justice correspondent talks about recent supreme court decisions and putting those on abortion and discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages, and tweets. ♪ host: good morning. it is monday, june 27, 2022. following the supreme court decision overturning roe v. wade, abortion policy is now in the hands of individual states. several states banned abortions as of friday other states are working to enshrine the right to an abortion in state law. this morning, we want to hear what you want on abortion policy when it comes to your state and we want to hear from women only in this first hour of the washington journal. women in the eastern and central time zone, call (202) 748-8000.

women in the mountain and pacific time zones, it is (202) 748-8001. you can also send us a text. that number, (202) 748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you're from. otherwise, catch up with us on social media. good monday morning to you. go ahead and start calling in now. we are talking to women only in this first hour of the washington journal today. the headline on the topic we are discussing, the battle in every state over abortion rights. abortion opponents looking at new restrictions as the next headline there. politico with a map of where abortion policy stands now in various states. abortion out illegal in five states in this country. abortion is likely to soon be

illegal in 11 others. abortion remains legal or at least legal for now and 35 states around the country. diving into what is happening in some of those states, this from the front page of the new york times today. in florida, or the legislature recently passed a ban on abortion after 15 weeks not lawmakers are pushing governor ron desantis to call a special session -- after 15 weeks, lawmakers are pushing governor ron desantis to call a special session. -- the promised court fights over the so-called trigger band that took effect after the supreme court ruling. inside the new york times, a look at the state of california. california state lawmakers are expected to put a state constitutional amendment on the ballot that would solicit lee protect -- explicitly protect the productive rights. the amendment would go to voters for approval as states across

the country react to the sweeping supreme court decision. we will dive more into what is happening in various states but we mostly want to hear from you. what do you want in your state? what do you think the right policy is for your state? women only is who we are talking to in this first hour. (202) 748-8000 for women in the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 for women in the mountain and pacific time zones. cindy is up first out of connecticut. caller: good morning. this is so much to unpack in 10 seconds, but i really believe that the majority of the country is very torn. i do not think we should be imposing religion on other women. i believe in a woman's right to choose, but i think there needs to be some responsibility when it comes to late-term such as in

new york state for any reason until birth. i think that is where we lost -- the wheels come off at that point. i think it goes beyond religious. it goes against most people's sensibilities at that point, except for the life of the mother. i would like to see some compromise in the middle on this. host: do you think connecticut gets it right, abortion protected by state law in your state? caller: yes. i do not know everything about the law. i never really expected roe to be overturned. i guess i should brush up on that, but if we allow for any reason, i am not for that. i do not believe we should be --

our constitution guarantees us freedom of religion. however, there is separation of church and state and that is the real problem. i believe in that, but if you have providers that do not believe in performing these things, i believe we need to respect those reasons as well and we have lost that as a country. host: this is janel in woodbridge, virginia. you are next. caller: i wanted to say i believe abortion is health care and i also want to remind people that we should be inclusive in our language when we talk about abortion because not everyone who can have an abortion identifies as a woman.

some trans people, trans men, may still be able to have an abortion, so i wanted to share that reminder. host: in your state, and the state of virginia, the virginia governor is pushing state lawmakers for a 15 week abortion ban in the wake of that decision friday. what do you think -- how do you think that goes over in the state of virginia? caller: i feel like there are a lot of places like northern virginia that are more democratic, so up here, i am from northern virginia where a lot of people are aghast and it does not feel real. i feel like it is very regional and virginia. host: chris in somerville, massachusetts, good morning.

caller: first, the american college of gynecologists has issued a statement on their website. they oppose government interference in relationships with their patients and this idea that women are getting pregnant and waiting until they are eight or nine months along before they suddenly decide to go through an extremely dangerous at that point abortion is ridiculous. that should be rejected out of hand. if we get solutions here, there is an article that came out today pointing out congress has a lot of power right now, a lot of power to reign in the supreme court. they can impeach and remove justices. they can strip the court of jurisdiction over certain

issues. i did not know that until i read that. so they can weaken the power of judicial review by requiring a super majority of justices to sign off on any position that overturns the law and they can right now review -- rebuke the court with legislation that cancels the decision in question. i am going to call my senators today, call their offices and urge them to immediately bring this to the floor for discussion. host: what about the idea of ending the filibuster and having legislation passed in the senate on a majority vote? democrats control the house and senate and white house right now. caller: we have the slimmest of majorities, despite 40 million

more voters, votes that went for the current democrats in the senate then went to republicans there. we have -- the democrats have a majority in the country. host: do you think this issue is important enough to end the filibuster over? caller: of course. the point i was getting to is that we now have minority rule in this country. this is very dangerous for our democracy because we can see this minority, now that they have accumulated all of this disproportionate power, they are becoming more and more aggressive. it is getting out of hand. it is out of hand now. it is time for the democrats to exercise their power in congress. do what you can with the filibuster. it is outrageous because they senate already gives disproportionate power to the minority.

it already does that. the filibuster just thinks it. there is no way the majority is represented anymore. host: this is teresa out of texas. caller: i believe that abortion should be available for all, but i think there should be a limit. it should never be passed 12 weeks. . also, this is a subject that should have been taken care of through our legislation. that is what they are therefore -- there for. that is not an easy decision for any woman to make. no one should be forced to carry a baby, but there should be term limits on that.

there should be no abortion past the heartbeat because that is a baby, no matter what. that is a child. host: in your state, abortion is now banned after six weeks. it is likely to be illegal in the state of texas within the next 30 days. caller: that would be a sad day for texas. and i am a republican. that would be a sad day. i do not support abortion, let's face it. there are times when abortion is necessary. it is just one of those people things that has to be. -- evil things that has to be. with all the birth-control that is out there, thousands to choose from, abortion really should not be happening. i managed to make it 63 years using birth control, and i think

everyone should be responsible. host: that is teresa in texas. what do you want from your state on abortion policy? now shifting the fight over abortion in this country to the states themselves. what do you want to see from your state? caller: i would like to see what the supreme court did completely overruled. i grew up in the 1960's. i saw what happened. i saw the back alleys. i saw children having babies their parents forced them to have. i saw it all. i saw my brother have a shotgun wedding after they had tried to get rid of it and miscarried a couple months later. to outlaw it completely like they are doing in so many states is ridiculous.

we are just going to go back to the 60's and i hate the thought of that. host: that is martha in georgia. asking you this morning what you want to see from your state when it comes to abortion policy. that discussion taking place yesterday on the sunday shows as well. it was cbs's face the nation where michigan's governor described efforts to craft new legislation in her state. >> we are pulling out all the stops. our partners filed another lawsuit. they got the injunction that is on appeal. there is an effort to collect signatures and amend the constitution, so we are using every tool we have to fight for reproductive rights for michigan women and ohio women and indiana women who come to michigan for health care. >> now state capitals are going to make these decisions, so i

want to get to specifics. roe v. wade previously guaranteed abortion up to viability, roughly 24 weeks of pregnancy. if the court strikes down the ban you are fighting and you have to craft a new law here, is there a compromise that is possible here? can you settle on 20 weeks, 15 weeks? anything less than roe? >> what i'm trying to fight for is the status quo in michigan and there are reasonable restrictions on that. with the current legislature, there is no common ground, which is the sad thing. they have introduced legislation to criminalize nurses and doctors. they have endorsed the 1931 law, as have all the republican people running for governor. they want abortion to be a felony, no exceptions for rape or incensed. that is the kind of legislature i am working with. that is why this is such a scary

moment for michigan women and families. host: michigan governor gretchen whitmer yesterday. taking calls from women only in this first hour of the washington journal, asking you what you want from your state on abortion policy. alexis in north carolina, you are next. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do not have to worry about abortion anymore. i had my share. i am 74 now. i have not felt any guilt. i know i did the right thing. i was not parent material. everybody cannot be. i used birth control. it does not always work. none of them are 100%. so people need to understand even if you are substantial age, 40 or more, the fetus might be

damaged in some kind of way and they cannot tell that until the 16th week. late-term abortions -- i do not know unless the person did not know they were pregnant. again, there might be an anomaly they did not find until the late-term where this fetus is going to die once it is outside the womb or maybe before. but it is late-term, past six months. people need to understand, get educated about the whole process of pregnancy and what it does. you have blended families. now they are pregnant. they do not have time to go here, there.

you cannot get the morning-after pill. we have to understand it is a woman's body. she needs to make decisions for herself so she can manage the rest of her life and anyone else that is already under her auspices. >> alexis in north carolina. donna and pennsylvania, you are next. >> good morning -- caller: good morning. i used to work in a group home and girls rode on the bus from the group home. she was raped. she ended up getting pregnant. she had down syndrome but also had -- are you still on? host: go ahead. caller: she was quadriplegic. she was raped.

we contacted the owner of the group home. she ended up having an abortion. what is going to happen to the disabled children and young girls? are you still there? host: we got your point. this is ruth in columbia, south carolina. caller: i am not of age now to have any children or have an abortion, but the thing that worries me is that -- does all of this stuff -- what are the doctors going to do? are they discussing my medical record with my governor? how are they going to determine if i -- when i went to the doctor? if this law was broader than what people are thinking, they are going to not only have access to her medical records.

there is so much that does not make sense. after they finish with this law, they will move on to something else. everything that deals with the woman, what state you went to have your abortion. people need to work hard and change this before it is too late. host: that is ruth in south carolina. women only in this first hour of the washington journal. it is (202) 748-8000 for women in the eastern or central time zones. (202) 748-8001 for women in the mountain or pacific time zones. also looking for your comments on social media and text messages. a few of those comments for you from mary in california. some states are in the process of banning birth control, and that is disgusting. pat and indiana. i knew my state was going to ban abortions, but they will not

bend the ar-15. i heard on the news some states are trying to ban the morning at -- the morning-after pill. kathy, i would like my states to keep their hands out of my uterus and do everything they can to make abortion unnecessary. in 1977, i was unmarried and pregnant with my son. i chose to have him despite my parents tried to take away my choice. choice is no longer an option for women now. usa today with a couple stats on this issue. one of the big issues is use of the abortion pill, medication abortions as it is known, now accounting for more than half of all abortions in this country, medication abortions, growing rapidly since the process became easier to access and 2016. as recently as 2000, it was a 0%, up to 54% in the year 2020.

more stats in the chart on the same page. before 2020, medication abortions required an invoice and -- and in person appointment. the food and drug administration suspended that during the pandemic, deciding it was an unreasonable barrier. the fda removed the impersonal requirement in december 2021, allowing telemedicine visits. access to medication abortion hinges not only on fda decisions but also on abortion specific regulations on the books in many states. a map below that shows the amount of access or limited access that telehealth appointments for abortions, the darker the state on this map, the more explicit the ban on the use of telemedicine for medication abortions. that is in usa today. we are talking about laws in

individual states and asking women what you want from your state on the issue of abortion. jackie, missouri, you are next. are you with us? go ahead. caller: i am 81 years old and i am an independent voter. i have always been against abortions and i do not understand why more of them -- why there is more discussion about how to prevent a pregnancy because there are so many more on the market today. i see commercials all the time to prevent a pregnancy and ever since the time when i saw a film on development in the uterus of

a baby, i have not understood how anybody could want to terminate a pregnancy. i am very much against abortions and i only wish there would be more discussion on prevention of pregnancy in the first place. host: in missouri come abortion set to be illegal as soon as the governor and attorney general or legislature certifies that ban that would go into effect in the wake of the supreme court ruling. we lost the caller in missouri, but this is linda in connecticut . you are next. good morning. >> -- caller: i have an answer to the leading -- lady who just spoke from missouri. i was a young, married woman who could not take a birth control because it gave me rapid heartbeats.

