joining us will be the president of and zach smith of the heritage foundation. host: good morning it is saturday june 25, 2022. yesterday the supreme court overturned roe v. wade. saying that the constitution does not confirm the right of an abortion. we are asking you for your reaction to the supreme court ruling. give us a call on our lines assigned by party affiliation republicans (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000

independents (202) 748-8002. you can send us a text at (202) 748-8003, the surest to send us your first name, city and state. you can send us a tweet at http://twitter.com/cspanwj. what you saw on your screen was a live look at the supreme court building. we will be keeping an ion that through this morning. before we get to your calls i want to show you the headlines and hear reactions from president biden. take a look at the first page of the new york times. roe overturned. the subheading is from the majority opinion from justice samuel alito, we hold that the constitution does not confer the

right to an abortion. roe and casey must be overturned and the decision must be turned back to the people. the article goes on to say that bands in at least eight states swiftly took effect after they enacted rules to into the practice if they chose to do so. let's take a look at president haydn's reaction yesterday of what he plans to do. >> and fall, personal freedom is on the ballot, the right to privacy, until then, i will do all in my power to ensure a woman's rights.

the court's decision casts a large shadow, many states in this country still recognize a woman's right to choose. so, if a woman lives in a state that restricts abortion, the supreme court's does not forbid her to travel from her home state to a state that allows it. it does not prevent a doctor in that state from treating her. the attorney general has remained clear that women must remain free to seek care in another state. my administration will defend that bed rock right. many state officials who tries to interfere with the woman who exercises her right to travel, i will defend her right against

that attack. i will protect medications like contraception which is essential for preventative health care. milfesprestone that is used to treat miscarriages. some states said they will try to restrict or ban these medications. two extremist governors who are looking to ban the mail search medicine cabinets or tracking data on her apps, they are wrong and out of touch with the majority of americans. american medical association, the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists wrote to me and vice president

harris said these laws are not based on evidence and asked us to protect access to care. by eliminating access to these medicines, maternal mortality will climb. that is what they said. i am directing the department of health and human services to take steps to ensure these critical medications are critical to the furthest extent possible. to the politicians -- so politicians cannot interfere with the decisions between a woman and her doctor. host: we are asking your opinion about that decision of the supreme court overturning roe v. wade. take a look here, this is the headline from the washington post this morning.

it says that roe v. wade is struck down and conservatives ignore public opinion. it says the court rejected roe v. wade of 49-year-old opinion after paul say that a majority of americans supported that opinion after striking down a new york opinion on concealed weapons supported by 90% of new yorkers. samuel alito written that the court should consider the public will. what do you think about that in the supreme court ruling overturning roe v. wade. we will go first to dwight on the independent line in california. caller: it is a pleasure to speak with you i have not called and since you came on board, so

welcome. my name is dwight, i am a baby boomer. i remember when roe v. wade became the law of the land. it was just as divided as it is today. the republicans were doing well in these upcoming elections but this decision will derail them. it is a woman's issue. these supreme court justices, when you have something for almost 50 years and it is taken from you, this will not stop.

host: you are an independent, will this affect your vote? caller: i am an independent but i am looking at the economy. with everything going up like food prices, but i have a wife and three daughters and and it s me leaning one way because it really might because this will not be the end of it with the supreme court. these women will not go away and as judge thomas said, there are other things they are coming after as well with the lgbtq community, this will start a snowball.

in these young kids, they will not tolerate this. thank you for listening. host: roseann is next on the democrat line from pennsylvania. caller: i am not so good. i grew up when this came into law and as a young girl, before i was married i used prophylactics and they broke. i could have been pregnant at any time. i was not ready but i did not get pregnant luckily. roe was the law and it was great. it was my protection. i was not ready to have a child. bringing a child into the world that i could not support. i would've had to be on welfare and all that. my problem is, they took away this from women.

what about the long guns, the ar-15's that killed the children , made the children. they did not take the guns away from crazy people. i think it is a kangaroo court, the supreme court. that last minute amy coney barrett should not have been put in. you knew she was this for this. this was all prearranged, i believe. host: let's talk to david in riverside, california on the republican line. caller: good morning to everybody. i was born not long after roe v. wade and my mother could have aborted me. we are all former fetuses.

abortion applies to all of us. i waited most of my life for this day because i never knew if this would come. roe v. wade was always alive. it was all wrong. it was never constitutional, it should have been stuck down 50 years ago. this is a great day for republicans, and democrats even if you don't feel it. it is a good day for all former fetuses. you can be discouraged if you are pro-human. it is a victory for all of us and our children, praise the lord our creator we are finally free from roe v. wade. host: let's hear from kevin mccarthy, he is the house minority leader about his reaction to the decision. >> i hope you acknowledge

everybody who is sitting at home. saying the exact same words. today the supreme court decision is the most important pro-life ruling in american history. by ruling of 6-3 that the power to protect unborn life is given back to the people. the right to life has been vindicated. the voiceless will finally have a voice. this great nation can now lived up to its core principle that all people are created equal. americans celebrate this historic victory because it will save the lives of millions of

children. as encouraging as today's decision is, americans remain one of seven countries on earth that allow elective abortions of the third trimesters. the two of those countries are china and north korea. every house democrat has voted for extreme policies, taxpayer-funded abortion on demand. the democrats radical agenda does not have america's values. the supreme court was not

bullied by the far left mob. threats of violence against the justices did not win. the truth is, pro-life americans are not planning a night of rage. the reaction to this principle decision in the doj must step up to protect their justices, their families, churches and pro-life pregnancy centers from unprovoked violence. to the doj, do not be weak. do not stand back and uphold the rule of law. we live in a country that is based on the dignity of all human life. host: that was republican minority leader kevin mccarthy talking about the decision of

overturning roe v. wade, you can look at the screen that is a live look of the supreme court building right now. everything is quiet, it is still early in washington dc. we are taking your calls and asking your opinions. i also want to show you a few more headlines. it is on the front page of a lot of different papers. here is the washington journal, roe v. wade overturned and this said the decision marks combination of long conservative push. it says this, the overruling of roe v. wade was 50 years in the making of combination of a conservative movement that rejected the constitutional right underpinning that decision. it took far longer than conservatives expected.

it declared that roe had no basis in the constitution. let's hear next from robert in maryland on the independent line. caller: nowhere in the constitution is abortion mention. it is not a civil right, it is not there. the supreme court does not legislate. the building behind you is where the laws come from. the building in that building would like to draw the bill and pass it and make it the law of the land. these politicians are able to do that. they have had the chance to do it for 50 years but they have not done it yet. the original problem was that

the court in 1973, they legislated from the bench. nowhere in the constitution is this in there. abortion is still legal in maryland, d.c. and virginia. i don't understand what everybody is complaining about. it is not in the constitution and the media needs to stop saying that we are a democracy. we are not a democracy. this country is a representative democracy. understand your history and your government, what the laws require, how bills are made and passed and what the course responsibility is. there was never a law passed by congress that legalized abortion in the united states. it was never done. host: let's go next to margaret

in salem on the democrats line. caller: i don't understand why people are so upset. the supreme court did not outlaw abortion. they sent the decision back to the states so that we the people make the decisions. ruth ginsburg said that she did not believe roe was appropriate and it would not stand. president biden if you look at your history said that abortion is a tragedy. i don't understand it. i don't know why abortion is encouraged. we are one of the very few countries that support abortion. perhaps people should view what

late term abortion looks like, i am sure they would be appalled and understand it should not be allowed. host: abortion has been outlawed in some states. this shows a map of the united states, the different colors. the lavender color is where it is legal and likely be protected. however, if you look at these darker states including alabama, kentucky, missouri and south dakota, that is where abortion is in fact they end currently in this lightly lightly color, these are states where abortion will likely be banned within one month and then you have these last few states where there will likely be a ban on abortion. we are looking about half of the united states abortion --

banning abortion due to this decision. jerry is next on the republican line. jerry, are you there? caller: hi how are you this morning? host: good, what you think jerry? caller: i don't believe that the supreme court overturned roe v. wade. what they did was turn it to the states, each state has the right to make its decision. it allows each state to make that decision for the people in that state. just because people one state want to do something like that doesn't mean another state has

to do that. let's take oregon for example, oregon legalized marijuana but then they left it to each county if they wanted marijuana in that state. host: on abortion, half of the united states abortion will be illegal. what do you think of that? the right to have an abortion has been overturned as of yesterday. jerry? caller: you still have the right to have an abortion just not necessarily in that state that feels that way. host: but what about women that can't travel to another state? caller: what happens if i can't

travel because i live on disability and i can afford to travel to have a heart surgery done. are you you gonna step up and pay for that? that is my decision of my choice in that is something i have to, with an pay for. it is not something that everyone in the country has to pay for an abortion. host: let's talk to michael in connecticut on the independent line. caller: that clip from mccarthy, really. abortion on demand, late term abortion. late term abortions are done when something is terribly wrong with the woman, terribly wrong with the child. it is not done when you are nine months pregnant and you just want to have an abortion. this is total insanity.

the supreme court justices who all proclaim that this was settled obviously lied to everybody. the only truths we got out of justice kavanaugh was that he loves beer. for all of these people that say we love the kids. then let's take away the gun laws. these people let these kids get shot. all of these states that ban abortion, they are the poorest states in the country. what will they do with all of these new kids? the social services that they have for these kids are horrible. it is a horrible decision. these states think they are holier than thou, and one judge that wants to get rid of contraceptives.

