the story from last week it was senator -- senate republican leader mitch mcconnell who wrote on the protest and what progress should be doing. [video clip] >> the president -- precedent-setting think. they set out to harass and intimidate sitting judges as they consider a case. the crowd assembled at the justices private home. activists published. law-enforcement had to install a security fence around the

supreme court itself. trying, trying to scare federal judges into ruling a certain way as far outside first amendment speech or protest. it is an attempt to replace the role of law --rule of law. it appears there may -- this may be flat-out illegal. with the intent of influencing any judge, your, witness, or officer at locations. that includes a judges residence. attorney general carlin was quick to treat the concerned parents of america like potential domestic terrorists. but curiously, i haven't heard

any announcement about how the doj may handle this. washington democrats have gone out of their way to fuel the hysterical, potentially dangerous climate. the president's statement about the leak didn't condone it. the press secretary has continued to endorse, really at the residence as long as they don't turn out to outright violence. host: the senate is try to pass legislation amid those protests. senator john cornyn introduced the legislation last week to formally allow the supreme court of the united states elite to provide around-the-clock protection to family members. some executive and

congressionals get. senators are aiming to pass the bill by unanimous consent which requires a buy-in of all 100 senators. one of the sources told the hill that should pass yesterday or today. reporting yesterday or today look at -- looking at that as well. republican line, we will hear from maria. go ahead. caller: is, good morning. thank you for taking michael. i wanted to say people are using it is really wrong. when they say that women can do whatever they want with the body they are not being truthful because it's not the body. the baby has a different dna. so it's not the same body. it's another body that is inside the body to be protected, not to

be killed. second, when they say the baby is not a tumor. the baby is a human being with a heartbeating. so it is not for women's health. it will be something that needs to be for a woman's health. but that has to be one to 2%. i don't think it's going more than 5%. so in addition i support the psychological and medical effects of having an abortion and a woman. i think we should focus and try to do adoption instead of abortion and may be those are my points i can talk forever about this. but i think that is the most important part that i host: wanted to say.

host:ok. that is maria and washington, d.c.. let's hear from linda. caller: good morning. it is the lady ahead of me it is a woman's body. she should be allowed to do what she wants with her body. and for the supreme court and these republicans it's about contraceptives. contraception. at the rate they're going those -- if they go back to the constitution i'm a black woman. we go back and we as black people were not even mentioned in the constitution.

so, you know by the rate the supreme court it is not just about abortion. it is about a lot of things. it will change everything. we as women a man should not have to tell us what we can do, how we can do it. republican women need to not they have daughters and granddaughters. host: let's hear from jan for indiana. republican line hello? caller: thank you for taking my call. this is probably the most passionate think i feel about opera politics. what is frustrating is my body,

my choice. and i realize that there are exceptions. when we talk about report and sussed but is not the answer. it actually could be -- i wish we would learn to not be so focused and look at the purity of protecting the innocent. and to me if someone is going to post agenda revealed our sonogram am also happy for the life and then we say it's my body my choice to terminate it? i think there is so much conflict. my other struggle is there are so many voices involved that may never have had abortions.

and then to be passionate, angry, violent, responsive? but, yes, i am pro-life. i think we have medical education or medical advancement that my body my choice? i'm going to make a choice i should choose contraception. i should choose not to have sex. i should choose abstinence. i have other choices. host: ok. that is jan in evansville, indiana. we will go to michelle. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would just like to point out how this government is providing more protections for these justices then they are for the women out here who have to face

difficult choices about whether they can, are able to afford, or disabled to physically bring life into this world. they are concerned about people going to these justices homes but what about the women making very personal choices about their help? their bodies? the finances? i really do blame this on the 53% of women, white women, who voted for a president who says he's going to put judges on the bench that will overturn roe. i find it very difficult to watch all of this demonstrative marching and display the people are not upset. this has been coming down the pipeline for ages.

basically, a lot of these women who are in the street didn't care. elections have consequences. and we are facing them now. if you really thought that your husband, your sons were going to protect you? they hate you. they don't like you. that's just the hard truth. host: michelle there in baltimore, maryland. we will continue with these calls until 8:00. again, women only offering your thoughts on roe v. wade. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. an independents (202) 748-8002. usa today has a story in its pages and online taking a look at abortions of the united states. most abortions are done by pill and there are two pills involved. they're taking about two days apart. many areas, only at telemedicine

fittest -- visit is required. when used within the first 10 weeks of gestation they safely terminate in 9.6% of pregnancies. it's a very low complication rate. it takes a look at them are on at the story how much the pills are used. the story adding in 2001 only 5% of all abortions work via medication. that rose to almost 25% by 2011. 39% by 2017. by 2020 454% of all abortions were done by pill that is according to the research group that supports abortion rights. you can find that a usa today. let's hear from donna in fort worth, texas. , on the republican line. go ahead. caller: hi. i am wondering if all these women that have called in on any of the lines have point of the history of roe v. wade?

i was alive and in school when it happened. the lady used the name jane roe because her true identity, because of controversy like this. she filed a suit against dallas county district attorney for the right to have an abortion. by the time he got to the court she was already five months pregnant and too late. but it did pass as roe v. wade. her name was maxi. it did pass. but that it was too late for her to have an abortion. she did deliver the child. it was adopted. during the 80's she did support the abortion clinics, volunteers, helped out there. then in the 90's the first time there with before the supreme

court to be overturned was because she filed for it to be overturned. host: so with that history in mind how do you think that impacts what is going on today as far as this debate? caller: will, i think that a lot of women are really looking at the facts. i don't think a woman that has been raped should be forced to have a child if it's going to cause her extreme emotional pain. you know? some women could probably do it and others are of, more fragile emotionally couldn't. rate, and sussed, i'm not for that either. or a woman who is --whose health would be in jeopardy it's our

right to decide. but i've always been against abortion and my opinion is you gave us the right to decide whether or not you're going to have a baby, the second you decided to have sex. host: let's hear from nancy and north carolina. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am in support of roe v. wade. with the republicans don't seem to understand some of the women have called in, abortions will not stop. and instead of maybe one life you're going, more women and babies dying. because the women are desperate. people who spoke about the effect women will have if they have an abortion, imagine the effect of woman will have if they are forced to have a child

they do not want or can't support. i worked in social services and to see the amount of abused children taken from their families, the effect the children have on them it's unbelievable. these people don't see that. no one has that if you have a child, we are going to take that child and support that child. even adopt the child. these people, these women who are forced to make these decisions, they are not easy. no one wants to have an abortion. but there are certain circumstances that it may happen. so for people to say that a woman doesn't have the right to choose not knowing the circumstances of that woman, is completely wrong. host: nancy there in south carolina. bloomberg takes a look at how this issue could play out in the

midterm elections. an analysis piece saying suburban women could now the balance of the midterm elections. after that leaked draft opinion, their vote will help determine the winners in the last presidential contest. the race is on. the amount that those with the most at stake it has become a partisan issue. get them to the ballot box will be the most of the 24 states where bands will --bans will take immediate effect. since the land mark decision decades ago. it remains to be seen as a stroke affect or if visited to influence key phrases and displays inflation is the biggest worry among the population. that is bloomberg on the website

speaking of inflation later on this morning president biden will address the topic introducing a plan to take issue with it. an event to counter inflation. you can see the on our networks. in go to c-span.org the president's statement later on this morning you can find the content there. abortion protection into law. that will be tomorrow. you can see the senators debate that on our c-span2 channel. kathleen in los angeles california. guest: i: because i like to talk about the data. caller: -- the data is what matters. 19 million -- and i can talk

about black americans because i am a black american. 19 million black babies have been aborted since grow. this is absurd. in fact, our population, the black american population, would be double row. -- if not for growth. population is going backwards and b are shrinking. -- we are shrinking. if we hadn't aborted those babies, we wouldn't be in the position we are today. rolling with the democratic party -- has destroyed black american families. if black men were able to make good money, which the democrats are precluding them from doing, they would marry -- they would

have money and they were married they -- their woman who got pregnant. host: kathleen in los angeles, california. nancy, in wisconsin. democrats. caller: you and i would like to say that i am definitely for roe v. wade. i would like to make one point. if this were really about the babies. why do we have such a high infant death mortality rate right now? we are number 33 in the list of infant death mortality rates, which means that there are 32 rich nations that have a lower rate than we do. if republicans want to save the babies, they should start with the babies that are already

born. it is a shameful data. host: that is nancy in wisconsin. mary in georgia, republican line. caller: yes. i would like to say. if a baby is not alive, how can it grow? if they survive and grow, it is alive. these women saying they have a right to do what they want to with their bodies, it is not there bobby that they are killing. they are killing their baby's bobby's -- bodies. host: primaries in no raskin west virginia today, vip, the associated press taking a look. former president donald trump will be on the minds of voters

-- taking -- that are facing off in west virginia's second correctional district. one of the most watched on the ballot. of the 20 -- deciding the rest virginia's election -- it will be followed by several people similar content with georgia and michigan. nebraska voters will nominate as nominate candidates tuesday -- a republican who designed -- resigned from office and eat -- ended his election. his name will still appear on the ballot for the first district because he withdrew from the deadline but senator mike flood appears to have the advantage over five other republican candidates. you can see that play out today in those states.

when it comes to the topic of money and support for ukraine, there is a report saying that president joe biden -- from a separate -- separate supplemental package -- request for military. house and senate democrats have upped the price tag of the package by 6.8 billion, -- 3.4 billion to replace u.s. military equipment sent to ukraine, according to a source familiar. you can see that on roll call on its website. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am definitely pro-choice. i am very sorry that the

abortion has become political because it is a medical issue. pregnancy is very complicated. women should have the choice to handle their medical issues. i think myth -- if the legal part of our country was in charge of mail reproductive productivity and told them what they could and could not do, this would be a different issue. i was a school nurse for many years. i have seen six and seventh graders pregnant, having -- and children should not be having children. the people who are -- they are pro-birth, they are not antiabortion because we have at least -- i think it is one of

every four or five children in this country who go to bed hungry every night. we need to be taking care of the children we already have. i think that is about it. host: houston, missouri. independent line. caller: yes, there was a man -- there was a man on there who was rude and crude and called women that go out -- his exact words, and i quote, that women go out and act like bitch dolls in the barnyard. -- docs. caller: i personally would not have an up portion.