she needs to understand that we are all different medically and physically, so we all cannot have the same medical procedures. the supreme court has said this will settle law. this has not. we have travel funds being set up. if a woman in missouri goes to connecticut to get an abortion where it is safe and legal still , can she be prosecuted? are we going to arrest doctors who mail the pill, the abortion pill, to a woman in a state? this has not settled any law. this has made a mess. our only answer is to elect a congress that will make abortion free, safe, and legal in all 50 states. this has not settled anything, quite the opposite. host: what do you think this means in this midterm election?

most projections leading to now is that in this midterm election after the -- after a president is elected, the incumbent president generally does not do well with gas prices and the latest polling from republicans quite likely to do well in the midterm. do you think this changes that? caller: i do not think anything ever changes. here's another thing. we tend to pull republicans and democrats, forgetting the fact that over 40% of registered voters are independent. of those, with women, i would say this is an issue. women who grew up with that, women who are looking at the prospect, are 18 to 21 years old looking at the prospect of not having reproductive rights, not

having safety, not having freedom. we live in a different country. is it a voting issue? not for everyone. is it for enough females? i think republicans have just lost suburban women for a long time. so it can swing certain elections. on the whole, i do not know, but we have 2024. we just have to keep voting. it is an issue. have a good day, john. host: you as well. that is lending connecticut. this is susan in herndon, virginia -- linda in connecticut. this is susan in herndon, connecticut. caller: i am 68 years old and i marched in the 60's and was pro-choice and sought as a revolution for women and was so happy. when i think about states banning abortion due to rape or incensed, i can tell you the

thoughts that go through my mind are not about life. this is not about life. the supreme court has taken us to a place that is very dark, when a minority puts tierney over the majority in this country. i want to say to every woman listening you have to vote. you have to vote like your life depended on it. it is the most precious thing you have got your vote. i have made it a point in my lifetime ever -- to never miss an election. even primaries i vote in. it is so important to vote and i want to say that. i would do everything i can to support reversing this court and bringing our country to where the majority is respected. host: susan in virginia. one of the issues she brings up,

exceptions in cases of rape and incensed. the state of south dakota, abortions now illegal in that state. the governor of that state was on face the nation on cbs and was asked about whether the ban in the state would include exceptions for rape and in cest. >> i believe every life is precious. outrigger law reflects if it is to save the life of a mother abortion is still illegal and we know so much more than we did 10, 15 years ago about what these babies go through and we will make sure those lives are protected. i never believes that having a tragedy or tragic situation happened to someone is a reason to have another tragedy occur so we continue to make sure we go forward and that we are putting

resources in front of these women and walking alongside them, getting them the mental health counseling and services they need to make sure they can build families into the future as well. >> so no exceptions. >> this is a debate that is going to happen from state to state. that is what is unique about the united states of america. we have a limited federal government. the supreme court did its job. it fixed a wrong decision it made and return power back to the states, which is how the constitution and our founders intended it. host: taking your phone calls this morning, women only in the first hour of our program. we are about halfway through that hour. what do you want from your state on the issue of abortion? states are now where these fights are taking place over where laws should fall. it is (202) 748-8000 for women in the eastern or central time

zones. (202) 748-8001 for women in the mountain or pacific time zones. lydia, you are next. caller: good morning. i am an elderly lady, 65. i am no longer of childbearing age. i never condone abortion. it is not something i thought was appropriate for myself. however, it is a woman's choice. there is no reason a man should have any say in what a woman does with her body. if this is the case and we are making loss for women, what about men? when are we going to start making laws for men? it takes two people to make a child, a man and a woman. now the responsibility is also going to fall on the men. it is time for them to step up

and take care of their children and stop producing all these babies. louisiana is one of the states that is the poorest state in the nation. we cannot take care of the children we have now. we have children going hungry. we have people that are homeless, living on the streets. nobody thinks about this until 20 years down the road when all these children are here. you can buy and ar-15 and we will shoot half of them. what is the point? republicans say i am pro-life, i want to help the children, to help the mother. so you do all of this while the child is in the womb. what you do with the child is out? who helps these people care for children? i have been married 39 years and it took two of us, my husband and myself, working four jobs to take care of two children.

how do you expect a single mother to take care of a child on men room wage -- minimum wage? you will not provide national health care. we do not provide assistance and childcare. we do not provide maternity leave but you expect people to go ahead and have a baby because you think christian morality makes you right and all the rest of us wrong. the bible does not say anything about abortion. i have looked all through the bible. there is nothing in the bible about abortion but there is something about christianity taking care of your fellow man, loving god and other people. this is not an example of loving other people. this is a small group of people with narrow minds wanting to control everybody else. that is the way america was built and is going to continue. if you do not like what is going on, get up off your butt and

vote. that is the only way we are going to get people out that we do not want to make decisions for us that we do not like. host: that is lydia of new orleans. lydia and a couple other callers have brought up the supreme court action friday on abortion and compared them to actions from earlier in the decision term on the issue of guns in this country. richard wolf does the same thing in his column today for usa today. he covered the supreme court for decades, referring to the recent decision to limit -- to declare legal new york state's longtime law limiting who could have a conceal and carry permit in that state and comparing that decision to the supreme court decision. one day, he writes, the court that trump built says states

cannot decide for themselves whether -- in public. the next day, they say the constitution does not protect a woman's right to choose an abortion. that decision should be left to the states, they said. the court causing confusion and how they are deciding these cases. brittany in alexandria, virginia, your next. -- you are next. caller: i am a 36-year-old woman of childbearing age, so i am appalled by this. what i'm looking for is for my state to enshrine the right to an abortion, the right to autonomy over your medical care with your doctor based on your beliefs to be the right and law in virginia. so governor youngkin scared us

all when he announced how he is going to be a pro-life governor. in virginia, i'm hoping our state assembly gets its act together and that people vote and make sure colleagues agree that women should have autonomy over their own body. i wanted to say to the caller from missouri, you do not know why women terminate. i will tell you why i did. i was going to die. there was no way for the baby to live. i was going to die. so i think my life matters. to kristi noem and the other government officials out there who have no business telling me what is right for me and my life and my family, stay out of our business. thank you. host: in wisconsin, you are next. caller: these last callers, i

agree with all of them. we have a democratic governor but republicans control everything else. i would like wisconsin to make abortion legal in the state of wisconsin. i do not think it is going to happen. do not understand why a medical procedure -- they act like women are having abortions when a or eight months pregnant and they are not. it is when they are in their first trimester the majority of the time and i have a personal experience with my daughter having pregnancy, being excited, looking forward to that 20 week finding out if it is a boy or girl, and at that 20 weeks finding out it is not well and she had pre-klebsiella, which is

a very threatening thing for a woman -- preeclampsia, which is a threatening thing for a woman's life. by the time a specialist looked to see how things were going to machine past the point in wisconsin at 22 weeks -- were going, she passed the point in wisconsin of 22 weeks. doctors were very worried about her health. now she had the choice -- she would have to wait until her life was in danger, so that meant we had to wait and see if she goes into seizures or if she has a stroke. then they will do something. i think that is wrong. my daughter's life matters. i think, why is an unborn child's life more important than a living woman's life?

they are treating us like we are not people anymore, and that is wrong. that is all i have to say. host: that is ann in wisconsin. we have shown you this map from politico giving the state of play in all the states on this issue of abortion now that it has been kicked back to the states. in wisconsin, it is potentially illegal for -- and opponents believe the state's pre-roe law only applies and is now likely in effect. the democratic attorney general said he will not enforce that law and he urged local prosecutors to do the same. the pre-roe law bans all abortions except to save the life of the pregnant person.

that is the write up from politico on the state of play in wisconsin. we are going to show you that map but mostly just hearing from you, hearing from women only in this first hour about what you want from your state on this issue of abortion. back to south dakota, where abortion is now illegal. susan is in south dakota. caller: good morning. i -- how frustrating. once the governor came on, i had to call in. this is our governor. how proud we must be in south dakota. i hate to say this but trump being the center of this problem as the deterioration of our country continues on his shoulders. kristi noem was quick, as soon as that supreme decision came out. she quickly got on television

and wanted to express it is illegal in south dakota. we only have one abortion clinic in south dakota. she has been following trump around at all of his rallies, so to speak. many of us have questioned where this money is coming from that you are going to represent trump. we have trump appointed supreme court justices and we know his intention. we have two supreme court justices that have been accused of assaulting women. anybody who things and woman is going to come up and say this has happened to her when it has not is crazy. it is a big deal. yet we let these people in. and now we have millions of people. this is a conspiracy to change our country from the democracy we all dream of into this

dictatorship, and we cannot allow this to happen. as i listen to all of us women this morning, there is no politics in this. women can define this better than men, i think. for men to stand and make decisions for a woman who has the most is difficult -- the most difficult decision of her lifetime to make, this is horrendous. we cannot stand for this. let's protect our babies in the womb, but let's not get rid of military style weapons? senator thune from south dakota needs them to shoot a groundhogs or gophers. so there is where we stand in south dakota. it is a sad day and this is not our country anymore. this is a dictatorship. host: that is susan in south

dakota. hearing from women only in this first hour today and several women writing in on social media and our text messaging service as well. maggie saying abortion is health-care and legal abortion is the neutral option. it puts the decision on the individual and not the state. i want to see abortion with equitable access for those who need it. ambiguity is as dangerous as a ban. i am happy for women in california depressed for other women who have to live by the religious beliefs of a minority of people. i believe life begins at viability and ability to breathe outside the womb. carol sang desantis needs to go -- saying desantis needs to go. nobody, let alone five old men, have the right to tell us what we can do with our bodies. we have a right-wing activist

court now, and that is disgusting. a few of the comments we have gotten from you this morning. it is (202) 748-8003 if you want to send as a text, or you can call, like kay did in utah. caller: good morning. i am from utah. i am not a mormon, but i am from utah, born and raised. i absolutely do not believe in abortion. i think it is a sin. i do not see how women can even think about it. if they get themselves into that situation, they should get out. as far as colored babies -- host: go ahead with your comment, although let's work on your terminology. caller: i said as far as colored babies -- host: got your point.

let's go to sam in wilmington, north carolina. caller: hi. i wish you had explained to her. she does not know. she is clueless and going to keep talking like that. i am an african-american. she is going to keep talking like that because she does not mean any harm to anybody. she just does not know. anyway, as far as abortion is considered, i do not understand how, first of all, men get involved on a legislative basis. when do we stop being a full person to make up our own mind? and you say at viability or once that child is born it is the mother's problem or society's.