some women take contraceptives just to keep them alive, they need that medicine. are they going to go after condoms next? is that going to be illegal? host: you mentioned justice kavanaugh and there is an article here in the washington post about that. it says for susan collins the decision is a betrayal by justice kavanaugh. during a two-hour meeting with the supreme court nominee in 2018 susan collins pressed him hard on why she should trust him not to turn roe v. wade if she backed his confirmation and he worked vigorously to reassure her that she was no threat to the ruling he said that i understand precendent in the problems with overturning it. let's speak with melissa in

tennessee on the democrat line. caller: let me remind the caller from michigan who was talking about abortion that is done by the constitution. i have never felt so much open hatred for my existence than i did yesterday. this is not about life or protecting the unborn, this is a group of angry, bitter people who are upset that the former guy lost an election and the two of january 6 did not work.

so they will punish anyone who did not vote for their guy. so they are telling women, your rights are what they say they are, the 19th amendment might be next. they are targeting contraception, marriage equality, sex. host: let's talk to steve in san jose, california on the republican line. caller: this is a perfect example of what the republicans have been complaining about for many years and that the supreme

court was formed to interpret law and not to make law. the 73 roe v. wade should never have been decided to make law. there is an amendment to the constitution that states, and i will paraphrase, that if the u.s. constitution does not specifically talk about it that particular issue is reserved for the states and i believe in voting. host: let me ask you, one of the callers mentioned interracial marriage, that is also not in the constitution. at one time that was illegal,

what you think about that? caller: i am not prepared to answer that, i will only talk about the issue that is before us now. we can take that on at a later date. host: i don't mean to say what you think about interracial marriage i only need to say that it is not mentioned in the constitution. caller: personally, i believe in racial marriages. there is no doubt about it. i don't have a problem with it. host: nancy is next in louisiana on the independent line. caller: this is nancy and i would like to set aside the abortion issue. roe v. wade, i remember the back

alley abortions with coat hangers that killed women. what are you going to do with x topic pregnancy, will you let both the woman and the child died? this rule would put the doctor in jail, but that kills the mother. this issue is about women. it is not about men. women have the right, we fought for our rights. we are qualified to make decisions about our lives. we are qualified to make our appointments with whatever doctor we want. when you are going to take away

a settled law, you can't do that. to every republican, democrat, independent person in the united states of america, we are not a country that is ruled by our state, we do have laws for our country which you should abide by. to go in and remove a settled law over 50 years, that is between a doctor who could be a fertility specialist and when they help women have babies, i don't think most people even know about fertility specialist. host: take a look at this article, this is in yahoo! finance, disney and other

companies offer abortion travel offers, they will cover employees expenses if they have to travel for abortion services after the u.s. supreme court overturned road v wade. let's talk to sean who is calling from union, new jersey on the democrats line. caller: i am for roe v. wade. this is what i want to say to the democrats, they do not care. they really don't care. you brought up the fact of the loving versus virginia case. senator mike braun said we have to revisit that. this is not just about roe, it is about the past 50 years and

how society has been changed because of what happened during the civil rights era. they always talk about civil war and this is the first hit. roe v. wade should have stood. women should have the right to choose their own destiny, but they do not want you to have your own destiny. they are going to lie to you to justify everything they have done. we have them on video saying that this was settled law. i don't know if it takes in and an anvil dropping on democrats head, they do not care. host: let's take a look at nancy pelosi was talking about the

precedent. >> they ended a constitutional right. today was historic and that it had not recognize a constitutional right and reversed it. how about those justices coming before senators and saying that they respected stare decisis in the right to privacy in the united states? did you hear that? were they not telling the truth,

then? host: that was the speaker of the house talking about precedent and overturning roe v. wade. we are taking your calls and asking you what you think about that. let's talk next to joanne from nevada. caller: hi, how are you doing this morning and welcome to the show. nancy pelosi should spit out her gum and make a law if it is so important to her. if it is so important to her, she is on vacation. come back and help women. we have women in our county and they go to mexico to get there teeth done.

they can't travel to the next state to get an abortion? host: what about women that don't have the money to travel to different states? caller: go on the gofundme page. they find it for their teeth. are you kidding me? do you think women are stupid out here? abortions are done with a pill. you can check it online. host: but you know that could also become illegal, medication abortion? host: an clarence thomas is going to have to divorce his wife because they will go after interracial marriages. use your head. host: let's take a look at this

from reuters, can abortion pills overcome state bands? following the supreme court's decision eliminating the nationwide right that is been recognized for 50 years. the demand for prescription pills will likely rise however, medication abortion will not offer a way for most women to avoid abortion restrictions passed in most states. let's talk to eva and the louisiana on the democrats line. caller: i am very disturbed by the ruling yesterday. i am pro-choice, i have always been. i am well past childbearing age but my concern is that this is the beginning and they are very open about as they are talking about other issues that they are

looking to change or ban and you mentioned one of the arguments that mentioned interracial marriage. i have a son married to a black woman, happily married i might say. it is not just roe v. wade, it is our personal rights that are being affected. this is the beginning. i want people to think about what is happening. it is not just this issue, it is our rights issue and they are dismantling it one by one. that actually scares me about our country in general. it scares me that the supreme court is now making decisions that affect lives all across the country. host: several people of said that congress should put it into legislation.

yesterday, washington state representative kathy rogers was praising the scotus decision and attacked democrats legislation. >> i thank god for this day, he is the giver of life. i ask for the next 50 years and beyond, how will be defined the greatest human rights issue of our history. it marks a chance for us to restore hope and healing to every family in this country. moms, children at every stage of life. let it begin with everyone of us to do our part to protect and celebrate all life in this great experiment of self-governance the world has ever known. however, nancy pelosi and the

democrats are forcing an extreme legislation on america. it would make america as radical as china and north korea. it overrides state laws that protect women from perversion. there is no version that celebrates the dignity of every life. i think of my friend chloe, she is a beautiful, smart young lady with down syndrome and it 18, she has spoken and told the world, don't erase down syndrome. she has passed laws at the state level that when parents received that prenatal diagnosis of down syndrome that they would get

accurate information about the potential of that life. democrats want to eliminate laws like chloe's. we have to stand together and say enough. the court confirmed today, that every life has dignity. i hope that we reclaim our identity as a nation that our god given rights as life, liberty and justice for all. host: let's go to seattle on the independent line and talk to judy. caller: first of all good morning. whether you are delighted or depressed over this decision you are overreacting. it sent to back to the states. this was never a federal issue, this was never a law. this was a decision by an

activist court who should not be making decisions, they interpret laws. they do not make laws. that is basically what happened with the roe v. wade. that is why it was a flawed law. people are conflating the abortion issue with second amendment rights and that is actually in the bill of rights. it was something that was enumerated, stop talking about interracial marriage because they don't talk about straight marriage in the constitution. marriage is not addressed in the constitution in any way. host: you know you were saying

that people are overreacting and i just want to show you this article from the associated press. some u.s. clinics stopped doing abortions. some of those bands took place immediately on friday. they stopped performing abortions for fear of prosecution sending women away in tears. some patients broke down in tears and could not speak through their sobbing. let's take a look at some tweets. this is janet in florida who says, is a 73-year-old woman, i remember when abortion is illegal. it will be ugly again, girls and women will die seeking to end unwanted pregnancy. i would not want to be a woman of child bearing age today.

a forced pregnancy could ruin your life. here is another one, anyone who thinks this decision only affects abortion is misguided. if the 14th amendment does not give us the right to privacy, birth control, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage or next. here is lynn who says, if your neighbor has an abortion tomorrow, how would that affect you? will you even know or care? all i hear from antiabortion people say there will be more babies to adopt? what about all these kids in foster homes? in the next one, what will the desperately poor and minority women do without reproductive care, they will resort to wire hangers. women are not equal citizens anymore.

i think that is all the tweets we have gotten. let's talk to rudy in sun city, california on the democrats line. caller: it is a sad day for the women of this country. they are being bounced around like ping-pong balls by the men. the women really need to wake up and look at your rights that will slowly be taken away by men. by the way, i am in an interracial marriage, i have biracial children. you won't see clarence thomas fighting about that. they will pick and choose on what they want to do, gay

marriage and certain other decisions. even civil rights, people may think civil rights only apply to minorities, they are for everybody. when they start attacking that, some people will wake up to the judges on the supreme court now. thank you very much. host: mike is next from wisconsin on the republican line. caller: i have been a longtime watcher, one thing i listen to our women, especially sandra day o'connor made a comment when she was asked about roe and she said it was bad law and glass and was

distant from her because she said it was bad law. i am hoping that if there is going to be a lot done, it will be done better versus the one controversy a way that it is been done in the last 50 years. host: how would it be better in your opinion? caller: i don't have solutions like that different areas of the

country if ruth ginsburg and sandra day o'connor said it was bad law, these are two women that i have always respected in terms of their intellect, i don't have enough knowledge to talk on that. host: the supreme court overturned fundamental rights to abortion established 40 years ago. roe was egregiously wrong from the start the reasoning was weak. that was from the opinion from samuel alito.

john roberts junior did not join the opinion and criticized his conservative colleagues for taking the additional steps for overturning roe v. wade. let's talk to diane next in arkansas on the republican line. caller: hi, good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would just like to say that i am glad to see it go back to the states. the supreme is not supposed to make laws as opposed to interpret the constitution. in other states, when you live in states you have the right to choose your legislatures. i vote for people that i hope

represent my beliefs. that is why a vote for them. we don't tell the truth in this nation. we try to spread a lot of hysteria, like it is all being ended. it is not being ended, it is going back to the states. in 2019, there were 290,000 abortions in the united states. 290,000, that it is an enormous number. host: let's talk to roman on the independent line in flagstaff, arizona. caller: can you hear me? host: can you imbue your tv?

