of abortion back over to the states. we will also hear from the national right to life committee president about the future of roe v. wade, senators kiersten gillibrand and edward markey will join the discussion. host: good morning. it's wednesday, may 11, 2022. the house will convene for morning hour, noon for legislative business today. the senate also in at 10:00 a.m. eastern. on the floor of the senate, democrats will attempt to move a bill that would codify abortion rights in federal law. the effort comes in the wake of last week's leaked draft supreme court opinion which showed that a conservative majority of justices are prepared to strike down the right to an abortion established in roe v. wade. this morning, we're getting your thoughts on that senate vote today to protect abortion rights. give us a call on phone lines split a bit differently this morning. if you support roe v. wade,

202-748-8000. if you oppose, 202-748-8001. if you're unsure, 202-748-8002. you can also send us a text message. if you do, please include your name and where you're from. otherwise catch up with us on social media, on twitter @cspanwj. on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. very good wednesday morning to you. go ahead and started calling in now. that senate vote today, the issue of abortion rights going to be the focus of our entire three-hour program today. the senate vote expected to take place sometime around 3:00 p.m. eastern today on the senate floor. and on what will actually be a part of that legislation, want to turn now to politico's healthcare reporter joining us via zoom this morning. good morning to you. explain this bill that senate democrats are trying to move. what exactly is in it and what isn't in it? guest: this bill that democrats are bringing back up is almost

identical to the bill that they helped vote on in february, which did not pass, which we can get back to that later. but this is almost identical, especially in its effect. the only thing that was stripped out of it from then was nonbinding language that they thought some senators would have some issues with. but this would effectively go beyond simply codifying roe vs. wade into federal law in anticipation of the supreme court potentially overturning it, as you mentioned. this would also ban states from implementing a lot of the kind of restrictions and bans on abortion that are currently happening with roe vs. wade still in place. those are things that the bill says we would ban anything deemed medically unnecessary, so that includes things like mandatory waiting periods where someone has to go to their doctor, request an abortion, and then wait 24, 48 hours and go

back. these kind of restrictions that can put abortion out of reach, even though it's still technically legal, if someone is low income or has to travel a long distance, etc. and so democrats say that the bill being more expansive in that way sort of is more in keeping with the spirit of roe vs. wade. whereas just simply codifying roe vs. wade, the decision, wouldn't go far enough in their view. host: it's officially the women's health protection act. we should note that the vote today isn't a vote on this bill itself, but a vote to try to discuss this bill. explain that and what that means for how many votes democrats need to move this bill. guest: so like so much else in the senate, it first has to clear the first hurdle called cloture. it has to get 60 votes in order to end debate and move to an actual vote on the legislation on the floor. like so many other bills we've

seen, this is expected not to clear that hurdle. so there have been lots of calls from progressive democrats over the past week to end the filibuster, the senate filler, or have some sort of special abortion rights carve out for it. we've heard similar calls with other issues, but not only are there not the votes to end the filibuster, but there are some democrats who oppose doing so, as well as basically all republicans. there also aren't 50 votes for this legislation or haven't been in the past. and so ending the filibuster might not be the solution to enshrining abortion rights that a lot of progressives are making it seem like it is. host: you hinted at the history of this particular legislation. can you run through that both in the senate and also in the house as well? guest: sure, so the house has voted for this legislation that

would protect roe vs. wade. they did it a long time ago. that's one interesting thing here. democrats are sort of casting today's vote as now it's not they let cal, now the threat to roe vs. wade is very real and imminent because of the disclosure of the draft supreme court opinion, but what's frustrating for a lot of abortion rights advocates and progressive lawmakers is they felt this was very clear and very real long before that. honestly, as soon as the supreme court agreed to even hear this case last year, they felt the writing was on the wall, that roe vs. wade was not long for this country or this world. so the idea that it took this draft opinion to really convince people that this was happening has been frustrating to a lot of folks. that said, it has been a big motivator for people who sort of were taking a wait and see approach, and even though the senate held a vote on, like i said, nearly identical

legislation in february, it didn't pass, it didn't even get 50 votes, let alone 60. they feel that with all of the new pressure around this issue that be has really mobilized the public over the past week, they don't expect to get a different outcome, but they expect more attention and more political pressure, and they hope that this will be a chance that they can campaign on this in november and really hit those who vote against it. host: you're watching today during the senate vote, especially if, as you note, the outcome is not expected to be different than what it was back in february. guest: so because the sort of partisan lies around abortion rights have hardened so much, you used to have quite a few abortion rights supporting republicans and quite a few democrats who don't support abortion rights, and they are an endanger the species at the

moment. so there are only a tiny handful of votes that were really ever in play here. you mentioned before that senators collins and murkowski were the two republicans that democrats saw as potentially gettable here. they have both said they are going to vote no. they have their own alternative bill that would codify roe vs. wade, but not go as far as democrats' bill. they are opposed to the democrats' version. what i really found interesting is more on the other side, more of the moderate democrats who have been against abortion in the past, have really come around on this bill, specifically because of recent events. i'm thinking of bob casey, who yesterday said he would vote for this, even though he opposes abortion, because over the past week there has been so much chatter on the right of potentially implementing a nationwide abortion ban, or at least considering doing that, if

they come to power next year, and that motivated him to say, ok, look, i don't support abortion, but i also don't support banning it for everyone, so i will vote for these protections to make sure that doesn't happen. i also talked to tim kaine this week. he is another, the democratic senator from virginia. he is another one who personally opposes abortion and opposes things like the hyde amendment, which bans federal funding for abortion, but he says that this bill, he will support it because some similar reasons to senator casey, but also he thinks that it strikes the right balance by protecting access to abortion for those who want it without infringing on some of his more religious and moral beliefs around it. host: healthcare reporter with politico. before we go, the print edition of today's politico has your byline with the lead story, the

headline, dems want biden in bully pulpit on abortion. take us through briefly what you looked into. guest: so the president has a very fraught history with this issue. i mentioned that anti-abortion democrats are an endangered species. some of them have left office, but some of them, like our president, have evolved in their thinking and moved as the party has moved more to the left on this issue. and so for a lot of his career in public life, he was vocally anti-abortion. if that has change and had evolved, especially when he started running for president and now today. but he is still not as vocal on this issue as many activists and progressive lawmakers would like and say is needed in this moment when roe vs. wade is in such peril and jeopardy. one of the demands we reported on in this piece is a lot of activists and not activists but

actual providers at these abortion clinics around the country say it would be a really big help if the president would actually come see what it's like in these states that are already implementing these bans, like in texas, etc., and they think that not only will that inform the federal administration's response to this issue right now, because they haven't really made any new proposals of how they're going to protect abortion rights. they're doing a lot of listening and thinking. they say such a visit would not only inform how they respond, it would also help shine a bright spotlight on the issues for the public. guest: you can read her work in today anticipates politico on their website at politico.com. on twitter, follow her. thanks so much for the time this morning. appreciate you running through this ahead of a busy day. guest: thank you so much. host: again, we're expecting

this vote in the senate, the democratic effort to get on to the legislation, a 60-vote threshold needed to get on this legislation that would codify roe v. wade, expecting that around 3:00 p.m. eastern today. in light of that, ahead of that, having this conversation with you this more than, asking you about that vote, about your support or opposition to roe v. wade. 202-748-8000 if you support roe v. wade. 202-748-8001 if you're opposed. if you're unsure, that's fine, too, 202-748-8002. you can go ahead and send us texts, your twitter messages, facebook messages, we'll be looking for all of it this morning. phone calls, joe is up first, georgia. this is probably joe mccutcheon, good morning, joe. caller: john, you're great. i love c-span. been calling your great network for over 30 years, and do you an incredible job.

i just want to say i'm pro-life. i'm strongly against roe v. wade, and i'm working very hard for david purdue to be governor of georgia, who also is a strong pro-life candidate. i predict on your great network that david purdue will be elected governor of georgia in november. i thank you. then defeat stacey abrams in november. i'm strongly pro-life. i have respect for people that disagree with me, but i just want to say, again, love c-span, and you do an incredible job, my friend. host: before you go, you've been watching politics in the peach state for a long time. you've been calling this network for a long time. how much do you think the abortion debate factors into the midterm elections in light of what we're now expecting out of the supreme court if that draft opinion turns out to be how the

supreme court rules. how much does it become a race about abortion rights in georgia in the fall? caller: i think it's very important, but it's not as important as the tax and spending issue. with you owe $30 trillion. that's another reason i'm for david purdue and vote republican. we have to cut spending and cut waste, so i think the big issue is biden spending too much money, and the abortion issue will be an important issue, but the big issue is going to be the democrats spending too much taxpayer money. i think the republicans are going to have massive landslide victories in november and will take over the house and senate, and there again, john, i love c-span. you do a great job. i really appreciate all the people that work at c-span. host: thanks so much. always appreciate you calling in. joe from georgia calls in every 30 days, as is our rule here between calls. michael is pittsburgh, pennsylvania pen, on the line for those who oppose roe v. wade. good morning.

you're next. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. thanks for c-span. i do think that this vote is unnecessary. i do not think that the legislative roe v. wade can pass, couldn't pass before, before they made the decision by the supreme court, and the&now it is even less popular now that people have seen what happens in abortions, and it so happens that this legislation is much more radical than anything that people would accept today, by allowing abortions up until the ninth month. i just think that this whole thing has just been a charade for the democrats to beat up votes, to pretend like republicans don't care about women and don't care about women's rights, when in

actuality, there are plenty of women that are aborted, and it's not -- there certainly will not be in the states, accept the states, and when the states decide to do this, they will take into consideration all kind of things. they will not make blanket objections to abortion. you will see certainly states be much mother lenient than others, and that's how it should be. there was never an abortion right in the constitution. host: michael, pennsylvania, his thoughts. again, 202-748-8000 if you support roe. 202-748-8001 if you oppose. it's 202-748-8002 if you feel like you're unsure. it was the politico website that broke the story last week with that leaked supreme court draft opinion about the mississippi abortion case, and politico with follow-up reporting on that

topic, taking another peek perhaps inside that usually very opaque promises at the supreme court when it comes to deciding cases. the politico morning news letter, politico playbook noting justice samuel alito sweeping and blunt draft opinion overturning roe remains the court's only circulated draft in the pending mississippi abortion case, politico has learned, and none of the conservative justices who initially sided with alito have to date switched their vote. no dissenting draft opinions have circulated from any justice, including the three liberals. this is politico's reporting this morning. that can explain why no second draft of the majority opinion has been distributed, they write, and typically the two sides react to one another's written arguments and recast their own. always the nine justices prepare for their scheduled private closed door conference this week, they face one of the greatest crises in modern supreme court history with an internal leak investigation underway, an agitated nation focused on whether the constitutional right to abortion is about to be overturned, and

some justices facing angry protests at their homes. this is the most serious assault on the court perhaps from within that the supreme court ever experienced one person close to the court's conservative majority told politico on tuesday. it's an understatement to say they're heavily, heavily burdened by this. that's politico's reporting this morning. back to your phone calls. tom, ohio, good morning, you're next t. caller: morning. i know a lot of these people are pro-life just not pro quality of life. these states, if a woman applies for abortion and the state turns her down, the state should be financially responsible for that child's education, everything. and a lot of these conservative churches that had been very involved in this, they need to be taxed to support these

children. i mean, come on. host: that's tom in ohio. this is theresa in missouri, good morning. go ahead, theresa. caller: oh, thank you. yes, i'm against abortion. it's a deadly sin. it's the sixth commandment that jesus christ give us for our rules, and we should not be taking the lives of innocent babies. and it's a sin and you'll go to hell. and you deserve it. host: lisa, louisville, kentucky, good morning, you're next. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i support roe vs. wade. i do have a limitations on it. i think it should be within the first four months.