-- abortion. that is not what i should push on everyone else. i don't think mentors sit around and talk about women the way that men did. on mother's day. host: let's go to senator racey carano. the debate over in the senate leaders on this week. we will hear for her in a bit. let's hear from connie in pennsylvania. caller: thanks so much. this is a great topic. i appreciate women are able to call in. i have a couple points.

did it is not that life you are considering to dispose of. despite having a child that is needing to go into some kind of government rhyme -- your home or -- runs your home and it women cannot take care of a child, you should not dispose of a life. it is interesting. if a pregnant woman gets murdered, she is charged or the person that kills the woman is charged with two murders. i think it is ironic that it is ok to abort our child but if a pregnant woman gets murdered, the killer is charged with two murders. also, i would like to consider the -- a man's point of view. the child was not created alone. it takes two.

you are aborting that child and does the other party is aware of it or not. here in pennsylvania, we have a candidate, kathy barnett. she is a black candidate for the senate and running in pennsylvania and she was created out of a rape. her mother was 11 years old and thank god, being 11 years old, she did not abort that child. now she is running for state senate and it is phenomenal -- host: connie in pennsylvania. we will hear from democratic senator from hawaii -- on the floor of the senate yesterday. >> i am proud that hawaii was the first state in the country

to decriminalize abortion before roe. regardless of the supreme court decision, those reproductive freedoms in hawaii will be protected. but for how long? so many women across the country do not live in states like hawaii that protect the right to an abortion. various abortion access has -- always existed. like finding childcare, taking cut -- time off of work and traveling in transportation -- you get the extensive -- will skyrocket if throwing is overturned. -- ro is under turned. -- overturned. we know who will be harmed the most. due to systemic barriers and this country's history -- black,

latino, indigenous, asian people and other people of color. this report until he -- this report and -- disproportionately, -- will field the restrictions. women in texas have to travel hundreds of miles to seek abortion services. any women and eight texas do not have the means -- many in texas do not have the means or the opportunities. when you read justice alito's decision, -- yet desire to overturn role for the 16 years he has been on the supreme court. thanks to the three trump justices, his radical opinion is no longer dissent of the majority opinion. host: hope -- catherine -- we

would band together. never argues on abortion and give women choices. women are capable of extraordinary three thanks. abortion suggests all what -- otherwise. abortion is not the other that only way. -- the only way. we are talking about mothers and children and real human pain. that is national review's catherine lopez. we are taking calls from women only for the next 20 minutes. joanne, democrat. caller: i am calling into say that i support roe v. wade. i am glad to see that there were protesters in front of the supreme court justices homes.

they want to take the privacy of women away and it is good to -- for them to experience what it is like to have privacy interrupted for them. my other -- turning on c-span and seeing mitch mcconnell speech -- speak, i do not think a republican should have a voice or express any issue with demonstrations because they had an insurrection. they are trying to take down our democracy and they support a big lie and they continued support -- to support a big lie and they continue to be against democracy. host: what do you think about your state senator susan collins, going back -- -- rolling back. caller: i never voted for her. susan collins, it was shocking to me -- they cannot see the

real picture. she says one thing and does another. she says i will pass this through the committee and they will turn around and this person says, -- turn around and say i voted against that person but she helped that person come to where they are. i have never supported her and never will support her and i wish mayors will see -- i think a lot of mayors have woken up. especially now. with kavanaugh. it was clear to women that he does not support roe v. wade. for her to turn around and say, he was just ingenuous, it is -- disingenuous, it is like, really ? she is not truthful. host: that is joanne in maine. newsweek picking up on a story about a protest from senator

cowan -- comments's -- senator collins's home. local police or -- arrived at the home on saturday according to the daily news. the message was no longer visible monday afternoon. one writes, -- clean up your mess. there is a picture of that talk drawing outside of her home on that newsweek story that is available. you can pick it up on the bangor daily news as well. let's hear from brady in washington dc. independent line. caller:-want to call. -- i want to call. while women are predominantly impacted by this, someone -- eczema with a trans partner,

anyone with a uterus can get affected by this. as someone who sick -- wants to secure a presidency, best practice seek, i feel about that -- fear about the medical intervention that will not help women's lives -- or's life. there is another layer to this. what the potential presidents -- president this will set for future patients like -- other issues that will direct affect policies like marital quality or -- marriage equality. this is more alarming than just people's lives as people choose to -- who choose to get pregnant. i think that is something i wanted to share.

just a reminder, especially those in the queer community who see the long stretching consequences of this. host: that israel -- is ray in washington dc. that is the chalk image at senator cowan's home. -- user:'s home. senator: it's's -- caller: i hate, mother of five grown children and i believe -- i am the mother of five grown children and i believe roberson -- wert -- roe v. wade has no constitutional basis. abortion is the king of -- the

killing of an innocent baby is a crime. i have one of my son and his wife has seven biological children and they adopted three children who needed homes and one was a new burn and my granddaughters, i have two granddaughters who adopted children and they have made homes for the children. they are people who want to adopt children and they are homes -- there are homes for the children and i hope everyone will see giving these babies the choice of living is the best that can be had and the choice of getting them home -- giving them homes is wonderful for everyone and that is all i have to say and i hope to have a full morning and let the babies lift. host: anna in oklahoma.

evelyn, baltimore maryland. democrats line. caller: i have sat here and listen and i am 72. i hear all these older women and -- and calling about abortion. i am pro-choice. the women should have a right to choose. women have been second class citizens in this country practically all over the world. now, if you lift -- flip the script and man is not taking care of the children, they start giving them that vasectomy so that they can no longer have children and the federal government for stat on them, it would be a different story. y'all have a nice day. host: if you look at axios's website, they talk about pulling in groups. they say republicans are split

on their abortion strategy. top officials pushing restraint and silence. actavis republican candidates demanding a all-out ban and harsher penalties. polls were shaken by the abortion ruling because they know the topic and think -- invigorates their bays. top republicans to advisor leaders -- voters are not "hit to that size of change". our line you is wildly improbable. -- a hard you is wildly unpopular. -- hard-line you is widely on -- unpopular. caller: i support and agree with the school news caller from notes carolina. this is a serious medical and

individualized toys that should be available for a healthy option and it should not be politicized. i disagree from the caller from california who specifically indicated african-american women should abstain from abortion, and walked she was correct that institution eyes racism and -- is prevalent, she should understand that the lives of children -- is a person -- a personal and medical choice and each person should allow lawmakers to establish protections for -- individual rights. have a great day. host: jeannie is in livingston, louisiana. republican line. caller: good morning. i called about this abortion thing. i have been hearing this since i was young. that is when the concentrate --

contraceptive was getting big. i do not agree with abortion. that is not my decision to make but women need to be stop -- not being irresponsible. they get pregnant. all kinds of concentrate -- contraceptives. they are using abortion like birth control. they don't want to take the pill because and mike -- might gain -- they might gain rate. they need to put this. all it will do is return the decision to the people in the states and it does not make it illegal. go ahead -- thank you. host: under the topics with regarding to ukraine, it was de prez about -- pentagon meeting. -- here is the response from the

press secretary john kirby on that topic. >> and the ukrainian government says that 1.2 million ukrainians have been deported to russian -- russia and in peace camps. you have evidence of that? are these concentration camps? >> i cannot assert to the number but we certainly have seen indications that the ukrainians are being moved from ukraine into russia. i cannot speak to how many camps or what they look like. i don't know if we have that level of detail but we do have indications that ukrainians are being taken from their will. unconscionable, not the behavior of a responsible power. another indication that he simply won't accept and respect ukrainian sovereignty and they are citizens of a -- another

nation. if you take 1.2 million people from a country and move them to camps -- >> we have talked about the fact that we do believe russian soldiers continue to conduct war crimes beyond -- and i think it is better not for the defense of -- department to make that determination. look, i mean, you don't have to look far to see evidence of russian brutality here. we are on day 75, 75 days of brutalizing the nation of ukraine and the ukrainian people. every time you think, they just cannot fall to a new low, they prove you wrong. host: this is lorraine in grand

junction, carolina. independent line. caller: i wanted to give you my personal story of someone who had to have an abortion for a personal reason. i was pregnant -- my first pregnancy, my child was born one month prematurely. my second child was born prematurely and spent several months in the hospital. i became pregnant and was told was -- that i was going to be expecting twins. my doctor advised the fact that if i continue to have pregnancies, i would have to be on continual bed rest and not be able to carry the babies to term. i am a catholic. i do not believe in abortions or for personal concentrations -- concert -- contraceptives to have an abortion.

a and i had to make a difficult decision to have the abortion and what we were thinking of is the fact that how would i be able to care for my other two children because of my condition , i would not be able to do so. husband and i decided that abortion was best and he had an this ectomy. i think there are medical reasons and personal reasons that people have to go in that direction and i am very much opposed to roe v. wade being overturned. host: the set and a, california. democrats line. -- seabrook, california. caller: i have done research -- actually, the four 1821, --

before, hd 21 -- the importance of spacing out children. 41821 connecticut passed the first law in that nation. in 1847, the medical -- establish and it went on a drive to criminalize abortion. they wanted the midwives out of the picture. in 1815 -- 1850, the state of california made abortions illegal except -- whose information about abortion and birth control, a federal obscenity legislation. by 1900, laws in all states had laws for abortion. host: this will be from kathleen

in riverside, rhode island. republican line. caller: i would like to weigh in. i think we should listen to the decision. second, roe v. wade is a different creature from what it was in 1973. under government -- governor northam, the baby is born and check -- check comfortable and got asked dr. will talk about if the baby lives. that is roe v. wade. i am dying to vote in a presidential election and congressional election where roe v. wade is not a litmus test. it is not part of the constitution but it is part of state rights in the state should be responsible for this and what makes it even more suitable is that more women and men will be able to vote for it. there he hard to deal with the federal government. state level is where it belongs.