-- mute your tv? caller: i am calling and because i am very upset about this decision by the supreme court. i don't think it hysteria or overreaction. i think the justices that made it possible, when they were misleading when they were being questioned by congress. there are plenty of things the constitution that did not promise people. there have been plenty of changes in society, including technology. thousands of things that the founders could not have even

dreamed of. i am very unhappy about it. i feel robbed. i am old enough to remember when women died having illegal abortions. a lot of the time they are young and naive and they don't know how to protect themselves. i think that law was made for good reasons but people don't remember those reasons. host: yesterday, the president spoke about the decision. he warned against any violence and called for peaceful protest. here it is. >> let me close with two points, first, i call on everyone no matter how deeply they care about this decision to keep all

protests people. peaceful, peaceful, peaceful, no intimidation. violence is never acceptable. threats and intimidation are not speech. we must stand against violence in every form regardless of your rationale. second, i know so many of us are frustrated that the court has taken away something so fundamental. i know so many women are going to face difficult situations. i hear you, i support you, i stand with you. the consequences and the consensus of the american people , core principles of equality, liberty, dignity and the stability of the rule of law demand that roe should not have

been overturned but this decision of the conservative supreme court shows how extreme it is and how removed they are from the majority of this country. it made the united states and outlier among the developed nations of the world. my administration believes and will use all of its power, congress must act. with your vote, you can act and have the final word. this is not over. host: the president saying it is not over. he called on congress to act, urging everyone to have a voice. let's talk next to carol in missouri on the democrats line. caller: we are all losers today.

there is no left or right. what are the men going to give up? are they allowed to have that sector mise? can women make men get that sector mise? - vasectomies? when this is stopped? when will they start putting women in jail when they start having abortions? what if they slip and fall and accidentally lose their child? where is the beginning, where is the end? host: joe is on the republican

line in augustine, west virginia. caller: i have been through the abortion mills and this was a long time ago and it was my first has been who encouraged that. it was the worst decision i ever made in my entire life. the doctor that he took me to assured me that there was nothing but tissues but it was not until i went to a women's meeting and saw the images that i could see they were lying to me and i was horrified. in 1972, i spoke on the floor the legislature and said we have a right to this. i did not know squat. my daughter that i finally had was the best thing that ever

happened to me. i was a single mother, i had gone through divorce. i did not have money, but she was the best thing that ever happened to me. she made me determined that i would make a life for her. roe was not even thought of by the founding fathers. the thought of murdering babies as a fundamental right? some people need to go back and find the speech by abraham lincoln at the end of the 1850's. he cited the founders and went back to the intention of the founders and what a lot of people don't know, these people were extremely intelligent. where they perfect? absolutely not. but they were extremely

intelligent. they had been through a government in england that kept them from their fundamental rights which were life, liberty and pursuit of happiness without the burdens of supporting the government that they did not agree with. we are just accommodating the flesh. host: alex is in ohio on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i was listening to all the different comments and a couple of people have put religion into this, it should not be a religious thing. if you think about it, it was just last week that the supreme court or just ohio that said it was ok for public school kids that vouchers could get --

public schools could get vouchers to go to religious schools. religions getting put into government is not a good thing, there should be a separation there. this is a woman's choice with her husband or the father of the child. religious people should not be involved. it should be the husband, mother and the doctor. anyway, i believe roe v. wade was the precendent, not a law. host: it was the law of the land and it was a precedent. let's talk to landon, he will be

our last call from richmond, virginia on a republican line. caller: i was listening to what many people were saying but a lot of them are talking about founding fathers. they came up with laws that said you did not mix cultures, like segregation laws. they talk about the health of the woman. how about lobotomy? what they would do they would

work on a prisoners brain, if a woman was having children indiscriminately, where a black woman had all white children. they would have operated on this woman, and given her a lobotomy, but particular stop there. when you start talking about the health of a woman, that is what we should be discussing. host: we are running low on time. that brings us to the end of the segment. you're talking about the supreme court overturning roe v. wade throughout this program. there will be more opportunities to call in, and share your opinions and thoughts on that decision. up next, the constitutional accountability center's

elizabeth, and the heritage foundation's sack smith did they will discuss the decision to overturn roe v. wade. we will be right back. ♪ >> tv -- every sunday on c-span two, featuring authors discussing their nonfiction books. at 2 p.m., watch the san antonio book festival, with a former texas congressman on his latest book, american reboot. he argues that america needs a reboot to address the challenges of the 20th century. thoughts on how to move the country forward. at 10 p.m. eastern, democratic georgia senator rafael warnock will talk about his new book, a way out. his life, faith, and political journey. he is joined by a democratic congressman. watch book tv on c-span two.

and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online, any time at book tv.org. >> live, sunday july 3, in-depth. every university professor will be a guest to talk about race in america, voting rights, and gun regulation. she is the author of several books, including one person, no vote. it is about the history and impact of the second amendment. join in the conversation with your conversation, text, and tweets. in-depth, july third, with carol anderson. book tv on c-span two. >> there are a lot of places to get political information. only at c-span do you get it straight from the source.

no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered, by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. i am joined now by elizabeth. she is the president of the constitutional accountability center, exact smith from the -- and zach smith. welcome to both of you. thank you for joining us. guest: good morning. host: i wanted to start with you, elizabeth. i wanted to ask your reactions. it was not a surprise. it was leaked last month.

what do you think? guest: the court felt the constitution egregiously wrong. the majority opinion by justice alito is a view of liberty and equality that is to me, as a scholar of the constitution, bears no resemblance to the amended constitution that was taken by generations of activists, americans, over time, amended to make it more inclusive and more just, more equitable. or free. it is a crucial part of constitutional progress. the 14th amendment guarantees the equal protection of the law, due process of law, liberty. these sweeping rights were put into place at a time when the nation was, after the civil war, deeply struggling with the question for legal purposes of what it meant to be free. the broad section of liberty were intended to answer that.

the drafters of the 14th amendment looked at what it would mean to protect freedom. they were thinking about people who had released a bond of enslavement, people who had been enslaved, and now are enjoying freedom as americans. what it would mean to be free. there was a minimum of liberty and included rights that were really denied during slavery. they made decisions about one's body, crucially. to make decisions for oneself about one's family. again, right that was brutally denied under slavery. when we talk about equality of liberty in that regard, equal liberty in the constitution, a lot of people say the fourth amendment, i'm sure we will talk about it later, but that's not how it works. the words liberty are in the constitution, and when we look at what they meant, what it meant to be free, as i think americans know, one cannot show

up in a free or equal member of society if one cannot make for oneself the most personal, most basic decision about one's own body, and whether to bring a pregnancy to term. whether to become a parent. i think the court got the constitution completely wrong. it left out the interest of women. it was shocking, and i think this day, this ruling, will eventually be overturned. it is brown versus board of education. reversing the separate but equal plessy versus ferguson decision. i think this is exactly the opposite. host: it will show that. host:host: let's see what zach thinks. guest: i have to disagree with most of what she said. she is exactly right about one thing. the word fortune is not found in the constitution.

we are applying other constitutional provisions like the equal protection clause of the 14th them,, how can courts decide whether rights are fundamental and protected in the 14th amendment or other constitutional provisions? as laid out in the majority opinion, we look to whether those rights are implicit in the concept of liberty of our nation. whether they have deep historical roots. then we proceed to go through the history of abortion in the united states. prior to 1973, roe v. wade came down. there was not a long historical tradition of states protecting abortion. in fact many states, up until the day rosenstein -- roe was decided, they actively discourage abortion in their states. justice alito, this widely decided -- has widely decided that abortion is not a fundamental right found in the

text of the constitution and could not be brought into these other constitutional provisions such as the equal protection clause. i think it is important to understand what this decision, which overturns roe v. wade and plan parenthood dies. it is not immediately criminalize all abortions throughout the united states. it simply returns the issue back to the people's elective representatives in the state legislatures, which is where this question resided for most of our nations history up until the court took it out of the vocal process in 1973. host: i want to remind people that if they want to talk to our guest, you can feel free to give us a call on the lines republicans can call (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. in independence, (202) 748-8002.

we are talking about the decision to overturn roe v. wade. i want to ask about enforcement. how would this be enforced, and how does the united states -- the laws are already illegal to get an abortion in some states, it is expected within the month. how would they be enforced? guest: that is the question. when states have the ability to ban abortion under any circumstances, there are not limits in the majority opinion about criminalization. it is up to the states, but that is cold comfort to the millions of people across the country who can become pregnant and be sent to jail for an abortion. under this opinion, apparently, it could come and eyes abortion. some states already have laws that would give respect to the

provider, and worryingly, potentially with the person, accessing abortion. there are also questions noted about what this means for the ability of people to cross state lines and access abortion. the constitution protects interstate travel. when it runs up against this decision, how will the court decide. that is a major constitutional conflict, and the attorney general has come up to say that the federal government will protect the constitutional interest in interstate travel. there are questions about enforcement, but we know that people across the country will experience a patchwork of rights when it comes to their reproductive autonomy. the burden of that, we know, will fall on the most vulnerable people. those who do not have financial resources, who might be in a situation where it is difficult

to access abortion and other areas, and take time off to do so. simply not having that choice. that is not the way constitutional rights are supposed to work. it is going to cause great chaos and pain across the nation. host: zach, your views on enforcement? would it be doctors, facilities, women themselves? what are your thoughts smart --? guest: it goes back to the women. do they want to prohibit abortions in their states, do they want to prohibit growth issues? this is how many issues work in our society. we have a federal system of government with the federal government sitting in washington dc, and a 50 state government in the united states which decides many issues that greatly affect everyday lives, for many

americans. with that respect, this issue would be noted different. it is important to emphasize that what the court was being asked to decide in this case was not the morality of abortion, not whether abortion is sound as a policy decision. it was being asked to decide what the constitution says about abortion. in that context, the court got it exactly right. the constitution does not require states to allow abortion on demand as was the regime under roe v. wade and planned parenthood versus casey. host: a lot of people want to talk to you and ask questions. let's start with janet in louisiana on the republican line. caller: good morning. don't you think that the female, the government or the child, should not be the only ones who pay?