if the mother did not wanted in the beginning, who is going to love it? i do not get that. the one thing i am so proud of, all these women calling in and telling their stories and empathizing -- and -- and for sizing get out and vote. we have a lot of issues. we can get that build back better going. get out and vote. thank you. host: trina, indianapolis. caller: one thing i have to say is i was 16 when i had an abortion. what a lot of the so-called men who vote on these things because we have more senators voting on women's rights, male senators rather than women, don't realize

is a woman can still men straight detriment -- menustrate during pregnancy. i was still having a menstrual cycle when i was pregnant, so i did not know anything was wrong. now i am 12 weeks into this thing and afraid as a teenager to tell my mom what was going on. that is when i had an abortion. i was 12 weeks. i was 12 weeks into this thing. host: what was your reaction friday? caller: i was appalled. totally appalled that men would make that decision. i have two daughters right now in their 30's.

one is gay. the other one has made a decision and had a five-year iud , so she will be able to make the decision when she is ready to start childbearing years. indiana is one of the states that has decided that whenever the court, the federal cannot make the decision, that is when they will make their decision. we are a republican state and i know that is what they are going to do, make abortion illegal. i am afraid for our state with my one daughter being gay. she is married and it is going to definitely affect her in other ways because things are going to trickle down. something else is going to happen. something else is going to happen from this point and i am afraid. host: what you are worried about is the subject of this headline here from usa today.

according to clarence thomas, the court should end other rights. no other justice embraces the suggestion he made in his opinion to revisit opinions on contraception and same-sex marriage. caller: correct. same-sex marriage and going into -- as far as health care and things like that from that point. it is just going to be trickle down. when you go into incest, a lot of it is not going to come to light because the young girl, she is afraid to talk about it. she does not want to tell her mom about it. that is never going to come to light. those girls are afraid to talk about it. they are not going to talk about it. if they are able to go with a

girlfriend and go and do what they need to do to take care of themselves. host: that is trina in indiana this morning. just a follow on on the discussion about what clarence wrote in his opinion -- clarence thomas wrote in his opinion, justice alito, the main author of the majority opinion drew the distinction between abortion and other rights because come as he puts it, abortion involves potential life of a fetus or embryo. he wrote in the majority opinion to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to an abortion and no other right. nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion is what he wrote in that opinion. diane, you are next.

caller: i was born in 1942 and my mother always hated me. i never knew why until when i was 53 my mother said to me i was a virgin. your father raped me and you showed up. then they got married. then i knew why she hated me, but i said to myself, i said to her, why didn't you give me away instead of mistreating me? i never felt as though it was my fault that i showed up. therefore, it did not bother me. i kept going to church because i believe in god. so i grew up all my life being mistreated by my mother simply because i showed up. now i am looking at people who get pregnant now and want an abortion and they cannot have one but i suggest if you do get

pregnant, do not blame it on the baby. it is not the baby's fault. it is the father's fault or your fault for not taking reproductive means that you do not get pregnant. but do not raise a child hating the child because the child shows up and mistreating the child and not giving her away. just give the child away to someone who wants the child instead of mistreating it. host: thanks for sharing your story. you said as part of it that you went to church all your life. did you go to church yesterday and did the issue of the supreme court decision come up at church yesterday? caller: no, i do not go to church anymore. i stopped going. host: thanks for calling in and sharing your story with us. the reason i ask that question,

one of the headlines from today's wall street journal, churches calling for calm on the first post-roe sunday. a look at what happened at various churches around the country. they write at the shrine of the most blessed sacrament in washington, d.c. the priests did not mention the court decision. supreme court justice brett kavanaugh is a member of that church. in texas, a church with 49,000 members across three campuses, worshipers stood and applauded the ruling. while we are celebrating life, we are also on our knees thanking god, said the church's senior pastor. about 10 minutes left in this segment, talking to women only.

maxine, clinton township, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. you are still my favorite moderator. these silly, silly women talking about their rights, this and that, i now understand the "me" generation. the hand that rocks the cradle, if that is the hand that rocks the cradle, we are in trouble -- you have a choice to say no. you have a choice to walk away. the infant does not have that choice. whatever happened to a country that looks out for the innocence -- innocents, the helpless? you have a father and mother, but who is looking out for this baby? it is just -- depresses me.

seeing you is a bright spot for me and i hope you have a good day. host: i hope you have a good day, too. this is valerie, new york. good morning. caller: i am so anguished about this whole thing. in my view, forced pregnancy is enslavement of women by the government. it is insane to me that the federal government would even push it to the states because it is not even the states' right to legislate the functions of a woman? body -- of a woman's body. men have no laws impacting their body functions. are we really free if the government can legislate what happens to our bodies? it is insane to me and i am going to vote accordingly and i am a conservative. in most states which ban the right of women to choose, they

should immediately pass a pregnancy test on men and require those funds to support women forced into pregnancy. thank you for taking my call. host: rebecca is in california. you are next. caller: good morning, everyone. i am ok with our state ruling. what they need to overturn now is the baby formula shortage. once the child is born, it is like, good luck, kid. you're on your own. it seems they only want to protect the child in the womb and do not want to consider the aftermath. i appreciate the previous caller sharing their stories and it also shows the unforeseen consequences we are going to suffer. there is a lot more to this and years down the road we will deal with bigger issues, so thank

you, everyone. i hope you try to have a good day. >> you said you're ok with what california is doing. state lawmakers are expected to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would protect reproductive rights. is that what you're referring to? caller: yes and our state does tend to take care of children after they are born. it is not like leaving the kid high and dry once they are born. it is unfortunate that it has come to this, but the point i want to make is there are going to be many unforeseen consequences and you can already see by what previous callers said has happened to them. it is not a done deal. this is not over. it is going to create a societal issue. the other thing i noticed is it seems half the country wants there to be abortion and have to

not, so that creates another major division. we have enough going on, but i think i am talking too much. thank you for letting me vent. everyone have a good day. >> you are next. caller: i am a retired labor and delivery nurse and i would like to talk about some of the patients i have taken care of that have pregnancies with incensed -- incest. one patient came in and she will not talk. we had to admit her. one thing she asked what she did not want to hear the baby cry. we had to set it up and i told her i could not promise her that. it was really -- just seeing how

tormented she was, it did affect me and i did tell her, because i figured she was probably going to leave against medical advice, that she needed to sign the really pushing papers before she left. i think this is a private decision. i do not know why pregnancy or being a woman is like an accident of birth, like we all have to deal with, but it seems like if you're going to have sex and you think you are going to get pregnant, are we going to have to go to where we have to do a consent form that if a woman gets pregnant men are going to have to care about it? i do not know. it is sad. it is such a private situation. you do not know how the woman got pregnant.

you do not know so much and the woman needs to make the decision. about roe v. wade, i did meet the lady who was the roe in the case. she did keep the baby. that is what we need to remember. women just need choices. host: when did you meet her? caller: i lived in texas and met her at a church. i think it was when trump was campaigning the first time. i also met the attorney that presented the case to the supreme court and the interesting thing about that issue said when she left the court had not made a ruling and when she did get known for the ruling it was from a telegram that she had to pay to get.

it was kind of an interesting little quirk that the supreme court did to her. it is not a crime to be a woman. it is not a shame to have an abortion. we should just take care -- whether it is a pregnancy where she is sick, it is the same as we are, we are just people trying to make it five. i just really wish people -- i've never had a patient like that before. this is really a private decision. i'm retired, and i'm a nurse, and i'm very active. i lobbied for planned parenthood, i tried to talk to the area manager about working with infertility, since

infertility cases are really expensive, and there is no reason for that. also about infertility, these people that are talking about personhood. a couple years ago, some of the folks, like over 2000 embryos thought out -- thawed out and there wasn't any outcry. the embryos were all in the same area, so they lost all of these embryos. and there wasn't any outcry about that. to me, this is just women's health, it is just politicized so much. host: our last caller in the seven of washington journal, but we will revisit this question a little bit later in the row graham.

-- program. we we joined by the freedom coalition to discuss issues of religion related to this year's midterm election. we will be joined by ellie we sell -- elie wiesel to discuss the supreme court decision on roe v. wade. we will be right back. >> elizabethtown college history professor david s brown is the author of the new book about former president jackson. he writes that he is the first president to be born in a log cabin, to live beyond the appalachians, and to rule, so he swore, and the name of the people. the title of the book is " the first populace: the defiant life

of andrew jackson." he was president for two terms, eight years, from 1829-1837 . he was a jurist, in general, a congressman, and america's seventh president. announcer: david s brown and his book on this episode of book notes plus. book notes plus is available on the c-span mobile app wherever you gig or podcast. -- or wherever you get your podcasts. >> c-span's unfiltered coverage to the u.s. response to the russian invasion of ukraine, the pentagon, and the state department, as well as congress. also international perspectives from united nations and statements from foreign leaders all on the c-span network, the free mobile app and c-span.org/

ukraine, our resource page where you can watch the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. now available at the c-span shop, c-span's 2022 congressional directorate. this book is your guide to the federal government for contact information for every member of congress including bios and committee assignments. also contact information for state governors in the biden administration cabinet. order your copy today four scanned the code with your smartphone. every purchase helps support the nonprofit operation. washington journal continues. host: the conversation now on the world of evangelical voters in america today. timothy had if the directive

-- director of the -- coalition. remind us, what do you do? guest: thanks for having us on. our organization is based in atlanta, georgia and started in 2009. we sometimes like to say that our role is to give christian voters a voice in government. we work on a number of issues for a lot of conservative faith voters. the question of life is a central issue but also issues of family, religious liberty, education, immigration, the justice system, human trafficking, a host of other issues. we certainly work the halls of congress itself and certainly state legislatures across the country, so we have been around for about 13 years now and it is a treat to be able to work with a lot of people on the federal

and state levels on important issues. host: you can go to ff coalition.com. your first principle listed is respecting the sanctity of life. take me through what friday was like at the faith and freedom coalition. guest: that is a great question and it certainly was not just for faith and freedom coalition but for a number of organizations that focus on issues of life and frankly just a lot of voters across the country, this has been coming to be clear, obviously the supreme court decision did not once and for all settle any issues, but it certainly kind of reset the playing field for this lively debate. but for a lot of people that have been kind of in the throes of thinking through and working on issues like this, this was a seminal moment. i think a lot of people,

frankly, never actually thought that something like this would happen or could happen, and so to see close to 50 years of work for a lot of praying people, a lot of prayers, it was an emotional day. it was satisfying in a lot of ways, but also somewhat sobering to think that in those roughly 50 years, there's also been a little over 60 million procedures from a lot of people's perspectives that have been ultimate decisions. so a sobering day in many regards, and it also was a day of rejoicing for what the future may hold. host: you called it a seminal moment. with roe being such a driving force for pro-life voters for so long, what is next and how do you keep the momentum out after