host: we appreciate all of you who participated. we will take this up later on in the program. a couple guest joining us. we will be joined by the new york times, jonathan martin and alexander burns. they will discuss their book. taking a look at the event before and after january 6 and we talk with washington times opinion editor about her vote. -- look. those conversations coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> at least six presidents recorded conversation while in office. here many of those conversation

on c-span's new podcast. >> season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you will hear about the president right act. march on selma and the war in vietnam. everyone knew they were being what it. certainly, johnson's secretary new because they were tasked with transcribing many of the conversations. they were the ones who make sure that the conversations were taped, as johnson but signal to them, through an open door pt's office and theirs. >> you will hear what talk. -- blunt talk. >> the number of people who -- numbers of signed, i want them blessed. i can over go to the back room, i probably will not go. i will say -- stay behind these like gaetz. >> on the c-span now mobile app.

go wherever you get podcasts. >> he spends, the weekly broadcast region within 40 years of -- political order on a leaked elite theft to decision in nature abortion case that some may say poses a big challenge to roe versus wade. hear how the current members of the supreme court answered questions about roe v. wade. during the confirmation hearings. >> john roberts said that roe v. wade is the settled law of the land. you leave it is the settled law of the lance? >> roe v. wade is a important president of this report. it was decided in 1873. it has been on the books for a long time.

it has been challenged on a number of occasions and as i discussed those yesterday and it is -- the supreme court has reaffirmed that decision. sometimes on the merits. >> judge, the courts -- willing on in the foundation for roe v. wade. it is well settled law? -- his role settled law? >> that is the president of the court and settled in terms of the holding of the court. >> you can find the leak -- weekly on c-span now, are free, mobile video app or go wherever you get your podcast. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is jonathan larson, the co-author -- also joined by alexander burns.

the cooperatives the same group -- co-author of the same book. host: you probably ended up with a different kind of product when you finished it. caller: i think we have been dealing with the idea of doing a traditional campaign. the thought was this would be a really fascinating campaign. covid made it more interesting. the campaign never ended. never conceded the election. january 6 took right there. it occurred to us, we are living to a historic moment. we should go becker aired rights capture the full scope of this emotionless era. we decided to do what we hope will be the first draft of american history. 2020 and 2021. trump but also the first year of joe biden and we think we have our pretty rich -- filmed with

inside stories about how countries try to govern. host: same question to you. >> i think what jonathan said about starting out traditional campaign narrative and morphing to something else captured it. what we have is -- a political history. one of the collections of political journals and political book writing we discarded is the notion there is a distinction between politics and campaigning, which happens over here and governing and policy, which happens over here. they are anguishing richard -- english english -- ink -- indistinguishable. the boundary between politics and government has never been so permeable. host: i will read you a couple clients. the country after all did not

collapse, a straw man was defeated. the transit -- transfer of power did happen. the two parties have negotiated in an attempt to approve the lies of the constituents. another timeline has unfolded in a dark parallel, -- what is that timeline? >> it is important to look at the last two years as a balanced way and to put it in a larger perspective of american history. it is not the darkest that we have experienced. we have had presidents and several lights -- rights leaders excess native. -- assassinated. i think that it is important to step back from the remnants --

grimness of right now and look at the reality that the country has been put in a stress test in the system did not thrive but it did not collapse -- and the system did not thrive but it did not collapse. the fact we are sitting there today and the criticism that president biden received is about placing -- those are for million -- from familiar problems. think people would feel relieved. at the same time, when you look at the high hopes for this new administration, and when you look at the way in which president trump defied all american convention with his behavior after the election, i think it is important not to be poly --. we have been standing here with the government that has been shaken and i don't think you can look at the last year since president trump left office and

see that america is boring back. we learned tough luscious -- lessons during covid and we are adapting. host: we have two political parties -- >> there is increasingly little coherence in the two coalitions but for contempt for the other coalition and that is that animating force of the politics today. organizing your party around not really a sort of agreed upon policies but fear and disdain for the opposition. not part of real american history but not healthy. host: (202) 748-8000 four democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independence, (202) 748-8002.

the book, this will not pass. you made some news for the tape. people know that but what you think about the intent of what candidate -- kevin mccarthy was trying to do in the time the tapes came out? caller: i think readers will be fascinated at this because it was based entirely on primary source documentation. kevin mccarthy is grasping with two major challenges. one is the immediate physical threat to himself and his members and the possibility of more violence in the u.s. capitol and he and his -- he is worried that he will never find -- a balance. it is how do i rescue my party from what is obviously going to be a huge challenge, namely, are president being blamed for a insurrection. i hear him in real-time trying

to grapple -- grapple with those threats and in doing so, he is including -- is there a way that we can get the president removed from office before january 20 and does that me -- mean having him resign or invoking the 25th amendment or impeachment? how do we get this done? a when -- window into the panic of those hours and days. host: i will play a portion of that audio conversation that kevin mccarthy had five days after january 6. we will get your comment. >> i am going to get -- a briefing from the fbi and it does not matter which side of the position you wear. i respect it and i respect what you did with. what we are saying on television when we say -- maybe we think we

are doing it -- because of the last four years, -- this is not the moment in time to do it. the briefing that i am getting, you can insight something else. the country is very divided. let's not put any member, i don't care who they are, republican, democrat or anyone that and call us -- congress. -- not in congress. host: is the minority leader trying to do?

caller: he is speaking the entire republican congress. this is after the private meetings with his leadership team. including matt gaetz from florida -- that could inside additional violence. what you hear there is a measured kevin carthy then some of the earlier recordings. holding his -- trying to hold his party together when he has his unruly caucus, most of them voted to object to certifying the 2020 elections. some of who have been spinning out this piercing that's conspiracy. -- conspiracy theories. where banging away at kevin mccarthy to do something at about it -- you hear kevin mccarthy as blunt with his own conference as a whole. talking about the dangers of

their hader as we have -- behavior as we have ever heard them. you hear a kevin mccarthy who will not stand up to his conference and repudiate what they are dead in casting doubt in the 2020 election. he said whatever side of the issue you are on, i respected both watch your words. he was talking about whether 2020 was a legitimate vote. >> it is fascinating to hear that tape -- he is trying to walk that high wire up not offending the hardliners who believe the election was rigged. he is trying to play the pragmatic members of the congress who were appalled. you can hear him carefully, prudently, reading from his thoughts, it is different from the other audio where it is just

a small group of house gop leaders where he is more defiant. people like matt keat he is much more condemnable -- host: republican line. caller: you mentioned the unhealthy situation where parties identified more with what they are against them what they are for and i believe that has spilled over to getting with the end of the fairness doctrine. people identifying with only one one of you that the hear on stations with no opposing viewpoints. i haven't heard much about discussions -- justin's -- justices -- that we can't really get their juries and do you

believe that is affecting the readiness of people like brad mcgartland to put forward indictments for fear that even though there is merit, the jury pool will no longer find it? guest: first of all, i appreciate the question that you are interested in our work. prosecuting a former president would be an enormous legal and political challenge in any time. fairness doctrine or not, whatever the culture is, everyone knows the president and has an opinion about the president. i cannot speak to whether garlin or bragg would be thinking about that. one of the challenges we try to reckon with is how to tell an integrated story about the entire political system. the failures of both local parties. the two parties are not identical. there is a bow side narrative.

everyone is not equally to blame. some people are more culpable to others in the crisis of american democracy but one of the challenge we worried about is if we tell a on sparing story about the republican party culpability in the rise of the insurrection. we tear -- tell a story about how difficult democrats found it -- and govern how -- and deliver the promises. people -- are people going to embrace the truth of the narrative are our people only going to want to consume the parts that are fun. it is easy to weird -- read about the other side is other screwed up. there is a big community of readers who do want the truth no matter who it touches. >> we hope that they are still reading the chapters -- we have

a little bit of this. the month where trump leaves office in disgrace is different than what nixon did. i captures what the caller is getting out -- at. the difference of political and media culture in the nearly 50 years between those two moments and trump did not face shining from his own party in the way nixon did. the idea of republican lawmakers going to san clement -- san clemente and visiting nixon and kissing his ring would be unthinkable. it was a president forced to resign after this terrible laundry -- shameful corruption episode and that was recognized widely by the american people in his home -- on party. he was persona non grata. people like kevin mark hartley

are happy -- their voters don't care. host: this is jim. caller: i applaud c-span for having these people on. the more you talk, the more trump supporters you are creating. the facts that you are still trying to pretend that the election was stolen is amazing to me, where it is evidence, all over the place, even -- video evidence of people stuffing ballot boxes, backpack after backpack full of ballots. we have video evidence of a mother and daughter team in fulton county, georgia, after the people were kicked out because of a quote unquote water leak, taking the same batch of

ballots and running them through the machine over and over again. host: we are limited on time. caller: i understand -- i am frustrated. they lost their narrative. no longer do the american people get their news from the abc, cbs, cnn, -- they have moved on because it is blatant. there people -- the people have moved on. guest: the beauty of c-span is -- what a culture. i think people will do better to watch more c-span. you get that unfiltered view of where voters are. that call and the call before captures our journalistic careers. trying to write about a country that is so divided. basically people live in

parallel realities. it is a challenge. i think it calls for more journalism that is on sparing -- unsparing. it does not take sides. >> what the caller's's perspective shows that there are people who are deeply attached to the notion of stolen election and the faxed --facts be damned. if there was a mother and daughter team -- and there was video evidence, i am sure president trump would have entered that as evidence and the district attorney would have prosecuted. >> it would have been covered in the new york times. i think the reality is, part of the reason why president trump's hold on the republican party has been so tenacious is because he

captured the imaginations of a lot of people in block of the media of the rights that is willing to nor should -- nurtured this environment about fantasies of a stolen election can persist. republican members of the senate were quoted talking about david perdue who is running on georgia -- saying it is a stolen election. they are saying, i don't know what that guy is. >> this is a demand side issue and the supply is there but it is there because of the likes of -- host: far as the factoring you were talking about, you talk about in the book -- kevin mccarthy -- he has to deal with other people. how is he dealing with those people specifically and where are they as a party?