it seems to me that the males and females should be taught by parents, doctors, teachers, how to keep from getting pregnant, don't you think? host: elizabeth? guest: there are a lot of ways across this country that we should improve the care for people who become pregnant in terms of, you talk about education, and also health care. many other provisions. they would support parents and families, and the economic impact of this ruling, while i think primarily the impact is on the lives of the people who might be forced to continue pregnancy, they don't want to continue, or cannot continue because of health reasons. that is primarily the virgin -- burden, but there are ripple effects. many women have been able to

have full economic participation in society because they have been able to control reproduction. that is one of the underlying bases for the many decisions that affirmed those rulings, as well as the rights of people to access contraception. the ripple effect of this ruling it will be great, in addition to the earthshaking impact that it has on the millions of people across the country who are impacted by the courts failure to protect the right of protective autonomy. host: james is next in north carolina. hello. caller: how are you? this is my question to zach. the justices all say they believe this is decisive. they believe a set of laws is a set of laws. if you're going to change the law? every time we get a democrat or

republican president who puts more people in the seat, the law does not become a law. it just becomes a form of legislation. you have to keep changing the law. they didn't make a minor change. they made a dramatic change in the law. the democrats, they can make sure that they put enough supreme court justices on it to overrule it. the supreme court has no more legitimacy to me, at least, and one more thing. it seems like all of the justices and the people who are fighting roe v. wade, they are called yuppies. they have problems with women. even alito has that look. host: let's get a response. guest: it is overturning

president, and it is a great question. there is nothing unusual about the supreme court revisiting and overturning a previous decision. it is something that has been done over 200 times throughout its history. in recent years, it has overturned past precedents about twice a term on average. it is important that a court has the ability to revisit a prior decision. as you said, it is not something the court should do lightly. there is a series of factors that the court considers when deciding to overturn a prior precedent. but just to give a practical example, if the court did not have the ability to go back and reevaluate its prior decision and overturned them, plessy versus ferguson, which upheld the various important doctrines of separate but equal, would still be good law. fortunately, the support that supreme court revisited that, and realized it was agreed justly wrong and overturned it.

in that sense, there is nothing inappropriate or wrong about the justices going back and making sure that they got the law and the constitution exactly right. host: you work in the brassica is next on the republican line. -- york in nebraska is next on the republican line. hello? are you there? go ahead. caller: [indiscernible] what do these speakers think about the overall concept of the constitution. i feel the overall concept is equal opportunity when it comes to the pursuit of happiness. [indiscernible] i apologize if i am misquoting,

but the content -- concept is each state feels like their individual challenges are united under the idea that everyone has equal opportunity, or if you want [indiscernible] which group of people can or cannot have access to equal opportunities. i will tell you why. host: elizabeth. guest: it's an interesting question, and when it comes to the fundamental rights, it was to recognize that certain rights were so essential to liberty and equality that they must be protected in every state that everyone has equal opportunity

to exercise those constitutional rights because they are so inherent to the idea of freedom and equality and liberty. so, we have certain enumerated rights. those are rights explicitly listed in the constitution like the first amendment, and we talk about free speech, or the freedom to exercise one's own religion. then we have unenumerated rights. there are obviously the ninth amendment which explicitly protects unenumerated rights the way it sounds. the drafters of the constitution to the thor so many rights that were part of the idea of liberty and freedom and equality that to name some of them could mean that others would not be protected, so they did not want to create an exhaustive list of rights. that is why it is a matter of constitutional interpretation to say that abortion is not in there, it is not protected. you look to see if a right is textually protected, but even if

it is not listed, you go through an additional step of whether or not that right is protected as an unenumerated right. if a right is so fundamental to liberty or equality that it falls under the constitutional rights protected across the country, absolutely. the idea that the niceties of america -- the united states of america would tech people equally, it is a citizenship stature. justice ginsburg very powerfully rooted the right to abortion, among other places in the constitution. the right to abortion, its critics say it is not rooted in the constitution. it is rooted in many different concepts. justice ginsburg rooted it very strongly in the idea of equal citizenship, and the idea that one cannot come to the public square, one cannot experience life in america if one does not have the ability to make decisions for oneself about one's own body.

that is the most personal decision about whether to carry a pregnancy to term. that is part of the problem here. what we are experiencing now, because of the decision overruling roe, is that we have a patchwork of rights where people can exercise that based on their zip code, based on their financial means, and their ability to travel to another state where they can access rights. that is not the way constitutional rights are supposed to work. guest: if i could jump in quickly. because of elizabeth, she brings up a great point. abortion is not in the text of the constitution, but the question then becomes how do we decide what those other two fundamental on enumerated rights are that are protected by the constitution? justice alito said in this opinion, what the court has said in previous opinions, particularly in another case, is that those enumerated rights are

fundamental, and they have to be inherent to a concept of ordered liberty and have historical tradition within our country. based on that, the right to abortion does not have a deep historical tradition in our country prior to roe v. wade in 1973. it was controversial before roe and it remains controversial since roe. since that, it would not be protected as an unenumerated right under our constitution. elizabeth also mentioned ruth bader ginsburg. justice ginsburg and many other liberal law professors and legal commentators who may have preferred abortion as a policy preference, recognized that roe v. wade was a very problematic decision from a constitutional standpoint because the court essentially enacted its own policy preferences without routing this new right to abortion in any constitutional

provision. guest: this is been a talking point from those who oppose abortion, and it is absently wrong. she is not here to defend herself. the point about roe is that it needed to be expansively rooted in the constitution. when i say the word abortion is in the con for duchenne, i am not saying abortion is not protected by the constitution. it absolutely is. similarly, justice ginsburg absolutely thought that abortion was protected by the constitution. she rooted it in ideas of privacy where roe v. wade rooted that right, she also rooted in the idea of equality under equal protection as well as the idea of equal citizenship in the claws of the 14th amend it. she also rooted in precedent that remains with bodily integrity. the ability to control one's own

body, as well as the unenumerated rights and decisions to protect family life, including procreation, intimacy, and broader questions about child rearing. justice ginsburg's criticism that all of these opponents bring up is simply a broad described right to abortion. it was now that she thought abortion was not a right. i have to step in to defend her on that. guest: even if we agree with justice ginsburg, john hart healy criticized road that while it might have been active, if you as a legislature, roe v. wade was not a constitutional decision. it really made no attempt to even be one. again, even folks on the left who made favor abortion may recognize that roe is constitutionally flawed. guest: that's not how it works. host: let's talk to our callers.

barry is in california on the independent line. hello. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: first of all, i want to talk about not all this legal stuff, in something more personal. we had an abortion when i was young, my wife did. when i got older, we had a child. he died. we don't have anybody. so, it was not my decision to have the abortion, so i guess i

don't have many rights as far as that goes. host: i'm sorry for over -- for your loss. let's get a response on the rights of fathers. what are your thoughts, elizabeth? guest: i want to say that i am very sorry for the callers loss, and i think that what his story demonstrates is that these are options, heartrending decisions, they are very personal decisions, and they are decisions that should be made with a pregnant person's family, their doctor, their god. if they believe. these are not decisions, these types of deaths -- sensitive decisions affect our lives and that personal decision of having children should be made by the

individual in that constellation of the people who are directly affected. it is not a decision for the government to make, whether it is a state or federal government. just as you would not want the government not telling us when we can't have a child, you would not want the government to tell us that we must have a child to endure a force pregnancy. -- forced pregnancy. again, i am very sorry for your losses. it is a very personal decision that should be made by the families themselves and not the government, one way or another. host: let's go to the democrat line, frank in georgia. hello. caller: i would like zach to be totally candid about the heritage foundation's role in the selection of the justices that made this decision, both the foundation and the donors

who also donate to other organizations who essentially sponsor -- have to be sponsors of appointees of anybody who is appointed by republicans. please tell the truth about that. host: sac. -- zach. guest: many of the justices currently on the board do have an original perspective on the constitution which simply means that they believe that the constitution should be interpreted based on the history and structure of the document. judges do not have a blank slate to simply impose their own preferred policies under the guise of constitutional interpretation. to that extent, i think it is a good thing that many of the justices on the court, some of the trump appointees but also earlier appointees such as samuel alito and parents thomas,

they also hold the same view. they are a very good thing. as it impacts this particular decision, i think we see that coming into play. again, roe v. wade was really an outlier in terms of its constitutional interpretation. it didn't make an attempt to anchor the right to abortion in the text to a particular provision in the text of the constitution. what the justices on the current board are doing, it is they are saying that this is not the job of unelected life tenure justices to impose our preferred policy preferences on the american people. the appropriate entities for these very divisive. personal debates to take place over what is the appropriate policy is with the people's elective representatives in their state legislatures. that is what they decided here.

this issue should go back to the people's elective representatives and their state legislatures. host: all right, patrick in georgia on the republican line. caller: thank you. i was calling about the rights of the father. i was wondering if the father has a right to stop an abortion, if they're willing to take the child. i was wondering what the constitution can be interpreted for the father's rights. host: elizabeth. guest: the right at issue here has to do with the reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity of the parent of the child. theory are the one whose body is going to be carrying the child, and we are talking about the right to abortion or whether someone has a decision to carry a pregnancy to term.