i also believe that no woman wants to have a rapist's baby, talk about being traumatized. you're trauma tilessed once for being rain, and then you expect to have the baby on top of it. so the life of the mother, incest, which is togetherly disgusting, in my opinion, and i'm tired of supreme court justices trying to overturn this. they're basically disrespecting their own office by the supreme court justices that made it legal. thank you. host: lisa in kentucky this morning. we said we'd be looking for your social media and your text messages. here's a few. gary in georgia saying i don't support roe, but i support a woman's right to choose. russ in california, i don't agree with abortion, but if you do go have it in states that allow it. i don't want to hear that it's too far. should have thought about that when you elected to have unprotected sex. and this is carol out of florida saying the g.o.p. will vote no,

it's the only word they know anyway. the g.o.p. are all for right to choose when it came to mask wearing and getting vaccinated, but a woman's right to choose, hell no. that's carol in florida. again, talking about this senate vote that's going to be taking a vote to get on this legislation that would codify roe v. wade, therefore it's the 60-vote majority that's needed to overcome the filibuster and get on the legislation. that was what senate majority leader chuck schumer was talking about yesterday during most of his comments after the weekly senate party lunches. here's a bit of them, again, from yesterday. >> the prices of this maga attack on women's right will fall on every woman in the country and fall especially hard on the most vulnerable americans, black americans, other minorities. and as you know, this is not an abstract exercise.

for women, it is real and urgent as it gets. this is a five-alarm fire, as senator murray has stated. republicans are still trying to hide from this. every day they look for a new diversion, oh, the leak, imagine. 100 million women's right to control their own bodies, and they're focused on a leak. misplaced values. misplaced values. and they've tried to duck in many other ways. oh, they point to this, they point to that. when you see republicans not willing to embrace this decision, you know they know they're on their back foot. you know they know that this is not a decision that is favored by the american people and will not and is not favored in history. we've had a long march in america where we aspire for greater rights. it's a long march.

it's not always a linear march. but it's part of the american aspiration that will take a giant step backwards if this decision goes through. americans don't want to go back to the time of dangerous back alley abortions, but we are making sure that every senator will have to vote and every, every american will see how they voted. and i believe the republican party, the maga republican party will suffer the consequences electorally when the american people see that. host: that was chuck schumer, majority leader, yesterday after the weekly party lunches. the headline from today's hill newspaper, g.o.p. sees little danger in this vote today, saying republicans saying they're not worried, they see little risk in voting no on this legislation. this was senate minority leader mitch mcconnell yesterday being

asked about that vote that's taking place today. >> historically there have been abortion votes on the floor of the senate. none of them have achieved 60 votes. this particular measure the democrats have today is particularly radical, and i'll call on had others to comment on the radical nature of it. but i think it's safe to say there aren't 60 votes there at the federal level, no matter who happens to be in the majority, no matter who happens to be in the white house. i think the wide spread sentiment of my conference is this issue will be dealt with at the state level. the supreme court, if this becomes the decision, has obviously said this is ripe for discussion in democratic bodies. we happen to be a democratic body. schumer has proven that by having us vote on it tomorrow. but i think i'm pretty safe in

saying most of my members believe this will be dealt with at the state level. >> are you holding a vote if you're the majority leader on a bill to ban abortions nationwide? >> let me try it one more time. i think the sentiment in my conference is for this issue to be dealt with at the state level, if we are, in fact, confronted with a final supreme court decision that throws this issue back into democratic processes. host: senate minority leader mitch mcconnell yesterday ahead of the vote. again, we're expecting it around 3:00 p.m. today, and ahead of the vote, we're spending our entire program today taking calls from you on this effort to codify roe v. wade, whether you support or oppose it. 202-748-8000 if you support. 202-748-8001 if you oppose. if you're unsure, that's ok as

well, 202-748-8002. plenty headlines today. this is the front page of "usa today." the headline there, the fall of roe could have far-reaching impacts. it's the lead story there in "usa today." taking your phone calls, this is steve out of north charleston, south carolina. the line for those who oppose roe, good morning. caller: hey, john, good morning to you. man, what a touchy subject. john, i believe in god. i'm a pro-lifer. i believe that life begins at conception, and schumer kind of threw me off a little bit because wasn't going to talk about what i'm getting ready to say, but i think the life of the unborn deserves somebody to stand up and speak for their rights too, and that seems to be taking a back seat to the other issues. listen, i know there are extenuating circumstances, health of the mother, rape, incest, those things. and yes, i believe there are times when abortion is

necessary, or not necessary, but called for. now, that's just the way i believe. and this is a personal issue, to me. and if you want me to explain that, i will. you probably don't have time. but anyway, it has to do with family. now, with regard to south carolina, you probably know the governor's race is coming up. you spoke to the gentleman in georgia. it's pretty strong here. from columbia on up, i mean, it's totally red. i mean, very conservative, very pro-life. down here on the coast, it tends to be more blue, more liberal. you might know that joe cunningham, former congressman, first congressional seat now, joe is probably going to win the primary and he's going to run against henry mcmaster. joe is pro abortion. i don't think he'll win against henry. in fact, i'm pretty sure. host: that's the governor's race, just to be clear. caller: that's right, henry mcmaster. just one more brief thing. i think the justices, the

right-leaning justices are doing the right thing by not responding to the protests outside their homes. i think they're just saying, hey, let them do their own thing and show where they come from. we're just going to sit back and let that play out. i think if they reacted in a bad way, it would be worse for them. i think they're doing smart by sitting back and letting them do their thing. but that's my thoughts. yeah, go ahead. host: you say it's a personal issue. if you're comfortable, if you want to briefly explain that to our national audience, you can do that, but only if you're comfortable. caller: yeah, i am comfortable. i don't mind explaining at all. my anyway daughter-in-law became pregnant, unwed to my son, about 11 years ago now. they came to me and said we're pregnant. and i panicked. i'm a christian. i said, ok, i'll pay for the

abortion. and they looked at me and said, there ain't going to be no abortion. i said, oh, my gosh, see, that's what i was supposed to say to them when they said we want an abortion. well, anyway, that changed. i had to rethink my spiritual life right away. anyway, during the pregnancy, she was having tests. she's got a sister that's down syndrome, and the baby had down syndrome marker they said, the medical university. she said no, we're having this baby. he came out perfectly anotherral. he's my best buddy. i pick him up from school every day. from the time he could crawl, he would crawl to me. i mean, obviously loves his parents, and, of course, they got married shortly thereafter. but anyway, i see every day except maybe a day on the weekend when he's not in school. it's just incredible, the relationship we have. and by the way, there are so many people out there who can't have children that want children and adoption is, of course, be there. for people of color, i would read the history of planned

parenthood. part of that deal was to eliminate black children, and it just so sad to hear black people call, or i should say, people of color call and say, wait, you got to have t. you're killing your own race. it's just sad. but anyway, that was my personal story. i feel strongly about it. and everybody won't feel the same way, but my goodness, it's been such a blessing to my life personally, and my wife's, by the way, and my son and daughter-in-law. host: that's steve in south carolina. this is ann in wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. yeah, i do support good morning. i do support row. it is a personal decision. if you know what is going on in your own life and you have to make your choices and deal with it with your significant other and doctor. it's no one else's business. they will not raise your child or help you, you don't know what family that maybe has no support

with her family, you don't know if the health issues of the pregnant person might be having. that they might need to abort. it is just ridiculous we are even talking about this anymore. it is a health care decision, that is what is best for all of the people involved. i don't understand why people get so upset about it. i woman is alive. doesn't she have rights? aren't her rights more important than a potential living child? no one wants an abortion, nobody wants to do that, they just have whatever issues in their life and have to make a decision. i think a woman who is pregnant and the doctor are the ones to make that decision. the government should not have

anything to do with it. host: that is an out of wisconsin. you can keep calling in and we are having this conversation through the full three hours of our washington journal program. if you support it, (202) 748-8001. if you oppose, (202) 748-8000. if you are unsure, (202) 748-8002. as you call in, we are talking to some of the united states senators who will be asked to vote to move to that legislation today to codify roe v. wade. one of the senators, a republican of south dakota, joining us from the russell rotunda on capitol hill. good morning. guest: good morning. host: your expectations for this vote today. do you think it will achieve the 60 votes needed? guest: no. this will not. this is a symbolic vote on the part of the democrats who run the senate and they do have the ability to set the agenda. today's agenda will include nominations but also the symbolic vote in this particular

case. they recognize they do not have 60 votes to bring this full debate on the floor of the senate. host: take us there what happens in south dakota if roe v. wade is overturned if this draft leaked supreme court opinion is the final opinion here. guest: there is a possibility the legislature may convene. they may call a special session to address it. but in the meantime, south dakota is a conservative state. we have never been in favor of roe v. wade as it is right now. we have always believed this is a decision that should've have been decided at the state level. that is the way i believe it should be decided. across the indicted -- across the united states you will see different states of different points of view on how to handle this very emotional decision. a number of legislative bodies across the state will come all the way from some blue states who may decide that they

literally want abortion on demand to other states like my home state of south dakota who will do their best to limit the vast majority of abortions that would be performed within the state. in between, you will find a lot of different alternatives with different exceptions and so forth. over a period of years, you will find a general consensus built among the different states whether it would be significant limitations on the abortion of unborn children. host: there's a headline in the argus leader i think yesterday, why south dakota's abortion battle 2006 and 2008 could return. you were governor back then. remind us what those battles were about and what the abortion debate and where it was at that time and where it is today in your state. host: many members of the pro-life community, there is a discussion of do we had roe v. wade head on and we go directly for challenge at the supreme court and hope the justices would recognize science has

clearly indicated life is viable much earlier than what they knew in 1973. so do we simply go after roe v. wade and repeal it all in one fell swoop or do we take a step-by-step and continue to put additional limitations and hope the courts would accept those additional limitations in terms of additional counseling, in terms of just station a period, limiting abortion and so forth, but a step-by-step moderated approach but gaining and thus saving lives each and every time a new piece of legislation was proposed. i think that is the vast majority of debates, among the pro-life community. individuals that have been pro-choice instead roe v. wade is law and does not matter what states think. i personally am pro-life and i think roe v. wade needed to be revisited. i did not think it was appropriate law. i think this should be settled

on a state-by-state basis. i think this is where the decision should be made. i think individual legislative bodies should bring these up and vote on them and make the decision. will they change from year to year for a while? i think they will but that is the direction i would like to see it go. host: so it should be a state-by-state decision? if republicans win back the senate in the fall, you don't think republicans should bring up national legislation outlawing, banning abortion in the united states? guest: i think we begin by allowing states to make those decisions. that is really one of the major discussions we have regarding roe v. wade is what they did was create what they suggested was there was an inherent right in the constitution to have permission at the individual level to terminate this unborn life and the question was should the discussion leave the states and go to the federal level and at what point does the federal government have that authority