achieving the mountaintop here, something that you said was unclear whether this day would come? guest: that is a great question and certainly i think for a lot of people that don't necessarily live and breathe these kinds of decisions but are certainly interested, there is some confusion. maybe even some misinformation going on. obviously, this isn't it once and for all decision, the questions still persist. it moves the decision back to the people and their representatives. what we know if this becomes a state-by-state issue, and a lot of people think that is either confusing or frustrating. i do want to make that choice,

to have a lot of complicating arrangements. more than likely, there are 13 states right now that have automatic trigger laws. there is some other little mechanism that has to click in, maybe even the action of an attorney or state legislature, but 13 states have laws on the books that basically immediately or automatically trigger, so these are automatically or in the next 30 days. then another 15 or 16 states have passed laws in anticipation of this. then another six or seven states , either the governor or the state legislature have somehow intimated that they would like to take action. probably 15 states that are going to expand abortion services in their respective

states. obviously california and new york, illinois has made some allusions to that effect. in some places, it is like dropping a glass and seeing the shards of glass kind of spread in a lot of different directions. you're going to have a lot of different responses. host: for about the next 35 minutes, you are here on this washington journal. phone lines open if you want to chat with him about the freedom coalition, about the supreme court decision on friday. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independent, (202) 748-8002. i wondered if, what your thought is on whether that becomes for the pro-choice movement in this country, what roe v. wade was for so many decades for the

pro-life movement. that this galvanized and focus the pro-choice movement in this country, and what do you think about that? guest: i think that is a perfectly reasonable question, and a question that a lot of organizing organizations and activists on the political left have kind of assumed. i think that just in a previous section on your show, one of the callers made the allusion that half of the country does want abortion and half of the country doesn't. the numbers actually are a little bit skewed in the direction of a pro-life sentiment, but i would say that at this point almost 70% of responders to those polls say that they do want restrictions, but with limitations, usually around the life of the mother, incest, some kind of exceptions

like that. but i think on the political left and the pro-choice community, clearly, there is a rallying cry that is going to be heard loud and clear. from a lot of those folks i just alluded to, certainly the huge states like new york and california, but some smaller states as well, pacific northwest, pacific northeast. probably a couple of great lakes states, a little bit unclear. but what i would like to try to say, to explain, is that i think it just kind of shift the playing field maybe 45 degrees. it doesn't completely reset the board altogether. i think that you are going to see highly motivated, pro-life communities and highly motivated pro-choice communities just playing on slightly different fields. host: from the dissent, this is

what they wrote. no one should be confident that this majority is done with its work. the right is not standalone. the court has lingered for decades with other seven freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships and appropriation and obviously, the right to terminate a pregnancy, the right to purchase the use of contraception and in turn, those rights lead more recently to the rights of same-sex intimacy and marriage. they are all part of the same constitutional culprit protecting our decision-making from the most personal of life decisions. do you think the court is done with its work when it comes to these issues? guest: to pull the thread, if you will, to unfurl the thread of the question of life from a constitutional perspective, it immediately does flow logically and credentialing to other

liberties that you just enumerated and clearly not only in the dissent, but also injustice thomas'concurring opinion, he also alluded to these same phenomenon, that frankly, when you kind of tip one logical domino over around this, it does have repercussions of ultimately the controlling majority the kind of distinguish the question of abortion or life from some of those other liberties that you just enumerated by saying that this one in particular is unique because it literally deals with life and death. host: would you support going back and revisiting some of these other cases that the

majority will revisit? guest: again, just logically and from an originalist perspective, i think once you tip over one of those, i think it is kind of imminent. you don't know exactly how this court is going to find. to revisit those other liberties as well, once again, i think returning it to states is really come originally, bear in mind, for 200 years, these questions were actually addressed on a state level. a lot of people prefer kind of a monolithic approach, but the

framers wanted a lot of these decisions to be based more on a state-by-state basis. host:host: rachel in silver spring maryland, good morning you are up first. caller: good morning, c-span. i think you should wipe that smile off your face because you just woke up a sleeping giant. i know two friends who had abortions. they had their reasons. and there is no reason why i shouldn't support them. and those shards of glass are going to cause blood on your hands, sir, and your boots, and all the boots. the freedom of choice is a woman's choice, sir. thank you. guest: certainly not surprised that there are a lot of people who clearly have strong feelings about this, and i don't think

that is going to change. some feelings were certainly in order across the country before last friday, and they are going to continue from the repercussions of this going forward. i don't see that changing at all. i certainly appreciate your perspective and i know that these decisions are not only very personal decisions, but very difficult decisions. i think those decisions will still be able to be made, but will be made in a different context. host: republican, idaho, good morning. caller: good morning and yes, i was sitting here listening to the previous program with so many ladies calling in and claiming that they have a right to choice. that choice is murder.

one lady said that there was no right in the bible, nothing in the bible about abortion. how about the 10 commandments? thou shalt not kill. that is a human being from the moment of conception. this is a human being with rights before god. have women lost their conscience in america? we had better get back to god and think about the moral ramifications for our country. we have lost millions of potentially great human beings that could conquer cancer, that could -- the human race, intellectual abilities, physical abilities to build and farm and defend our country, defend

europe in this horrible war. americans, we need the little people in our world, and we should cherish and treasure each and every little child in the world. and it's not that hard to give up a baby for adoption. i did myself. and that child had a wonderful life, and she is a very accomplished human being. so thank you for your time, thank you for listening, and let's get back to god and realize there are moral ramifications. you know, horrible consequences to abortion. thank you so much for listening. god bless. guest: well we certainly appreciate that perspective, i will just tell you that i think so highly of women who do choose to carry pregnancies and babies

all the way to term. i, myself, i was born in 1976, i am adopted. i've kind of lives my whole life, if you will, under the regime of roe originally. on a daily basis at some point i think that i am so thankful that my biological mother decided to make a difficult choice. it is not an easy choice, but she made it difficult choice and from my perspective, i think it was the right choice. i don't know what good i personally do in the world, but i'm trying to make the world a better place, and i'm lucky i had the opportunity to try to make an impact and to help and bless people and i would love to see more and more people, more and more ladies make that very

courageous choice to go all the way through with carrying those pregnancies. host: the caller may be rhetorically asked have we lost our conscience in this country. do you think we lost our conscience in this country? guest: i don't necessarily think of these questions is purely a matter of conscience. to be sure, there are ideological and kind of conscience-laden decisions. i think a lot of people make what they feel like our pragmatic and difficult decisions, but i also have been a counselor before and i've counseled women who have had abortions and i've never had a client when i was a counselor just sort of revel in that decision. it was always a difficult decision and frankly, one that she -- a matter of fact, all of them that i've counseled ultimately had regret.

i think what i would love to see, if we are talking specifically about abortion decisions themselves, i would love to see these states that are pro-life states really build a wraparound services a lot -- around a lot of these women for making huge physical decisions, but also huge lifestyle and lifetime decisions. i think that there is a practical element to these decisions that i would like to see us as a community and ultimately a culture to celebrate women who go through with this all the way. host: georgia, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i am calling just to address a concern, make a statement. god gave women life to make

choices for themselves. that is what the creator did. there is only one creator. and it is not up to the government or politics to make decisions for women. i do believe that god, the creator, gave women the capability to make sure everyone who is supposed to receive their blessing comes into this world. women have options. i am 100% for adoption, but there are numerous things that need to be readjusted.

so that all people -- host: go ahead. guest: thank you for that. we certainly do believe that god has given all of us, by virtue of our being created and coming into existence, we believe that god has ordained that life to live, and the fundamental question in this is what are the rights of the baby in this equation, and i think that for a lot of us, we've landed that the baby has every bit as many rights and as much dignity as the mother does. i think that is why this was such a critical decision by the

court, is once again, not only moving this decision from a federal to a state conversation, but also recognizing that the life and the liberty of the baby, the little boy and a little girl, every bit as valuable not only in the eyes of god, but also in the eyes of this nation. it is like the freedom coalition, we really want to find ways to kind of prop up those lives and that each of these newly conceived and soon to be born babies have the ability to receive the blessings, as you said, that their mother and father have enjoyed. host: in terms of going about propping them up, does the

freedom coalition make endorsements in elections? guest: our organization doesn't explicitly endorse, but we track their voting performances on a host of issues. also for those who are not in office, there is a questionnaire that we ask people to fill out, candidates to fill out. then we kind of disseminate the responses for various questions. we will be doing that in about 25 different states this election cycle and this fall starting in september. we particularly tell people of faith that candidates fall on bash of issues. host: a look ahead past the 2024, what do you tell voters of faith about two very big names

in the republican potential primary? donald trump and ron desantis. guest: both together have demonstrated records. it is not just a rhetorical exercise, both of them have shown exactly where they have fallen. clearly on issues related to life, marriage and religious liberty, the nation of israel is another key issue i think for a lot of christian voters. all we do in situations like that is, again, just going over what they said but more importantly, what they've done on these issues. it is yet to be seen. i think it is probably fairly obvious that president trump intends to run again. governor desantis obviously is running for governor in florida right now, and the jury is out

on what his decision is going to be, if and when he were to be victorious in the florida gubernatorial, what is next steps would be. but we would just document and distribute around 44 million safe voters across the country these issues and let people make their own decisions. host: president trump spoke recently at the state and freedom coalition conference, and viewers watched on our website at c-span.org. how often do you hold that conference, and deal expect ron desantis to speak at one coming up? guest: we certainly hope so. the annual conference, we usually have it in mid-to-late june. the first 10 years, we had it in washington, d.c.. 2020, we kind of took it on the road and scaled it back a little bit. we were in orlando, florida in

2021. governor desantis did the keynote, well-received, as you can imagine. we are in nashville, tennessee, a week ago, the 2022 conference. president trump spoke and said we have about 45 other speakers that came to nashville, all very well-received. there was a lot of anticipation in the air about what the supreme court was going to say. that certainly pointed to the critical role that trump played in constituting this with three justice nominations. host: in florida, republican. we've got about 15 minutes left. what is your question or comment.

caller: good morning, c-span. i want to thank you for having president trump speak because i listened to it very clearly. my thoughts are very different. i don't believe abortion belongs in the court system. i believe thurgood marshall, and i believe the court in the 1970's. i believe it belongs with the states. i am a constitutionalist. i'm a little bit different. i don't see in the constitution our founding fathers thinking about abortion back in the 1800s. i don't believe that. i think a lot of young people on the street, it angers me because they are not reading and they are not learning. i believe our education system has ruined it. when i went to school, we were taught education in civics and history. a lot of young people, a lot of

people calling in this morning, everyone has their own beliefs, i understand all that. all that nonsense. but i think the country has beliefs as god and our beliefs as a nation. we are not being taught, that is the problem. these people call in, they rant and rave, they are angry, they are outside justices houses. our president is not following the rules of instruction to send out the police, u.s. marshals to protect these justices. and our congress members, it is disgusting. i am ashamed and embarrassed of what our nation has turned into by the people running it. the members of congress are an example for young people and they should stand up and say something. you don't like religion, you make fun of it, you ridicule it, i don't understand.