that right lies with the person carrying the pregnancy. host: lee is on the independent line in california. good morning. caller: i just wanted to say, as a country it seems we have become so divided that we make everything a political issue, and i would like to see us come together and agree as a country and have our congresspeople held accountable for making these laws, rather than debating and using the media to fight over these things. i guess that is just a comment and i'd like your opinion on why we are not moving towards that direction, rather than all of this hate in that direction? i will take my answer offline. thank you. host: what do you think? guest: it is an interesting point. part of the backlash to roe v. wade that we've seen since it was enacted was the fact that

this very important, very divisive personal question for many individuals was taken out of the political process. it was essentially a decision forced on all 50 states by the court's decision in roe v. wade. what we are going to see moving forward is that these very important debates are going to continue to happen. whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, you can voice your opinion through the political process. your opinion from your representative. in that sense, i hope the process will play out exactly like it is said, and people will be able to voice their concerns to their elective representatives who will make appropriate policies. host: do you want to respond? guest: there is going to be a great. of uncertainty and the idea that

we have to have these fights in every state, and i think it is only going to make the political heat hire rather than lesser. i just want to get the point that has been raised a few times. the court forcing on all 50 states. when a right is protected by the constitution -- the right to exercise religion or free speech, or the court deciding last week the right to have a gun for self-defense, that constitutional right is forcing all 50 states, but it applies in all 50 states. that is how fundamental all right is. guest: i agree. guest: let me finish. the idea that i come and millions of others across the country have to basically win a town hall about what to do with my uterus is should be protected

by the constitution. guest: i agree with elizabeth completely. when a right is protected by the constitution, it does apply equally to all 50 states. but the question in this case was whether abortion is a right protected by the constitution. what the court appropriately found in this case is that abortion is not a protected right, and it is not found as a test. it is not in the order of liberty. we don't have a history as a country of protecting abortion rights. again, when there is a right that is not protected by the constitution, it goes back to the states, back to the political process where those very sensitive and important debates can take place. policy decisions can be reached. host: let's talk to tommy on the democrat line in california. the morning.

-- good morning. caller: good print i am happy to be talking to both of you. what i have heard is that there is no text related to abortion. that is anachronistic, giving that most of the founding fathers had a positive state on abortion. and benjamin franklin's book, he supports that position. i don't find any right in the constitution that covers the right of one person over another person's body. usage of it. i am interested to hear what you have to say about that, and how it extends to other non-enumerated rights, and things like that. just a quick catch-up for those who are looking for think takes on these judges.

focus on the heritage society. host: sackett, you go first. -- zach, you go first. guest: when a right is not enumerated, the question becomes how is it protected. appropriately in this case, the justices look back to our history, our tradition. they look back at common law. traditionally, abortion was criminalized. prior to the enactment of the 14th amendment, many states criminalized abortion. and if they did not criminalize it, they did not take steps to protect it. there is a long history of not occurred during -- encouraging abortion. it is up to the people and their elected representatives in the state legislators to decide what

the appropriate policy should be, and that is exactly what is going to happen in this case, going forward. guest: i would love to weigh in on that. i think, first of all, i don't think that is an accurate description to say that every state prohibited abortion prior. guest: not what i said. guest: let me finish. there were states at the time of the 14th amendment that permitted abortion. but more importantly, the 14th amendment was drafted in the wake of a civil war. when we were breaking with straight -- state traditions, notably slavery, we were instead deciding a new direction. many people call the 14th amendment, as well as the 13th and 15th meant the second founding. that is what it was. we were breaking with an unjust past. we were breaking with an inequitable past. the idea that state history,

that limited equality would be forever placed as a limit on the broad category of equality and liberty that the drafters put into the 14th amendment, in the 14 to mimic, the idea that unjust or inequitable policies in the state would limit those words in the constitution, they wanted to disrupt discriminatory state practices. the way that history has been recognized by the alito majority, it is wrong on the matter of constitutional interpretation and accurate history. host: let's hear from bird in kentucky on the republican line. caller: i'd like to start off by saying that i am against abortion, except in extreme cases such as incessant or the health of the mother and fetus.

you say the poor will be affected more by this decision. i've got an answer. if a poor woman lives in a state where abortions are now illegal, and she needs an abortion, and she doesn't have the money to travel to another state, but the government chip in. use the money, some of the money that the government is using to transport illegal aliens from the southern border to all corners of the country. they can use that bunny, and there would be a lot left over. thank you. host: what do you think? guest: i'm sure that would have a lot of challenges to the plan. in terms of using federal government money. the federal government can take steps to ensure abortion rights, and the way in which you overturn roe to impact the most

vulnerable, it is something that is absolutely crucial to keep in mind. even before roe was overturned, abortion rights for marginalized people in this country were often a luxury because of the access issues. now that is only going to be multiplied by an unknown factor. the federal government can act. i think people who are outraged by this decision and think about some of those steps, and push the government to think about codifying roe into federal law. we can use the enforcement powers of the amendment, including the 14th of mimic, to enact legislation that furthers the polity of liberty, even if the majority of the supreme court will not. certainly, federal legislation declaring that there is a right to protect for people across the

country is one step that can be taken. guest: if i could, quickly. in the power of congress to pass nationwide legislation is clear. congress has said that under the 14th amendment, congress can take appropriate action to enforce rights at that art available to citizens, but they cannot use it to create new rights. there is a question as to whether that would be unappropriate constitution -- that would be an appropriate constitutional basis. the commerce clause would be appropriate. if i could, quickly, i want to go back to the history of abortion. even after the enactment of the 14th amendment, the early 20th century, many states did not favor abortion regulations and acted to prohibit it or discourage it. the first time of a constitutional right to abortion was not floated until the 1950's.

in that sense, the idea that abortion is protective -- protected is somewhat a novel concept when it was first floated in the late 20th century. guest: there are plenty of people who recognize that the right to have a child, whether or not to form a family, and that includes the right to decide not to have a family, there are many people who understood that at the time of the 14th amendment, that included the right to include reproduction rights. it might have been new. some people who had been listening to those voices, they were there. host: let's talk to mathew on the independent line. guest: thank you for taking my call. doctors have to get involved in late stage complicate procedures, whether it is a hemorrhaging woman or a fetal anomaly.

it is a difficult thing for me that the legal detangling for all of these states in which justices go about their lives and do not have to deal with multiple states and localities that will have to consider with medical boards about health care providers from lawsuits that will be generated from these laws that get multiple states. as someone who is taking in of to help people and do so indiscriminately and without judgment, what comes onto my plate if i want to work in a different state, it might become an issue. i have to become a felon because i'm providing medical care, based on how someone interprets the law. to mr. smith, would he discuss justice, it's when he decided to

enumerate all of the other due process cases in terms of what is not expressly written about during the followed being -- founding of the country, and what we recognize as life, liberty, and right to self versus property, and justice alito was the most honest, even though i disagree with his interpretation that he ruled this way because abortion is a moral question. he recognizes other substantive clauses are not. it is because of reality, and because of that religion, and at the end of the day, we have to decide if we want those types of use dictating what we do with our lives, or do we leave it to be a personal decision by the individual. thank you. host: a lot to impact there. guest: i will answer the question about loving versus virginia. the reason that they did not address that, when they assigned

other due process cases, because that was not a due process case. it was the equal protection clause of the constitution. it was correctly decided based on the equal protection clause. what is important to remember is that a lot of folks who are opposed to the decision basically are questioning a host of other decisions that could be implicated or overturned down the road. for a lot of reasons, that is not necessarily true. decisions like loving have a firm potential basis in the constitution. the equal protection clause as we understand it during the ramifications and passage of the 14th amendment in the late 1850's. there are others decisions that may implicate a right to privacy based on substantive due process clauses. they are different from the

abortion context, and even the justices in the majority only recognize that abortion is unique and that there is a potential life in play. because of that, many other decisions are different. they would be considered different in the roe decision. the fact that roe v. wade is unique, the fact that it is another life involved in the abortion decision, that does make it a unique decision in constitutional law, and it would not implicate the other decisions that the caller mentioned as maybe being potentially overturned in the future. guest: first of all, i think the caller describing their experience, and the ways from which there will be crucial questions for health care providers trying to work to save the life and improve the health

of their patient, i think we are in for a lot of unfortunately tragic stories in some respect. when we know abortion is not legal, the death rates go up. there is a bar order -- broader question about what rights are at risk. it is not a parade of horrible from people who disagree with the decision. it is there injustice thomases separate and concurrent, where he says that because of the reasoning, it calls into question the substantive due process doctrine that he and majority defined. there are other cases that should be reconsidered with cases that protect the right to contraception, the cases that protect the right to intimacy. cases that protect marriage equality for lgbtq individuals. i think it is very telling that

there is an effort to say this doesn't impact some of these decisions like loving versus virginia, when they are the constitutionally protected rights to interracial marriage. at the time of 1868, there were many instances in which interracial marriage was prohibited. obviously, a virginia law was overruled -- overruled. it was on the books. the court recognized appropriately that the idea of equality of liberty could not exist with that type of limitations -- and i want to say that there are equal protection arguments that were made in this case that were being ignored by justice alito. he ignored them in his paragraph. host: let's talk to ronnie on the democrats line in new york. hello. caller: how are you? good morning. my question is actually -- i

would like to get your definition of the. now, you mentioned that abortion was not mentioned in the constitution. neither our computers or jets or alternative economies. alternative ways of exchanging monetary purchases and sales. the most important thing in our constitution that i would take up defense against our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness. let's talk and example. a young girl is raped, 14 years old. a father, uncle, stranger. she is raped, 14 years old, and the government in tennessee says you are going to go to jail for 30 years because what you did is

highly illegal. where is her pursuit of happiness? guest: look, that is a tragic story. no doubt about it. it highlights again that these are very difficult questions. very fraud questions. many instances, it is up to the people in each state how they want to resolve these very important questions. you mention life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. that is not found in the constitution. it is found in that declaration of independence. in terms of the other question about how we decide what is protected, if it wasn't in existence at the time of the founding. we have a process for deciding, and it is not that judges are able to create new rights, or they are able to update the constitution. the appropriate way to do that is look at what is protected,

what is the original public meaning of a life at the time of the constitution being passed or the constitution is a -- constitutional moment is past. you apply that to present circumstances. that is very different from justices simply creating a new right out of whole cloth that is not in the constitution or protected by the constitution at the time it happened. host: let's talk to ron in new york on the republican not -- line. caller: my question is in regards to a case that was brought to the court that cause this ruling. if i understand it correctly, the case was brought because there was a limit in mississippi of 15 weeks. is that unreasonable? if we go forward and change or make a new law, what kind of limits should we have?