to do it or at what point could the courts literally say, this is an issue the states cannot touch or state cannot regulate. from my perspective, i think this is something the individual states do have the ability to regulate, most certainly more than with the federal government does. host: in terms of what the federal government could do, your statement after the leaked supreme court decision, if this case is decided as reported, individuals across the country will be faced with a difficult emotional decision. our job as policymakers should be to make it easier for individuals to choose life. what does that mean on a national policy level? guest: when we talk about this we talk about whether we are demanding abortion be made unlawful or whether or not we're are trying to eliminate roe v. wade to make it so that the states can make it unlawful. or make it limited. i think in terms of the pro-life community, the part that does

not go out is the vast majority of that community wants to make it so the decision is easier for the woman and that they have other options available to them and to recognize individuals faced with this are going to go through an extremely emotional and difficult time in their life and we should show them compassion and empathy as well and provide them with other alternatives. it does not have to be one of the things where it is not just know you cannot have an abortion but rather let us work with you to make sure that there are other alternatives available. for those individuals that have had an abortion, to recognize they have gone through a difficult time and they may very well need assistance as well. it should be a matter of recognizing individual by individual that these people are making an extremely difficult decision and we should have compassion and empathy for them. host: i know you have a busy day ahead, and he thought to this point a week later on the leak,

the source of the leaks in the supreme court, what this means for the process of confirming supreme court nominees going forward? guest: i think first of all the supreme court has made it clear the chief justice has made it clear that they are going to pursue this and will find out as best they can where the leak came from. this was a huge blow to the privacy of the courts, to their deliberative process and as many people have seen, we don't know what their ultimate decision is going to be but it has created chaos for now across the country to see the possibility of its, not knowing exactly what the final i come is. so to have that happen, again, would mean there is something wrong with the existing system that they have. the integrity of this process that has been many -- has been maintained for decade after decade, that should not be taking lightly.

-- taken lightly. the individual or individuals responsible for this leak should be brought to justice and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. this is very an appropriate and should have long-term impacts on the court. host: we appreciate you stopping by and chatting with the c-span audience. back to your phone calls this morning as we talk about the senate vote today. we expect around 3:00 p.m. and stern -- pm eastern and we asked by one or two other senators to drop by cameras this morning to chat about that vote ahead of the -- before the end of our program and before the vote today. mostly your calls asking you your thoughts on do you support roe v. wade. georgia is in new york, mount vernon, on the line for those who support roe v. wade, good morning. you just heard from senator

rounds. what did you think? caller: hello? host: good morning, georgia. what did you think about what the senator had to say? caller: i support roe v. wade 100% and i do not think one man on the face of this earth has the right to tell a woman what she can and -- can do and cannot do with her body. if a woman does not have a right to her own body to do what she wants to do or have to do, a man should not have a right to her body either. it doesn't make no kind of sense. men do not know what a woman goes through for nine months and then goes through labor and don't know man know what a woman goes through so i do not think any man should have the right to try to take a woman's right from her where her body is concerned. host: george in new york. this is richard, the line for those who oppose ro.

-- roe caller: i oppose abortion. it is outright murder. it is a woman's right but it is not a woman's right to kill a baby, and her body or not. i had a son of mine 1973, he got her pregnant and she went for an abortion. they told him you have no right so we've got no right. [indiscernible] and he wanted to take care of it so don't tell me about a woman's right. they take our rights away every time. thank you. host: that is richard in massachusetts. richard says what about the man? this is a column from today's usa today, amanda j miller, headline on her column overturning roe will be hellish for men too. she said the consequences of

forced fatherhood, especially if their partner also prefers not to have kids, our men. fatherhood is a lifetime commitment but even those men not active participants in their children's life, they will be responsible for years of child support. she writes well the date on which men's partners have abortions because individuals tend to partner with people like them, we can extrapolate based on what we know about women who go out for abortions. one in four women will have an abortion by a 25, and of those women, more than half are in their 20's and 60% have at least one child. 75% are for low income which means their male pardons are often among the most vulnerable and are likely to be young and low income. those men who already have children with other partners are more likely to the particularly precarious in their situations. the ability to get a better job by paying more education will be thwarted, the need to all -- work multiple jobs will take away time spent with children.

meeting the markers of successful fatherhood, career, mothership, marriage, will become infinitely more complicated. if you want to read amanda j miller, writing for usa today this warning. overturning roe will be hellish for men too. aurora, indiana, you next. caller: i also believe that sir and i tell you what, we have a choice. god says choose me or choose the devil. absolutely the children are protected. these babies are protected because god says. if people cannot see god is condemning this, look at the state of this country is in. if people can kill a child, they can kill anybody. this is absolutely outrageous and i've raised seven children, i've worked hard all my life.

god bless me and i thank him for everything he has done for me in my children and our country. our country needs to get back under god. host: tim in alabama, good morning, the line for those who support roe. caller: good morning. i support roe v. wade and i think it is a war on women. if i look back over the last 20 years or so and i look at all of the advancements women have made through becoming lawyers, judges, mayors, governors, and this is a war on women by the white male establishment in this country. they are losing their governing power, losing the power to make decisions and rule, and one of

the ways of getting back that authority that white male thinks they should have is to put the women back in the homes, having children. this way they -- it is hard for them to go to school, hard for them to advance, and that is why i say this is a war against women of this country. host: francisco in maryland, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. thank you for c-span. it's basically the only news source i trust and i listen to these debates. i am pro-life and i believe life begins in the womb and at that moment a human life has started and that it is sacred, every single life. so i oppose roe v. wade. i do think it needs to go and i'm glad this is happening. i think it is important, this

crisis we are going through now is necessary. i just wanted to say one last thing, that i really wish those of us who are fighting for the right to life would not concentrate so much on this thing about the states and thinking back to the states because at least for me that is not the issue. the issue is the life of a human being that is being destroyed. taking a back to the states is one thing but that is not the core of the issue. life is being destroyed in the womb and this has been happening since roe v. wade was passed even before hand it is millions of lives destroyed in their mother's wombs and it is because of a bunch of lies. the concept behind this oppose it right to abortion is all based on things that are not true. if we could discuss the issue for what it is, then we could begin to discuss what the problem really is, what the

misconceptions are, and how choosing to have a child is not a bad thing. it will not destroy your life, it will not hurt you. my wife and i have four daughters and one child on the way and every single one of those lives has been a blessing. we are not rich. it's not like we can afford this or that but we can -- we have seen every time we have a child god provides and nothing bad happens to us. it gives us more freedom as human beings. host: when is your child due? caller: at the end of august. doctors say it will be born on my birthday. host: congratulations. caller: thank you. host: in maryland, you are. caller: thank you for taking my call -- you are next. caller: thank you for taking my call. can you hear me? host: yes, ma'am. caller: [indiscernible] and i have had an abortion

before, i'm married and pregnant now but there are situations where abortion is called for and i do not think a bunch of men should be called in telling women what they should and should not do based on religion or their own personal feelings. that is all i have to say. host: you mind if i ask you, some colors brought this up already, the protests outside of the supreme court justice's homes in the wake of this leaked draft opinion, what the pro-life protesters outside of those homes have done at those protests, your thoughts as someone who lives in the d.c. area about protesting at a supreme court justice's house? caller: i feel do what you need to do. [indiscernible] i feel like women in this country are pretty desperate at this point so with everybody against abortion because of religion and it seems majority

men against it and you're not women, you don't have uterus, you don't have any right to tell women what they can and cannot do with her body. we know it will be a big fat now on roe v. wade today and women are desperate and we are searching for somebody to fight for us, like people are fighting for these unborn children. i do not agree with aborting kids up to six months, seven months, eight months, things like that. i do agree with terminating a pregnancy between six to eight weeks because it is early on and anything after that it needs to be discussed for adoption or other options, things are that. but things happen in life happens. it is not as simple as you shouldn't do that because it's a life. everything is not black-and-white. host: thanks for calling for

maryland. one of the headlines in today's washington post, some democrats worn abortion rights demonstrators not to go overboard during the protests at justice's homes. this was jen psaki yesterday being asked to buy the white house press corps about those protests. [video clip] >> does the president feel that the demonstrations outside of say justice alito's home are those attempts to interfere or intimidate? >> i think i said yesterday but i'm happy to repeat because i think it is important for everybody to hear that the president's long-standing view has been violence, duress, and intimidation of any kind have no place in political discourse. we believe in peaceful protests. what i do find interesting and i think most -- many people have noted is there are voices on the

right who have called out this protests happening while remaining silent for years on protests that have happened outside of the homes of school board members, michigan secretary of state, or including threats made to women seeking reproductive health care or even an insurrection against our capital. i know there is an outrage right now i guess about protests that have been peaceful to date and we certainly continue to encourage that outside of judges homes and that is the president's position but the silence is deafening about all of the other intimidation we have seen to a number of people. host: white house press secretary jen psaki yesterday on capitol hill. the fences are up around the supreme court, those fences going up in the wake of the leaked draft supreme court opinion on the mississippi abortion case. we sent our crewmembers out yesterday to take videos so you can see what it looks like up there on capitol hill. that is the supreme court building in the background. there is a fence. we will let you take a look at

video when we hear from greg in which field, wisconsin -- in wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. obviously this is a hot topic as we speak. my comment really is since roe has been passed almost 50 years ago, to all of the abortion-rights people, and women's rights people, how about using birth control and you don't need to have an abortion? is and that just some really common sense with where we've come over 50 years with a variety of ways to have fun with your partner and not get pregnant. this whole abortion topic should simply go away if people were more responsible in how they handle themselves. host: one of the questions that comes up is abortions in the case of rape. where do you stand? caller: you are right.

that will always be out there as somebody saying that's an exception. ok. i get it. but for all the abortions, thank goodness we are down from 1990 which was the high of 1.6 million abortions to last year where we were down to under 900,000, so something is being effective to cut back on those, but do you know what the rate of rape is for abortions? what is a, one out of 50? it is not very high. the majority of abortions are people that are lazy that don't not -- do not use birth control. host: i guess the question should be, should there be some exceptions? that is the debate right now. should there be no abortions at all in this country, should it be no restrictions on abortions in this country up until nine months, is there some sort of middle ground? where would you fall in that? caller: i would agree with the exception for a rape, but when you have radical abortion-rights

people wanting to have abortions until the moment of birth, it takes the topic into a radical vein that most sane people do not agree with, but there is no middle ground for those people. i could say sure, in the case of rape, fine, but that is not -- 95% of the abortions are not based on that and they want to have at all without being common sense. do you think a baby should be aborted up until the time it is born? host: it seems like you would fall into the category of most adults in this country. i want to show viewers the latest pew research on that. majority of abortions -- adults say abortion should be illegal in some cases and legal in some cases. it is 8% of the country that says abortion should be illegal in all cases, no exceptions. 19% of the country says abortions should be legal in all cases, no exceptions.

then the majority of americans falling somewhere in between. 27% say it should be illegal in most cases. 36% say it should be legal in most cases. 61% of total saying legal is where they would lean, some 37% total is those who lean towards illegal. that is the pole from pew research center. a 60 vote threshold is needed to do that. you can find that today on c-span two. we expected around 3:00 p.m. keep calling and phone lines, if you support roe, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001. if you are unsure, (202) 748-8002.