>> he does have private conversations with matt gaetz. he has said mccarthy reached out to him and said please stop naming specific people and that is a reference the attacks on liz cheney and adam kinzinger. talking about them as an antitrust cabal in the republican party. other people say that they did not hear from mccarthy. when we were going to report the new story version of our reporting about mccarthy's concerns about the far right reach -- i asked him for, and he was very dismissive and i asked him it mccarthy speak you just speak to you about your record -- and it shows to go -- shall -- host: you write in your book about efforts about senator

mccarthy about censure. >> -- they were grasping for any alternative that would give them some comfort because they knew there was an appetite. there were people in their brakes to tell trump what he did was wrong. others wanted to impeach him and others yet when it to offer some sanction. some point, we were grappling with can be good eight cent -- do a censure resolution? there was talk about going to trump himself and saying, can you accept censure. the idea of having to go to the president after he had incited out mop to storm the u.s. capitol would be ok sure if we do these censure resolution

against you and could you not get mad about it? host: hours -- charles in niagara falls. caller: it is kind of strange. for four years, we heard don't take trump seriously or don't take him literally or rather, seriously. and the other side, some i kind of agree with, don't take them -- him literally, just seriously and then my mindset lost out for three years and 11 months and it turned out that jake was up -- the jig was up and everyone took him seriously and literally. with all of his henchmen.

when you compare what trump -- the lowlife around him compared to nixon, who in retrospect is a shining knight on a hill, beautiful guys like g gordon liddy -- so, it is like -- host: thank you very much. president trump's influence over the party. caller: i think to the caller's point, colorfully delivered, it is a recurring theme in our book. action was a disgrace president, to, but he was a pre-commercial politician who was serious by government. he had an agenda and he was aggressive. president trump -- there's

another book by mark experts -- that underlines a point that even in his final month as president that he is throwing out ideas of policy that bear no resemblance to the basic capacities of the federal government. it is amazing it is only two years ago that the president of the united states, suggesting injecting wheat in response to coronavirus. he is surrounded by people -- there were serious people in the trumpet administration who were trying to keep things on course but he was also surrounded by enablers that was particularly to in the month of january 6. people who believe the far out stuff and whispering in his ear. >> there were some in the media who is trying to pretend trump is something he is not and he was a more professional figured that he was and trying to normalize him.

some makes clear that he is not a normal politician. he is calling for protesters to be shot in the streets. he is talking about cruise missiles into mexico. it goes on and on. underlines the effort to normalize him but you hear the efforts from republicans to normalize him. host: you characterize it -- republicans -- found themselves defeated. went on to say it was a logic of a section live -- logic -- protection logic. guest: that is from a chapter about this desperate attempt by a series of governors in both parties to get a from their state.

figures like dan lamont were going to trump and trump is responding, not by saying, what does your state need and what are the challenges. it is pure politics and self interests and trump is saying, if you want to -- this, as me nicely. -- ask me nicely. it captures how trump is so far from a conventional president. what every white house has politics, shape it. trump takes it to a and extreme -- an extreme. he doesn't understand what is not appropriate or he does not care. >> i think jonathan said it well and it is sort of a texan racket model -- protection racket model.

you can draw a straight line between that and the way he is interacting with -- the governor of north carolina -- i gave you a whole lot of ventilators in the pandemic and don't you think you should kinda make -- a kind of date -- accommodate me? this is extraordinary stuff and people should not be desensitized to it. host: this is john from pennsylvania. republican line. caller: good show. two comments if your guests can address these topics. the one is that joe biden has flip-flopped on the abortion issue. at 2006 video shows that the then senator says he does not see abortion as a choice and a right. in 2020, joe biden said, i think

it is a tragedy. i think it should be rare and safely. we should be focus on how to limit the number of abortion. joe biden has been shown to flip-flop on the issue. the second thing, on the southern border, we are being invaded. congress at this point is stepping up. but the dhs person in charge of my office does not same to be upholding his responsibilities to protect the american citizens and protect the border, allowing aliens of -- i have called my representatives to express concerns. the problem is the trickle-down effect. all these people go on welfare,

and they are going to cost the american taxpayer. in the point is -- host: talk about this white house and politics, particularly with the midterms. guest: checking biden's evolution on abortion, in fairness to joe biden, although maybe not really, i am not sure that he has flip-flopped in his views on abortion. he used to talk about legal, safe, and rare, used to say things publicly about every abortion being a tragedy. he has not refuted you to those views, but he has emphasized that this is the official policy stance of the administration, to defend roe. the president is a deeply religious catholic. but since becoming president, has been very deferential to his

party, which is to say any rhetoric that stigmatizes abortion should not be -- the democrats should not be engaging in that. i think it has created a political dilemma for him and for democrats ahead of this battle about reproductive rights, where a lot of democrats rightly look at the president was some awareness about this. guest: it is fascinating, if you talk to democrats, it does not take very long for them to express frustration about biden 's message on abortion rights. they know he has never been a champion of the cause. even today, he has largely embraced the current approach on the issue for his party, but his aim is to not stigmatize the issue, which is to drop the rare in the formulation, but he is still catching flak. why? he will refer to more legalistic

issues like the robert bork confirmation, which she is just much more comfortable with talking about than the actual procedure itself. obviously, he has great personal ambivalence on it. and this is a fascinating part of the book, that is we have a series of memos from biden's top poster who warned early on that joe biden is facing grave political challenges on issues like immigration and crime that would eventually become major, major issues. at the time they were not getting a lot of attention, but his polls flagged those issues, and they have not come up to address or not yet. to this day, that is docking democrats. host: as far as the way you write the book, i am sure you

have seen critics about holding on to things like the kevin mccarthy tapes versus putting it out there to the public when you know about these things. guest: first, we do not talk about sourcing generally as a rule. but i think it is fair to say, whether it is our book or somebody else's book or somebody else's journalism, i think when it comes to the process, the idea that people are going to sort of be open with you for something that is going to appear the next day or week is pretty far-fetched. we are talking to people per history, and it is obviously queasy to get people to open up. and it is the case time and time again. people who largely work in journalism for have worked on historic projects no, look,

these things do not necessarily come easy. and the idea that all this material comes rapidly is just not the case. it does take time and effort to gather this material. it is a much more complicated question then presented, and i think anybody who has done a look at history will appreciate that. you hear things, you track things down, you try to confirm matters, and it is not done in that way. guest: jonathan really covered it, but i also think in a lot of the criticism, reporters are deliberately stiffing their readers to hoard serial and sell it in the form of a book. look, if those kevin mccarthy tapes have been accessible and reportable the second he said that stuff, that is a carrier making newspaper story. even if you believe reporters are motivated overwhelmingly by

cano -- banal purposes, even if you do believe that, that is extraordinary. anybody would be tripping over themselves to get that to the public as quickly as possible. we will not get into the mechanical details of the timing and condition or whatever under which different sources cooperate with us or different materials are obtained, that anybody who has been a journalist or who knows a journalist, the notion you would willingly sit on a story of a lifetime for a very long interval to hoard that material from a book, to me, it is a fundamental misunderstanding. host: both work for the "new york times" and are co-authors of "this will not pass: trump, biden, and the battle for

american democracy." thank you to you both. coming up, we will be talking about your views of roe v. wade. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, republicans (202) 748-8001, and independents (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls when "washington journal" returns. >> book tv, every sunday on c-span2, leading others discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 2:00 p.m. eastern, a professor of history at the university of dayton talks about abraham lincoln, grover cleveland, theater roosevelt, jfk, ronald reagan, and donald trump. at 10:00 p.m. eastern, steve forbes shares his thoughts on

what is causing inflation in the u.s. and how to fix it, interviewed by "new york times" economic reporter gina smiley. watch big tv every sunday on c-span2 or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine, the latest from the president and other white house officials, the pentagon, and estate department as well as congress -- and the state department, as well as congress. all on c-span networks, the c-span now free mobile app, and c-span.org/ukraine, our web resource page where you can watch the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine.

>> c-span brings you when unfiltered view of government. our newsletter recaps the day for you, from the halls of congress to daily press briefings remarks from the president. and the qr code at the right bottom to sign up for the email and stay up on date with what is happening in washington. visit the qr code or visit c-span.org/connect to subscribe anytime. "washington journal" continues. host: until 9:15, women-only, your thoughts and views on roe v. wade, particularly its future. for democrats in the audience, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001, and independents, (202) 748-8002. on twitter, @cspanwj, and also

on facebook and instagram. yesterday, jen psaki talked about the protests in the white house's response here is a portion. [video clip] >> has you know, there are allies protesting outside of the justices' homes. [inaudible] is it appropriate to protest outside people's homes, productive or not productive? >> in terms of the productive question, that is not for me to speak to. obviously, these justices make decisions as an independent body here to how they were influenced or if they were influenced is not for me to judge. we believe in peaceful protest we do not believe or support intimidation of any time. we do not believe in the violation of breaking laws,

threats, or intimidation. but we do support peacefully protesting. host: that is from the white house yesterday. expect to hear more from legislators this week. debate starts tomorrow on an effort in the senate to try to provide federal abortion protections into law, that is not expected to pass. you can see the debate tomorrow on c-span2, which covers the senate. and also watch c-span.org and our c-span now app for more information. when it comes to other aspects of this debate, "washington post" showing little evidence of a massive swing against republican states when it comes to roe. it shows americans favor keeping roe intact by roughly two to one. when voters were asked about midterm preferences, it was a merchant that would swing both chambers to the gop, and that

could change if this becomes official. once groups spend their warchest on advertising and highlighting reproductive rights, it is believed the issue will have some special resonance in some midterm elections. you can talk about how it might impact your vote or perhaps even the midterms when you tell us about your view of roe v. wade. women only for this segment. we will start with barbara in blacksburg, virginia, line for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. thank you so much for taking my call. i am a 77-year-old woman. my husband and i decided to start a family after we had been married for years, and i decided -- we decided before we conceived i would go off the birth control pill, and for a

year i just used conventional birth control but i abstained totally from liquor, coffee, tea, chocolate, steak tartar, which was a popular holiday treat in my family. and this was the most important decision in our lives that we were making. and that is why i stopped -- you know, we took this year to kind of cleanse my system. and something i was totally unprepared for was, after giving birth, was the postpartum depression. and during this time, i kept thinking about young women who got pregnant quite by accident,

had no plan or anything, and trying to imagine what was going on in their lives. and i -- still, it is something that i have spoken to friends, many of us have gone through this, and it is just not something you can be prepared for, and that certainly no man can ever imagine. host: ok, let's hear from wendy, washington, d.c., republican line. hello? caller: good morning. thank you. i can appreciate with barbara just said, but as a civilized, rich country, surely we have the resources to support young mothers, surely we can emphasize the value of human life.