thank you. guest: the case came to the court, and that folks who brought it explicitly said they did not need to overturn roe v. wade in order to find for the state. yet, the majority decided to do that, and justice roberts noted that he would've upheld mississippi law without overturning roe v. wade. one of the points about why it is an error to overturn roe is that now, as the caller points out, there really aren't limits on what the states can do. roe has a very workable framework, and that is one of the things you consider when you are talking about overturning a right. we are talking a lot about the meaning of the constitution with respect to these rights, and that is an appropriate conversation to have, and it shows how important the right to

abortion is in this concept of freedom and equality. but another incredibly important facet of this case is overturning precedent. it is taking away a right that has been taken for granted by a lot of us for 50 years. when you are deciding to take away a right, which is not been done before. recognizing a crucial write like this and taking it away, but even when you are overturning decisive precedents and other contacts, you go through a process, and one of those is workability of the framework in the case. certainly, there were slight changes made to the framework. that is why if you look carefully at this, it is overturning roe and casey. it articulated a refinement of the ro standard of undue burden on an individual's right to

choose and have productive autonomy. if you look at whether it works, and it generally did, it is hard to talk about this in oral argument about whether there is a workable alternative that balances the right of a pregnant person with the states interest in potential viability. so, you look at that, you look at the divisive contacts for reliance interest. that is a legal term for the ways in which millions of americans have counted on the ability to decide for themselves, questions about their own destinies and reproductive capacity. as well as economic division, professional decisions. there are ways in which millions have relied on the right to articulate -- the right articulated inroad to order their lives. well i think the decision is clearly and egregiously wrong

constitutional interpretation and decision of liberty and equality which i think is unduly cramped and not in any way grounded in our amended constitution, it also is deeply problematic. guest: just a couple quick points. i've heard this talk that a reversal of a right has never happened before in the supreme court's history. a professor at yale law school has written extensively on how that is wrong and in correct -- incorrect as a matter of constitutional law. i would recommend these writings as a subject to the viewers. in terms of whether the law can be upheld without overturning roe v. wade in planned parenthood versus casey, both sides agree that in order for the coat -- court to hold up the band, they would have to overturn roe and casey. even the u.s. government, who opposed the law in this case said that there was no middle

ground. if the court upheld the law, they would have to overturn roe and casey. to the practical matter, the abortion ban is actually more permissive then several western european countries, which implement their band at 12 weeks earlier. there are a lot of considerations here. to say that the cases previously wrong or not mainstream, that is not an accurate description. guest: i totally disagree. you can talk about how something granted has been taken away as a different point as a martial progress. again, it is going from classy to brown and back to plessis. that is a broader point than the argument. it is agree justly wrong from my reading and scholarship of the constitution to deny that right

to make a decision is rooted in bodily autonomy and rooted in the right to make decisions of procreation for once and we, and rooted that one can make control of its own body. the access to citizenship has been so eloquently put forth for oneself. and, as was recognized by the court in other cases that sounded in the constellation of autonomy and heart and home rights. the right to determine one's own place in the world, you cannot control one's own body and you could be subject to forced pregnancy. it is hard to see how egregious it is. that is not a matter of constitutional interpretation. and it is a truth for the majority of americans that want abortion to be legal. while it is true that the supreme court did not follow public sentiment, that public

sentiment reflects a deep and profound truth about the constitution. there is a quality and freedom required with a minimum of liberty. host: michael is in texarkana on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i've been a fanatic since the day you first aired. i have several points to cover and i will be as quick as i can. i want to address that salmon from the heritage foundation. has he considered the cost of bearing a child that is now forced to bear child. who pays the hospital bill? you can imagine with the explosion of welfare and food stamps that will cost the federal government. second, i strongly suggest that the heritage foundation change their moniker to the adoption agency because you're going to be flooded with adoptions.

it costs $50,000 to adopt a child. i know that firsthand. i was a disabled veteran trying to adopt. it costs $50,000 to adopt a child. for a couple adopting a child of $40,000 a year, they cannot. with all due respect to your intellect, be prepared to set up a great foundation for adoption at the heritage foundation. if you feel strongly in telling a child, if a man demands the right to choose, demanded. guest: as a practical matter, the heritage foundation, i support pregnancy crisis centers and other adoption agencies. that is something that the heritage foundation has done and something i have partaken in as well. i'm sure many of my pro-life friends and colleagues have also done that.

again, the question before the court in this case as justice kavanaugh highlighted, was not the wisdom of abortion as a policy choice, it is not the question of whether abortion is or was moral. the question solely is whether the constitution requires states to allow abortion on demand to occur. simply put, the constitution does not require that. host: one more call on the democrat line. good morning. caller: thank you for being able to put me on. full disclosure, i may pro-life democrat. what i am asking is for both of them. number one, if i am correct, the original roe v. wade person and

number two, wasn't it the viability of the fetus that was the question? that's why it was overturned? we didn't have the technology that we did today. that's where my question is. now that we have viability and we can see with ultrasound, does that not change the former decision? that's what it was talking about. host: i respect the person, i respect any person's decision to choose to have an abortion or not to have an abortion. that's an individual decision. the viability line has been affirmed by the court repeatedly.

the framework modified that slightly to be the undue burden standard, whether state regulations faced an undue burden. the standard had been modified to the extent it needed to be. there wasn't one proposed by either side that was more workable. the majority devalued the woman's interest. host: you get the last word. briefly. guest: i think increased technology has brought home to many folks that there is a human life involved in the abortion topic. there is another human life involved. viability and the concept of the line with something to the court created out of whole cloth.

it's not of the constitution. it's not required by the constitution. under the court's decision, it's very difficult, questions of when to regulate abortion. host: thank you both so much for being on the program today. guest: thank you. host: if you didn't get in, coming up, i will be taking more of your calls on the question of the supreme court's overturning roe v. wade and your thoughts and opinions on that. feel free to start calling in. we will be right back.

>> american history tv, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. university professor on the 1960's civil rights movement. she talks about the racial unrest in urban areas. harry truman signed the presidential succession act of 1940 seven after franklin roosevelt's death elevated him to the presidency. how it has worked since then through presidential illness, assassination, death. exploring the american story. watch american history tv and find a full schedule on your program guide.

>> in 1814, francis scott key wrote a song that would go on to become the national anthem. sunday, a culture professor discusses his book, the history and cultural impact of the star-spangled banner. >> one of my big insights or beliefs about the song is that it's a living document. it's not a frozen icon. it's not something that is static. it is brought to life and performance by people like jimi hendrix. every time we sing the song, we elevate the questions and the tension and the crisis and the hope in the song. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q&a. you can listen to all of our podcasts on our free app.

>> c-span brings you an old filtered view of government. our newsletter recaps the day for you, from the halls of congress to daily press briefings to remarks from the president. scan the qr code to sign up for this email and stay up-to-date on everything happening in washington each day. subscribe today using the qr code or visit c-span.org to subscribe. now available, the 2022 congressional directory. order a copy of the congressional directory. the book is your guide to the federal government with contact information from every number of congress. also, contact information for governors and the cabinet. order your copy today or scan

the code with your smartphone. every purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit operation. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. you are looking at the supreme court building. we are talking on washington journal on that decision that came down yesterday from the supreme court, overturning roe v. wade. other big news, 15 minutes ago the president signed the bipartisan reform legislation into law. that was passed i the senate and the house. here is the headline from the hill. we are taking your calls on the supreme court decision, overturning roe v. wade. we want to hear what you think.

how that might impact your life and we will go first to brooklyn on the independent line. caller: good morning. the problem with that abortion law, i want to educate people about where it started. she started planned parent hard in harlem. the regency started was because there was an influx of black babies being born. it was an oasis to keep numbers down. the heritage foundation is another problem. they do not support anything that has to do with black people , nothing positive. they are a white supremacist group. the options, the choice, the

right to choose, i'm not an advocate. it is a right. i remember when i was married, my wife and i decided to have a second child. we could not afford it. our best option was to have an abortion. right before the procedure, i changed my mind. i don't want to do it. that was not my choice, that was her choice. i didn't have an option. host: let's go next to freddie who is in los angeles on the republican line. caller: thank you for c-span. my only point is where do the boundaries begin and end?

i have autonomy over my body, why can't i sell a kidney? why can't a woman choose to be a sex worker and sell her body for sex purposes? where does it end? this is just nonpartisan, someone explain to me the due process? i read it over and over again. i never quite got what that means. thanks for the time. host: speaking of other things, this says the supreme court's next target is marriage equality. it won't be the last. that's according to slate.com. let's talk to liz who is calling from new jersey. caller: good morning.