just one of run through some of the other news going on and there is plenty, including yesterday being a primary day and a couple states in this country, a busy primary month this month of may. gop congressman alex mooney defeated fellow republican congressman david mckinley in the west virginia primary in their congressional district last night. demonstrating former president donald trump's king making power of politico rights in a rare race featuring two incumbents what trumps picked to be the next governor of nebraska fell short in his first endorsement defeat of the primary season. mooney and mckinley in west virginia were thrown into the same district this year after west virginia. they take him over an investigation -- and cast mckinley as insufficiently conservative including for supporting the 2021 bipartisan

of a structure package. mckinley is the first member of congress to lose his reelection this year. politico noting the political merits of infrastructure investment and the eight-year-old carpet bagging claims dominated the race along with trumps influence and trump's influence also on the line in nebraska, pete ricketts's pick to succeed him, jim fillon, bested the trump-endorsed charles herbst are in that race. politico with their wrapup this morning. plenty of other news as well, the house approved a new aid package for ukraine but we do not have timing yet for when that would happen in the senate. excuse me while i take a drink of water. it's a $40 billion aid package and we will find out soon what will happen in the senate but we will hear from wendy in michigan as i try to catch my voice.

your voice on roe v. wade? caller: i have been a supporter of that since 1972 when it passed, and at that time, i was of the age to have children and i wanted to be able to have that choice that if something happened to me, god forbid anything would happen where you would have an illness or something or you were raped or whatever that you would have a choice to say i do not want that child. now that i am 70 years old, i look at these younger women and if roe v. wade is fetid, they are not going to have that choice. they will have to suffer through all of this or try to find somewhere they can go to have that and i have always thought that abortion was a private decision between a woman and god . she had to make that decision.

now, with the senators and everything jumping on the bandwagon of we've got to get rid of this, no. we have to have a choice and a man cannot make that choice for us. we want to do our own -- we went to make our own choices and we will have to, when we face god and god asks what do you do, you say i did it because i was attacked or i was ill or something that i have the choice that i wanted a healthy child and be able to make that decision without anyone butting in. i do hope roe v. wade continues because there are women now younger that will not have that choice if it is taken away. host: vermont, you are next. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,

which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] caller: good morning, i support roe v. wade and i'm 75 years old so i'm beyond childbearing years. i think it's absolutely absurd for some -- for anyone to think that girls use abortion. it speed between a woman and her physician and her higher power. women just don't randomly go out and have fun and get pregnant and then choose to have an abortion. each and every decision, woman's

decision to have an portion is a different scenario. there are a lot of reasons and i really think if roe v. wade is overturned, then women should be able to count the child from the time of conception as a dependent and get whatever she needs for this so-called child because i don't believe it's a child stop it cannot live outside the mother's womb. the man should pay support from the time of conception if people think it's a child. i guess that's all i have to say step women don't have abortions lately. it's not an easy decision. host: set -- that's ruth in vermont this morning. we are spending our entire three hours this morning hearing from

you about the senate vote today to codify roe v. wade. we expect a senate vote around 3 p.m. today on the women's health protection act as it's known. it would protect a woman's ability to offer abortion services. it prohibits restrictions on abortions after fetal viability when continuation of the reagan's it would pose a risk to the pregnant patients life or health and allows the department of justice and individuals or worsen providers to ring violations against that bill. it's a slightly different version of the bill that the senate voted on back in february when they try to overcome the filibuster and move this legislation. back then, democrats got 46 votes, 48 republicans and a

couple of democrats opposing that legislation in february. at least one of the demo rats oppose the legislation back in february and will vote for the legislation this time around at the senate vote today. a statement yesterday about why one senator is supporting it this time around. i will again vote yes to advance the debate on the women's health protection act and i will support the bill. the circumstances around the entire state of abortion has changed. sue got --

nation this legislation passed the house last year. it was a mainly partyline vote. that's happening today and democrats need 60 votes to advance that legislation and are not expected to but sharpening the senate debate and we are getting your bots on it. this is crystal in philly on the line for those whose work. good morning. caller: good morning, america. a guy called earlier and he talked calmly about this should not be any abortions under any circumstances.

if you have an ectopic pregnancy , a fertilized egg that doesn't travel to the uterus in the fallopian to. if you continue with that you could die. a football player or a basketball player in college, flip the script. they talk casually about this. you don't want your child coming home from school to get raped to have a baby at 15 or 14. i don't understand why guys think that women choose to have an abortion and they have one.

this is your life. you do not have to totally personally. if it comes down the pike, i got married at 23 and i have four children in five years. i said i need to take care of the plumbing because we are not able to take care of anymore. my mom had 10 kids in but leave the choice to the woman. it's not right for guys to take this to women like this. host: scottsboro, alabama, next. caller: good morning, i was calling because i've been listening to people call in and we've come a long way since roe v. wade in regard to birth

control. all i hear is people talking about women's rights. where is the men and women's responsibility before conceiving? nobody talks about birth control. birth control sometimes fails but it's rare about the male and the female is using birth control that both of them fail. host: this is sam in georgia, savannah, the lines for those who support. caller: i called the wrong line. i categorically oppose abortion in every sense. i would like to see the discussion returned to reality.

nobody has led the discussion that overturning roe v. wade means returning the states to the -- the choice to the states and i keep hearing is a threat to dimock sleep step that is the line about everything. how can it be a threat to democracy return to the state levels so that people can vote on this. the vote was taken out of their hands. now each state will vote. that doesn't seem absurd to me. host: to return it to that discussion, the concern that some of those in the pro-choice camp will say is that it's a

slippery slope, are there other issues that the pro-life community will want to return to states the issue of contraception in griswold versus connecticut and the use of contraception and the legality of it, is something that will get returned to the states? what are your thoughts? caller: i would call myself a pretty far right conservative and i would hope not stop i think contraception is a great thing. once you start saying it's hypothetical, you take the compensation -- you take the conversation -- away from the fetus and whether life begins at conception. if it's 8-12 weeks after, it's inarguable that that's a human life and it's worth protecting.

if the girls been raped, she should have the choice. everybody can look up the statistics. that's fewer than every 100 urgencies and that should be looked. there are rabbinical exceptions in judaism. there is room for every conversation. there are states that are pushing back to full -- to have near full term. host: would you agree with this headline from the washington post?

caller: maybe. i haven't read the article so it's hard to agree with the headline. it's hard to find common ground on abortion. obama himself years ago said it was legal and rare? host: it was a bill clinton line. caller: now it's more like we have to have abortion no matter what. the aggressiveness with which they are taking the line we have to order all the way up to earth is bad for them. maybe it's politics.

i hate to quote whoopi goldberg but she said the other day, it's not a decision women make casually. it's not an easy decision and it's a terrible decision and people say that and i agree completely but we have to look at why it's a decision you don't make lightly. host: that's same in georgia. we will be on the legislation

today, voting to move legislation should they overcome the filibuster with a 40 threshold. we wanted to show you some of the debate from the senate floor. this is dick durbin from the senate floor yesterday. [video clip] >> it appears that never before in the history of america has a supreme court decision abandoned law that make americans and less free, never. in the past, when the work took the action of repealing a law, it's to expand read manatt to eliminate it. the majority of this court is unprecedented, radical and dangerous. here is another fact that republican lawmakers are hoping you won't notice. it's not just the right to abortion that is in jeopardy. justice's draft opinion

questions the very existence of the right to privacy. argues that enumerated rights, rights not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, unenumerated rights must be deeply rooted in u.s. history and tradition in order to be recognized as a constitutional right. who decides what is deeply rooted in history and tradition? the court decision established marriage equality only seven years ago. the courts reactionary geordie, is that next on the chopping block? what about the right to contraception? that was established 11 years before roe v. wade in republican member of this buddy criticized that decision, establishing the privacy right of every individual to choose the conversations right for their family. he described it as constitutionally unsound.

draft opinion would divide the nation and set the president to erase more constitutional rights and give government the the right to dictate your rights and your future. host: senator dixon durbin, the senate majority whip on the floor of the senate yesterday. we are bringing you the voices around this debate ahead of this boat today -- ahead of this vote today to codify roe v. wade. the other voice in this debate today are joining test training us this morning. good morning to you. guest: thank you, it's great to be on. host: first chat about the right to life committee, how long have you been around and where is your role in this to abortion debate in this country? guest: the group started forming in 1968 back when abortion came an issue in the state

legislature. we now have an affiliate in each of the 50 states with a couple of thousand chapters around the country working in their communities to educate and lobby on pro-life legislation. we've been working at this for a long time so we are excited about the possibility that this may actually be a decision we can work with the voters and elected representatives to do something to protect babies. host: what was your reaction last week to that leaked draft supreme court opinion. how are you handling that in your group and how much do you expect that will be the final decision? guest: probably the most overused phrase this last week has been cautiously optimistic. i would put myself in that category. we don't know what the final decision will be in the draft is three months old and things could have changed. we really are waiting for the final decision from the court

before we start to look at this as a resounding victory for unborn children and their mothers. host: how does that change the state of the pro-life movement in this country? where is it move from where it is now to that decision if it is -- if it's a decision that overturns roe v. wade? guest: we've been able to passim laws in the states that a reasonable and much approved by the majority of the public. parents should be notified before their minor daughter is getting an abortion, providing information for women so they know what the alternatives are. there have been some laws but it's been very tough to put something in place that would protect the babies and we now are looking at a potential reversal of that supreme court decisions so that we can now

start working with elected representatives, elected by the people but seem to be overlooked , to pass some laws that could do much more than we've been able to do for 50 years. host: if republicans take back the senate in the fall is looking to be a good year right now according to the public, if they take back the senate, should mitch mcconnell use -- move legislation to outlaw abortion the senate? guest: i think we will be looking at the states and congress to protect unborn children and senator mcconnell has said he has no intention of getting rid of the filibuster which means the democrats should be happy because they will not be able to -- they probably will be able to stop something like that step i would love to see the senate unite or congress unite on some things they can agree on. minor girl should not be taken across state lines to get an abortion without their parents knowing about it.

there are a lot of government programs that fund abortion. we should be going through those to find out where our money is being used and use it for better purposes. there are certainly areas i think congress can affect and impact and i would encourage them to do that unit they can't pass a tougher law because opposition from the democrats in the filibuster. the filibuster has been used by both sides and right now, we are using it to stop chuck schumer from passing a bill that would establish a national law of the land, abortion for nine months of pregnancy for any reason, that's definitely his goal and i know he would love to pass the supreme court and had more justices so we are able to effectively use the filibuster to prevent that from happening step i know the other side will do that as well but there are certainly measures everybody should be able to agree on.