we have an understanding as a result of technology today that was not in place when roe v. wade was passed, you know, we understand so much more about the development of a child in the womb. we deliver babies so much earlier viably. and the only difference here really, and this is coming from someone who has had more than one abortion -- as a republican christian, i get it, i understand both sides of the argument. you know, the distinction is between wanted and unwanted. if i do not want a child, i can terminate what would otherwise be the birth of a baby. ok? if you do not have an abortion, it ends in the birth of a child. i understand risky decisions,

has to be all or nothing. but "wall street journal" yesterday had a wonderful brief synopsis of european law, and if there is country to country based on the will of the people and then noise of that region, so the netherlands and u.k. have the most expansive access to abortion, where italy is the most limited, for example, the first 90 days. if we get rid of roe v. wade, we're just kicking it back to the states to decide. host: ok, to emily in ashburn, virginia, independent line. caller: hi, good morning. i think this is a very complicated issue because you have two lives that are being impacted. you have the life of this unborn child, which the previous caller

mentioned is viable a lot earlier and was evident at the time the law was passed, and you have the life of the mother who is carrying the child, and i think i may be one of the few people, from what i can tell who does not really -- i mean, i kind of see it from both sides. i do think -- i wish there were more support for the mother who is making the decision as far as options available. i feel like abortion is an option that is available, but i am just imagining it from this mother's point of view, how scary that would be, and it just seems like, i mean, think abortion could be an option, but

it seems like it would be nice to think that we provided more support to the mother to be able to have more options on the table and not feel like they are so alone in that decision-making process. host: that is emily in virginia, giving her thoughts on our independent line. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and independents (202) 748-8002. one of the people putting her thoughts in on paper in an op-ed is michigan's democratic governor, governor whitmer, talking about her state experience and how they are preparing for matters if roe v. wade is overturned she says, many of us feared this day would come, which is why last month i brought a lawsuit drawing on

authority granted to me as governor, looking at whether the state constitution includes the right to gain access to abortion. my argument is predicated on the due process and protecting clauses in our state institution, due process clause of the michigan constitution protect the right to abortion the same way the u.s. constitution does for roe. the equal protection law has overbroad generalizations about the role of women in the workforce and in the home. i hope my novel lawsuit can offer a course of action for others to follow. on the website of the "new york times," you can read it there. democrats, texas, mansfield, texas, this is melanie. caller: good morning. i just want to say that one thing that i did learn from the covid situation is that having a choice is important. i am a democrat -- actually, i am pro-life, as well.

the problem i have with roe v. wade going away is that there are not options for women, and there has to be exceptions because there is not a one-size-fits-all for any scenario that we have. so i do agree that if you have a teenager, 14-year-old kid that gets pregnant, who is going to take care of that baby? you may have a 52-year-old woman who still has reproductive cells and gets pregnant, does she want to do that? i just think there needs to be more options. thank you. host: independent line, this is jen in cincinnati, ohio. caller: good morning. so i think i -- i am pro-choice, and i believe it should be every woman that has a decision to make. i personally decided that it would be my best interest in my

family to have a child. i think so often, it is mischaracterized as either being pro-abortion or antiabortion and body autonomy when the definition of life, as far as our laws tend to go seems to come down on religious definitions of when life begins. some religious practices believe life begins at conception, others don't. other due process process and the body autonomy arguments, it is also freedom of religion issue, because which religious background gets to choose when life begins? in the argument they say about viability happens much earlier, i do not believe viability if you spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep a prematurely

born baby on life support and all these extreme medical measures to keep the baby alive that would not be able to survive outside of the womb before then. thank you. host: another viewer from cincinnati, ohio, this is mary, republican. caller: i am totally not pro-choice. you don't have a choice when you have made the choice already to have sex, and you know the consequences, so you should be prepared. we do need to get it so that there is a place or many places that you can go, because we cannot have this overturned. if you are going to resort back to the 1950's, 1940's, where women had to go to back alleys and doctors there, no, we cannot have any of that. we have to first get it understood.

the commercial, there was a commercial on television about a woman with her children coming into a house given to her so that she can be a part of maintaining this planet. thank you very much. host: "washington post" looks at the topic of the debates and protests. earlier, we showed you some of those protests outside of justice kavanaugh's home. they highlight, leave the justices alone at home. they say, to picket a judge's home is problematic and tries to bring direct public pressure to bear on the decision-making process it must be controlled if there is to be any home of an independent judiciary. critics reversing direct roe mas it would violate court judicial principles, yet it is basic social consensus, and if the rule of law are to be sustained,

demonstration against even what many might regard as illegitimate rulings must respect the rights of others and they must be lawful. again, the "washington post" editors making their argument this morning. you can read it online. from florida, independent line, this is natalie. caller: good morning, and thank you for taking my call. i am the daughter of parents who were in europe during the second world war. and my mother watched roe, and she said it started with taking away rights. when you start taking away rights from women, they are just not taking away abortion, they are passing laws that even outlaw conception, and when they deem you're not fit to raise a child -- my mother said that

they went to the children. and let's not forget, there are many flaws on the books right now that would cement republicans taking over. and even though those laws are constitutional we have to wonder how this supreme court will judge on those laws. host: we have asked women only during this time to give their thoughts on roe v. wade, and you can share your thoughts on the future of roe v. wade considering the news of the last week or so. call on the lines at best represent you. or you can send as a text at (202) 748-8003. anybody can focus -- post on our facebook sites, facebook, and @cspanwj.

lisa is in washington, d.c., democrats line. caller: thank you for having me. i have a few points to make, mentioning people protesting outside of cavanaugh -- justice kavanaugh's house, and i think if they allow protesters to protest outside of clinics and intimidate women who go in there for whatever health services they want,, it is the same kind of thing, everybody should have the same right to protest in front of his home like they do the clinics. and i want to say that there are a lot of things not in the constitution that was written by and for rich white men, and one of those is the freedom to own slaves. like, well, are they going to

give that back to the states to decide about slavery and all that? that is kind of crazy. all these freedoms that we have, the civil rights freedoms, that were not in the constitution? i mean, it is a poor argument, and we should be intelligent enough to know that that argument is flawed. another statement i want to say is no one is pro-abortion. those words do not come out of anybody's lips. pro-choice is not pro-abortion. pro-choice means let a woman choose. does not mean they want her to have an abortion or anybody wants to have an abortion. one more thing i want to say. host: quickly, please. caller: ok, rape, if a woman is impregnated from rape and forced to give birth to that child, it is like a double, triple punishment on her. host: ok. doris in peachtree city, georgia, republican line. caller: hi, this is my first

time calling, and i just want to say that this situation should not be complicated. the states should not be legislating people's bodies. it should not be in the hands of politicians. it is a personal choice. what we need to do is educate the american people, and they can make their own decisions regarding their own bodies. thank you. host: that is doris in peachtree city, georgia, republican line paired we will do this until about 9:15, and you can call in. a couple other views to share with you, this is from "the wall street journal" about the irs and delayed tax refunds, saying they are paying villains -- billions for that as far as interest, saying the 4% rate for being late took effect in april,

up a percentage point from the prior quarter. the rate for corporate references up 1.5 percent from 0.5%. it generally takes 45 days to process a tax return and pay a refund come after that interest starts accruing. it is adjusted each quarter. those interest payments have real cost to the public. fiscal year 2021, irs paid 3.3 billion dollars in interest to tax filers, more than triple what it paid in 2015. more of that in the "wall street journal" this morning. a couple events today, 9:30 this morning, a hearing that will feature national intelligence director april hands and the director lieutenant general scott berrier, talking about global threats facing the u.s. you can see that in front of the senate armed services committee

at 9:30 eastern on c-span3, c-span.org, and full coverage on c-span now. at 9:35, janet yellen will talk about u.s. financial stability with an update in front of the senate banking committee. at 10:00 eastern, again at c-span.org or follow along with our free c-span app there, as well. dory in washington, independent line. caller: yes, hello. i agree with all three leaders. they are all correct, the government has no right to be in this area. this is an individual right. when things though, if they are going to have this, any part of it, they should require the man to pay for the resulting child. host: tina is in alabama,

republican line. caller: good morning. supreme court, the law of god, we are free to choose, but there are consequences to our choice. not a one of us is perfect, but the one who lived on earth who was perfect, he had grace and dignity. love to all, thank you for the service you provide. host: next is gretchen in olympia, washington, independent line. caller: thank you for the opportunity to express ourselves. it is interesting that this is for women only. i am not as politically aware as my significant other, but i am kind of adopting his ideas, which are he feels that men should not be allowed to vote on something that has to do with

women's right to bear children or not their children, among other things. another thought is that overpopulation has caused so many problems in the world today, so to make a woman give birth to a child that is not wanted, and you can say, well, people want to adopt, but there are plenty of children to adopt, i am so concerned with this being overturned, and i hope that it will be rethought and that we continue to have the choice to do what we want and need to do with our bodies, especially in the cases of rape and ancestor, which is far too common. thank you so much for the opportunity to speak. host: next is emma in missouri,

democrats line. caller: hello, america. i just want to say this, i think it is totally ludicrous for nine people called the supreme court can make rules and regulations for 350 million people in the united states. and furthermore, as far as abortion is concerned, i am a christian. god doesn't force me to keep his 10 commandments. who are the supreme court to make rules and regulations to send me to jail because they feel they can make laws on my body? it is wrong, and i don't care who you are. it is wrong. host: emma in missouri. taking place yesterday, aside from this, president biden talking about new efforts for broadband in areas underserved

or people who may not have access, the "new york post" saying about 40% of u.s. households will soon be eligible for free internet services, he said, and that is through new federal subsidies you can see the full announcement at our website. here is a portion from yesterday. [video clip] pres. biden: here's how it works, your household, twice the poverty level or less, about $55,000 per year for a family of four, 20,000 -- 27,000 dollars per individual, or a member of your household is on medicaid or a number of other programs, you're eligible to affordably connect with this program. 40% of the households in america qualify. if you qualify you get a $30 credit per month toward your internet bill, which for most folks will mean they get on for nothing. zero me explain.