i don't think this ruling by the supreme court will be the end of legal abortion in the united states. we can have a court that is somewhat ahead of the public opinion or somewhat behind, we can't have one that is this far behind. sadly, it's blowback from that. because of his ineptitude, he managed to create this extreme right wing republican leaning supreme court. we give the justices a lifetime appointment so that they will be free from political pressure and not influenced.

we have one now that is extremely influenced. the original intent of the lifetime appointments my the founders has been eroded. we can thank mitch mcconnell and donald trump. whether you think limits -- women should have the right to abortion or shouldn't, this court is off on a tangent that is going to go right wing on all issues rot to them. they've got the backing of the federalist society, the heritage society, that's all they are going to be up to in the next 10 years. host: let's take a look at this map of the united states. it shows you the states where abortion is already illegal. those are the darkest colors.

likely will be banned within a month our these reddish colors. a likely ban coming is the brown color. where abortion is protected and will stay protected are the lavender colors. unknown are the gray colors on the map. let's talk to jim who was calling from maryland. caller: your guest made a lot of comments about family, it's not a family decision. it's a 100% female decision. men are consistently underrepresented, if you have to take care of a baby that has no chance to a good life, women are going to have to do that. father's half to do that. you can yank a guy out of college, they have no rights at

all regarding child support. the other side, as far as the law, there is no law against the woman having an abortion. one solution would be if a woman is pregnant and the father wants to have the baby, they can go to court or they can say you have the right not to have the child, you have to do community service. that would mean no woman would have to make it for the doctor. it would also lower the amount of abortions because you would have some incentive not to get pregnant. host: gordon is in wisconsin, republican. caller: good morning. i tried to get in before we had the guests on about what's right

and wrong in the constitution. i don't understand why anybody thinks it's ok for people that are having consensual sex to use abortion as a means of birth control. why should that be legal? if you want the right to choose, choose to have safe sex in the first place so you don't get pregnant. i don't understand that. i really don't. why should you be allowed to take an unborn baby's life because you were too incompetent to protect yourself during sex. host: what about rape or incensed? caller: i'm not talking about health problems that might come into play. host: what if contraception fails?

caller: where does it say that abortion should be used as birth control? i don't think that's right. those people are incompetent. they shouldn't be having sex in the first place. host: let's take a look at some the headlines from around the country. the front pages. this is the milwaukee journal sentinel. the next one is from cleveland, ohio, the plain dealer. you can take a look there. rapid city south dakota is next. you can see the next one is boise, idaho. in little rock, arkansas, you have the democrat gazette.

it says roe v. wade overturned. all the way to portland, the portland press herald. those are some of the front pages from around the country this morning. the big news is the supreme court has overturned roe v. wade nearly 50 years of allowing women to have abortions. that is a live look at the supreme court building this morning. mary is next in new york. mary? caller: i'm here. then you hear me? thank you. perhaps i shouldn't say this. when think he mentioned was going back to what the original founding fathers perceived to civil rights.

the original founding fathers were representing 13% of the population, white male landowners. regarding the gun amendments, the gun laws, they are saying anyone under 21 can't only gun, which i totally agree with. the same people who would want to protect fetuses don't care about these children after they are born, until they turn 18 and can go into the military. it's such a disconnect. there is nothing about protecting women's health, protecting children's health, health care, i really feel this is out of order. host: frank is next in maryland. caller: good morning.

congratulations to c-span. that last debate you had was one of the most remarkable debates i've seen. congratulations to both of those people on an extremely emotional subject. our government has designed. the question i'm left with is does a viable fetus have congressional or constitutional rights to life and the pursuit of happiness? that's a question i haven't resolved. i don't know when a viable fetus is established. certainly from that time, i would think there are rights guaranteed to that fetus. host: next up is john in

california. good morning. caller: good morning. may i suggest mandatory castration for all sex offenders? that would reduce unwanted pregnancies. i think only u.s. citizens have a constitutional right to life. it's only at birth, not conception. host: all right. next up is sandra in tennessee. sandra? are you there? caller: i love your show. no man should be able, no legislatures or government should tell a woman what to do with her body. even if a woman needs surgery,

if they decline and it might save their life or might not, i feel back in the day when anybody had a mental disability or physical disability, especially in ohio, they are unable to have children. this is going to cause nothing but harm to newborns. there is more domestic violence on pregnant women than any other source. there are going to be babies left on doorsteps, the trauma they are going to suffer. i'm 81 years old. in the 50's, the backyard butchers that would perform abortions. they would wind up being sterile as a result or wind up in the hospital.

there's nothing but bigots in the supreme court. i watched the hearings where they all agreed to respect and none of them came through. i have a granddaughter who is a psychologist. she tells me the horror stories of young girls, 12 or 13 years or old becoming pregnant and raped. if it wasn't for incensed rape, we wouldn't have a good population. you should make it a hardship. our founding fathers, where was there woman? where were there native americans? back in biblical times, they would stone a woman for adultery

, but did nothing to the men. nobody dictates a man it can get viagra or get that disease fixed. we restrict women's birth control pills. this is -- let them take care of these poor unwanted children. host: lonnie is in north carolina. caller: isn't that something? republicans did it again. you didn't actually figured out how they were going to do it, they just said we are just going to stop all abortions, no matter what. at the same time, they are going to allow your children to, you

still got to carry the baby. i want to ask all republican white men it, how would you feel if god for bid somebody raped your wife and you've got to carry that baby and raise that baby. you know you're not going to do it. government should not be involved with anything, especially when it deals with a person's life. they shouldn't touch that. when they leave the women alone, they're going to come to people of color or gaze or contraceptives or whatever. we can fix this. we can go ahead and get these men out of their the don't want to turn this over. we can turn it right back. american women can have their rights like everyone else.

this is insane. host: let's talk to anita in missouri on the independent line. caller: i appreciate the opportunity. mr. smith seem to say that things needed to be rooted in history. if that's the case, we would never have freedom for slaves or the right to vote for women. scientifically speaking, the fetus or embryo, depending on the time, is actually attached to the woman with an umbilical cord. as long as it is there, that embryo or fetus is a parasite. i know we don't like to speak that way because of the potential for human life. it needs to be said in order to come up with the rights of women. 12 months is a long time to be treated like cattle.

it is 12 months. it's 9.5 months of pregnancy and then eight weeks to recover. if you were like me after every pregnancy, it was more like 12 weeks. they keep talking about it as if it's just an instantaneous thing. it isn't. i appreciate c-span very much. host: let's take a look at what the attorney general has said about this.

that is the attorney general. we are taking your calls about the supreme court ruling that came down yesterday overturning roe v. wade it, getting your thoughts and opinions. let's hear from martha in california. caller: it's marsha. i am calling with a solution. i enjoy c-span very much. host: did you meet your tv? -- mute your tv. caller: i will.

sorry. one of the other programs i watch is rachel maddow. she has a big following. she's a liberal. i enjoy watching that program. she has a wide array of viewers. i think that if people would report somehow each time a death takes place in a woman carrying a child under these laws, i think something will interest the dexter of the interest of voters. host: let's go next to laura in

ohio. on the independent line. caller: first, i believe in -- a woman should have the right to choose. i would prefer them not do it. i made that mistake over 40 years ago. i agree with what a caller said on the last segment about the fact that if you demand babies be born, you want to charge $50,000, a lot of money to pay the government so you can adopt a child. that money could be used to support that child. if they are going to do this, the government should drop all their financial requirements for you to be able to adopt a child.

all of these pro-lifers. if you're pro-life, the pro-life. that means every one of you, there should not be a child in foster care, there should not be a child waiting for home. there should not be one. if you want the child to live, shut up, step up, put your actions where your mouth is. there should not be any child in foster care or needing to be adopted anywhere in this country. no child of any race, not a one. host: let's take a look at what justice alito wrote in his decision on the case, writing from majority. he said this.

we want to know what you think about that and the decision in general. let's talk to carl in chicago. caller: good morning. i'm not surprised the republicans got the supreme court to overthrow -- a return row. i'm curious, what's going to happen. with all of the poor people that have to be born.

republicans don't do anything unless there is financial incentive. are they going to sell these babies? are they going to use them for medical research? none of them, one person was on last night that said we are going to have child care, we are going to have lodging. they haven't thought this out. they just plan on babies for experimentation. host: let's talk to mark in california. go ahead. are you there? caller: i'm right here. host: go ahead. caller: i think this was the

correct decision constitutionally, an incorrect decision politically. we can see with the blowback is. we've seen this before. what i'm hearing from so many people is a completely emotional and illogical reaction. the people have the ability, all the court did was say the issue of abortion belongs to the 50 states. it does not belong to the federal government. what that is telling people to do is within their individual states go through their state legislators to get the type of abortion laws that they want in their states. in california, it's not going to be affected. in other states it's going to be a lot harder to do it. the case of dobbs versus jackson

is what got us to this point. the state of mississippi had initiated a 15 week ban. the jackson women's health clinic was the only provider in mississippi. they sued in the circuit court. they got that reversed. the state of mississippi appealed the case to the supreme court, bringing us to a position where the court could open up roe v. wade and kc. they ended up reversing those. i thought that john roberts very short comment was that he would've limited the decision only to the dobbs case. he would not have gone and reversed row.

i thought that was very interesting. the chief justice was looking at political ramifications. justice alito was looking at it a theoretical way. host: let's take a look at what the dissenting judges said. this is their dissent. they said this.

we are getting your opinion on the supreme court decision to overturn roe v. wade. joe is in pittsburgh. caller: thank you for taking my call. i find it ironic that these same people who say my body my choice and are arguing about freedom also allowed the government to tell us we had to get vaccines and wear masks to go to work. where was our freedom of choice them? i find it funny that the people who say follow the science also aren't following the science that we have today that shows a fetus becomes a baby and is a life. we talk about having an abortion because it's my choice. i think the people who fight most about the freedom of choice are the ones who already had

abortions and they must continue to fight because they don't want to be vilified. that's my opinion. host: what do you think? caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i haven't called in in a bit. the rulings that have come from the supreme court have been very disturbing. i think the court is acting as as legal judges. i believe the majority having the right wing so to speak thinking judges in the majority has been to the benefit of the republican party and also to those who are pro-life.

i am a pro-life person, i would not recommend someone have an abortion. i do believe that is there right. if they wish to terminate a pregnancy, that is there right. that should not be taken away from them. they should be placed in a position where it's impossible for them to do that. you showed the states that already have these bills in place and how far women would have to travel. it's awful to make a woman drive that far. she needs to be able to do that. when you give these things back to the state, you are taking us backwards in so many ways. i would urge everyone to go out and vote for the people you feel represent how you feel about these things.

let's get some equity across the board in not only due process, but also the will of the people. the supreme court has no tight to the will of the people. they only look at the law and they look at the law in the way they think. thank you very much. host: let's hear from dakota in michigan. caller: good morning. i think it's about time supreme court didn't act like legislators from the bench. they actually interpreted the constitution as written. i remember when dukakis said it should be safe, legal, and rare.

i think this issue has gone way too far. i agree with the court on it. democratic senators have said they lied during the nomination process. they didn't have a case in front of them to be able to change. they weren't lying. the precedent was the law of the land. just like dred scott, brown versus the board of education. they were presented in the future to change previous precedent. the other issue i have is they are saying just thomas's concurring opinion. now he's after gay-rights, same-sex marriages, contraception. if you read the opinion, he said those cases are settled. abortion cases are different.

that's where i have the issue. i think they are concocting this issue. if you vote for estate legislator, they are pushing the issue back to the state. if you live in a state that agrees with that, you are fine. the majority of people in your state and agree with the issue, this is the law of the land. host: you mentioned clarence thomas. let's look at what he said he says this:

that is from justice thomas. let's hear from you and go to maryland. good morning. caller: i think the reason why people are fighting to keep abortion in place is it's a moneymaking industry. they use aborted fetuses in the food supply, they use it in medicine. they use it in cosmetics. you've got a lot of people who make a lot of money. i oppose abortion because it's the number one killer in the black community. it was intended to be a eugenics tool to exterminate americans in

the united states. i would also like to say i don't intimate in irresponsible weight. i don't go around having children i don't want. at of the abortion is birth control. you can use birth control before you commit to intimacy. you would need it. i support a woman not to have an abortion in the first place. host: you can see on the screen it, a live look at the supreme court building in washington dc. you can see protesters have gathered here this morning.

rhonda is next in michigan. caller: hello. i am hearing a lot of men speaking about the women using protection and birth control. i had a friend that was on birth control. she was actually pregnant, she ended up pregnant and was still having her periods. men don't understand a woman's body, she did not think she was pregnant because she was still having her menstrual cycle every month. by the time she found out she was pregnant, she ended up keeping her child. for the guide think everything is so easy for us. in detroit, they just did a welfare check on this one lady

who they found her three-year-old in the freezer in the basement. the baby was dead. she had five other kids there. they had to take the kids. they were malnutrition and everything. just because the supreme court is making this decision, what are the plans? what will they be doing after that that these babies, are they prepared for that? another thing i wanted to say is everybody is quick to judge. god is the judge. what about the death penalty in different states? no one is saying anything about that. if you are pro-life, you still

have the death penalty on people. you should be pro-life for everything. host: let's go to terry in minnesota. caller: put aside all of the side arguments and things that don't matter, this comes down to viability. a woman's right and when another life exists. because when that life calls home, whether it's in the womb or in the home. i have autonomy over my home. i have a right to privacy. i'm not allowed to kill other viable human beings in my home. i am for abortion up to that point. all these other issues that people are bringing up have nothing to do with that.

the problem is the supreme court for 50 years, there have been suits for 50 years. i think it is time for the people to decide. i do believe this. if you take a life that is viable, that is murder. you can twist around and pretzel yourself up into these arguments. it is still coming down to this. you are taking a viable human life. host: are you still there? i'm just wondering when you say it's murder, would you advocate for arresting women that had abortions, criminalize or bring criminal charges against them? caller: would you allow a one-year-old, if a mother killed a one-year-old, would you arrest

her for murder? host: richard is in oceanside, a democrat. caller: i'm so glad to see you. you're one of my favorite hosts. i just wanted to say, this is a seriously bad decision. europe has legal of orson everywhere. -- abortion everywhere. it's a bad decision. i can't believe it. i am beside myself. the reason -- i have to call myself a bit. i was one of those kids. i am 75 years old. i had a hard life. i spent most of my childhood in public homes for unwanted

children. that's all i've got to say. host: let's go to arkansas on the independent line. good morning. caller: i just find something very disturbing with this administration. i don't like a lot of decisions the court makes. to get on worldwide television and start spewing venom about a coequal branch of government is really disturbing. i note you not going to show the speeches. i watch them yesterday. they called the supreme court

every name in the book. i find that quite disturbing. now i've got to listen to the democrats spew it. it's a coequal ranch of government. you don't get on worldwide television and call them every name in the book. if you don't like to decision, do something to change it. host: let's take a look at the front page from around the country. this is from the richmond times dispatch. atlanta, georgia, the atlanta journal constitution. the orlando sentinel, roe v. wade overturned. this one is from las vegas, nevada.

provo utah has the daily herald. lastly, the sacramento bee, overturned. we are taking your calls up until the top of the hour. irene is in houston. caller: good morning. it's all been very interesting, so many words. i happen to think a couple of thoughts. once it came to meet was when the founding fathers were in the process of forming a nation, do you think they thought that you would have the right or the freedom to kill?

it's just a thought. i think some of the viewers mentioned that. the other thought that i had came from the speakers that you had. the two guests. when was speaking about the burden that is put and exists on the choice of the woman. it is a tremendous burden. when rove weighed was created, it seems that the burden we shifted to the federal government. when you do that, when you

transfer that burden, you put it on everybody. my response is you are saying it is your body and your choice. when you're putting it on roe v. wade and you legalized it, you are shifting it to me. i don't want that burden. i think it is right. shifted to the states, which gets closer to the people. the numbers of people involved will be smaller. the burden is shifted around. it will be considered. host: james is next in california. caller: my question would be these people mention murder. what about executions.

that is still a murder. don't you think they should eliminate executions? host: they would say that as a punishment. caller: either way, it is murder. whether it's an unborn or living, it is still a murder that takes place. when they quote the bible to twisted around for their needs, it seems like another place where there is no separation of church and state, which there should be. host: john is next in pennsylvania. caller: hello. this is a prepaid collect call. host: let's go to sharon in texas. caller: i don't know where to begin. host: start at the beginning.

caller: i am 65 years old. i had to have an emergency hysterectomy. to these people that are saying have these babies and put them up for adoption, my mother had me at age 14. she didn't know how to be a mother then. my grandmother wound up raising me. everything i learned about being a woman i learned from a book and listening to my peers. that is no way for a child to be raised. when we see this, everybody that can have a baby is not mother material.

i don't ever remember doing something with my mother. not only that, -- host: ron is next in california. caller: why should the burden be put on the judges, let the voters decide, that's all i have to say. thank you. host: take a look at the new york times draft opinion overturning roe ways is a question, are more precedents next?

let's go next to patrick in illinois. caller: i thank you very much. i just had a memory i thought i would share and i was a young kid in 1975. there was a family in parkridge and they were deeply religious and catholic. this just controlled this whole family. they were so upset about it. this is sort of a vindication for them. i haven't talked to them in a long time. i think they can rest in peace now. i hope this is something nobody ever has to go through. thank you for talking to me. host: sander is next in virginia. -- sandra is next in virginia.

caller: i don't agree. there are so many babies born. they don't have form. we have a shortage of formula. i think it should be a woman's choice. whether she wants to have a child or not. host: can you mute your tv? just talk on the phone. caller: i just don't agree. it should be a woman's choice. she can be the one to raise it. most fathers don't take care of them anyway. if a woman is made to have a

child, take it to the judge's house. host: let's go to denise in virginia. caller: hello there. i'm not for abortion, i'm not against abortion. my question is where is the responsibility when it comes to the man and the woman? this is 2022. that will bring us to the end of the hour in the end of the program on washington journal. i want to thank everyone who called in and everyone who watched, thank you very much for

joining us. we will be back again, tomorrow morning same time on c-span. thank you for watching. c-span is your unfiltered view of government, we are funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. broadband is a force for empowerment that is why charter has invested billions infrastructure, empowering opportunities in communities big and small.

charter communications supports c-span along with these television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. in 1814, attorney end author rinses got key wrote a song that went on to become the national anthem of the united states. sunday, on q&a, mark kleig speaks about his book on the star-spangled banner. one of my big insides about the song is that it is a living document, it is not a frozen icon. it is not something static, it is alive and brought to life in performance by someone like jimi hendrix. every time we sing the song we elevate the questions, the tension, the crisis in the hope

that is in that song, and new. mark clague with his book, "the star-spangled banner, the song you can hear." . next, president biden signing the gun violence prevention act into law.