host: we are talking with carol tobias from the national right to life association. we have time to take calls from our viewers. we continue to have this discussion throughout the "washington journal" about codifying roe v. wade. the vote is expected at about 3 p.m. today. we will bring in john from richfield, ohio. we got a line for those who are unsure about whether they support or oppose roe v. wade. good morning, go ahead. caller: my opinion is simple. i think it's between the state and the federal government. with the constitution, because that way, whatever the agree on is fine. just burn it and start all over

if you don't follow it step as far as when they graduate protest, i believe everybody has the right to protest peacefully and at a place where person works and not at their homes because it affects their families and everyone else. when they work, it's fine. it's not to chase someone down the street and wave a flag protesting. host: you say if they decide on its fine, dig into it a little more. was it your expectation that roe v. wade was decided and settled? was it over in this country? caller: i think what happened was the justices are trying to figure out if it's a federal decision or a state decision. that's with the supreme court is supposed to decide. they're not supposed to decide

on the issue itself whether it's a state or federal issue. it's not about whether it's an abortion but it's been state level or federal level stop if it's a federal level, then it's fine. at the state level, they say it has to go back to the states. that's what the constitution is supposed to say. host: thank you for the call. guest: i think there is a place for all elected officials to start looking at what we can do. this is certainly going to give the state the opportunity to protect unborn children but i don't think it removes congress from all responsibility. host: jen is next out of peoria, arizona on the lines for those who oppose roe v. wade. caller: good morning, i

definitely oppose roe v. wade. you shouldn't have an abortion for any reason whatsoever. to lose a child like that is a terrible tragedy. what we are talking about is a death of a human life and whether it's ok to end that life. in a civilized society, you just don't kill people. host: thanks for the call. guest: are talking about innocent human life, the most vulnerable members of the human family. i look forward to the opportunity in the coming years if this lifts the restrictions of roe v. wade to protect as many of those babies as we can. host: this is joe on the line for those who support roe v. wade. caller: good morning.

i've got a quick question for you -- if the talk is about each state where the people in each state having the right and you mentioned that an elected official made this decision, the point is, host: you have not -- you have to talk to phone. caller: if everyone had the right to vote in every person did vote of every single person under gerrymandering conditions was in a situation of most of the states, if you were to take each one of these issues person to person and not the one legislature who has an agenda

who says we are against this or that, if we stack the deck and vote in this way, then it is not a fair deal. the second question would be your organization, does it support adoptions and where you stand on that and what have you guys been doing in terms of the money donated to your cause, putting it into adoption? have you yourself adopted? guest: several different questions are aspects there. what would be suggested is that we can make those decisions unless every person is voting, the country would come to a standstill because that will not happen on any issue step quite frankly, people have the right not to vote. you cannot force them to do that. we certainly are supportive of all alternative to abortion.

adoption is a great alternative and i know families that are rolled, mothers who celebrated mother's day because they have adopted children and it's the light of their lives. pregnancy resource centers are out there to offer support and alternatives to a woman who isn't sure she wants a child. there is more we can be doing but i think the country is realizing that if we are going to say you can't abort an unborn child, there will be services that will be needed and a lot of that is already happening. host: if roe v. wade is returned to the states, are there other issues you believe to be returned to the states to decide , the idea of contraception and the availability, is that something you think should be returned to the states? guest: i have never heard

anybody say that contraception should be illegal or harder to get. they are currently available pretty much everywhere, bathrooms and maybe school bathrooms. if that's one tactic that proponents of abortion are using because they want to scare people, contraceptives are not going anywhere and they will be just as easily accept -- accessible as they are now. host: for those who are unsure, hendersonville, north carolina. caller: good morning. host: turn down your tv and talk through your phone. caller: i called in on the unsure line because i am pro-life but i am unsure about a lot of the questions that have been brought up.

i just wanted to say that in 1973, after abortion was passed, i got pregnant at the age of 17. i went to a clinic and it was like they were rushing me into a decision. i went to planned parenthood. i was already on the table and they were getting ready to give me a local to abort my child and i jumped off the table and they almost had me arrested because i interrupted the procedure. now i am unsure about these other aspects that have been answered. no one is questioning -- this will go as far as people not being able to get birth control. i haven't heard anybody bring up

the fact that my child that i didn't abort had three abortions. later in life. no one has talked about the aspect of what it does to their soul. they don't follow up and when she got pregnant with my grandchild, she just said she couldn't have another fortune because it would tear her soul apart. she struggled with alcoholism because of the other abortions she had had. but she wasn't worth anything. i believe there should be exceptions. i don't believe -- i'm not sure if you go back to the states but

now i'm considering that maybe it should go back to the states. i don't agree with texas. i don't believe in arresting people if they drive someone to an abortion clinic stop i think that's going too far. it's too far -- we are starting our life. host: let me let you jump in. guest: the voices of women who suffer from abortions is one of the most underreported stories of this entire debate. we have women who are -- still regret many years later to end the life of their unborn child. their suffering psychologically

and emotionally. many of them have received counseling and support and they look back with regret that they have moved on with their lives, although they are speaking out, and chart -- encouraging women not to make the same mistake they did. we need to be aware -- bring and to some center and taking a full desk pills and andean -- ending the life of your child is not the same as taking aspirin or taking -- removing your appendix. there's more to the story and we need to look out for women who made the decision and make sure women know that this is not an easy decision and we need to look at how it will impact their lives. host: a question from sheila on twitter. trying to understand the debate wanting to know where else besides planned parenthood -- we have heard about them, are abortions performed in the country?

guest: there are freestanding abortion standards -- centers. you can find them. planned parenthood is not the only provided we now -- provider. -- it is extremely dangerous. she could die. she knows she is pregnant but she does not know at the baby is developing in the you read -- the uterus other fallopian too. we are seeing a new front opening up with the pills sent to the home. i think the abortion industry finds it cheaper and they make more money and the decision and everything that happens, it is the woman are sparse action so they can stand back and say it is not our fault. host: just a couple more phone

calls for you. cory in alabama. you are next. caller: good morning, c-span. i would like to say, first of all, i am pro-life. women that say their body belongs to you. if you are born again, -- host: if you are born again, what? caller: if you are born again, your body does not belong to you. it was purchased with the price of the blood of jesus christ and another thing i would like to say. that abortion is murder and god is going to judge everybody that deliberately has their baby murdered.

since 1973, we have had sonograms, all of those other technologies came on the scene so there will not be no excuse when they stand before god for the murder of these unborn babies. host: cory in alabama. 20 -- on the road -- religious arguments here. guest: i realize there are a lot of people who do not understand or accept what the gentleman just said. that is something that we will enter into the debate that i do not see this fully as a religious issue. we are talking about the civil rights of a class of vulnerable human beings. i think this will be and can be argued on many fronts in many ways using different points. we have women who are scarred from their previous abortions and we have babies who, quite

frankly, deserve protection because they are members of the human race. host: mason, in dayton ohio. the line who support desk for people who support roe v. wade. -- the line for people who support roe v. wade. caller: i had to call today because i am tired of hearing about what is. -- what ifs. it is not -- one or another. we either allow abortion to be safe and accessible regardless of you are in the money you have, or, we go back to abortions not being safe. ladies going to back alley doctors are trying to do them them -- themselves to mutilations and child deaths. things will get better quickly. abortion saved my life. i would not be breathing today

and have a happy family if it were not for abortion. because it is my choice and my right. what i do in my life in my world, in my nightmares, in my childbearing and my family is my decision. miss carol -- not this carol. ms. carol can have all the baby she want. that is her choice. when you hear the things the woman is saying, i do not mean to disrespect you by calling this woman, you need to be better educated. there is not birth control in bathrooms and schools. birth-control does fail and you are so worried about the dangers of people have -- who have had abortion. what about the woman who will be

put in harm's way if roe v. wade gets overturned? guest: i like the perception that if roe v. wade is overturned, abortion will be legal. that will be decided state-by-state. there are several states that will keep abortion legal. many have expanded their laws to have abortion at all stages of pregnancy for any reason. current practices will be available. if abortion is safe now, it will be saved if it is -- if it is illegal. if abortion is unsafe if it is illegal, that means those same procedures are unsafe now. we are talking about caring for women and helping them to see that they have a tremendous gift to provide life and help another human being come into this

world. i think that is much more positive and a better aspect in telling a woman she is better off if she chose her unborn child. i do not believe any woman is better off in that situation and this is a debate that will be going on and i am looking for to it. at least we are having the debate because we can do something. host: as you look ahead to the vote today in the senate, what members in the senate will you be particularly interested in on how they vote for this effort to move to this bill to codify roe v. wade. guest: the senate has voted on a similar bill this year. i do not expect any votes to change. what this means is we have some senators who are trying to say the law of the land should be abortion for any reason, for all nine months of accuracy.

they don't care what the states or the people want. they are trying to ramp this down our throats and i really hope the people respond in november and hold them accountable for such a extreme, radical position. the united states is one of only seven countries that currently allows the position that chuck schumer is trying to make as a national law of the land. that has restocked. they have to be repudiated. host: president of the national right to life many. -- committee. nrlc.com or @nrlc. having this conversation about this effort -- if you support role, -- roe v. wade, (202) 748-8000, if you are against it,

(202) 748-8001, if you are unsure (202) 748-8002. caller: i think a redline shall be drawn if it is a incest or rape pregnancy. if it is a danger to the mother or baby, i agree -- agree that should be an abortion. i do not believe in a late abortion prep -- late pregnancy abortion. i do not believe it being used as a contraception. i am one of the where -- rare women that birth control did not work on. it is a terrible think when you have to make a decision to abort a baby. you live with it for the rest of

your life. it happened to me when i am -- was young. i am 66 years old now and i live with that. the doctors told me i could have two babies safely. a third one, i could not. the third, there will be something wrong with the baby. i did birth control. i was -- duplication -- they gave me birth control. i got pregnant anyway. they tell me there might be something wrong with the baby. i had the abortion and after i had it, they decided, he will go ahead and do -- so i can get pregnant again but that is something you can live with for the rest of your life. host: what you laid out at the beginning of a comment, that there should be exception for rape, incest and right for the

mother. do you think the middle ground here is there? i can't the majority of the people in this country seem to agree at least legislatively on something like that? caller: i have no idea. until they welcome -- walk a mile in a woman's shoes that has to make that medical decision, they are not going to know. abortion should never be used as a contraceptive. unfortunately, a lot of women do that. host: jackie in missouri. michael in azeri city, texas. -- missouri city, texas. caller: hello?

host: go ahead. caller: three basic principles about this. you mentioned it earlier. his abortion safe or legal and i believe is it necessary? i believe as a texas democrat, i am against everything that ted cruz does. this is the gop's first way of dismantling roe v. wade and that is taking away the legal aspect and make it illegal to do and the next half -- step, i disagree with the lady who was hosting, saying that there is no attempt to take away roe v. wade. as a whole -- if you slowly chip roy -- chip away at the basic principles, you are fine, like the republicans did with health

care, slowly chip away at the principles of health care that the affordable care act and make it very useless and -- unnecessary. next would be making -- not safe and the next one is making it not necessary. this is the first step in the process and people here have to keep an eye on that. they will say, it is still there and it is up to the states. the next level is to take it away and slowly dismantle it and that is what the gop is about. his two dismantle --is to dismantle. you take away -- health care and roe v. wade. you don't allow the mandate for vaccines to go -- you dismantle that and you are down to nothing

left but white man making decisions for the whole country, which is unfair and this is a choice decision. every female should have the choice as to what they need to do. they -- it should not be up to the gop side to the side -- decide what the country should do. the supreme court can have their opinion -- opinion. we know what they are doing. trump made a horrible choice and , hopefully, we can look to 2024. the last thing i want to mention -- in regards to religion, if a church is against roe v. wade then they ship pay taxes and file on their annual 990 or their texas forms -- tax forms. saying they are against roe v. wade and we are giving up their

tax exemption stamp -- status and use their taxes to support health care costs. host: this is maria in harrisburg, pennsylvania. caller: thanks for taking my call. i know many women who have been pressured to abort their children. someone in their lives, whether it be a boyfriend, a husband, or a parent. there was a poll that was done showed that 85% of women who had abortions would have chosen life if just one person have provided support. they think that each of us could be one person's right -- deciding support for women. women deserve better than abortion. abortion stops a beating heart. brain waves can be detected 44 days after conception. this is a human being that deserves protection.