in the past, $30 a month meant you had to set up or slow internet service, unless you wanted to pay a heck of a lot more out of pocket. but over the last few months, my administration has worked closely with internet providers, a case where big business stepped up, urging them to cut their prices and raise their speeds. trying to get others to do the same thing. but these guys are the best. [laughter] well, look, we secured commitments from 20 providers, most here in the garden today, to lower prices for high-speed internet for tens of millions of households. so now families eligible can select a plan from a participating provider and receive high-speed internet at no cost in most cases. host: you can see that speech from the president at c-span now and our website, c-span.org. new york times reporting that

congress will hold its first hearing on and identifying aerial phenomena since the 1970's. a report was requested by congress on that phenomena. the assessment focuses on 144 incidents dating back to 2000 four, able to explain only one. there are inferences saying the recording was inconclusive and says the data creates a challenge to evaluate the phenomenon, but they said most of the phenomena reported to represent physical objects. they concluded they were not secret u.s. technology and that the data does not indicate it is part of a foreign collection program or indicative of a major technical advancement by an adversary. this is from carrie in orange city, florida, republican line. caller: hi, this is my first time calling.

i am a little confused how we all sit at home and are enraged at kids being blowed away, kids being blowed away at school, and you are angered about that, but no one is angered about abortion. you're angry about kids getting killed in a school or on the street or however, but it is ok to walk in and just kill a child? i mean, murder is murder, sir. and if i can state and other thing, we have people protesting outside the supreme court people, and it is ok, yet we have the black lives matter lady being approached by candace owens and she is crying and saying candace owens is threatening her life? this doesn't make any sense. host: let's hear from martha in illinois, democrats line. caller: hey, i just wanted to

say something, that the taliban, or isis, are the guys that make women have children. and do we want to be like that? i mean, look at the women in afghanistan right now. i think trump did a lot of damage when he told us during the debates with hilary that you can just take the baby out of you and you and your doctor can decide what to do with the baby in the ninth month. i mean, that is ridiculous. trump did a big number on this country. we need to get back to basics and just, you know -- this is a woman's issue, a health issue. that is it, not complicated. host: buffalo, new york line for republicans, we will hear from julia. caller: i am a first-time caller, too, and the caller who

just spoke, of course they're going to blame trump on everything, and trump did say that, that is a fact, that they are selling baby parts, planned parenthood. that is a fact, and we donate them, the federal government does give money to the planned parenthood, which i believe is wrong because taxpayers should not have to pay for anybody aborting a baby. too much availability out there. too much technology. birth control, day after, condoms for men. they should not have to -- if they choose to be promiscuous, it should not be up to a taxpayer to pay that. it is a price for them. i'm sorry, but this is very emotional to me because a lot of things i am hearing are so wrong, and they're getting misinformed. host: we will hear from christina in south dakota, independent line.

hi. caller: hi, i am a first-time caller, as well. i just wanted to say that i agree with the previous callers that abortion is murder, but if you want to allow murdering babies, and i think it should be up to the legislature, not the supreme court, which is what roe v. wade did do, they basically codified a law. but i wanted to bring up the point of fetal pain. there is something called euthanasia, which certain states and countries do for people, and they do it in a humane way. abortion is many times not humane at all. there was a person that was a manager of planned parenthood and was asked to step in because a nurse became ill, and she stepped in simile to hold someone's hand, a 12-week abortion, she was appalled when she saw the baby shirk from the pain and try to get away from it when the baby was being aborted.

she later became a pro-life advocate, and sadly, she has passed from cancer. but i think if we're going to have abortion, it needs to be humane. there needs to be standards. there are standards for a lab rat. there needs to be standards paid when you do an extraction of a baby, you're cutting it into pieces, sucking it out, taking it in them by glenn, many times -- taking it out of limb by limb, and many times keeping the parts. caller: good morning, i am 85 years young and certainly believe a woman should have a right to choose. there seems to be a misconception that men do not have anything to do with this procedure. actually, no one has ever become pregnant without a man involved. so let's just be honest about

this. of course, at my age, i did not have the opportunity to use, even if i had wanted to and not sure i would have, but i would like to have that choice. so let's just keep choice for this procedure open to the ladies of this land. thanks so much. host: that is francis in north carolina. there is an effort in the senate to pass legislation that, if it were passed, would put abortion protections into federal law. not expected to pass by reporting, but it was chuck schumer on the senate floor yesterday making the case for the legislation. here's a portion of that from yesterday. [video clip] >> i want to be clear, this week's vote is not an abstract exercise. this is as real and as high stake as it gets, and senate republicans will no longer be able to hide from the horror

they have unleashed upon women and america. after spending years packing our courts with right-wing judges and justices after changing rules to the senate to push three rigidly conservative justices, after stealing the nomination of eric garner, the time has come for republicans, this new maga republican, to answer their actions. senate republicans to allow the supreme court decision to stand, it will be open season, open season on women's rights in america. two days ago, leader mcconnell himself acknowledged a federal ban on abortions is now possible should the supreme court overturn roe and republicans take control of the senate. let me say that again, because it is so dreadful. in light of the supreme court's decision, upcoming decision, leader mcconnell acknowledged

that a national ban on abortion is now possible without roe, if republicans reclaimed is geordie -- the majority. hear that, america? a total national ban on abortion, stated by the republican leader. host: that was senator schumer from yesterday. the debate begins tomorrow, and you can see it play out and see what senators have to say about this topic in the issue of abortion by watching c-span2. that is where you can watch it starting tomorrow. one more call, this one from linda in missouri, independent line. caller: hi, thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to talk about, what are we going to do about the men, about them paying for their girlfriends or their wives to get abortion? what are we going to do about

them? i am just torn between, you know, you are coming at the women's rights and not men to get the women pregnant. i don't understand, it is like free willy. the man can have more than 6, 7 kids all over the world, and we do nothing, but we want to come after the woman. i just don't get that. i think there should be something in place where we can identify -- that if you can do and if i an abortion, you should make it for her to say this is who i got pregnant by and go after the man, too thank you. host: last call for the topic. we appreciate all of you who called in. coming up, we are going to cheryl chumley from "washington times talking about her book, “lockdown: the socialist plan to take away your freedom." that is

when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> now available at the c-span shop, the 2022 congressional directory, go there today to order a copy, a guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress, including bios and committee assignments. and contact information for state governors and the biden administration cabinet. order your copy today at c-span .org, or scan the code with your cell phone. every purchase of support c-span's nonprofit operation. >> c-span's the weekly podcast brings you more than 40 years of audio recordings from our video library, comparing events of the past two today. politico reported on a draft of a supreme court decision in a major abortion case, some say it

poses the biggest challenge over to roe v. wade. the latest episode, hear how the current members of the supreme court answer questions about roe v. wade during their confirmation hearings. >> john roberts said that roe v. wade is the law of the land, seventh law of the land. do you believe that? >> roe v. wade is an important precedent of the supreme court, decided in 1973, so it has been on the books in a long time -- for a long time. it has been challenged a number of occasions, and i discussed those yesterday. the supreme court has reaffirmed the decisions, sometimes on the merits. >> the court's ruling about the rights of travis the in griswold late the foundation in roe v. wade. >> the court's decision in planned parenthood versus casey reaffirmed the core holding of

-- well, that is the precedent of the court, settled in terms of the holding of the court. >> you can find the weekly on c-span now, our free local video app available wherever you get your podcasts. >> " washington journal" continues. host: our final guest is cheryl chumley, "washington times" online opinion editor and author of the book, “lockdown: the socialist plan to take away your freedom." welcome back to c-span. guest: thank you for having me. host: what prompted this book? guest: for a fee plus years, cover the government's response to the coronavirus in my commentary writings at the "washington times." early on, wrote a piece in april of 2020, entitled the coronavirus will go down in history as the biggest political hoax. for that, i was attacked.

but look at where we are now. i covered the last couple of years of the lockdowns, the clamp down's, the unscientific science, hypocrisy, and so forth , and i just wanted to write a book letting readers know not just about the underreported or unreported behind the scenes discussions that justified looked on, but more importantly, what is ahead, how the democrats come in particular, how the left is going to continue to use fear from the coronavirus to bring even more clampdown celebrities. host: you open the book with a personal account from your life. you wrote this, science is not sacrosanct, doctors are not god, but believing so has placed america's freedom in chains. this is our nation's big mistake with the pandemic. first fear, then overreaching government exploited the situation, grabbing more powers.

democrats, progressive's, socialists, and marxists so the opportunity to reshape the entire world. they can only keep the fear going for more power going down the field. you talked about a difficult experience of yours. talk about that and then why you wrote what you did. guest: thank you for that. i open the book by going back in time to 2008, when my husband had a heart attack. i raced to the hospital and every doctor there told me that he was going to die. in fact, they were very casual about it, very certain he was going to die. as the days wore on and he was in a coma, they told me in order to save his life, they would have to amputate his leg because there was an issue with a wound in his leg, complicating keeping blood flowing to his heart. they felt he was going to die

but felt they needed to do something. fast forward, he did emerge from his coma, and not only was he alive and well, but he had all his mental facilities, his mental capabilities. another thing the doctors were certain about, in the off chance he did not die, he was going to be a vegetable and completely unresponsive. so he is here today, alive and well, minus one leg. but my point in telling that story and others in the book, a couple other personal tales, is to make people think, everybody in their lives has had a doctor tell them something with certainty, only to find out that it is not true. and if you have not had that happen to you, you know somebody it has happened to. with coronavirus, we forgot that, we forgot that doctors are great at what they do and should be held in high regard, but the fact is, in america, it still

comes down to a personal choice, personal decision. and doctors are not god. they do not know with certainty, no matter how much they tell you they do. host: other reporting leading up to this week talking about one million deaths related to covid. how do you take that figure in light of what you write about in the book? guest: it is very sad to me and distressing, because early on what i discovered, talking early on, within the first couple months of the coronavirus in america, was that the data was so wrong, it was skewed. one example of this, hospitals were actually incentivized to report more cases of coronavirus because governors in their respective states told hospitals and clinics to stop doing medical procedures to make room for this huge flow of covid patients that they were predicted to have to deal with. so hospitals had a huge funding

stream cut short. so congress, of course, stepped up and created a bill that gave hospitals and clinics around the nation money to treat covid patients. the hospitals were in that rock and a hard place, anytime anybody came to their facility, they tested them for covid. because they were short on cash, it incentivized them to report massive cases of covid. we never really are clear on whether people in hospitals were treated for covid or with covid, whether they died from covid, whether they died with covid. if you look at the statistics that came out from early on, those statistics are still being built upon in today's data used to justify coronavirus clampdown's and coronavirus funding. so questioned the staff, just as

every american citizen should. host: if you want to ask about her books, (202) 748-8000. for democrats, (202) 748-8001. republicans, (202) 748-8002. independents and texts, as well, (202) 748-8003. you wrote this, they want a lockdown, total complete lockdown for individual freedoms and rights, liberties so they can stage their reset and reshape a new america, new world. it is called destroy, then rebuild. they are destroying the constitution, and what they are trying to rebuild is marxism. communist control. beware. what about the they in all that? guest: i was about to explain it. the world economic forum and charles schwab, the founder of the world economic forum, has

penned on the webpage an agenda called the great reset, and in charles schwab's own words, they want to take this pandemic because they see it as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and use it to bring about broad changes, not just in america but around the world, but america is the stumbling block to some of these changes that the great reset vision has in store for us. one of the agendas that the world economic forum has an store to change the definition of capitalism. here in america, we have the free market system and businesses own business to make money. profit versus loss that decides success or failure of a business. the great reset has a new form of capitalism or they talk about it being more in line with what china does, and they call it

stakeholder capitalism versus shareholder capitalism. stakeholder capitalism opens the doors for businesses to be rated failures or successes based on social justice agendas that they promote. and that they fund. this is why you have come in large part, a woke corporate culture, a lot of these businesses that are pushing social justice, environmental things, black lives matter, so forth and so on. they have signed onto this great reset put forth by the world economic forum. so that is one example of the they. by large, when i say they in the context that you read, i am talking about globally, the united nations, the world economic forum, those in america who want to support hate over this new great reset. host: if that is the case and is being laid out at the world economic forum, what mechanics do they have to achieve that? guest: again, taking information

raised from the great reset pages posted at the world economic forum, a couple of ways that they achieve this number by force, right, because a lot of american citizens may not to play with that, but they get banks involved and insurance companies involved. so say you are a business in america and you say you do not want to go down the great reset route, wanted to stay in my business, keep it profit versus loss, and i do not want to play into the social justice agenda. well, that is great, but the insurance company that insures you may play along with the great reset. o'er the bank where you get funding may play along with the great reset. so to achieve in this new -- to compete in this new business, you're going to have to sign off on paperwork that shows what you are doing to promote social justice in order to, say, get a

bank loan or to continue insuring your business. there of any many safeguards the world economic forum has in place in order to achieve their ultimate end game. in my book, i have a lot more of how this plays out in america and also offer ways americans can fight. host: to what you're trying to propose, would some say it is a conspiracy theory, and how would you respond? guest: conspiracy theory sounds like something from imagination, and this isn't. this is actually happening. once again, don't take my word for it, go to weforum.org and look up the great reset. this is out in the open. and if you look at joe biden, our own president, if you go to his campaign website, he has an agenda laid out called the build back better. and he has statements he has

made in the past about joining into this great reset. so if you look at how america is positioned right now, we are falling right in line with this administration, with what the world economic forum wants to achieve. which is why the world economic forum wants to just piggyback on this pandemic right now, because time is short. the next president may not be in line with this great reset. host: the book is called “lockdown: the socialist plan to take away your freedom." cheryl chumley is our guest. she also writes for "washington times," opinion editor. edward in new jersey, independent line, you are up first. caller: good morning. i would like to say with marginalized people, that is important, because the free world is only 18% of the global population, so if we have competition against the rest of the world, -- [inaudible]

you throw in they in this a lot, seems like these people have infiltrated and all these other things. no one has found evidence. can you point to me cart carryingthat you speak of they? you listed five groups, or whatever, and there is no five groups of socialists who got together and agreed to anything. that is where i stand on a lot of this. finish your thought. caller: socialism is empowerment of marginalized people. that's it. guest: i disagree. i think socialism is a rot, a cancer on society. it steals the talents that god gives each of his creations at birth. socialism takes that and puts it up for the collective to decide

whether or not you can use those talents you have at birth and make a profit and support your family. i just think there is a settled history that socialism has created more chaos, has driven more people in poverty, and has resulted in more deaths than any free market. host: judith in farmington, michigan, democrats line. caller: i just wanted to comment on when she was first talking about how socialists are putting the feeling people. republican politicians are gas lighting the american people with their fear. they started with the fear of immigrants, the fear of muslims, the fear of blacks, the fear of them taking their jobs, the fear of crt's, transgender people.

and then it was fear of wearing masks, fear of this virus, or fear of the vaccine. the republicans and the politicians are instilling fear in the american people, and that is how they deflect on what they are doing, which is trying to gain power, and money, and trying to growth the system for their own gain. they are just throwing out all these different conspiracy theories. obama was a secret muslim, and all these different things. so, we are being gas lighted and she is contributing to that. i'm not listening to her, i won't read her book, and she sounds crazy to me because i know people who have died from coronavirus. it is a new virus, so of course it will seem like doctors don't know what they are doing. they didn't, just like ebola and the spanish flu. host: you put a lot out for our

guest to respond to. go ahead. guest: she's not listening to me, so i'm not sure how to respond. i will take everything she said and take out the word democrat and put in republican instead. host: what do you mean? guest: i mean everything she said about republicans and put the word democrat in. it is not republicans creating this hysteria of fear over the coronavirus or hysterical fear over borders, and so forth. republicans are basically trying to do the law & order route, and then the media and leftists, and twist that into being something that it's not. born example, immigration. republicans aren't against immigration. republicans are against open borders. then the media comes along or those on the left and they say republicans are racist because they don't want immigration. that's not exactly true. that is where the real gas

lighting occurs on the side of democrats. host: you talk about coronavirus, your book is called lockdown, going back to the early days of lockdown because the term flatten the curve was used. do you think that was a necessary measure early on when ventilators and hospitals were overrun? was there a role for it is what i'm asking? guest: in this book i do have a little bit of criticism for the donald trump administration. mostly because of allowing anthony fauci and the medical bureaucrats to have such influence and platform. early on when the virus was first coming to america, yes, we didn't know what it was. but the thing was, when donald trump tried to do commonsense reactions and responses to this he was attacked. he was put in a rock and a hard place. he tried to shut down travel from china and was attacked. he tried to control at the

borders, and he was attacked. later he was attacked because when he stepped back from doing some of his initial gut reaction things to secure america from the virus he was attacked because he didn't do some of the things he wanted to do in the first place. it was politicized from the start. i would have to say if we face another pandemic what i would like to see out of our white house, whether it is led by a republican or democrat, is to never force people into doing certain actions. always just suggest, advise, give the best case recommendations from the medical community, but never again with the forced closures, with the forcing of the face masks. host: you wouldn't put dr. fauci or dr. birx on that list? how would you clarify them? guest: obviously, they have more medical experience than i do. i am not a fan of anthony fauci

by any means, but at the same time i recognize he is more studied in infectious diseases than i am, so i want to hear from him. what i don't want is for his words to trickle into society as if they are mandates and dictate as if they are supposed to be obeyed no matter what. especially when you look at the medical bureaucrats, including anthony fauci. on one day they say this and another they say that and american citizens are supposed to jump and obey no matter how conflicting the advising's are. yes, i want to hear from anthony fauci, but i want to hear from anthony fauci as part of a group of people who can also suggest how best american citizens can protect themselves with the emphasis on protecting self. host: you mentioned dr. birx and probably know she has a book out. she talked to our folks at book tv. one thing she talked about was

the early days of the lock down, at least the justification and thought process going into it. i want to get your response. [video clip] >> i just want to make it clear. you don't do a lot down unless there is a crisis, and we were in crisis. we could see what was happening in italy. i had modeled out the case fatality rate in italy, their excellent medical care, with they were learning, and they still had extraordinary case fatality rates. i was looking at our case fatality rates in individuals over 70. that means if you were 70 and diagnosed with covid, 30% of those individuals were succumbing to the virus. we didn't have a treatment, we didn't know about clotting, we didn't have ventilators, and we didn't have ppe. we were barely keeping up. i just want to be very clear, we were behind in the human

capacity needed to treat these patientss. we didn't have -- treat these patients. we didn't have enough capacity. if we had 25 new york sin cities greater than a million people without a lockdown, that is how you and up with hundreds of thousands to millions of people dying. host: cheryl chumley, your response. guest: that is her opinion. she is looking at italy and applying what took place in italy to america. look, it sounds bad what she says, but all along the medical bureaucrats have been predicting this, predicting that, predicting this doom only to be proven wrong. anthony fauci early in the pandemic came out and predicted x amount of deaths based on computer modeling, which is the same kind of gloom and doom

modeling climate change alarmists predict to say in 12 years if we don't take these regulatory controls on human activity then the world is going to expire, go up in smoke, and were all going to die. well, anthony found she did the same thing based on computer modeling, and i'm assuming deborah birx, who worked closely hand-in-hand with anthony fauci, used those same types of statistics and data to justify client downs and lockdowns. look, the hospitals in america were not hugely overrun with covid patients. you have to put these in context. yet for the data from hospitals in context. if you look at their emergency wards, you have to compare them to the bed count the previous year before the pandemic. many of these staff said hospitals were overrun with covid patients. in context, looking back through history and putting them in

contact with other years, it didn't happen. the hospitals weren't overrun with patient. many of these gloom and doom predictions, that apparently deborah birx is still making to this day, didn't happen and are not based on truthful stats. host: what stats would you refer to then? guest: there are books out there written by some people i know who have done statistical analysis of the coronavirus. michael beatrice is one. he has gone back in time and actually analyzed the stats of hospital beds and icus. he has looked at the number of patients admitted during the covid years versus the number of patients admitted before the covid years. where you get the difference, where you can try to glean the truth from facts or truth from myths about covid patients is when you start looking at the

beds were taken by covid patients above and beyond what was normal. in many cases, the beds that were taken by covid patients were not going above and beyond what's normal for icu and emergency clinics in the years before the coronavirus. it is difficult. like i said, the data has been skewed and it's difficult to see nowadays what is truth from myth . there are some people who have done an excellent job of looking simply at the stats and not getting involved with the politics. host: the book is called lockdown: the socialist plan to take away your freedom. cheryl chumley is here to discuss it. republican line, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think a bigger problem is that we perverted the definition of what our constitution and declaration of independence has

become the bullying. whatever faction you fall in, a fascist faction, socialist faction, marxist faction, they are playing king of the hill to get elected to use their gendered believe the rest of us. our constitution was set up to protect the minority, yeah, the minority from the minority bullying them. but we have continued to perpetrate this bullying and fraud of our constitution since 1804. until we wake up and figure out the each one of us get to decide our own versions, encumbrances, and obligations and have a right to redress under our constitution in article four section two. the citizens of each state should be entitled to the same privileges and immunities as citizens in the civil states, and we will continue to fight and have wars because no one wants to be bullied. host: john in cincinnati, ohio.

guest: i missed the question, if there was one. i'm not sure how to answer that caller. host: justin, lancaster, pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am having trouble reconciling a few things. one of which is talking about the load on hospitals and how it is not different from years past. the number of nurses who are retiring from the profession come the number of health care professionals who have said this entire pandemic that they are overwhelmed and there's not enough resources for them has made it sound, at least, and we just passed one million deaths from covid, that they are, in fact, overwhelmed by this pandemic, and that the pandemic is ongoing and we aren't doing enough as a country and individual states to maintain it . i guess my question, then, is

how do you reconcile the fact that we are, in fact, going through a massive crisis in our health care system with your claim that the pandemic has been overstated and overblown and we have done too much to take care of it? it really does feel like we haven't done nearly enough. thank you. guest: thank you for that question. i think it feels like we haven't done enough because much in the media and on the left want to continue to exploit the pandemic to make it seem like we haven't done enough to justify continuing controls on american citizens. the pandemic has a recovery rate of about 99%. if you look at certain polls, depending on what political party you align yourself with, there's a huge difference in whether you consider

that true or not. democrats think by and large once you catch the coronavirus you have a 50% or 60% chance of dying. republicans think you have an 85% chance of recovering. the truth is, you have a 99% chance of recovering. let me ask you, if we are still in an emergency health crisis what is the deal with the vaccines? do they work or not work? he seems to me that you can't have both. you can't have an emergency health declaration like we still have in this country. joe biden continued that declaration in march. at the same time say that the vaccines work. it seems the media is sort of continuing this idea that we are still in this emergency situation. if we had some cooler head approaches, putting things in more context instead of just

throwing out numbers and case counts as if they mean something, then maybe american citizens would not be living in so much fear right now. host: would you say we are post-pandemic at this point? guest: absolutely. host: what would you base that on? guest: the stats and figures. you can't be in a pandemic if most people are recovering from it. it doesn't even make sense to say we are in a pandemic right now. host: mickey is joining us from new york in rockaway park. independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. mrs. chumley, i have a question for you. my eyes, i saw people dying in hospital beds. i saw people unable to have their family there at the last minute. this was not what donald trump called a hoax. republicans called it a hoax.

now, due to the lies of that last individual, number one, death and a long halls. long-haul effects. now, a 60% rise in children's infections to date. why do you keep spreading -- you say socialist agenda. fascism struck on january 6, 2021 when the fascists tried to restrict the peaceful transfer of power. you are nothing more than an inquirer type be fearful of everything. the last person said that. guest: i didn't say that the virus was a hoax. i said that the political response to the virus is a hoax. i believe that is what donald trump said himself. what exactly was the question?

i'm not sure. pedro, what was the question? host: i think he was asking, as the basis for the claims that you make in your book and everything else as far as the state of the pandemic, or the way that you see the pandemic? guest: i know that everything in my book is not a figment of imagination, or whatever. i go through the facts in my book. for people who want a fuller explanation, certainly read it. but, as for my, i guess, response to what he says, look, fear is a huge political tool. the democrats, of course, their famous saying is never let a crisis go to waste. that is what i've found has occurred over the last two plus years of the pandemic. the left is using the crisis for an advancement of political

agenda. host: what about states and localities having the decisions they make about the pandemic? there was reporting as of yesterday in san jose, california the positioning of mask mandates for some workers. some localities are making those. are you comfortable with those entities making decisions about coronavirus restrictions? guest: not on face masks. there are so many studies that show that the face masks don't work. when you define the word work, from the medical perspective work is supposed to mean that it stops the spread of the pandemic. at least that is what the general understanding of the phrase face masks work. that is what most people take from that. the idea that face masks can be shoved into someone's pocket and pulled out to go into a restaurant, then you put the facemask on at the restaurant door, but 10 feet later when you are seated at the table you take

the face mask off, but your server still has to wear a face mask, and you go into 7-eleven and they have plastic shields up so that the air, i guess, i don't know why the shields are up as well. there are spaces above and below the shields. you are still supposed to wear a face mask. this stops the spread of the coronavirus? it is ridiculous at this point. i understand what you're asking about states rights and localities, and i'm a big believer that government should be strongest at the local level, then state and fed, but on face masks i think that that is an individual choice and that locality shouldn't have the rights to impose those. host: mark, illinois. caller: i think that it's interesting to hear your guest talk about how she doesn't have an answer for fact-based questions. what is her favorite line? what is the question again?

that's because she's operating from a nonfactual line of questionings. where does she get her facts from? you are talking about you want the locales to have the most control, but yet you don't want federal government involvement. politics is politics. you just want local to have control of your life but not federal? i don't get it. where are your fact-based reasonings coming from? guest: i guess because i'm an american citizen, and as an american citizen i know my rights come from god in the government is there to protect them. i know the constitution was set up in order to support that great american exceptionalism of god-given rights. that is where i take my fax from first -- my facts from first. host: i want to ask about the

leak of the draft from the supreme court potentially looking at the overturning of roe v. wade. do you think that's a possibility of happening, and what happens on the state level, like you talked about, if it does? guest: of course it seems to be that it can actually happen. we have all seen the leaked memo. we have seen reports about the leaked memo. again, that is a leaked memo. it is not the final decision yet. i think that americans should actually sit back and wait a final decision before they get up in arms about what may or may not happen. the left is protesting, going to supreme court justices' places of residence, and in some cases even to churches to protest what they think may happen. but roe v. wade is a decision that even ruth bader ginsburg

said was slated to be tossed out, because it was always a matter that should have been left to the states to decide. i think if it ends up being a states decision in line with the 10th amendment that that's a good thing. i think then that the people's voices can be heard in the various respective states and legislators will have to go on record. which is something that is great for a government of transparency and accountability, and decide if they want abortion in their affective states. that will be more in-line with the people's will. it is a good thing for america. host: with that in mind, senator schumer this week there will be debate on legislation expected to go nowhere, federalized abortion protection. there is possibility of a national abortion ban if republicans take and troll of the senate. do you think either option is the proper role?

guest: i don't. the constitution limits with the federal government can do, and it's clear that abortion is something that belongs in the hands of the state and the people. host: this is john from sacramento, california. caller: i am here. i would like to say you guys keep bringing on these negative republican people who ain't doing nothing but destroying our country. she's just like donald trump. host: we invited the guest come on our program to talk about these issues. what question would you like to address with her? caller: i would like to know if she would want -- she is saying democrats are trying to turn the country into a communist country. what about this authoritarianism

that your former was trying to bring to america? are you in favor of authoritarianism? do you like our democracy in america? or are you just like the rest of republicans, against america? guest: i am definitely opposed to authoritarianism. i don't think donald trump represented authoritarianism. i am definitely in favor of a democratic republic that our great nation is. host: from our line from independents, we will hear from loretta in mississippi. good morning. caller: yes, ma'am. i'm glad to hear other opinions in the media about the coronavirus. i have had people die and i have caught it. i have had side effects from the moderna shot that i took.

i was afraid of my son taking it because he's a teenager, but i won't give it to my son because of the effects to people's hearts. my sister, too. the bill of rights, covid and lockdown took away people's rights. the will of the rights is for the people. i'm glad she can have different opinions and we can disagree and agree, but everyone has their bill of rights and the constitution. the abortion thing will be threw back to the states. so the states have the right to decide. it needs to be more local, and if you don't like it you can move to a different state. you have the right to decide what state you live and your bill of rights as a human being. guest: i'm glad for freedom of speech as well, though i have seen quite a bit of stifling of freedom of speech under the coronavirus for the last couple of years. there is a worrisome outcome of

labeling certain speech that seems to deviate from the government-stamped speech dangerous speech as misinformation. we need to pay attention to what comes out of this white house in terms of creating a board of misinformation or disinformation, because that can put an immediate clamp on speech that some deem offensive. host: john is in maryland, republican line. we are running short on time, so go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i will be quick. the world economic forum and other similar organizations, where do they get their funding? do they get it from communist countries? do you have any information on that? guest: briefly, america funds some of these u.n.-type

agencies, as well as other nations of the world. they are global groups funded by global governments. host: cheryl chumley when you write this book, what would you like people to take away from it if they read it through? guest: i would like people to take away from it the need to keep the fight in mind in america. it is the battle for god-given rights. and to look ahead at what is coming down the pike and determined now to step outside of your comfort zone and fight. the pre-pandemic normalcy is not coming to north american citizens. host: our guest is the online opinion editor for the washington times and author of lockdown, the socialist plan to take away your freedom. thank you for giving us your time. we will take you to a hearing that started earlier with the treasury secretary janet yellen giving an update on the u.s.'s financl