most technology out there today is waiting to see what you're doing to your child, and in the past, i can understand it. in the future, there is no reason for this. i am not into hatred or anger and i believe everyone should have a belief. i think our education system has really done dirt. the tv programs, and i'm not pointing fingers at anybody, but they don't teach the kids. they get on tv with reality shows, they have 16 different relationships, they hate their mom, they hate their father, they get a show. it is not right. host: you give up -- you bring up a lot of issues. guest: thank you, steve. listen, there is a bit of a logjam that you get into, a lot

of folks really appreciate the role of government. i think that too often, people have certain views on a perspective and they will kind of lurch for a lever of power, the biggest lever of power that they can find to kind of impose that view on other people. the reason why we see a lot of people lurch for the white house and then lurch for the supreme court is to consolidate power, to use that lever, if you will, to impose that view. one of the things that i really appreciate about the supreme court opinion is that truthfully, it doesn't actually go very much into the morality of the decision of abortion, it actually just says that the supreme court overreached in 1973 and kind of invented a new way of approaching the

constitution. what they are really trying to do is revert back to the original way of interpreting the constitution and using the constitution as it was designed and otherwise leaving decisions like this to the various states. you alluded to this in your comment, that while that may seem sort of disorganized and a large cosmopolitan country like the united states, the way we were designed is to be different than texas and for oregon to be different from kentucky. it is actually ok. host: a couple of callers brought this up in the first hour, looking at the two big decisions so far in the supreme court, but obviously the new york law on the ability to

regulate who can have a concealed carry permit in new york. the question that gets asked, why does the court decide that states can't regulate who should be able to have a concealed carry permit? in the abortion case, it should be the state to get to regulate who and when abortions can happen? guest: that is a good question. within the constitution, they identify a handful of rights that are kind of so central to being an american that the federal constitution applies those rights to every state. the second amendment, as a lot

of people are aware, are enumerated. not only new york, but also kentucky. while we at the freedom coalition don't necessarily get into second amendment issues, the way that the constitution is applied is through a few rights that were identified by name in the constitution itself. can't restrict searches and seizures, the fourth and the fifth amendments. the right to restrict police power in the instance of the fourth, fifth, eighth amendments. but a few of those things happen kind of spelled out and attributed specifically

through that mechanism. host: el dorado, kansas, independent, good morning. caller: hello, i am from el dorado. i would like to know if people understand evolution does not always stop a beating heart -- abortion does not always stop a beating heart. there are many ways for pregnancy to go wrong. a baby can be delivered and removing it is considered an abortion. is there a way that we can change the language so that women who want to save their lives can have abortions and people that want to stop a beating heart have a different label other than abortion?

guest: that is certainly an interesting question. i think you are right, there are some kind of exceptional instances where we have alluded to it often, usually in some language around the rights of the mother, but i think that is important for state legislators and governors to be mindful of those exceptions. they certainly are extenuating medical scenarios, to be sure, that we have to be very judicious and wise, frankly, in how we approach the situations. what we are trying to do, ultimately, through this process is to recognize the dignity and

the sanctity of life, knowing that clearly, there is going to be some kind of razor thin exceptions that are going to present themselves from time to time that are going to require our best judgments. host: mind for democrats, new york, good morning. caller: good morning. so why are you against abortion? because you here talking about the gospel of jesus christ, the bible. we can't have the bible as our constitution.

the government has the constitution, the government is the country. yes, the bible says you shall not kill, but at the same time, you support death penalty. when the kids are born, the babies, when they are born, you support guns to kill them in the church and in the schools, everywhere they are. if you had given them help, if a mother cannot provide for a kid, you don't come on tv and say you support that. host: we will let timothy respond. guest: i think that brings up a very fair question. we've centered most of this question around the abortion question, but i think the death penalty question is frankly an equally meritorious discussion.

biblically, there is a lot of precedent for the use of the death penalty, but i will say that also has been an exceptional circumstance. as far as modern or current policy, i would say i am in favor of the use of the death penalty reluctantly. one of the challenges that we find, we actually do a ton of work on the justice system, and our justice system, just like every system, is made up of finite people with limitations. i think when a crime is heinous enough and the evidence is absolutely clear, that there are appropriate times to prescribe

the death penalty, but those are very unusual, exceptional situations when the evidence is insurmountable. host: we remind viewers of your work on the effort to perform the criminal justice system. guest: that's right. a lot of people, i wouldn't expect you or someone else to know this, but we have actually done extensive work on the justice system. this year we are working 17 different states on different issues. the somewhat publicized, i think under-publicized passage of rights a couple of years ago, the organization was on the front lines working with the obama administration, the trump administration. we take the justice system very seriously. we think it is important for

that not to swing too far toward the center and not to swing too far toward prosecution and law enforcement but it is important for there to be a healthy balance, if you will, in the middle where our civil liberties, our constitutional rights are afforded and protected, but also that our street and communities are safe. we actually spend a great deal of time trying to contain that middle balance, that law and order is created and protected, but also that individuals are protected as well. host: just one more call, christopher has been waiting in florida, line for republicans. go ahead. caller: hello. i was watching a few days ago, i am a republican, but i am

pro-choice. like, what if the women can't afford to keep the baby? what if there is a possibility they could die in childbirth? host: you touched on some of that, but let me give you the final minute here. guest: thank you, christopher. i will just say that yet again, i think it is important for us to have these conversations and ultimately the individual decisions very soberly and conscientiously. each of these cases is very sensitive, they are emotionally sensitive, they can be medically sensitive. what we want is to see women afforded enormous protections

through the medical community is and also the legal community. actually, we are not in favor of criminalizing mothers through this process, we think that we need to build frameworks systems around women that are in social circumstances and doesn't allow for them to be able to parent the child, to allow for adoptions and other opportunities to strengthen families and protect the individual child while also making sure that the woman sell is protected and her opportunity to future non-compromised. i think you're going to see a lot of states being very compassion in the way that the approach these things. i honestly think people will

watch the ensuing legislation and see that conservatives and republicans and especially from my perspective, the christians and people of faith they care about women as well as babies, and we think there is a way that we can do this in a really smart way and safeway with ultimately -- as well. host: if you want to learn more, it is ffcoalition.com. we always appreciate your time. guest: thank you so much, god bless. host: we've got about a half hour here to return to our question about what comes next for states when it comes to the abortion debate? we began our program today talking to women only. what do you want from your stay on abortion? women only. eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8000.

women only in the mountain and pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. go ahead and start calling in, and we will get to your calls right after the break. >> the january 6 committee has wrapped its first series on the events leading up to and during the attack on the u.s. capitol. the return of at least two more hearings in the coming weeks. until then, you can go to c-span.org/january6 to wife the latest videos of the hearings, briefings, and all of the coverage of the investigations. journalists and authors talking about the investigation. go to c-span.org/january6 for a fast and easy way to watch when you can't see it live.

>> elizabethtown college history professor david brown is the author of a new book about former andrew jackson. brown writes that he is the first president to be born in a log cabin, to live beyond the appalachians and to rule, so he swore, in the name of the people. the title of the book is "the first populist: the defiant life of andrew jackson." he was president for two terms, eight years, 1829-1837. he was a jurist, a general, a congressman, a founder, and america's seventh president. >> david s brown and his book "the first populist: the defiant life of andrew jackson." book notes plus is available on

the mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter recaps balls of congress to daily press briefing to remarks from the president. scan the code at the bottom to sign up and stay up-to-date on everything happening in washington each day. subscribe today using the qr code revisit c-span.org/connect to subscribe anytime. >> c-spanshop is c-span's latest online store. there is something for every c-span fan. shop now or anytime.

washington journal continues. host: about a half hour here to return to the question that we began on the road graham. we are talking to women only at the battle for abortion shifts now. we are asking you what do you want from your state on this issue of abortion, more than in the eastern and central time zones. -- women in the eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8000. western and pacific, (202) 748-8001. the g-7 summit taking place in germany is where president biden is. the official class picture taking place this morning. you can see president biden with other various leaders. the latest news, volodymyr zelenskyy address the g-7 via video calling for more weapons for ukraine, telling the global

leader that he wants the war to end by the end of the year before winter sets in. g-7 leaders expected to offer more military support as well as further sanctions against russia with some planning to ban russian gold imports. not to go and wrap up tomorrow in germany. also back here in the u.s., president biden's director of the national drug control policy is set to testify before the house oversight and reform committee. you can watch that not only here, but on c-span.org. with that out of the way,

talking to women only, asking you what you would want from your state when it comes to the issue of abortion. in the post roe v. wade time, what did your state be doing? we appreciate you waiting from the last segment, so go ahead. caller: what i want to know is if the states get to make the decision, but each state has a different law, i want to know what are they going to do when they revisit back when slavery was ok? what are they going to do back when they are talking about hanging is ok? if the states are going to get their way, certain states are going to do what they want to do. it shouldn't be about writing wrong in this situation, a state shouldn't have the right to make a decision like this.

these republicans, they do what they want to do. host: margaret in illinois. this is catherine in mississippi. caller: good morning. my mom and dad have 10 children. -- we had nothing.

[indiscernible] host: how does this decision overthrow the government, what do you mean by that? caller: it will never stop. host: that is kathleen mississippi. our question in this segment as the issue returns to states, asking women only, what do you want from your state on the issue of abortion? mississippi said to become one of the states where abortion is

illegal in just the coming days. the chart we have been showing you noting that it will be -- after the attorney general certifies the decision. temporarily legal and devote 20 weeks, that gestational age at the age of the trigger law preventing all abortions 10 days before after the attorney general certifies. it would become one of the 11 states where abortion is expected to soon be illegal. remaining legal or at least legal for now in this country. we want to know what you want from your state on this issue. women only, florida, good morning. caller: good morning. i want respect for my country,

my state, as a woman. i see the path going down, down, down. animals get treated better than some of their women. i hate that respect, i've earned their respect. do the laundry, and the cleaning, -- we are turning back. and i wanted to come back full

force in the direction of respect for women. what is going to be next, that we can devote? we are second-class citizens again? i just don't understand where our government is going. host: one of those rights where abortion is recognized in the state constitution. caller: good morning. i am very proud in maine that the government will not have passed that bill, giving rights to women. any woman in any state who needs that sanctuary to come here, what this bill has done is it has basically set back rights almost 100 years just like the last caller said, what is going to be the next step against women?

if you have not been born female reproductive organs, you really have no say over my body. i am the victim of rape, had that turned into a pregnancy and it would have been aborted. i am also the daughter of a nurse, my best friend is a home delivery doctor. these other states, when they are going to call out abortion if they remove it, you are now threatening not just the life of the child, the child isn't even a viable embryo. you're threatening the life of the mother as well. i think that we need to go back to just regular human rights.

our country, our government, hundreds of thousands of dollars per child or we are already strolling -- struggling. these rates grew in care of what happens to the baby ones is born. host:host: a number for approval comes across the country, reacting to that supreme court decision from friday. usa today, the battle moves into

every single day and a few other state. most could be enforced in the absence of roe v. wade. a judge blocked enforcement of that law -- michigan judge blocd that enforcement, asserting that they are probably protected under the state's constitution. missouri has a law that would discourage residents from crossing into other states for those procedures. those who would run up against challenges based on the federal governments parents to enters -- regulate interstate commerce. legal experts say there is considerable gray area in the rights that most americans take for granted. this battle shifting to states, asking women only, what do you want from your states when it comes to the issue of abortion? manchester, washington. brandy, good morning. caller: good morning. i am in washington state where it is protected, and i'm

grateful for that. if you don't want money, don't have one. that burden should not: anybody. government has no place, nowhere -- in government, to force a woman to birth a baby, are you kidding me? even your last guest, his responses, which were quite hypocritical, the last guest even said, in personal choices -- and this is a personal choice. the second amendment is regulated. you can regulate but i guess the states are not smart enough for that? as far as the religious element, i am a woman of faith, but we are not a theocracy. to all of you harping on joe biden, the reason this is difficult for him, he does not believe in it for himself, but he will not impose it on anybody else.

which is my belief, too. there is nobody out there advocating that a woman get pregnant to get an abortion. there is no advocating for abortion. there is advocating for choice. for the religious folks, if you believe it is an innocent soul, then your own tenets tell you that that fetus, baby's life is going directly to god. because you believe in god as the ultimate judge, you let god judge the woman and her circumstances on whether or not she committed a heinous act. there is so much more to say here. host: you bring up your faith. one of the headlines was churches calling for calm on the first post roe sunday. were you in church yesterday, did this issue come up at your

place of worship? caller: i grew up in a very religious home, much stricter than i would like. i have made my way through it. i will attend various times with my family, but i do not attend a given church. i believe in jesus so strongly. one of the things that is so disappointing to me is believing in jesus -- believing in jesus is all about being better for yourself and better for others. i feel jesus has been so hijacked for personal use and personal gain, it is very sad for me. host: some scenes from the pages of the new york times. the jackson's women's health organization, the focus of that dobbs ruling. patients arriving, encountering

escorts to help them into the building, protesters trying to dissuade them. locally known as the pink house, they will continue to perform abortions until the state band takes effect in a few days. charlotte in houston, texas. caller: good morning, john. you happened to be my favorite host. i want to bring up something that nobody is bringing up. i understand that we were blessed as women to be a vessel to carry a child. but that child had a sperm. no one is talking about the fact, there are a lot of men who would gladly take care of a child. some of them make very good parents. i don't know why women are saying it is my choice. it is not your choice. this child was greeted by two people, not just one.

as women, we keep on relinquishing responsibilities of men. that, to me, is a part of the problem. we abused abortion, and that is why it has turned into what it is now. we, as women -- you don't go to bed unless we go to bed with you. we have control. host: you want the state of texas to enact more laws to ensure that fathers are more involved or perhaps more fiscally responsible, creating those ties in more ways? caller: i am personally a pro-lifer. i have seen both sides. i was a nurse in the 1970's. i saw the needles going up into the girls bodies, getting peritonitis and dying.

i really do understand. but there has to be common sense laws. texas is a little bit too strict, and i'm a republican and i'm a pro-lifer, but it is too strict. if you are rate, or insist, or the mother's health is in jeopardy, there has to be something that will guarantee that person is taken care of. it cannot be a blanket. no law is. no law is. but the thing is, we, as women, have relinquished men from the responsibilities we have. it is my choice, my body. it is your body, god gave it to you. we are very fortunate that we happen to be lucky enough to carry this human being in our body. but it started with a sperm.

host: charlotte in texas this morning saying she is a pro-lifer. this from the op-ed pages of the washington times, how the pro-life movement is winning. an excerpt from kellyanne conway's book. kellyanne conway, the former senior counselor to former president trump. she talked about that book on afterwards. you can watch that on our website, a part of our book tv programming. c-span.org. linda is in oklahoma you are next. caller: good morning. my concern is about the existing children and young people. a lot of our young people are suffering from mental illness in

the state of oklahoma. a lot of young babies are living in poverty. i am hoping that the governor will stop up with more health, more headstart, just more teachers and everything that helps a child grow up and be productive. these red states that half of these abortion laws have killed the health care programs. they fought against it vigorously. but i want to see those states step up for the existing babies. you cannot love the child in the womb and hate it outside of the womb. oklahoma, step up and do more for the existing babies. host: linda in oklahoma, where abortion is banned, will become

illegal as soon as the attorney general in that state certifies the roe v. wade decision. we have the map where you can look at the different laws in different states. it is available on politico.com. their recent story on what is happening with state laws in wake of the dobbs decision. susan in fremont, nebraska. good morning. go ahead, ma'am. caller: i have several thoughts on this. i have been a pro-choice person my whole life. i have never been married, never had kids, never wanted to, and that is my right. i'm old enough where i don't have to worry about this affecting me personally, but i have young women in my family. as a woman, we all have to pull together on this. my state is definitely going to go the route of banning it because we are under the control of the republican party.

our governor does not care about women, does not care about poor people, does not care about minorities. the biggest thing but this is two things. one is, this is control of women. later, it will be control of gay people, many different factions. we have to put a stop to this or we will not recognize our country. we are already seeing a lot of basically fascist behavior. i would suggest everyone get out and vote. the majority of people are not anti-roe v. wade. and then take care of the children once they are born. the pro-life movement is so good at talk, not so good at action. host: jeannie in spring hill, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a couple of things i have to tell you. number one, i did have a tubal pregnancy, and i'm great fall

that that option was available. i was in the hospital and it was an emergency. just hearing these people -- we are not using knitting needles anymore for an abortion. but if you want to go that route, remember the strain it will put on medicaid. medicaid pays for these services. we are going to move state to state doing this. i'm in florida. i love my governor, but you cannot say this is a moral thing -- listen, i'm not prejudice, i don't judge people -- but you cannot say that this is the moral thing to do when we have gay people, we have the lgbtq community out there.

we cannot just focus on one area like that. this is a disgrace. what is really sad, i am old enough not to have children anymore, but my 13-year-old granddaughter said i'm never going to have children in this world. that is what she said. it is really sad, it is depressing. taking these rights away from women -- not every woman uses abortion as birth control, but you need to remember the strain this is putting on the medicaid system, as well. host: florida's legislature recently passed a bill restricting the band of abortion after 15 weeks. liz in jonesboro, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. i certainly want to thank the

previous scholars from washington, oklahoma, nebraska. they had it right. texas, i don't know. i don't want them to do anything to abortion in georgia. it was, and is at this moment, still available, up to 20 we eks. that there is a heartbeat bill on the books, and i assume the attorney general will try to interact that as soon as possible. i used to do social work in north carolina. we had one mother whose 12-year-old daughter had become pregnant as a result of insist -- incest. it was too late for her to have an abortion anyway. the child went to the hospital and they had the abortion. the next day, she was, or in a coloring book. she was to years old. i don't want to see another 12, 13-year-old -- i don't want to see anyone understand, if you have been victimized by insets

or rate, you are victimizing yourself and child. host: time for maybe one more call in the segment, talking to women only, asking what you want from your state on this issue of abortion. albuquerque, new mexico. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is the first time i have spoken with you. i listen a lot, especially with all of this covid madness. i want to say, i am so appreciative of our supreme court. i applaud them and i thank god for them. this has been a grave sin on our nation. abortion is murder. it does stop a beating heart. a woman who has had a sonogram, thank god they have sonograms new. i am 73 years old almost. i grew up, i have been able to

practice birth control and have control of my body all my life in america. i am an american and a new mexican. i lived half my life in california. after my husband died, i came back to new mexico, which is a very pro-abortion state, i guess. hopefully, the tide will change. thank you for my call, for letting me speak. god bless america. god bless you. host: our last color in the segment washington journal. 45 minutes left in our program. in that time, we are joined by nation magazine elie mystal to discuss the supreme court decision on friday, look ahead to what is next. we will be right back. ♪ >> be up to date in the latest

in publishing with book tv's podcast about books, with current nonfiction book releases. plus, bestseller lists, as well as industry news, and trends through insider interviews. find the books on c-span now or wherever you get your podcast. ♪ >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. hear many of those conversations on c-span's new podcast, presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you'll hear about the 1964 civil rights act, the goal of tonkin incident, the march on selma, and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> johnson's secretaries knew because they were being tasked with transcribing many of those

conversations. in fact, they were the ones who made sure that the conversations were taped, as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and there's. >> you'll will also hear some blunt talk. >> want to report the number of people assigned to kennedy today that he died. if i can ever go to the bathroom, i will go. i will go anywhere. >> presidential recordings. five it on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> washington journal continues. host: we welcome back to the program elie mystal, justice correspondent for the nation magazine. you wrote on friday in the wake of that supreme court decision, that they took the most extreme

course possible here. explain what you mean. guest: mississippi only initially asked to uphold its 15-week ban on abortions. that violated what jackson women's health was doing in mississippi, providing abortions up to 16 weeks. people that think they were providing abortions on demand are wrong. they have always been wrong. the supreme court could have upheld a mississippi law without cutting roe v. wade. in fact, before ruth bader ginsburg died, that is all mississippi was asking to do. but once she was replaced by amy coney barrett, once conservatives understood they had conservative control over the supreme court, they switch their arguments to asking the supreme court to completely destroy roe v. wade and planned parenthood, which is exactly what sam alito and five conservatives were willing to do. the way this decision came down did not have to be like this. they didn't have to overrule roe

v. wade, they wanted to. this is the extremists that we have right now with the conservatives in control of the supreme court. host: can you explain what the 14th amendment does and does not do? guest: according to conservatives on the supreme court, only protects what the white male in slavers and colonists who goaded at the time believe. so if a dead white man did not give you right in the 19th century, you don't have them, according to the conservatives on the supreme court. this idea that the 14th amendment must also be cable to the white men that ratified it, no person of color was about rights or drafts on the 14th amendment. no woman was about to write or draft on the 14th amendment. it was only a privileged group of white men. according to sam alito, if those white men didn't think you should have rights, you don't. host: do you believe the constitution protects the right to an abortion?

if so, where in the constitution does that fall? guest: under the first amendment under the establishment of religion clause, the idea that life begins at fertilization is a religious idea, not a scientific one. it is protected under the first amendment. i believe the constitution also protects the right to abortion under the eighth amendment which bans cruel and unusual punishment. i would say forcing a woman to give birth against her will is cruel and unusual punishment. the constitution protects abortion under the ninth amendment which says we have unenumerated rights. i believe you can find those protections there. i believe abortion is protected under the 13th amendment which says clearly that involuntary servitude is in constitutional in the united states. forcing a woman to give birth against her free will would be involuntary servitude. i believe abortion is protected under the 14th amendment which is an equal protection of laws show happen. i believe abortion was protected

under the 14th amendment substantive due process logic, which is what everybody believed for 15 years until they said no on friday. host: elie mystal is with us. taking your phone calls. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independent, (202) 748-8002. we will get to your calls in a second. elie mystal all, concern among the justices, the dissenting justices in the opinion that this is a slippery slope. that this opens up other rights protected under the 14th amendment for the supreme court to go back and revisit. seeking to allay those concerns, justice alito wrote this in his opinion. the dissent suggests our decision calls into question griswold and eisenstadt and marzano burchfield but we have stated unequivocally that nothing in this opinion should be cast out on precedents that do not concern abortion.

we have also explained why it is so, rights regarding conscious traction and same-sex relationships are inherently different from a right to abortion because the latter, as we have stressed, uniquely involves what roe and casey terms potential life. guest: who is the we that sam alito is talking about? he is not talking about his own conservative friend in clarence thomas. it was not the defense -- dissent going off the rail saying they were worried about the slippery slope. it was the concurring. he clearly stated that he thinks this decision, the dobbs decision, the overturning of roe v. wade, should also open up a re-examination of cases like same-sex marriage, contraception , like the right to marry. clarence thomas is saying that that is what they are coming for next. you know who else is saying this? other senators like mike braun

who says that loving v virginia, the case that protects interracial marriage, he thought that should be overturned and returned to the states. he walked that back. then texas senator john cornyn also said that he thought they should review over shell, the same-sex marriage case. republicans spent 50 years saying they were going to take away abortion and now they have done it. a lot of people said they will not be that extreme. they were going to be that extreme and they pretty much told you so. now it is the thing that people said that republicans were not going to take away -- now that gay marriage is ok? no it is not. these republicans have the power and they have the vote and they will take a hammer to liberal democracy post-world war ii. host: elie mystal is our guest. you can see his work for the

nation where he works as a justice correspondent. or you can call in and ask a question. the phone lines are open. linda in decatur, georgia. independent. good morning. caller: i want to know why there has been no talk vasectomy's for men. that is useful birth control. i wonder if he had a comment on that. guest: what i would argue is that the 14th amendment should protect a woman's right to choose, just like it protects a man's right to choose or not choose a vasectomy. i don't think the way to solve this wrong is to do additional wrong. there is a way to solve this. protect women and their choices and their bodily autonomy. you don't protect women's bodily autonomy by taking it away from somebody else.

you protected by protecting it. you pass laws. i argue you should expand the supreme court. lots of things that we can do to restore what the supreme court has done. but we should focus on protecting people as opposed to hurting other people so they know how it feels, although i appreciate your desire. host: you talk about expanding the supreme court. president biden would have to agree to do that. i wonder your thoughts on his response from friday, the response of this administration to this. guest: when biden says that he will not call for ending the filibuster or for expanding the supreme court, what he is saying is that he will do nothing. unless you eliminate the filibuster or codify rover weight -- roe v. wade is federal law, expand the supreme court so that the justices who just

overturned 50 years of precedent don't turn around and overturn and ask of congress, then you get nothing. the conservative supreme court has proven itself. it has said that it does not care about past legal precedents. it does not care about rights unless list of white men gave you those rights in the 19th century. that is what the conservatives are doing right now. either you accept that, as biden is apparently willing to, and you get nothing, or you do what is necessary to reform the court, the senate, reform our politics, so that rights can be protected. host: if you eliminate the filibuster and codify abortion under law, what happens if and when at some point down the road public like a diskette a majority in the house, presidency, choose to revisit this? guest: they will. this is politics, right? if you pass something, republicans will overturn it.

there is no version of events where you can do something that is republican-proof. republicans don't want people to have rights, democrats do. note accordingly. those are always -- about accordingly. those are always your options. people seem to think that because it was a supreme court ruling, because people like brett kavanaugh and neil gorsuch went to congress and lied about what they thought about president -- precedent, they thought that they were safe from that. either vote for the people that will protect human rights and the plurality of the nation or you vote for the people who promise to take it away. those are always your choices. host: lawrence, south carolina. suzanne is a democrat. good morning. caller: thank you, c-span, thank you, attorney mystal. i'm excited to ask you the

question. i follow you on twitter, i follow your books -- i read your books. why doesn't the president want to expand the court? guest: i don't know, we are not buds. i cannot speak to his heart. but what i can say is based on his 40 years of public service, joe biden, and many democrats are institutionalists. they believe institutions themselves have power and value. they believe the institutions alone will save us. as long as we have good people running the institutions, they believe that is enough. i counter that by looking at what institutions have done historically. what we have seen from the supreme court, historically has been a force for people in this country. everybody thinks the supreme

court -- warren, roe v. wade, miranda. but that was a really small time period. 1954to 1982. that is about when any other time. from1787 to 1954, and for the past 40 years, the supreme court has been a conservative block on the rights of everybody else. one of the ways i like to explain this. tell me the first lawsuit brought under the 13th amendment. that is the amendment that prohibits, makes unconstitutional slavery. the first lawsuit was brought by white people who argued in louisiana that granting a monopoly to slaughter was akin to economic slavery for poor whites in the louisiana. the supreme court, not congress, not the president, rejected the lawsuit and said the 13th amendment was only for " the slave race" and not for anybody else.

even when you pass a constitutional amendment, certainly a congressional act, the supreme court has the ability to cut those acts out at the knees. as long as you respect that institutional ability to do that, they will always do that. we need to reform the institution, not rely upon it. that is the difference between a joe biden and many established democrats, and people like me, reformers, who want to change the institutions, as opposed to just hoping they do good. host: the book that came out this spring by elie mystal, "allow me to tort." taking your phone calls this morning for the next 30 minutes. this is buck inlet center, kentucky. republican. good morning. caller: good morning. two quick things i want to say to the guess with all due respect.

he keeps talking about the 14th amendment. i would like to remind him that the text of the 14th amendment says no one shall be deprived of their life, liberty, or property without due process of the law. i could argue under that that abortion should be legal at the federal level. second of all, he keeps talking about bodily autonomy. i would like to know where the guest was when new york city was basically telling its citizens that you could not participate in everyday life without getting the covid-19 vaccine. it would seem to me that was a violation of people's freedom to bodily autonomy. guest: are you really going to make a false equivalency of putting a cloth mask on your face and being forced to carry a pregnancy to term against your will for nine months? is that actually the argument you want to make, buck? caller: i am making an argument

about vaccines, not the mask. guest: i am making the argument about whether women can be turned into incubators. i will argue that no legitimate government, no federal, state, no legitimate government can rent out a woman's body against her will for nine months. as far as your textual analysis of the 14th amendment, you say protect life. first of all. second of all, your idea is based on a religious believe of when life begins. other people do not share your belief of when life begins. other religions do not share your belief of when life begins. trying to take a secular law and wedge it into a religious believe is again an illegitimate use of power. host: trisha is next out of north bergen, new jersey. independent. caller: good morning.

i hope that you can hear me. i'm sorry, i have a sore throat. my comment is, i am jewish, and i have a hard time understanding how this abortion -- the christian belief that life begins at conception. in judaism, the baby does not have a soul until it is born. how is my religious freedom being protected? guest: your religious views are not being protected by this christian theocratic court. this is what i've been saying. the decision that abortion is illegal or unconstitutional is rooted in christian fundamentalism. other religions do not believe -- this is not to say of people with no religion what they believe. the only legitimate way to run a society is to allow people the freedom to choose for themselves what they believe about their own bodies.

that should be obvious. the hypocrisy of the supreme court is that they will not allow for a religious belief that is against their christian fundamentalist view of when life begins, but they will absolutely allow for secular laws to be overturned if your religion also demands that you are a bigot toward gay people. the hypocrisy of the supreme court is really on display through not just its decision in dobbs but across a number of issues. host: we focus so much on the dots case, and we have throughout the program today, but we should point out there are more orders coming down from the supreme court today. seven cases remaining. what are you watching for, which should viewers be watching for here coming up in the next half-hour? guest: 10:00, more decisions be made the biggest one i'm waiting for is when the conservatives on the supreme court revoke essentially the clean air act,

destroy the administrative state. west virginia versus epa. it's about whether the epa has the authority to regulate the air under the clean air act. what i fear, six conservatives and neil gorsuch will say, the epa doesn't have the authority, and courts, not the executive agencies, not professionals, not the experts have the right to decide how much pollution is allowed in the air. that will be very bad. that was always going to be the second worst decision from the supreme court this term behind dobbs. host: did we learn anything new about the roberts court in this term? guest: no. they are who we thought they were. they promised to do this. donald trump promised to elect only pro-life judges.

they stole the seed from barack obama. once they promoted amy coney barrett after the election to replace, the writing was always on the wall. maybe people were addled, and believed attempted rapist brett kavanaugh, maybe people were dumb enough to believe him. i didn't. i didn't believe neil gorsuch, i knew what they were going to do. now they have done it. host: does star decisive smita anything? -- stare decisis mean anything? guest: not to conservatives. the idea that you should not overturn a previous supreme court case oblique because you didn't like it. you should overturn it because something has changed. when they overturned plessy v ferguson, brown v. board of

education, there was all of this evidence that they brought forward. they argued -- i disagree -- but they argue that the white people could not have known that the black people were people. they said they overturned plessy versus ferguson because of this new information about whether or not black people are people. if you go forward to dobbs, you don't see that. there is no deep analysis and how the world has changed from 1972. all that work that is supposed to go into overturning a president, that was not there. they just said, we don't like that old decision, so we are going to overturn it. if they can do that, they can do that to anything. all of these presidents that we are talking about, obergefell, contraception, brown v. board of education, all of that is on the table because conservatives have six votes. as long as you a lot of to have

six votes, all of these rights are under threat. host: massachusetts. rachel on the line. good morning. caller: good morning. somebody who can talk. how far we have come since we have been legal for abortion. that is not my choice, will never be. i am a 17th child. my mother had all of us, all of my brothers went into the service. we were responsible. if my brothers were downtown, the cops would see them, they would say you better behave because i'm going to call your mother. responsible. we had to obey. they could be decent people. you get in trouble, my mother would fix you. she will twist your ear. host: what is your comment or question? caller: you can talk all you

want, but having an abortion is not the answer. where have we come? guest: says who? did anyone force her mother to have 17 kids? would you have accepted if the state of massachusetts said we need more people for the army, so rachel's blog, get cracking. would that have been a good solution to force her mother to have more children than she wanted to? no. all i'm saying is the government has no business inside people's hoo-haws. it is actually a really simple position. women who want to give birth can. i am a guy, this is not something that is going to happen to me. i have been around birth, seems pretty painful. i'm amazed that anybody would want to do it, certainly for a second time. it is a miracle.

i'm very happy that there are women who are willing to do this, but there are also not. it is a simple position. caller: i don't think my mother wanted 17 children but she took everyone of them. guest: you don't think your mother wanted 17 children, so it is good for the state to force for the people to do what your mother didn't want to do? caller: nobody forced anybody to do anything. guest: even the supreme court decision has no exception for rape or insist. the supreme court is the literally willing to force a woman to give birth against her will. caller: no. you have to take responsibility. if you impregnate somebody, you are responsible. guest: i'm just telling you what the supreme court said. if you don't like what they said, maybe you shouldn't vote republican. host: howard from maryland.

democrat from maryland. caller: elie, thank you for being a voice of reason we would i appreciate it. i bought your book. now, i want to say this. oh ye hypocrites. i have heard callers talk about how a fetus is supposed to be protected. yet, when they are born, then it is open season for them to be killed. how are you going to protect somebody or something that is not of this earth right now, and then when they are born into this earth, you treat them like going to a fair. they have those ducks rolling across and you shoot those ducks. this is what is happening.

i have heard many collars on this line talk about the bible, thou shall not kill. in my estimation, when a fetus becomes a living person, 7, 6, 5 years old, in school, and they are going to school to learn, and then they are shot down mercilessly when a father goes to get a cake for his child, and they are shot down mercilessly, where does this supremacist court, white males and one handmaiden come into effect, to sit up there and tell us who we are and who we are to support? guest: one thing that howard brings up that i want to remind people of. we can tell, even the

conservatives who are saying, embryos are people, they don't actually believe that born alive babies are people. we know that because they don't protect babies from being shot at school. they don't provide for babies education or welfare. they will not, some of these conservatives will not give that baby a toothbrush if that baby doesn't happen to be in the united states. the idea that you can care about life for the nine months during gestation, but don't care about life the minute it is breathing on its own, is a lot bit hypocritical to me. again, the point here is not life for these people. it is to control women. they don't care about the life what is -- once it is outside the woman. they don't care about embryos. if people really thought that embryos were babies, there are embryos in frozen cages in fertility clinics all across the land. go free them and bring them to

life if you think that is life. they are not doing that, because we know who needs fertility services. they are not talking about fertility clinics, they are not talking about born children who need health care. they are talking about only for those nine months when that embryo or fetus can be used to control a woman's body. that is when they suddenly care. that is how you can see the hypocrisy. host: you bring up school shootings. i wonder what you think about the bipartisan gun safety law. do you think it will help to end mass shootings in this country? guest: of course not. it doesn't van assault rifles, it doesn't significantly restrict gun access. it is nice, better than what they had before. i imagine the current supreme court, which just dumped its nose at 50 years of supreme court precedent, making pretty much every state in open carry state, turning every state into texas, i imagine the supreme

court will strike down the bipartisan gun law as soon as they can get around to it in 2023 or 2024. if you don't expand the court, reform the court, if you allow six conservative theocrat to control the court for a generation, you get nothing. host: a black guy's guide is the name. what is the black guy's guide to the second amendment? guest: the idea that the right to bear arms includes a right to personal arms is not the original intent of the second amendment, it is not the original meaning, it is not how the second amendment was understood by the people who wrote and ratified it. that is an invention by the nra in the 1970's that the second amendment confers a personal right to own guns and defense. that invention by the 1970's was not given voice in the supreme court until 2008 with scalia's

d.c. versus heller decision. all of this is modern. when you want to go to the actual reason for the second amendment, you should ask the people who wanted it in their. the people that wrote the constitution, they didn't think the constitution needed an amendment. they thought it was fine. it was the antifederalists who thought the constitution needed to protect minimum rights, the ninth amendment, unenumerated rights. one of those was a second amendment, a well regulated militia being necessary. the reason why they wanted that, why militia was important to that right, the militia was the principal way of putting down slaverables. it is difficult to keep people in bondage until you have a military superiority over them. in the south and in most places they had that at the founding. but there were pockets in

virginia and south carolina where enslaved people outnumbered the whites, where guns were not easily available. occasionally, those plantations would revolt. the principal way of putting down a rug what was the well-regulated election. in the initial constitution, the idea of who could raise a militia was in the air. people thought only the federal government could raise the militias, not the individual states. so the antifederalists were worried about this, and they wanted to make sure that the second amendment made sure that states could make their own militias, and they said so. they'd said so in speeches. you can go back to george mason. there are speeches in the virginia house of legislatures where they said this was their logic for the second amendment. that is why it is there, not for an individual right to bear arms. it is for the well-regulated militia putting down slaveholders.

host: 10 minutes left in our program with elie mystal, joining us, taking your phone calls. eric is in odenton, maryland. line for republican. good morning. caller: yes, sir. first of all, ask your guy here you should not be yelling at folks. that does not win anybody over to his side of the argument. second of all, i don't believe he read with the supreme court put out in the decision. all they did was push a back down to the states. i'm a libertarian, i could care less what you do with the kids, just as long as i don't have to pay for it. i have never met or listen to anybody who is so ignorant on history as this guy is. all he is is a race baiter. he is just trying to raise issues. guest: have you actually read the constitution? have you read the part where it

says well-regulated militia? the idea that i am here for your benefit to convince you is completely wrong. i don't care what you think. i am here to get other people who agree with me to understand how difficult our situation is, and what people like you are doing to the country. was there an actual question there? i'm sorry, i didn't actually hear a question that you had for me. if you look at the history of the second amendment, if you read books about the second amendment, if you read the speeches from the people who wanted the second amendment, you will see what i just said. host: shakira in brooklyn. democrat. good morning. caller: i enjoyed "allow me to retort." thank you for making information

on the constitution so that adjustable. in the big affordable care act case, chief justice roberts decided not to strike down this law because of this idea of reliance, where americans had developed a reliance on what was available under the law. i was born with a womb. respectfully and humbly, as someone who has to live with this organ my entire life, it seems reasonable that people like me and similarly situated should be able to rely on access to that organ care throughout our lives. i wonder, did the court addressed this concept of reliance at all in the writings that came out in the opinions? guest: reliance is a huge reason to uphold precedent. the dissent, which was cowritten by breyer, sotomayor, kagan, talked about how the reliance interests were such, even if you

didn't think roe v. wade was correctly decided in 1972, if you didn't think the 14th amendment especially protected the right to an abortion, that roe v. wade should still be upheld because of the reliance interest. that is what they said. republicans don't care. they just didn't care. there is no other way to put it. they don't care about your reliance interest, they don't care about what women are actually going through. they just want to do the power -- they want to do what they have the power to do. eric was saying that supreme court returned it to the state. the old states rights argument. that argument has been used to justify pretty much every atrocity done to nonwhite men in this country. that is how they justify slavery, segregation. that is how they justified bans on sodomy, ban on interracial marriages.

it is always states rights. so i take a dim view on states rights. what we know from the constitution is that the white man who wrote it, the slavers and colonists who wrote it put in some carveouts, we call them rights that would supersede what the states wanted them to do. they put in the right to free speech, search and seizure. that is what abortion is, a right. i will acknowledge the people who wrote the constitution did not specifically say, a woman has the right to an abortion. but i will also point out that the people who wrote the constitution didn't think that a woman have the right to finish their sentences. these were exclusively white men who excluded white women from the -- excluded women from the conversation. it is not surprising that the rights they wrote down were important to them and not everybody else. luckily, they also brought on the ninth amendment who said

they could not have thought of all the rights given to the people. host: president biden on friday referred to his determination to ensure the right to travel between states if somebody is seeking abortion access in another state. take us through the constitutional issues here. guest: one of the things the states that will do that will ban abortion, they will enact fugitive uterus acts. they will try to restrict the travel of women from their states to another state where abortion is legal and then back home. it will be very much like the 1850 fugitive slave act, that again, the white slavers and colonists passed. those acts should be illegal. there is a right to interstate commerce, a right to travel. you shouldn't be able to restrict travel from one state to another. if you do something in another

state, your state does not have sovereignty over you. it is a what happens in vegas kind of thing. i cannot be prosecuted in new york for new york state crimes that i commit in las vegas. that is the idea. biden says he will protect that right. i don't yet know what that means. quite frankly, what it should mean, what the states are going to make it mean, is that women will need armed escorts to travel across states. at the very least, they will need travel vouchers to cross state lines. we all know that rich white women will be able to go where they need to go to get their abortions. that is a part of the subtext of this decision. we know that. we know the mistress of the rich white republican donor will be able to go to canada or belize or wherever she has to go to get an abortion. but it is poor women who will be most restricted from these laws.

and it will be poor women who will have the least ability to travel to expensive states like illinois or new york or california to get services. if biden is serious about protecting a woman's right to travel, i would assume he is also serious about giving women vouchers and money to do that travel. but in addition to that, we will need some kind of protection for travel. another side point, we will need -- and the justice department has maybe indicated it is thinking about maybe doing -- we will need some protection of privacy. what the states will do is use apps, period tracking apps, pregnancy apps to try and prove that women are crossing state lines to have reproductive health services. we will need some kind of prosecutorial response against those laws. there is a lot that goes away

now. there is a lot that gets dystopian and scary, and all of this has been brought to you by the republicans. host: one or two more calls. a reminder, we are expecting orders, decisions coming down from the supreme court. seven decisions left. we will certainly do through them tomorrow on this program. we begin every morning at 7:00 eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. this afternoon on c-span, and events on the overdose crisis in this country. president biden director of the national control policy will testify on the 2022 national drug strategy. you can watch that on c-span, c-span.org, c-span video app. chuck is waiting in georgia. he is an independent. go ahead. caller: 10 minutes ago, you said nothing had changed since 1972

when roe v. wade was passed. size has changed a lot since then. they have been able to determine things that we didn't know back then about the viability of a baby in the womb. that is why the majority of people now want to limit when you make an abortion. i think that is the correct thing. if a baby is viable, why would you want to kill it? i don't understand anyone thinking that wants to kill a viable baby. guest: that was the holding in roe. the holding in roe is that abortion would be legal up until fetal life -- viability. if you want to make a scientific argument, give me the journal of medicine that says fetal viability begins from 20x weeks from 20y weeks. maybe with the best sides of all we can get it down to 20 weeks. ok, i'm open to the conversation. i'm open to the holding in roe.

but the holding in roe was that fetal viability was the line. that is the only thing that makes sense. if you are going to say that life begins at fertilization, which is not something that everyone agrees on, certainly while i cannot live outside the mother, the woman's body needs to have ultimate choice over what happens after fetal viability, when the fetus can live without the forced labor of the woman, that we can talk about legitimate state interest. the whole thing in roe was fetal viability. it is this conservative theocratic supreme court that change that to no. they went from fetal viability to the moment of conception. that is what dobbs did. if you think there should be so after fetal viability where abortion is restricted or illegal, guess what, that is the

world we were living in until friday. host: i know that you'll have to turn around and focus on these new supreme court decisions that will be handed down. we will give you a minute before those start coming out. we do appreciate you coming on to the program, chatting with the viewers. ellie missed out, "allow me to retort." you can find him on twitter. thank you so much. guest: thanks for having me. host: that will do it for our program today. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 eastern, 4:00 pacific. in the meantime, have a great monday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪

>> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns from the world all it takes all that your fingertips. you can also stay current the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for the cd networks plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play, downloaded for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime anywhere. >> today, president biden's director of national drug control policy testifies on the 2022 national drug strategy. and the government's response to

overdose and addiction. this house oversight and reform committee hearing begins at 1:30 p.m. eastern life on c-span. can also watch on c-span now, our free mobile video app or online at www.c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? it's way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 committee centers to create wi-fi enabled areas so low income families can get the tools they need. >> comcast provides a public service give you a front row seat to democracy. good monday morning to you. go ahead and start calling in now. we are talking to women only in this fst