host: mary lou, cleveland, ohio. caller: i am for keeping roe v. wade in place. being a catholic, pro-choice, i saw a person in our church, she had five children. she goes on her --dot and get pregnant again. she was using the rhythm by that catholic church. she got pregnant. her doctor said there was a great chance she could die during this pregnancy. our monsignor -- said there will be an exception to have this pregnancy, that she had five children. she had a hemorrhage owner kitchen floor. emts got there and she bled to death.

hemorrhaged to death. in front of her five children and our church had a funeral service and even our monsignor told her to get the abortion. when i saw that in my own church, when the monsignor went against the catholic and that is when i became pro-choice. i went to right to life rallies when i was in my 20's and i was 70 -- i am 70 now and i am 100% pro-choice because until you have seen that, until you have lost someone to a pregnancy that could kill you, whether it is atopic pregnancy or drupal pregnancy -- this woman have left five children went a mother. you are leaving b's five children without a mother because she was so sure of her

faith that she lived through this -- and she died. i think you for your time but i think it has to be safe. i am not for using it for birth control but there are situations where i have said that i am pro-choice. thank you so much for your time. host: anna, good morning. caller: hello? am i going? host: yes men -- yes ma'am. caller: i am from powder springs, georgia. i am calling in support of roe v. wade. the thing is people don't realize -- two of the hardest decisions a woman has to make our, number one, to carry a baby to full term and to give one up for adoption.

when we look at the situation, roe v. wade, what we have is the freedom of a woman to make a decision -- choice about their health care. i don't understand why most people don't talk about it. no one is mentioning hippo rights --hip rights. if someone can tell us what we can do between us and the doctor, that takes away our hi paa rights. if they are taken away from us, think of the many things that can be taken away, the rights can be taken away from other people as well that has nothing to do with pregnancy. the rights to privacy between a woman and her doctor is sacrosanct to me. the other question is how the

someone have the right to tout -- tell a woman she has to cherry a child? i will and that is first -- force to carry a child against her will -- the government should pay her a salary for raising that child and all expansions should be carried from the child through college. host: we are having the conversation through all three hours. asking you on the thought of the boat today in the senate to codify roe v. wade. it will take 60 votes and that will take -- that is expected to take place at 3 p.m. eastern. taking you are busy week in washington. taking you through the top stories when it comes to public policy. this was president biden yesterday on the issue of information in this country, calling it his top domestic --

the war in ukraine for the worst inflation in 40 years. inflation that has fueled gas and food and rent costs in the country. this was president biden yesterday with his address on how he plans to tackle inflation, putting his plan against republican plans when it comes to the economy. pres. biden: americans have a choice right now between two paths, reflecting two different sets of values. my plan to tax inflation and -- by lowering costs for working families, giving workers raises, reducing deaths and making big corporations and wealthy americans pay their fair share. the other path is the plan put forth by congressional republicans, to raise taxes on

working families, lower the income of the american workers, threatened sacred programs americans, like social security and medicare, and get break to corporations and billionaires. just like they did last time they were in power. when their top priority was the record -- reckless $2 billion tax cut going to the very wealthiest americans. it ballooned that deficit and not a penny was paid for. i know you have to be frustrated. i know. i can taste it. frustrated by high prices by gridlock in congress. another time it takes to get anything done. i understand the frustration. the fact is congressional republicans, not all of them, but the magna republicans --maga

republicans are counting on you to be frustrated by the pace up process and they have done everything they can to slow down, that you will hand power it over to them in a act so they can enact their extreme agenda. host: president biden yesterday talking about the issue of inflation. he has often referred to a plan put forth by the national republican senatorial -- when talking about economic issues and the maca -- maca agenda -- maga agenda. senator rick scott -- the republican from florida. the maga agenda is a term that

president biden been using. it was brought up at the white house press briefing. a question to jen psaki. >> who came up with this phrase, ultra maga? pres. sec. psaki: it is the president phrase and the president made those comments himself. what is striking him is how extreme the policies and proposals are the certain wing of the republican party that is taking too much of the republican party are advocating for. you heard the president talk about this. it is not just putting at risk of woman's right to make choices about her health care. it is also about rick strauch -- rick scott's extreme plan that will raise taxes on millions of americans. it is rick scott's plan to get

rid of medicare and social security. something people over 70 rely on and it is the obsession with culture wars and wars against mixing mac -- mickey mouse and banning books. to him, adding ultra to it gives it out -- extra pop. host: the house approving a new eight package for ukraine. 40 billion dollars emergency aid plant -- package to ukraine. we are not sure yet when the senate will decide on that. concern on senators about some of the pieces of the legislation . yesterday during the debate over the 48 $40 billion -- over the $40 billion package.

some of that spending pieces detailed. >> given the magnitude of the campaign, -- and ukrainian democracy, we are morally obligated to ensure the brave ukrainian fighters and the people have security and economic aid that they need. i am proud to stand here today in support of a bill that does just that. this legislation and vests strongly to support ukraine's dire efforts to defend itself by keeping weapons and ammunition flowing without interruption. with $6 billion for the ukraine security initiative, we will provide the equipment, training, and weapons that the ukrainian military and the security forces need to continue to protect the ukrainian people. we are providing additional support for ukraine and our allies and partners in the region as they build and update their capabilities.

we know very well that russia's invasion is now only a threat to ukraine security also a threat to the very core of ukrainian and global democracy. this system will invest in critical economic assistance to help ukraine protect themselves by ensuring the continuity of the democratic government by countering human trafficking, and by fighting interest russian lights. the prolonged invasion has taken a toll globally. people the world over are suffering from a growing food insecurity. the rising costs of food and to address the devastating reality, we are providing more than $5 billion in emergency food assistance and support for agricultural development. as we support the fight against russia's aggression, struggling to put food on the table, the most wonderful people around our

world deserve our support. none of the devastation costs when not be possible without help from putin's cronies. the funding in the bill will continue as you -- efforts to hold them accountable for the terror they have cost -- cost in ukraine. this bill ensures that we are one step closer to making them pay the full price for their actions. in the process, we will stand firmly with the ukrainian people while combating the exploitation of ukraine's honorable financial system. for those ukrainians who managed to find refuge at our borders, the bill divides funds to expand services that will make sure they feel safe here as a search, for peace and freedom. we are providing funds for

trauma care, housing assistance, case engine and, english language classes and for screenings and ongoing public health surveillance. the ukrainian people need support and russians -- russia's invasion of ukraine threatens peace and democracy around the goal -- glow. this bill will protect democracy, limit russia aggression and strengthen national security while supporting ukraine. >> congressman rosa delauro -- the chairwoman of the house appropriations committee. you can watch this on c-span.org. just after 9 a.m. eastern. the schedule on capitol hill. we will take -- the senate also in at 10 a.m. eastern and we are expecting around 3 p.m. eastern,

a vote today symbol to the legislation to codify roe v. wade. devil taking place in the senate. it will only 60 votes to move to that legislation. democrats not expected to win the vote. laying out the lines of the the portion -- abortion debate. we will talk to you about your use of roe v. wade. if you support it, (202) 748-8000. those who oppose roe v. wade, (202) 748-8001. those who are unsure, (202) 748-8002. we are looking comments via social media, twitter and facebook and you can send as a text message. that number, (202) 748-8003. for those who oppose roe v.

wade. caller: my name is kenneth. i oppose it. those colors are great. -- callers are great. abortion issue is a lot of people are playing checkers with it. they should be playing chess. what i mean is move by move, i also believe that these things should happen. first of all, it should be eliminated, but, we should have counseling and health care and we should have adoption options that should make sure that people should be taking care of. a lot of people have talked already and they may -- make great points. the point i make are the pure factor of a lot of women that don't know what to do and instead of cutting off abortion

right off the bat, there should be a clear understanding of what is going to happen to all of these women who are in this situation. that is my point. host: cleveland, ohio. go ahead. caller: i would like to say i do not think men should have any input on what a woman should do when she gets pregnant. i was about -- adopted by two men in the same evening. i had no choice but to get an abortion. it was horrifying. i don't think a man should tell me what to do with my body,. --period. it seems mostly men are telling

us what to do. who is going to take care of these children? i think there will be more poverty with unwanted children, more abuse with unwanted children, and it sickens me that men have an opinion on this. are they going to take care of these unwanted children? i do not think so. the woman that can't take care of the children should have the choice to abort the child. nicu for my call. host: lucretia in florida. good morning, you are next. lucretia, go ahead. caller: happy hump day. i am talking about that woman you had -- she said she has never met a woman that was satisfied with her decision. i am a woman that was satisfied in don't regret it -- that had

an abortion and i don't regret it. my husband got her on the job and she -- he had a workers comp and i came up pregnant. i was high risk and i had to work by last month and i was supposed to be on bed rest. four years later, i come up pregnant again. we, husband discussed it together and both of us said it was best to abort because if i were to keep it, i don't have a home to keep it in. if i gave it up, for adoption, it was why did you give me up. abortion was the best thing in my decision because i did have one child once already. also, people have said, these children -- christians, they have to realize that even in the body -- bible, -- i cannot see a

26 week old baby surviving in our environment. thank you and goodbye. host: lucretia in florida -- back to ohio, in youngstown. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. my blood is boiling. i keep hearing about these late-term abortions. i would like to know the statistics on these. i would like you to have a doctor representative on -- the american college -- who actually -- to actually explain what these people have their if they have no idea what they are talking about. that is my suggestion and my other point is, these women in the ukraine that are systematically raped in large numbers, some will become pregnant. you mean to tell me that he will force them to have these babies?

-- you will force them to have these babies? they are going to the trauma of war and rape and you want to add on the trauma of having a child that was not planned for, that was forced on them? it does not make sense to me. thank you. host: that is teresa in youngstown, ohio. in today's usa today, a focus on the abortion debate. noting that democrats are not likely to move this legislation to achieve the 60 votes needed to codify roe v. wade to have a final vote on that. the issue certainly one that could make a difference in the fall when it comes to the midterm elections. this is what they write. issue may not make much issue in u.s. house races -- the focus on many political professionals is on the senate, which is split

50-50. democrats control the chamber. the fate of the senate probably rests -- closely watched contest. nevada, georgia, new hampshire, wisconsin, and pennsylvania. any of them can turn on the issue. abortion rights have small -- strong support. in ohio, after last week's primary, democratic congressman tim ryan against j.d. vance. a couple suites on the abortion issue between tim ryan and j.d. vance. tim ryan saweetie -- tweeting --

j.d. vance tweeting that -- some of the back-and-forth on twitter between the two senate candidates. this is mike in savage, montana. good morning. you are next. caller: good morning. john, -- they schedule their own execution. a woman has a wife that's right to their own body -- right to their own body. the compounded strategy of the baby, twins, triplets or more. the statistical fact that 27% of our boarding women commit

suicide from the loss. to me, abortion -- but in the woman and devil worship. host: i have not seen that suicide statistic. where did you get that from? caller: it is up to 27% -- on info wars. adoption is acceptable to christian conservatives. host: mike in montana. jim in florida. good morning. caller: i agree with one if your earlier colors. i am a man and a father. i am retired. i do not think a man has a right to vote at all on this issue. women -- there should be a referendum of women.

it should be to them and their bodies. thank you. host: john, louisiana, good morning, your next. caller: i am ambivalent on this. the federal government should not be involved in this. if it is not the federal government, the states will pass something. it is not like if roe v. wade is overturned, it is not even federal law. it is something that the supreme court made. we are living by it. if congress of the united states wants to pass a law -- can pass a law one way or the other but it is not in the constitution and it should be left up to the states. each of the 50 states can have whatever the people that live in those 50 states want. it is more than the actual thing of abortion. it is federal power that is not

codified in the constitution that they have the right to do. it has gotten convoluted with emotions on top of that but that is the ansys -- essence. does the federal government or hat -- happy or should they have the power to determine this issue? leave it to the states. host: linda, kalamazoo, michigan. caller: good morning. hello? ok. the one thing that i want to go back to and i am in my 70's, i -- when i was in high school and i was outside city in new york, where we lived, and in -- when i was in high school, there were two girls in that highly dense alley in syracuse, new york and

they were found in the alley and they both bled to death and you could probably figure out what they did. my thing is, this is a woman's issue. i would like to see a medical -- someone else called in, like having a gynecol six or some talk on the show -- gynecologist or some talk of the show. the thing that men should have responsibility here. they should have something they should take if they want -- if they don't want to be pregnant. they ought to come up with something for the men. so they can do something to the spurn --sperm. you men want to make these worlds, they should take responsibility and i would like to know how many of those congressman have paid for their

dalliances than they have had to have someone have an abortion. no one such as matt gaetz should be saying anything anything to do with a woman's body. host: linda in michigan. bring eu voices involved in that debate. what is from the senate floor ahead of this vote today that will codify roe v. wade. about the voices, among those who took the senate floor. the democrats talking about the issue of roe v. wade abortion in the country. >> when roe was decided, it change the lives of so many women. it saved the lives of 14-year-olds who were the victims of rape or incest. it change the lives of women who wanted to be moms and found out that pregnancies were not viable. they have to go through the pain and suffering of a trauma of a full term only to stillborn at

the end of nine months. for me, akp my chance to be a mom. i never would have had my creative -- love them implement -- infinitely. if roe paid the women to get their own -- facility process that roe v. wade laid the foundation on. because of ivf, i experienced the joys of rome -- motherhood. because of her overlay -- because of roe v. wade, we are a family. last week, we learned that the supreme court could be weeks away from overturning roe v. wade -- decision that would strip away reproductive rights for millions of women, so they could live through the artist --

harbors --horros. they have a working for years to get to this moment, overturning roe v. wade is not the end goal. they want a national ban on abortion, something the republican senator -- senate leader said it was a possibility. they want to undermine contraception. legislation has been introduced that will make ivf a crime. in oklahoma, one woman was convicted of manslaughter for having a miscarriage. criminalized for having a miscarriage. i have had a miscarriage. there were no words to describe what mothers do in that moment. for me, so -- i was overcome with the most painful emotion i have ever experienced. losing my baby felt more searing

that anything i have ever felt in mama -- my entire life. if the gop would have its way, women may now have to live in fear that that worst moment of their lives they also send them to prison. -- may also send them to prison. host: more of the debate in the senate. another senator who took the floor, mike lee, the republican of utah talking about the history of the roe v. wade decision. >> are nearly the last half-century, the decisions in roe v. wade and planned parenthood versus casey have abuse the constitution by reading into the constitution away it exists nowhere in the constitution. it is wrongly decided cases. they have wreaked havoc on public trust in government, on the public's understanding of

the constitution. these decisions have permitted the euphemistically described quote unquote "termination" of 56 million american lives. more than 45 times the lives locks -- -- lives lost in war of our nation. abortion is a tragedy. because of what it says on how we respect human life. the scores of millions of lives represented -- represent unique and unrepeatable genetic makeup's and identities and potentials. they represent the loss of americans -- dairy and physical medical abilities, political affiliations and professions many targeted because of their

race, sex or disability. their determination is the loss of ideas and innovation -- those abortions erase all potential families and communities. those abortions represent the loss of infinite potential collection -- connection and love. abortion is a tragedy that scars are history. when i let justice alito's opinion -- i was elated because it relies on federalism and a sound reading of the constitution. to reassert there is no constitutional right to an abortion just because a combination of lawyers weighing -- wearing -- wayne gross -- wearing robes made itself. -- it so.

host: senator mike lee, the republican on utah. our two-year phone calls. 40 minutes in the program. the house will come in 10 a.m. eastern and we will take you there for coverage. chris in massachusetts on the line for those who are unsure about how they feel about roe v. wade. caller: yeah, john, state senators -- they still have to pay for the procedure. transportation, etc.. i don't think it should absolve them from -- a state that does not support defense budget but you still have to pay. host: chris in massachusetts. chan in columbus georgia. caller: i don't think there is any woman any day that is pregnant that wakes up and goes,

i think i will have an abortion. it happens because something catastrophic happened. maybe their birth control failed or they found out despite their best efforts, they will not be able to handle the pregnancy. for whatever reason, it is a personal choice of the woman. if they do turn this to the states, to figure out and pass through, unless they turn it over as a referendum on the ballot with every single person in that state being able to vote, one state turn it over to the legislator, it is mostly my quails that will make the decision about that state. -- mostly white males that will make the decision about that state. i am 70 years old in the year i was married was the year roe v. wade came into existence and it change the lives of a great woman -- number of women who felt like they had potential to be more in their lives and they had a choice to make.

host: rob in clemente, california. caller: thanks so much for taking the call. i wanted to spell a -- dispel a bunch of disbelief because every time i hear someone like mike lee or someone else say, it is not in the constitution, neither is savory in the constitution. there is a million things we change loss to. that had nothing to do with what was in the constitution. were they right or wrong, that is ridiculous. here is the second thing. you can be morally outraged by abortion. sure, you can. let me tell you. who will pay for it? you better have someone that when a state passes a law and says, ok, no more abortions, right?

everyone that is disenfranchised that can afford it, as to be prenatally cared for by the state and go through -- if they have a c-section, which they have $22,000 to have a c-section, guess what? the state that bans the abortion should be paying for it. the whole and is ridiculous. -- and is ridiculous. everyone called in and said they are against abortion. i am against abortion but they are not against it because it air woman got --raped i-5 gave cash gain commanders -- i-5 again -- by five gain members -- host: every woman has the right

to say what happens to their own body. this is deb, saying role has never been an issue that because of brain -- the supreme court can decide. federal is for national defense deborah, saying -- from deborah, saving -- staying --saying -- one more from jodi, saying -- that -- back to phone calls. temper -- -- tampa, florida.

caller: the reason i am unsure is that many of black person in america, -- being a black person in america. i got out of high school in 1975 -- 1979. i am from south carolina and in high school, nothing but black girls was walking around pregnant. i got out of the military in took -- kentucky. home to find out there was an abortion clinic. kids from eight years old to whatever. i didn't see one person of color in that line. that is when it down on me, i see why none of the other people were pregnant walking around. bill lady you had on the show.

i wanted to ask her how many kids of color as she adopted? when despitefully begin? does it begin only in the womb or what about the innocent black people being killed every day? host: gloria, pennsylvania. a line for those who oppose world -- roe v. wade. caller: i am a first-time color. i have been listening all morning. the lady that called us a while ago and talking about church. that has nothing to do a church. how about we go back to god? i thought one of the 10th commandment, thou shall not kill. i have been listening to the news and hearing these people calling in, beside themselves, the lord -- say overturn

abortion. the worst day of their life. really? one 30 calls and our daughter called from college, crying, oh my goodness, they will allow -- outlaw. what if daughter got pregnant? the mother was beside herself. what is wrong with these people? really? host: have you watch this program before? caller: yes. host: why was this issue important for you to all in? -- all in? caller: 52 million children were called -- killed. 62 million women -- most of them were using abortion as birth control. with all the information not to get pregnant, sex education in schools, i am in my 80's.

in my day. if women went to backstreet abortions, it was because of the chain. if you got pregnant in the 50's, it was shameful. you had to hide it. in high school, there is one girl who got pregnant and the rumor was he went to the home of unwed mothers. it was very few and far between and i know if abortion was illegal, i could almost guarantee that there wouldn't be 62 million babies dead. host: gloria, and pennsylvania. if you do call in, he asked that you wait 30 days between your calls and we welcome you to call back in 30 days. that is how the program works and we go through about 60 of your phone calls every single day on this program. what their phone calls. terry in buffalo you narc -- new

york. caller: is that me? host: that issue. caller: i have one thing to say to everyone out there. without -- i am closing in on 82. some of them that never come back -- that was disgusting. now, you are trying to get into my family. everyone's family. americans have their own -- it came to my house as every other man and woman in this country. you come in and you look and see and try to force decisions by these women who i do not believe

really want to do what they have to do. it is a hard decision and i cannot see any man, i do not care who they are, the president , as father, anyone -- woman hoo control her own body. it is psychological warfare, in my opinion. host: in nebraska, this is mercy, good morning. caller: thank you for having me. i am personally affected by this decision on a lot of different levels. i am a 31-year-old woman, born in 1990. my mother was 16 when she had me. when she was pregnant my grandmother gave her three choices: abortion, adoption, and go to the doctor to have her baby. i am here because she picked

life. we cannot eliminate that choice from women. the best thing we can do is sexual education. my mom being 16, they asked her to drop out of school when she chose to keep me. those things should never be presented to anyone in a position where they have to make a life-changing decision, childbirth. i've had two miscarriages. one a doctor had to remove. if i had not had medical assistance, an abortion, i would not be here because my body would have died from the baby inside me that was dead. i have a living child that was not supposed to be here. they told me she was supposed to have died. i had to have a c-section. my choice in that room is between no one but me and god. i'm thankful to the supreme court for making this decision before i was born so i could be born in a safe place to a loving family who chose to keep me.

taking that right away is a human rights violation and it cannot happen. thank you for having me on this program. host: thank you for sharing your story. sylvia, st. louis, missouri. caller: first, talking about pregnancy, because they don't know how it feels. miscarriages are frequent. happen to almost every woman. if a woman says she doesn't want to have the kid, they take a pill. a miscarriage, the doctor or maternity doctor here, maybe this is now an option. if a woman is not treated for a

miscarriage, she can die. the miscarriage can happen anytime in the pregnancy. it could be from the ending or -- from the beginning or the end. if roe is overturned, it means every woman in america who suffers a miscarriage, the state passes a law to ban abortion, that woman would die. host: peg, good morning. caller: i am calling because i am against killing babies. i understand the problem and a lot of these women have. i also believe the men who have raped women have some kind of punishment so they can do that again. but there is always money at the bottom of all these questions.

i am wondering how many, how many people know how much money there is involved in harvesting a babies organs. i don't really know, but it would be an interesting question to find out if any of our politicians who are so against having roe v. wade reversed, if any of them are involved in the billions of dollars that are associated with body parts. host: tim in hawaii. caller: yes, good morning. it is tim from hawaii. one, i am in support of roe v. wade. i have five sisters, and to me it is the personal right of a woman to take care of her own body and make decisions.

what i called for is one thing i've heard nothing in this conversation against roe v. wade. that is the responsibility of whoever impregnated the woman, they are not held responsible to support that women and support that baby from the moment of whenever they say life starts. i think there's got to be some onus on the man who has done the impregnating. if they are going to force the women to have these pregnancies, that man is responsible from that day moving forward until that child is an adult. host: thank you for being up early in hawaii. i think i heard your rooster. what time is it in hawaii? caller: 3:30. host: around 3:00 p.m. eastern, the senate is set to vote on the women's health protection act. it would be a vote to move to the legislation to overcome the filibuster.

members of the u.s. senate who will be taking that vote today joining us from the russell rotunda on capitol hill. here's kristen gillibrand. thank you for joining us. senator, are you with us this morning? we are going to try to reestablish that connection with senator gillibrand. as we do, we will keep taking your calls. mike in wyoming. caller: this is mike in wyoming. i keep hearing all this stuff about my body, my choice that women are always talking about. i am going to throw a little new deal into this of nobody ever talks about prostitution. that is not a federal ban against prostitution. as far as i know that is a state-by-state deal everybody voted on. 49 states disallow it.

one state says it is ok. that would be nevada, and only one county in that state. host: get me to the abortion debate. caller: i guess the thing is everyone talks about -- like i say, women say it is their body, their choice. if they have a body that they want to rent out for prostitution, how come no one allows them to do that? host: back to capitol hill, senator gillibrand joins us via the russell rotunda. do we have you now? thank you for joining us. i want to start with the state of the pro-choice movement in this country and how it has changed in the past week. how would you describe where the movement is now? guest: i think there is a collective sense of outrage, disbelief, that the supreme court would have in a draft

opinion taking away a fundamental, constitutional right to privacy that the supreme court has established through precedent and reaffirmed over and over. i think women are in shock that the supreme court in these legislatures and governors around the country don't believe women deserve equality, that we don't deserve equal rights, basic human rights, basic civil rights. if you are denied bodily autonomy, the ability to decide when you are having children and under what circumstances and with whom you are having children, you are being denied basic, basic fundamental rights. unfortunately, it is going to result in a lot of people across this country organizing and advocating and marching to demand these rights be restored. i'm going to do everything i can to make sure women are full citizens. that we are not denied these basic, fundamental rights. host: unless the press corps is

way off, the women's health protection act to overcome the filibuster around 3:00 p.m. eastern, democrats are expected to lose that vote. if that happens, what is next? guest: we have to keep fighting. this vote today is an effort to codify roe v. wade and codify the other precedents, such as casey. it codifies that these rights are enshrined within a right to privacy that comes from several amendments in the constitution as an amalgam that the supreme court creates the right to privacy. the right to privacy allows you and your spouse to decide when you're having children, when you will have birth control, under which circumstances you are having children. birth is a life or death decision. we have many women who die in childbirth, particularly black women. they are four times more likely to die in childbirth because

of institutional racism. young women, very young women, it's dangerous to bring a pregnancy to term. women deserve the right to decide this life or death decision of where and under what circumstances they are having children. i have grown up in the era of roe. i have never known not having a right to privacy. not having a right to make these fundamental decisions myself. i think it is wrong. women and people who love them deserve to be able to make this based on their own medical conditions, their own family circumstances. a lot of women who ultimately seek abortion services are women who already have children. they are already mothers and there is economic and health issues at stake, there are risks at stake. they have the right to make those very hard decisions themselves. we are going to fight, keep pushing back, we are going to

organize, and if we don't have the votes to codify roe we will get the votes to codify roe. in november we will work to elect candidates who share our values. host: right now you need to get to 60. your fellow senators, republican senators, lisa collins and susan murkowski, have a competing bill, the reproductive choice act. it is more narrowly drawn but would codify roe. why not use that and bring republicans along to 60? guest: the legislation was drafted a while ago and unfortunately does not codify all of the provisions in kc and other precedents that have followed from roe. it would make it, i think, too easy for states to undermine roe and pass laws that will create undue burden. i think the version we have today is a better

representation of roe and kc and the status under the supreme court today. i think it is a stronger and more complete bill. the earlier version written by susan is not complete and leaves a little too many big definitions and loopholes that would be concerning. host: 60 is the number we are focusing on, but is this an issue important enough to scrap the filibuster for to make it a straight majority vote? guest: my view on that is i have been in favor of amending the filibuster in general, because these core values, reproductive freedom, voting rights, clean air, clean water, these fundamental things we are trying to do we cannot do because republicans are unable to work with us to do them. i think the time has passed whereby if we don't do it

somehow the republicans won't do bad things. they are already doing bad things. mitch mcconnell already said he believes he could federalize this draft opinion and make it the law of the land for all 50 states. that is the catch. i don't think he needs to be in power anymore or will be in powerfully make this step. i think we should have the constitutional rights to privacy, fight for voting rights and everything else that we care about. that is a personal view. we don't have a consensus on that, so it is really fight, fight, fight and make sure we win the elections in november so we have the votes we need to do the work of protecting our voting rights, our civil rights, women's reproductive freedom and liberty. the constitution guarantees liberty. life, liberty, it is so important that we recognize that this is about life and liberty,

and we deserve these rights to be protected. host: mitch mcconnell, he was asked about that issue yesterday. some future republican senate trying to outlaw abortion. he said if this draft opinion stands and roe is overturned he would be in favor of having the issue dealt with on the state level. do take him at his word? guest: no, no. he said he would federalize it meaning he would put it into federal law. he doesn't need any more power. he will just keep moving in this direction. i think if we don't do the work of codifying these rights now, protecting voting rights, we will not have the opportunity to save these issues at all. hopefully america's women and men are listening and they understand that this is an attack on all reproductive freedom. your right to privacy to decide when you will have kids under what circumstances, for your daughter, for your wife, for

your mother's, we have to fight for them. this will affect access to health care in a very challenging way, and that undue burden that would be protected by roe is removed. sen. booker: we will watch -- host: we watch you and your colleagues on the senate floor on c-span 2. thank you for your time. back to your phone calls. 15 minutes before the house comes in. we will take you there live. we want to get your opinions until then. the thought on the senate vote to codify roe v. wade. if you support roe, (202) 748-8001. if you are unsure, (202) 748-8003. caller: i think we should codify roe v. wade. i believe the right to a good life is what all children should

have. i had the blessing of working for years and years with people in different economic status -- economic statuses, from very poor to very wealthy. i also worked in a small hospital at one time where i was aware of a large number of badly abused children there. again, i am going back to the right for a good life for each child. i worked as an educator at the university level, and i can't tell you how many times i consoled young women who had been date raped, raped by an unknown rapist or young ladies who had been drugged and gang raped. are these republican people going to tell these young ladies , no, you must carry that child

to term? what is with them? in my state we have a huge republican majority legislature, and have for many years. but, these people who are the right to lifers who chant "abortion is bad, abortion is bad," they don't take into consideration in our own state that we have among the highest rate of child poverty, child abuse, child teen pregnancy, foster parent abuse of foster children. so, it's hard for me to understand how they can parrot right to life, right to life, but not care for a child after it is born. host: rapid city, michigan, good

morning. caller: good morning, pedro. it would have been nice if you would have picked senator gillibrand. the bill to codify roe goes far beyond that. hello? host: go ahead, jeff. you said it actually? caller: sorry. it actually takes it right up until the moment of birth. we are going to do dismemberment abortions. you did not highlight that at all. you just made it seem like this was going to come off as roe v. wade. the other thing, this last woman who spoke, and i hear this all the time because i'm one of the people who are out there. we pray for people to have good, moral decisions. at the end of the day i hear this argument all the time. the choice is, we have a problem

with child poverty, let's murder our children, because that is the answer from the pro-death democrats. host: jeff in michigan. it is the women's health protection act, digging into that legislation. the headline, why democrats are advancing a bill that is almost certain to fail. the legislation the democrats are trying to bring up, the women's health protection act would explicitly give health care providers the right to provide abortion services and their patients the right to obtain them. it goes further than codifying roe v. wade, laying out a lengthy list of prohibitive limits, many of which had been enacted by state effectively putting abortion entirely out of reach. it would bar mandatory ultrasounds, waiting time, and providers of admitting times in local hospitals. also factors deciding if restrictions would infringe on abortion rights, if it increases

the cost of providing or obtaining abortion services, including those associated with travel and taking time off work. if you want to read more on that, the new york times with a long piece digging into the legislation. we are

so don't make a woman have a baby if she or her significant other or doctor decides it's not right for her. we do not use abortion as birth control. that's another radical right. that's another talking point and if they want to have babies will they get the food supplement back in and help us take carry of babies that are supposed to have a raise? i don't think so. you're just going to increase the poverty. it's just crazy. host: that's sherry in wisconsin. a couple minutes before the house comes in at 10:00 a.m. eastern and the senate coming in as well. the vote we've been talking about all morning long mid

afternoon at 3:00 p.m. eastern, also on the c-span networks today, if you're looking for other topics, the secretary of defense, lloyd austin joint chief of staff chairman mark hilly and defense undersecretary michael mccord set to testify today in just about 35 minutes on the pentagon's 2023 budget request and will take questions from the house appropriations defense subcommittee, 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 3 and also online at c-span. org and you can watch full coverage on the free c-span now video app. as we wait for the house to come on this morning we'll keep taking your calls. this is irene from mountaintop, pennsylvania, good morning. caller: good morning. i'd just like to inform everyone that there is a higher court above the supreme court. that higher court has given us a bill of rights and wrongs.

called the 10 commandments. among those commandments is tho shall not kill. abortion is murder. the same god who nipped each and every one of us living, human beings is living unborn babies in their mother's wombs. rejection of god is a bad choice and has consequences, including pandemics, wars, liars, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, nuclear weapons and so forth. host: irene in pennsylvania. this is paul, atlanta, georgia, good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say first of all, i agree with everything everybody is saying about

women's rights and wanted to put my two cents on it because i don't think i have a right to say either way but i saw my sister have full term baby with a spine that was on the outside of its skin and she's a christian and didn't want to have an abortion and had she chose that, chose not to have that abortion, this is what she got, she got a baby with the spine on the outside of the body. also, we want to bring up the fact the 62 million people are babies that were aborted. what about all the people that died from cigarettes and alcohol? so thank you. that's all i want to say. host: patricia, irvine, california, good morning. you're next. caller: good morning. i just want everyone to think really hard that no matter how

ugly abortion is as a concept it's even uglier to use government power to tell women what to do. the chinese government had that power and they made women abort their second and third children for 20-30 years, so if you think the -- if you give the government this kind of power over women's bodies is a good thing, you're not thinking of the long game but it makes me just crazy to think about how this power can be used for wrong no matter how much good you think you're doing for babies. thank you. host: nancy here in washington, d.c. as we wait for the house to come in, go ahead. caller: the law of the land in roe v. wade, it was come to by a very fair majority comprised of republicans and democrats who thought about the issue

carefully. this is not an easy decision come to by anyone. what they understood is to take away women's rights in this day and age was unconstitutional. you're taking away a woman's right. host: nancy, we'll have to end it there because the house is coming in for the morning gaveling in just a few moments here and we'll be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. earnings 4:00 a.m. pacific and take you live to the floor of the house of representatives. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] susan k. delbene to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 10, 2022, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour