>> ♪ host: good morning. president biden continues the middle east to her today. the senate -- tour today. the house will begin this morning. house democrats have two boats today -- two votes today that will try to protect abortion in the post-roe era. this morning, we are getting your reaction.

we want to hear your message to congress. give us a call with my political party. jim. -- democrats (202) 748-8000 , republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. he would also send us a text. -- otherwise also send us a text. a very good friday morning. start calling in it now as we call about the votes on the house floor on the issue of abortion. here is the associated press story on those vote. the first built which passed in september but stalled in senate would make sure abortion is protected under federal law and the other would protect those who travel over state lines.

the necessary support is lacking in the senate. this begins a new era in the abortion debate as legislators grapple with the impact of the court's decision. we want to hear what is happening in your state. phone numbers, (202) 748-8000 four democrats, (202) 748-8001 four republicans, (202) 748-8002 for independents. a new ad this week from the democratic national committee targeting republicans the issue of abortions. >> republicans ending a woman' s right to choose. >> this is a moment for a credible celebration. >> what a great victory. >> mike pence wants to ban abortion in every state.

>> mitch mcconnell says a ban is possible. we are the many, we will fight for freedom and we will not be silenced. host: that from the airwaves from the floor of the house. this is from wednesday, congress and michael -- congressman michael burgess discussing his view on the abortion debate. >> before coming congress, i practiced medicine for nearly 30 years. had the privilege of delivering 3000 babies. i dedicated my career to protect the lives of children and families and running a pro-life clinic in texas. i have seen both sides of this argument, both as a doctor and policymaker. chairman of the department at parkland hospital medical

school, when i was a resident pointed out to us that those of us who were privileged to begin the practices of obstetrics were unique in that medicine come in that we were going to be charged with taking care of two patients with combined life expectancy of over 100 years and almost nowhere else in medicine it do you have that ability to impact the future. in 2002, i ran for congress because i saw lawmakers, particularly in congress, who never experienced taking care of a patient discussing and setting the stage of how you are supposed to run a medical practice. today is no different and it is deeply frustrating to see individuals discussing procedures with little understanding of how and why they are performed and how they affect the patient's -- patients involved, the mother and the baby. host: michael burgess on the floor of the house earlier this week.

that is some of what you could have been hearing. we want to hear what is happening in your state and we want to get your thoughts on this vote today. the first vote to attempt to protect abortion in the post-roe era. robert is out of clearwater, florida, independent. good morning. caller: i think abortion is murder after a certain number of weeks. why don't they put them up for adoption if they don't want the baby? i see certain things like insist or read rate, but they -- insist or rape -- and -- incest or

rape. host: so for you it is eight weeks? caller: i think eight weeks, if they are going to do it and know they are pregnant right away they should do it right away. host: this is ishmael in indiana, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. just a quick comment -- abortion shouldn't be on the back burner. this is truly a woman's right. in indianapolis, it is all over the news that when a 10-year-old girl was raped in ohio, they had to transport her to get an abortion or that is a black eye for our freedom. we have to be more civil about this issue.

it is definitely a woman's right. i lived in the middle east of to the -- up to 18 years. this should be totally be a woman's right. the republicans about murderers and rights, what about when the child comes to this world? are they going to take care of it? if you don't have a father or a family. adoption is a long process. let the women make the decision. most of them keep their babies. we need to get the women their rights. host: patrick of lady lake,

florida. independent. good morning. caller: first off, a man, i guess it is not right decision to make, but whoever makes the decision, i am not interested in paying for your kids. you can pay for them yourselves, all of the pro lifers, don't ask for my money. c-span, you never put out any statistics. i understand almost the majority of women who have an abortion already have a child. if you want to force a 16-year-old that was sexually assaulted to have a child, you pay for it. i would like to say one thing -- all of these conservatives who

want to lock people up forever because they are anti-crime, as soon as they have to start paying for their prison sentences, they would say, we have become judicial -- conformer's. a lot of different decisions would be made. host: this is peter out of west palm beach, florida, democrat. caller: i have to bring up a point that is different. i am 91 years old and i was 42 when date legalized abortion. before that, we had illegal abortion. i lived on staten island, and this is in the staten island paper, they had to orphanages. on one side of the girls, and on the others was 1100 boys they find out that 95% of the

orphanages were abandoned babies. they were abandoned in subways. my friend worked in a firehouse the street from me. in one year they had three abandoned babies. one that was left in a window froze to death before they found it. that was kept off of the headlines. they kept hoping the woman would show up asking how the baby was doing so they could arrest her. you are going to see orphanages open around the country because people will abandon their babies. if they think that is better than having an abortion, please think about it twice. these abandoned children are raised without a father and mother, not knowing their brothers and sisters because they don't know who they are. they have never known their names.

that is why there were a lot of sniffs at jones because they were given names when abandoned. host: it is to bills -- two bills. we will go there and cover gavel-to-gavel. those two bills, women's health protection act prohibits government restrictions on access to abortion services and stops government from limiting abortion services being telemedicine or limiting services when health risks are determined and requiring patient to make it in person visit before receiving an abortion. the other bill is the ensuring access to abortion act of 2022. that bill prohibits any state from restricting travel to another state to obtain an abortion and barring from assisting traveling and

clarifies laws in spending fda approved abortion bills. a lot more about those. there is scheduled an hour of debate before those of votes and we expect those later in the morning or around lunchtime. the senate is not in until monday, adjourned last night. they will be in at 3:00 p.m. on monday. james in new york, independent, you are next. caller: i hope the house rejects these bills. however, since the democrats are in control and they really don't care about life, i am sure they would pass. i wish they would go back to the declaration of independence and read it that we are created, not merely born, created equal.

i feel like we need to reaffirm that basic truth that was articulated in that document 200 years ago. unfortunately, i live in a state that is trying to compete with california in being the abortion capital of the u.s. here are governor is roman catholic. i cannot believe that she would allow politics to dictate these kinds of policies which are so antithetical to the catholic faith. i do appreciate that catholics. i come from a conservative background and we in the conservative conservation stand for the life of the unborn child and we need to reaffirm that value here in america. host: michael in petersburg,

virginia, republican. we lost michael. to brenda, democrat. good morning. caller: with all these meetings and hearings on abortion, there is a group of people not even given consideration. the husbands. i believe since roe v. wade first came in, there tens of thousands of husbands over the years that have had to make a choice in the delivery room whether the doctor saves his wife or whether the doctor saves his child. and the husband had to make that choice because the pregnancy went horribly wrong. now the husband doesn't get to make that choice anymore. the state and elected officials are telling the husband that we are going to decide that today you become a widow and a

single-parent. they say that the demise of our society is because of single families while the abortion laws are ensuring that more single parent families are going to be created. you can say if the woman doesn't want the baby she can give it up for adoption, but that is fine but that the pregnancy went horribly wrong and she had a stroke and is now partially paralyzed for the rest of her life but she gave the baby up for adoption. you are not considering the consequences of pregnancy that can affect the woman their entire life. i believe women should have the chance to stand their ground, just like men stand their ground if they feel threatened on the street.

i think women that have medical facts and evidence that their life is in danger or there is safety, i think they should be able to stand their ground. host: on the issue of emergency medical abortion, this from the new york times, the state of texas suing the biden administration over access to emergency abortions. noting that what is likely to be a protracted tug-of-war between the administration and states like texas that have swiftly taken steps to ban abortion in almost all cases after the supreme court decision to overturn roe. guidance issued monday by health and human services instructing hospitals that even in states where abortion is illegal, federal law requires doctors to perform abortions for pregnant women who show up in their emergency department if they believe it is a stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve an emergency medical condition.

the quote from texas attorney general ken paxton saying, "president biden is flagrantly disregarding the legislative and democratic process in the supreme court ruling before it is right and having bureaucrats mandate that hospitals and emergency medical physicians must perform abortions." that from part of the filing in that case. to tyler, texas, effie, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i am pro-choice but i am a christian. a woman's body is a choice. i have a daughter-in-law who got pregnant. she developed toxemia. they had to take her from tyler to dallas and my son had to make the decision whether the baby or

her. he wanted to save both of them. the child was born at seven months and survived. there are reasons a woman can't carry a baby to term. why isn't it her choice? no one -- if we are in a country and they are going to tell me about my body, especially a man who can't have a baby, that is wrong. the bible tells us. it is between god and that woman about her body. i think that for my children. i have grandchildren and

great-grandchildren. we are in a society where we want to do all of these things. i understand why they would what to make a law. i think in texas, greg abbott, children in uvalde. they were cut to pieces by this weapon still in use. look at others will shootings, they are ready here. woman caring baby with insist or rape or maybe the baby had a medical condition,. -- medical abortion. host: bob in this big, republican. caller: the guy from indiana. there is so much disinformation the news will do about the 10-year-old girl. it mentioned she was raped.

the attorney general from ohio was. they have the heartbeat law, this whole thing is so much misinformation from the news stations they they don't mention that the guy is illegal and they didn't mention they went across the state line and the doctor should be in trouble. but there are laws to protect people from that. the heartbeat law is the vespa once you hear a heartbeat, it is the child. i never knew this until i saw it. show a needle to the head and cut the arms and head to bring the baby out this is cruel.

every state should have its own law. that is something the people in those states should vote on. the news stations aren't telling the truth. they don't mention anything about this girl being raped by an illegal alien. host: that case getting a lot of attention. the headline in the new york times, the politics raced ahead of the news. the 10-year-old girl with a heated debate in the country. this is a story from usa today, the editor and chief, nicole carol, taking to the pages of usa today to write about it and the controversy that came after that story was first reported, the headline, we reported the truth of the rape straight saying in ohio some people

simply couldn't believe the truth. she wrote, the indianapolis star reported that the doctor said she cared for a 10-year-old girl seeking an abortion sent to or from another doctor. the girl was six weeks and three days pregnant. ohio outlaws abortion after cardiac activity is detected, usually at six weeks. the story spread after president joe biden mentioned the girl in remarks and it went international. a lot of people suggested it wasn't true. it is fine to ask questions about news reporting. the girl wasn't identified. does anyone think she should be? the top prosecutor in ohio went further and she writes, every day this goes by is more likely it is a fabrication, he said, but the star's story was the truth. dispatch reported that the man

has been arrested and admitted to raping the child at least twice. the prosecutor couldn't find evidence according to his previous quote yet the story was the truth. that is the editor and chief of usa today, writing about the media controversy of the past week and there reporting on the story and how they went about it. you can read more in today's usa today. this is marilyn out of columbus, ohio, democrat. good morning. caller: yes, i would like to make two statements. against the family planning first start with the catholic church because they don't believe in contraceptives for the man or the woman and abortions. i don't think anybody's religion

should be made into the loft for the rest of the country to have to live by. another thing is, if they tape -- take contraceptives away from every woman, birth control will ride with the man. the only way that he would be able to control pregnancy is wearing protection or getting a vasectomy. what man is going to want to do that and what man who wants to get married wants to live the next 20, 30, 40 years of his marriage having to wear protection on his wife? they don't think about things like this. i don't think anyone's religion should be put on the rest of the country. thank you. host: linda, mount holly, north carolina, independent, good morning. caller: good morning.

i am pro-life and i believe that abortion is murder. god put that baby there. he did not -- host: he did not what, linda? caller: god didn't say that you have control of life. he has control of life. and every one of us walking this earth today and walked the earth in the past and will walk the earth in the future was born from the womb. the woman is not -- it is not her body. she is the vessel. there is forgiveness, but it is murder to begin with. i think the doctors who perform

and are just as responsible. thank you. host: sherry, florida, republican, good morning. caller: yes, i was told that i could not carry a baby full-term . i had one miscarriage. i had an ectopic pregnancy and i was finally able to carry my daughter. i almost lost her when i was six months. then they burned my fallopian tubes to sterilize meat because i was told i could carry a baby full-term. my heart goes out to people. i have been raped. i know the trauma that it brings upon you. my heart was out to people, but in the same sense, there are

contraceptives and it is not just on the man, because it takes two to tango. people need to be responsible. i just believe that this is all being so overblown. you want to have an abortion and you are nine-month pregnant, come on, that is wrong on any level. i don't care who you are. it is common sense. if you have a moral compass at all, you know that is not right. people need to be responsible. if you are going to go out and be promiscuous and not use protection, abortion is not birth control, bottom line. i just think that it is all being loaned way out of her portion. these bills they are trying to pass, they are people. -- they are evil.

host: this is sally in washington, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say as a woman who has had my first child the day after my 18th birthday and went on to have two more children, i believe that is up to a woman during childbearing years and her doctor. it has nothing to do with anyone's world cup this. -- moral compass. it is in yourself to make your own decision as to what is best for life on this earth. i have a big problem with the republicans trying for states rights and then it is a national issue.

i think we should get back to not trying to control people's lives and move ahead to help people not to hurt people. thank you. host: if you come is from social media and text messaging. this is richard in north carolina saying, pubs have been trying to -- republicans have been trying to overturn roe for years. this is greg in ohio, what you do with your body is your business. marianne sang our destiny rests on the vote today. -- marianne saying our destiny rests on the vote today. it is just about 7:30 on the east coast. we will continue with more calls in a minute on the votes today in the house coming in at 9:00

a.m. we expect the votes later in the afternoon -- morning hours or lunged -- or lunchtime. yesterday, the house passed a policy bill that would increase president biden's request for the pentagon budget at $37 billion, reflecting the washington post writes, a growing bipartisan appetite in congress to raise military spending amid new threats from russia and china. this is the new york times reporting, not the washington post, the legislation would grant a pay raise to military personnel, authorize $100 million for assistance to ukrainian military pilots, authorize the invasion of iraq stretched by multiple administrations. there was an effort, led by congresswoman barbara lee, to reduce the budget this year,

trying for a 100 billion dollars reduction that failed yesterday and the house in a resounding show of bipartisan cooperation. democratics -- democrats try for another bill, joe manchin saying he would not support legislation that contains new spending on climate change or new tax increases targeting wealthy individuals and corporation, marking a massive setback for the party lawmakers who had hoped to advance a central element of their agenda for the midterm elections. the shift confirmed by several people familiar with the matter threatens to upend the process to adopt the signature economic package, seven months after joe manchin stopped the $2 trillion bill back better act which president biden had endorsed. one more story from capitol hill

here are pictures from the scene of the front page of the washington times this morning. that is the scene of the lying in state of herschel w. woody -- lying in state he died june 29 at age 98. he won his medal of honor in the battle of iwo jima. here is nancy pelosi's remarks from yesterday's ceremony honoring williams. [video clip] >> he probably enlisted in the marines, eager to serve his country. at 5'6", he was never the tallest marine and at 135 pounds at the biggest, yet he was a force of nature on the battlefield. at iwo jima, when he marched

through a hail of gunfire, single-handedly destroying seven enemy positions. president truman called his unyielding determination and extraordinary -- an in-store neri heroism -- an extraordinary heroism. he devoted his life to helping veterans and gold star families and families, driven by his motto -- the cause is greater than i am. host: speaker nancy pelosi yesterday from that lying in state. you can watch it on our website, c-span.org. back to the question we are focusing on -- the houseboats today on -- the house votes on the insurance abortion act and the women's health tech should act of 2022, the first efforts to protect abortion in the

post-roe era since the decision last month. democrats, (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. john in bethpage, new york you are next. caller: happel -- i have a couple of points. i know one -- i know some saying it is a woman's right. people really think it is right for 11, 12, 13-year-old to go into planned parenthood and have an abortion without parental consent, which is the right in new york. i would have to have my child get a permission slip two to a museum for school, yet the same

child can go to an abortion clinic, have an abortion and the pair would never be notified in most states -- and the parent would never be notified in most states. in other states can get a motion and override that. african americans are 14% of the population, yet 44% of the abortion rate. there seems to be a problem that is not been taking care of. also, i ask your audience whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, ask yourself, what would happen if your parent decided to make the decision for abortion? how would the world have changed if he didn't exist. if you don't see the value in your life, obviously it is hard to see value in life itself. host: this is danny and south carolina, republican, good morning. caller: what if the law changed

to castrate men? how would they feel? thanks. host: to ray, homestead, republican. caller: for all of the pro-lifers who command the show and say abortion is murder, what i have to ask is, if it is murder, all states have laws against murder and even the federal government has a lot against verso what do we need legislation for. if it is murder, then it is first-degree, we meditated murder. she and the doctor talk about it so there is conspiracy. there are murder laws everywhere. you should ask these people yourself if they say it is murder, the doctor in the woman

should get the death penalty in death penalty states. you can't have it both ways. you can't have murder and not pay the consequences. it will bring up unforeseen consequent is. i can see a guy -- consequences. i can see a guy going insane you didn't give this woman the death penalty for murder but you did for me because i shot someone. the pro-choice people have been arguing this for a long time. all they have to do is get them to admit it is murder because we have laws against murder. host: stefan in virginia, good morning. caller: the left and the right are extreme. could we filter and fact-check?

abortion at nine months is wrong . are they really going to ban contraceptives? i don't believe that is correct. need to fact check some colors and facts -- callers and fax. -- and in facts. host: before roe v. wade was overturned it was fetal viability, in the area of 20 weeks what do you think is reasonable? where do you think the state of virginia should be on this? caller: the berm hits the -- the berm hits -- the sperm hit the egg and makes the baby. so about six weeks. left and right are two extreme.

we need to be worked -- are too extreme. host: brownsville, new jersey, good morning. caller: all have -- all i have is opinions. i am an older man who has had a vasectomy. i have been on both sides on the choice of, i look at my two children now they -- in their late 30's and i am glad. this is an easy topic to talk about. there will always be abortions. we may have to ban coat hangers. why would you have an abortion at nine months? follow the money.

people with money are getting stems sell schatz pit where catholics who are 80 years old running country talking about free abortions? they want something. host: this is patricia in memphis, tennessee, democrat. good morning. caller: i just have a few points. first of all, the good lord give us a choice in life. every man has a right to choose. that is the difference between a man and animals. abortion rights, it is basically an issue between freedom and your rights. the right to choose -- i am kind of nervous -- as a woman, i should have a choice about what happens to my body.

the supreme court was wrong to overturn roe v. wade because all they created is the argument and back and forth between individuals, estates, and -- individuals, states, and the same way it did with the civil rights issues. same way with civil war. i feel threatened about the supreme court overturning freedom of individuals like that , not only as a woman but as a black individual, because i would not have my freedom as a black person or u.s. citizen without the supreme court decision. the amendment of the constitution.

i was still in my ancestors, and the same thing with women. so i feel threatened in two ways. host: more from the debate throughout this week and as we noted, several committee hearings on the issue of abortion the house and senate, conversations and speeches on the floor. here is from the house oversight reform committee on wednesday, hearing on the issue of abortion access. this is james comer criticizing democrats' response to the ruling. [video clip] >> we are having a hearing today on the supreme court decision, a decision that came at the end of a legal process. to be clear, the dobbs decision did not outlaw abortion. instead, it returned the issue to the states for the people to

decide. if democrats charge the supreme court is somehow destroying democracy by strengthening our democratic process. they have spent the last two months attacking the legitimacy of the court, even seeking to intimidate through thinly veiled threats of violence, all because the left did not get what they want. we have a video, and i would ask that we play the video now please. [video clip] >> we will divide them. >> [chanting] >> i want to tell you, gorsuch, cavanaugh, -- kavanaugh, you have released a whirlwind and you will pay the price. >> command was arrested

overnight near the home of justice brett kavanaugh. he was armed with a knife and told authorities he was there to kill the justice. >> this is the madison headquarters of family action. >> a center vandalized overnight. >> a pregnancy resource center, consider all damage from a fire. >> a group promising more violence targeting antiviolence groups nationwide -- and he abortion groups nationwide. >> they will fear monger and the allies in the media jumping on. the new york times published a piece saying democrats won't need to lead into the politics of fear. the politics of fear include ignoring violence against those who oppose preferred policies. a man traveled across the

country to try to assassinate a sitting supreme court justice. the mainstream media buried in the news because doing so would somehow show their support for justice kavanaugh or the supreme court. host: james comer, the top republican in the house oversight and reform committee. this is the chairwoman, democrat, carolyn maloney responding with some of what he had to say. [video clip] >> democrats strongly reject use of harassment, threats, or violent. that is why congress has taken action to protect members of the supreme court. that is why we have urged republicans to join us in condemning the violent attack on the capital last year -- capitol last year appeared we support peacefully -- year.

we support them. we will continue to fight for americans and the rights and we will never give up. host: that was carolyn maloney wednesday in the house oversight and reform committee. if you want to watch that, it is available on our website, c-span.org. it is a two hour show today because the house is in at 9:00 a.m. we are taking your calls on the votes today on the abortion bills, the first attempt by democrats to protect abortion in the post-row era -- post-roe era. to the next caller. caller: when it comes to the abortion topic, i would be separating the lines between men and women.

it seems like there are a lot of men calling in and not as many women. my question is -- one of the bills has to do with crossing state lines. my only question is that this is being presented as a medical issue for women, not just reproductive rights, but a medical issue. i am sure women have many other issues other than pregnancy. so my question is to the one bill about crossing state lines. since when has it been ill people to cross state lines for any type of medical procedure? people can cross state lines for

in vitro, transgender and sex change procedures, they can travel across state lines for all sorts of medical procedures. so if this is being presented as a medical shoe, there should be -- medical issue, there should be no reason people can't travel across state lines should it become necessary. host: so, paul, to that point, this is the political wrap up on this story looking specifically at this piece of legislation you are talking about, the ensuring access to abortion across state lines. no state has banned interstate travel for reproductive care that is not provided with a live, but a missouri state lawmaker tried unsuccessfully so far to attach such language to several health bills even before

the supreme court issued the dobbs ruling. lawmakers and activists in other states have discussed peel lysing people who helped transport people across state lines or subjecting doctors to criminal penalties if they perform abortions on patients in estates where -- in states where it is illegal. one explaining why she attempted to put those in that are not in effect yet. states looking to criminalize doctors and women, what many have called for in a stress it will only help people who can afford the time and expense of traveling, potentially hundreds of miles for the procedure, something many people aren't able to do. that is from the political right up -- politico writeup.

host: john from michigan. caller: i looked and i keep hearing republicans talk about women's rights to abortion. we all have rights, to me, a lot of these republicans are on party lines about abortions. if the party says this, that is what i am going with so i can get reelected. it is nothing about what they truly believe. i am a man who have had women have abortions with my child. it is something you have to live with. same with the woman. she has to live with the decision she makes.

we make decisions every day that is something that will follow her through her life and it has followed me. i truly believe it should be a right to have a choice in your decision-making and not just because the party says what do you believe. host: do you think there is a lot of the same thing on the others of people going along with what the democratic party says on this issue? caller: yeah, i do. all of us have liberal views and conservative views. how does it come to since you are a liberal that you are bad for the country or if you are conservative you are bad for the country? either way, issue be the woman's

choice and she has to live with it. all of this is about politics and money. what happened to the division of church and state? they want to say it is a religious thing, maybe it is, but what does that have to do with you getting reelected? i think that is a lot of it. i want to get this good government job or pension or whatever, so i have to go with the party line. host: that is donald in michigan. this is the front page of the washington times, their conservative opinion section. this is the column, the headline "abortion will be the hill the democrats die on. having it on demand is not a winning issue. what the leaders do and however

far they go he thinks will not be enough for the circular firing squad, as he calls it, on the democratic left wing. this is north charleston, south carolina, steve, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. it is funny that every 30 days seems that abortion comes up. you know my use on abortion. and just very quickly, rape, and test, health of the mother should always be considered. rape and insects -- insist -- incest, health of the mother should always be considered. with regard to going across state yards and -- state lines and banning that, i don't think you should do that. if you read your insurance

policy, like mine, if you're in puerto rico, you can have a procedure. no one is going to ban the morning-after pill or contraceptive. host: what about most abortions at this point are medical abortion pills, the idea of shipping those across state lines for people to use those in states that ban abortions? what do you think will happen with that issue? caller: i don't know. that is a tricky one. there will be a fight over that one. john, abortion pills, like i say, it is short-term just before a few weeks, i don't have a problem with it, although i still say i hate that people are put in that position and a baby

is wanted somewhere. let me say something about the political side. joe was outraged at the rape of a 10-year-old. and now that we know that the girl could possibly have had an abortion in ohio. here is where it gets dirty. is joe equally outraged that she was raped by an illegal immigrant? i haven't heard anyone say a word about that. that would be an indictment of his open-door border policy. three children under 20 months old have died from fentanyl. the green bay case is famous. there is a case in georgia and south carolina and all ended with these children having fentanyl in their bodies. not one democrat came out and

express any outrage over the fentanyl problem we have due to the open-door border policies. if you are going to politicize something, you have to follow through. if you're going to complain about the rape, you have to talk about what caused the rape. i hate that these things get politicize but that is where it leads to. they cute for your time. -- thank you for your time. host: when was the last time you can remember a portion -- the abortion issue not being politicized? caller: i guess before 1973. up until then, it was dr. and patient. it has been politicized ever since. host: this is in hollywood, florida, independent. caller: i saw the congressman automatically start to play one

party or the other. i think that is kind of ridiculous. they are playing off everything. it is disgusting that they would even say that abortion is still alive, yet we have states trying to block people from getting the procedure. this is nothing more than something like crt, the same strategy. coming up with antifa before you know it, i think is ridiculous. they are trying to play mind games with everybody. it is a serious situation that

involves a woman's health and we are just going backwards. they are trying to start up the same situations prior to all of the problems we have between ourselves. host: this is don in california, republican, good morning. caller: i want to enlighten the liberals out there about what is going on on the subject of abortion and guns. it is called newtons law, for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction. you are seeing a big-time reaction. my state of california, and i am not exaggerating, look this up, a school nurse cannot give a 16-year-old girl an aspirin without parental permission but she can't prescribe an abortion. and the school janitor can perform that abortion.

i am not exaggerating. this has become so twisted and perverted, a 10-year-old girl goes into a doctor's office in ohio and says i am pregnant, instead of calling the police, she dragged the kid across state lines and gives her an abortion. you guys have twisted this so much and perverted it so much that this is a massive reaction. host: who is you guys? caller: well, i am saying you guys, you liberals out there. i am not saying you specifically, but all this fantasy stuff of oh, my god, they are going to ban condoms, the twisted part is on the liberal and peer they want to abort a kid all the way it up until it is -- part is on the liberal. they want to abort a kid all the

way up until it is peeking out. host: to guests, vermont democratic congressman peter welch peered we will talk about the economy. and later the judicial crisis network's carrie severino on the issue of the supreme >> book tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest, nonfiction books. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, ucla law professor speaks about the fourth amendment and the power of the police and his book "unreasonable." . and on afterwards, kristi noem

shares her book in her career. she is interviewed by david drucker. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2. and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online, anytime, on book tv.com. now available at the c-span shop, c-span's 2022 directory. go there to order a copy of the congressional directory. this book is your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress including bios and committee assignments. contact information for state governors in the biden administration cabinet. order your copy today at c-spanshop.org or scan the code with your cell phone. every porges -- purchase support c-span's nonprofit organization.

c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter, word for word, recaps the day for you. scan the qr code on the right bottom to sign up for this email and stay up-to-date on everything happening in washington each day. subscribe today using the qr code or visit c-span.org/connect to subscribe anytime. there are a lot of places to get political information. only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from, or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, and for word. if it happens here, or here, or here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable.

"washington journal," continues. host: we welcome back peter welch, congressman, good morning. host: this abortion vote today on two bills, their first attempts to protect abortion in the post roe era. why is the house voting on this when it doesn't seem there is enough support in the senate to get these bills all the way to president biden? guest: the house is an independent body and we have to do our job. this is a terrible decision that is causing apprehension and fear among women that enjoyed a constitutional right that is been taken away. ever since roe women have had the right to make decisions about reproduction and the fact that the courts have taken it away we have to defend that.

i hope that we will pass the bill again to make it clear and number two, the senate ultimately should do its job in the only thing that is stopping the senate from passing this is their dedication that puts the filibuster above women's reproductive freedom. if they had a vote on this without the filibuster, it would pass and women would have their right to make their own decisions restored. host: do you support abolishing the filibuster or lifting it for certain issues like abortion? guest: i support abolishing the filibuster. it is a device that was created by the senate. there is nothing constitutional about it. theoretically, it was to try to get the bodies to work together. what has happened over time, it has been used as a device whose sole purpose is obstruction to stop things from getting done.

you remember famously after president obama was elected the first time, then leader mcconnell said his job was to make certain that obama was a one term president. it is that kind of obstructive activity that has put off americans. there is much more accountability with that. i think the filibuster is an impediment to good government. i think it is an impediment to bipartisanship. host: how so? guest: if you have 50 votes, they still have a vast array from liberal to conservative. you will find that place in the middle, having a 50 vote does not make things will get turned down, he was so have to negotiate thing still. host: in defense of the

filibuster, you have to work together to get those 10 votes on the other side, that creates partisanship. guest: can we look at any examples where that is the case such as women's reproductive freedoms. we can even get the senate to vote on it because of the filibuster. that is not i partisanship, that is the filibuster being an impediment to even having a vote. whatever the theory was, it is not working that way. it is just about obstruction. host: the abortion laws are patch worked across the states. what is the abortion law in vermont right now? guest: we don't have an abortion law and are washing rate has gone down. people don't want to get an abortion, women have to be able to make these decisions. in vermont, we don't have a lot and without a law, women make their own decisions in

consultation with someone who is close to them and if there is a medical issue, the decision is made with the doctor. we have seen that with no law the incidence of abortions have gone down since roe. host: are you trying to enshrine the right of abortion in the state legislature? guest: we will have a constitutional amendment that we vote on. it would enshrine the right of reproductive freedom. host: peter welch is with us until the bottom of the hour. phone numbers for viewers to join the conversation, phone lines as usual democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. shifting to another topic, the economy, we saw inflation

reaching record highs in june with that number coming out of the labor department. what can congress do? what can the administration do to bring that down? guest: my reaction to that number is really hard on everybody. high gas prices are universal but there is a lot of apprehension in my state about heating season and it will be expensive to heat their homes until those gas prices come down. they are down .3 five cents in the past months. on inflation, it is easy to blame whoever is in power. it is universal. this is a challenge that every country is having now. to some extent it is about covid, the supply chain disruptions, the war in ukraine. it is also, there is a role

being played by price gouging companies that are taking advantage of the market forces. the oil companies are making record profits and what have they done to increase supply? very little. they have capacity they are not using. what i am fearful of is that it does appear that the disruption is being used by the oil companies to pack their profits. we should have that money go back to consumers to ease the pain. host: how much of a factor is trillions of dollars that the federal government pumped into the economy during the covid response? guest: i think it was one of the factors. host: was it too much? guest: we had the economy stop.

on march 13, 2020, when i flew home i was the only person on the plane. it gives you some sense of how disruptive things were. we had to act. in that first bill, we had republicans and democrats vote on it. everything was closed and we had to act. we had to act promptly. did we get it exactly right? no, i'm sure we did not. the urgency of the moment required a prompt to action. did we spend more than we had to? you could probably make that case. how much did that contribute to inflation? that is not clear because the factors that aggravated it where the disruptions in supply chains and the shut down in china.

they had a no covid policy where everyone is unlocked down which led to a ship shortage and disruptions that we saw because we have such a globalized economy. i believe that has much more to do with that than anything else. we have to write the ship now and hopefully everyone will be cooperative in doing that. the federal reserve raising interest rates will be another factor. host: do you think the fed should raise it by a full point, that is in discussion. guest: i don't have the expertise to say what is the right number because they have to raise rates to try to get to a soft landing. that is easier said than done. the dilemma for the fed is that it could act too slow or too fast. host: if they dialed the sub

from a quarter, to a half, to a full point is it working? guest: not immediately. when we see the interest rates go up, borrowing goes down. the hope is that it will moderate what is happening with inflation. i think in order for this to work, to get to where we need to be it will be a combination of the fed action. it will be -- the biggest part will be getting our supply chains back so that they are working. i also think that some of the legislation that we are trying to pass, lowering prescription drug prices, provide support to public and private partnerships. housing, rent is way up due to lack of housing. i think it will take some monetary policy and good decisions by congress and the president to stabilize prices

and get them down. host: this is lorraine from it the cut, new york, a democrat. caller: good morning. i have been wondering what your opinion is related to the reduction in the number of democracies in the world and from my view, republicans have been going down that road in the sense that they are targeting journalism. reducing public experts, public education being targeted also. i wish that the democrats would focus, maybe get billboards across america saying what the

end of the democracy looks like. people talk about freedom but that could lead to anarchy, chaos and that seems to be the biggest issue of all right now. i wondered what you think about that? thank you. guest: i share your concern. we are looking at the capitol dome and i was there on january 6 when that trump inspired mob invaded the capital. i was in the house chamber when that happened in the shot was fired when the mob was trying to break the doors down. that was the first time in the history of our country where the capital was invaded by our own citizens. in an effort to overturn the election, stop the certification of president biden. as bad as that was, as scared as all of us were at that moment, when we came back at 3:00 in the

morning it was sad for me, my simple job was to certify the votes of the states, particularly vermont, 147 of my colleagues voted against certifying joe biden as president. in further response to your point, state legislatures are trying to do through the democratic process what they failed to do through violence and that his pass laws that make it difficult to vote, and then to give the partisan legislatures that are aligned with them the ability to certify who they want to be the leader. i share that concern. my view is that it is important to pass the john lewis voting rights act. we have done that in the house and it solved in the senate because of the filibuster.

host: we will go to tom in ohio, a republican. good morning to you. caller: good morning, i hope everyone is having a good morning. the thing i want to bring out, i don't understand that women have rights and i want them to have rights. i don't see why i should have to pay for their rights. they want and abortion, they can buy it themselves don't get the taxpayer to pay for it. host: good time to talk about the hyde amendment. guest: i am against the hyde amendment but i understand the point. what i think is really important is that health care, and abortion is health care, women have access to it. i support that being a part of what is covered by insurance and medicaid. host: just for educational

purposes, can you explain the hyde amendment? guest: no taxpayer money would fund abortions. host: are there efforts to lift the hyde amendment? guest: there have been, but not successful. host: again in the senator did they make it through the house? guest: that's the real division. that is what the hyde amendment says, no taxpayer funds will fund abortions. i disagree with that but many of my colleagues agree with that. host: texas, this is chains and independent. caller: i just had a couple of points, for months, democrat after democrat would constantly say it is transitory and it became a talking point and now we know that is not true. as far as the oil companies, i think people forget one thing,

when you have been given a policy that says we don't want what you are producing anymore because we want to transition to something else. you're gonna try to make as much as you can now so you can go ahead in the future and support yourself. when oil was down below zero because supply was so high. now they want them to lower their prices, they can't win. people need to be reasonable in that particular area. and finally, one of the things about voting i always share this phrase, we want to take your rights away. why don't you take each piece of a bill, not in general terms, and say how this is taking your

right away. no one ever does that, it is just blanket statements. this is what causes divisions. all the average american gets is snippets rather than the truth and that is what is dividing our country. that is why so many people are frustrated. guest: i will try to address two of the points you made. one of the things is the problem that we should be voting on individual bills not these massive reconciliation bills where it is difficult not only for you, but for lawmakers it is impossible to know all that is in it. none of the big problems that stops us from doing that is the filibuster because the only way you can get to a positive vote is by the reconciliation process where everything is put in

together and there is not individual discussion about elements of the bill. on the oil companies, they have a history where they were well aware of the impact of fossil fuels and carbon emissions on the warming of the planet. they not only hid that science that they had but they started promoting and paying for studies that refuted what they knew to be true. they had some obligation to all of a to come forward with the knowledge that they had about the impact of omissions to help us make the transition. second thing, oil companies are huge and they are corporations but they can be part of the future to make this transition. a lot of our utility companies, even advertising from fossil fuel companies are trying to adjust to that transition that we all know we have to make.

the sooner we do that, the better. that can help us build a strong economy. we are getting opportunistic price gouging at a time that with inflation, it is tough on that mom or that dad who was on the way to the grocery store and has to pay five dollars a gallon. it is really expensive as well. isn't it a time for everyone to do their shared? host: voting on individual bills, the national defense authorization act as one individual bill but it was $840 billion in defense. how does the average american understand what is in a 840 billion defense bill? guest: it is too much money.

i voted against that because the increases are just going on and on. host: 37 billion more than the president requested? guest: that is a major reason why i opposed it. the pentagon is the only organization that is not audited. that is really shocking. we have to have a strong defense and we have to pay for that defense, but that does not exempt them from the scrutiny that should be applied to the food stamp program or the treasury department or the irs. what you see what happens on the defense side, when you have a family budget and prices are going up and you need to take care of your kids, if you are going to look at that budget you figure out where can i cut back? host: your colleague, barbara

lee tried to offer a bill that would cut 100 billion from the defense budget. but it went down resoundingly. guest: i supported it. going back to your point, can you really know if that is the right number? i have seen is the process, it is all addition. i am in support of a strong defense but we have to pay for it. we know that with what is going on in ukraine and we are providing some significant military assistance along with our allies. when the president and pentagon asks for a certain number, the pentagon will not be shy to ask for what they need and congress keeps adding and adding and it has more to do with defense industries in the districts of members then it does with making america safe. i have a problem with that and

that is my ongoing complaint about the size of this budget. it is exceeding even what the pentagon is requesting. host: peter welch, democrats from vermont. taking your phone calls. this is julian out of tulsa, oklahoma, a republican. julian? bernie and howard beach, new york, a democrat. caller: i am pleased to know that you don't know everything. it is nice to have someone admit they are not an expert on everything. inflation has inspired me, it changed my whole lifestyle. i started walking. i started changing the way i

ate, cookies went out and i lost 20 pounds. guest: that is fantastic. caller: the question i would like to ask you, will president biden be primaried? guest: i don't think he will. his possession on reelection, i know the discussions and stories out there, i believe that will be his decision and people will support him. host: gulf breeze, florida, danny and independent. caller: thank you for taking my phone call. i really like vermont and i'm glad to hear they don't have laws on abortion. that is a decision between a woman and her physician. in florida, i think he signed a

bill for 13 weeks on abortion. i still like yours better to tell you the truth. as far as the budgets go, i work in the military on budgets and one budget was half a million dollars and another $33 million. at the end of the fiscal year, if you have money left over, we have always been told to spend that money or we would get less money. that is something you may want to look into. and you may want to break that budget down because mine was just a piece and there are probably some ways to cut the budget that won't hurt the military. that is what i have to say, thank you. guest: those are really good comments and by the way, on the military budget the armed services committee has a primary

responsibility for looking at what we really do need. that committee and the members of it 10 to have much more expertise about that military budget. in congress, we should rely even more on the product of our committees. the issue that i do have is the congress tends to push it out and not do the scrutiny of the elements of the budget and make those decision, weapons is something we don't need, it is outdated. it is a big deal if the production is done in your district. host: can you think of a particular weapon system? guest: some of the navy ships. there is a big argument about the ship count. it is not the ship count but what types of ships we have to meet modern challenges. host: can you explain the difference between authorization and an appropriation? guest: the authorization is the

recommendation of the committee and the jurisdiction about spending, to authorize it. host: and that was what was passed yesterday? guest: the appropriations bill is what actually spends the money. you have to do two steps, you have to authorize weapon system, you have to authorize money for it. then you have to appropriate money for that to get done. host: if something is authorized for $840 billion, are they likely to get 840 billion when the appropriators come through? guest: the authorization is a serious statement by congress. host: just a couple of minutes left, this is linda out of florida, democrat. caller: i have a question about the southern border and immigration.

i don't understand why democrats are just ignoring it. their approach to dealing with the border has been really bad. it is hard to vote for someone who seems to ignore and pretend that nothing is going on there and everything is fine. mayorkis said to his closed and i feel like i am being lied to. he is very smug. democrats need to start acknowledging that there is a problem there. are democrats proud of that, do they think it is an accomplishment. guest: there is a problem at the border, we have record crossings right now. i am a democrat and i am

acknowledging that we have a challenge that is significant. it is people from mexico, central america. there are lots of reasons why people are fleeing where they live. we are seeing people from other parts of the world that are trying to make it across the border and come to america. we have to have a secure border, but making that happen is an ongoing challenge. whether it is a republican or democratic administration. i will speak for myself, i do believe that there is a real challenge for us at the border. how do we deal with that? there has to be enforcement but there also has to be some immigration reform. that would be beneficial to our country where we have a capacity to make decisions about people coming in and being a part, in a legal way.

this will be ongoing, whether it is a democrat in the white house or republican in the white house. host: congressman people welds, a member of the oversight committee. i know you have work to get to and about half an hour. we always appreciate it. guest: thank you very much. host: we will be joined by carrie severino from the judicial crisis network. stick around, we will be right back. >> american history tv saturdays on c-span2. exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 8:00 a.m. eastern, university of california economics professor compares the work of three economists.

during the lecture he draws on examples from capitalistic and socialistic economy and argues that while all three economists were important, high it was the most impactful. on the presidency, historian talks about the black man president. sponsored by the abraham lincoln institute. he discusses president lincoln's relationship with african-americans. exploring the american story, watch american history tv, saturday on c-span2. and find the full schedule on your program guide or watch online, any time at c-span.org/history. c-span has unfiltered coverage of the house january 6 committee hearings investigating the

attack on the capital. go to c-span.org/january 6, our web resource page to watch the latest videos of the hearings, briefings and our coverage on the attack and subsequent investigation since january 6, 2020 one. we will have reactions from members of congress and the white house as well as journalists and authors talking about the investigation. go to c-span.org/january 6 for a fast and easy way to watch and you can see it live. celebrate christmas in july by shopping at c-span.org. now through july 19, save 25% on shirts, drink ware, and more. there is something for every c-span fan and it all goes to support our nonprofit organization. shop c-span's christmas in july sale only on c-span.org or scan

the qr code to start shopping, now. "washington journal," continues. host: the focus on the supreme court with carrie severino she serves with the judicial crisis network. remind viewers what the judicial crisis network is, what you do and how you are funded. guest: it was founded to make sure that justice is who are being appointed have someone to defend them in the public square. we founded judicial network.com and on twitter or on the judicial network. host: is a conservative judges that you mostly defend? guest: we would be happy to defend judges appointed by democrats. the fundamental metric that we

use, are they someone who will interpret the law is written and as originally understood? if democrat started appointing judges like that we would encourage them as well. host: before we get to this term of the supreme court in the dobbs decision, i just want to give you a chance to explain your campaign focused on stopping threats to judges. guest: this is something we have seen an increase in disturbing ways particularly in the past few years. it is not something new, we have seen it for a while. we saw attacks on justice thomas during his confirmation process and following his confirmation, a lot of attacks that have racist undertones and now, i am seeing the same thing with amy coney barrett with sexist undertones dismissive of her role on the court.

the biggest thing that we have seen in terms of attacks on the judiciary and people who are trying to intimidate judges. we recognize justice kavanaugh's investigation, he was attacked. following that, we have seen people protesting at the justices house. this is something relatively new, it did not used to happen. we have protest at the court, i support that. the inherent threat of protesting at someone's personal residence, are particularly justice that has young children at home is something new and the level of threat is also new. the attempted assassination of justice kavanaugh and the groups that say violence is the answer. there are organizations who are

open about it and that is very concerning that the white house is not pushback on the protests of private residences. the bullying with the attempts to pack the court. the idea that we will add justices to the supreme court not because they need more help or there is a bigger workload but because we are explicitly partisan. we want to add judges in an effort to outweigh the judges that were appointed by president trump. that would be a very dangerous step to take in our judiciary a and would lead the way to a back-and-forth every time power switch hands and government where you had the other party adding judges. you can't take them away, they have life tenure.

things like this are a real threat to the integrity of the court because if you have one branch of government declaring war on the other that is a concern to me. host: congress passed in president biden signed the supreme court parity law. what is that due and has done enough? guest: that was long-awaited, something that is been on the table for a long time particularly after the leak of the dobbs decision that has never happened in history before but created an unusual threat to the justices. people like justice kavanaugh would be assailed. we could change the makeup of the court by attacking the justices, that was proposed very

surely after that. congress waited until there had been a real threat realized before they passed it. they increase the ability of the marshals service, giving them the support and the ability to protect the justices family. we have justices that do have children that could be targeted and i think that was something that gave the justices more peace of mind when they knew that their children were also going to be protected at a level where the rhetoric has gotten so high. also, the physical threats and intimidation has gotten so high. i think it was a little bit late , by the time they did it we were almost done with the term. the other thing that would be much more helpful is the

government enforcing laws that are already there. there is a federal law that protects against judges being intimidated about cases that they are in the process of deciding on. that was precisely what we are talking about during may and june when people wanted the justices to change their vote. that is attempting to intimidate a judge. we saw no action from the white house or attorney general garlin to enforce that federal law that sits on the books and has been on the books for a long time. that is very discouraging to see. i have no doubt that if it had been justice ginsburg or justice kagan, i feel like they would've thought this needed to be addressed. it is discouraged that the basic adderall law was not enforced as to these justices in a case

where the president has a strong opinion on himself. he is entitled to that. but enforcing the law is a real concern and the states virginia, maryland have similar laws and they are starting to be enforced more. there also seems to be spotty enforcement especially where justice robertson justice kavanaugh live. the mayor says he is so upset about the decision that he will not support the law to protect the judges. none of our justices should have to be concerned that the way they vote and a case is going to affect their personal safety. that is something i would except from cuba or venezuela where a judge would think is something bad going to happen to me if i rule one way or another.

that is not the rule of law. that is the rule of violence and i think we should get away with it. host: let me quickly invite the viewers to join the conversation. one more question on safety or threats as folks are calling in, i know your focus is the judiciary. how concerned are you about threats to members of congress? we saw a story of a man arrested outside the house of pramila jayapal. what are your thoughts on that story? guest: leaders in every branch should be protected. the president has secret service , certainly the congress has. i am glad they caught this person. i think this is something we should care about at every level of government. no one should have to worry that because they are a public servant they will put their life

at risk. host: to the issue of a post roe world. the new york times, the next frontline in the abortion wars, state supreme court's. do you foresee your work going down to the state supreme court's. we mostly talk to you about the supreme court on this program. guest: state supreme court's is something we have had on our radar for some time. there are some state supreme court's that have a similar tendency toward activism that the u.s. supreme court has. i think it is important that 90% of laws are done at the state level. national programs get canceled because different states want different things. there are important things happening in the states. we have several states that

already have amendments in their constitution. quite a few states, their courts have added those provisions. california and vermont do have on the ballot the idea of adding it to their constitution. kansas has a constitution saying that the constitution does not have anything on abortion. the proper place for that to happen is with the people of the state themselves to change their constitution. it should not be the courts that are changing the constitution and the state but the people of the state. different states have different processes for that but they have to follow those processes and have justices read their own political views into the state constitution itself to address

some of these major issues. host: this is why nita from north carolina. good morning. juanita are you with us? caller: thank you for taking my call. yes, i am here. host: go ahead with your comment or question, we are listening. caller: thank you. thank you for taking my call. how do you feel about this large miscarriage of justice and often repeated that the lower level, a very innocent, naive girl worked at a 7-eleven. she came to work on a very busy

saturday night and was told that she had to train a new employee. the policy was that if there was a missing lottery ticket they were to report that to their employer. however, she was so busy and rushed with saturday night business that she failed to report it. when she went to court, the judge and the prosecuting attorney, and this is a quote that i heard, i don't know if you are innocent or not but if you plead guilty and give valero you will never have to come back here again, this blog go away. was justice served here? host: this was a specific case in south carolina the you heard about? caller: the case was in virginia. host: is this a case you have

heard about? guest: i hesitate to give a conclusion, that is a challenge in how the pleading process works in criminal cases. even if they are not guilty, we have to weigh the risk of going to trial and thinking they could potentially lose that trial even if it is something that he she did not do to make it all go away. that is something that is a real challenge in the process. this is something that has to be dealt with with those that are involved in the criminal law. host: patty out of louisville, kentucky. caller: hello, can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i have a question about

the violence and threats against the supreme court justices. i think that there should be term limits for sure. i think they should be held accountable for decisions they make. she is saying that they want judges who go by the constitution as written. that was many years ago and this country has moved forward since then. there has been people who have fought for civil rights, gay rights, all kinds of rights. women's rights, these things are not in the constitution but they are in this country that we live in. i think when donald trump ran for president he vowed

to only appoint justices that would overturn roe, which is exactly what he did. in this country, the majority of the people in this country right now do not want that overturn. the majority of the people. so when they say give it back to the states, you look at the states. you look at the leaders in the states and the way they are trying to keep people from voting. intimidating them to the appoint where they don't even bother to vote. this is not representing the people in this country. the state laws are not fair to the people. a lot of the representatives in the states are not picked by the majority of the people in the states. host: we will let carrie

severino jump in. guest: to the question of term limits, that is absolutely something that a lot of people have talked about. many state supreme court's have term limits for their judges or an age at which they have to retire. that is something we could absolutely add or change to the constitution. the challenges the constitution itself does give the judges a life tenure. we don't want judges to think about their next job, how can i curry favor with other people to help me out later. they wanted people to have the freedom to rule as how they believed. people lived a lot longer. the terms were a lot shorter because they would leave to do other things are diane office. there are reasons that term

limits could make sense. the challenge is to implement that in a way that will not unduly favor one party or another in the time of transition. we have to have a constitutional amendment which requires a large majority of americans to approve it. saying we will add term limits and give republicans a chance to replace other people forced off the bench. you have to get that super majority to amend the constitution. i would be in favor of such an amendment if you could do it in such a way that was bipartisan and evenhanded. i think a lot of people would. we have to be careful about one party or another trying to change the system that only favors their party. the amendment process is the answer to the other problem that you highlighted in your concern

about areas of the constitution that need to be updated or there is something that might be broadly popular but is not written in the constitution. that is what the amendment process is designed for. the framers understood that this document would not answer every question. they immediately went back and added 10 amendments themselves. it is a high bar, it is only done for issues that really are important. i would love to see that process referred to and taken recourse to more often because i think that is the proper answer. the proper answer to amending the constitution to update it as things are needed for modern life. it is not to say, we will give a finite amount of elected men and women on the supreme court to do that.

to change our laws we need a majority of congress and the president to do. we need a system that doesn't happen willy-nilly. we do reflect the american people interest. and finally, i think we would have to see. let's put that to a vote and see what the american people want to do. the polls are more complicated. you do see majorities for americans that say they want to keep roe v. wade. you see even larger majorities for people wanting abortion policies that are inconsistent with roe that do limit

viability. there is much more subtle opinion than polling would show. most americans really don't know what roe requires. especially when read together with the other decisions, ineffective means that women can receive an abortion through all nine months simply by appealing to general emotional health. not every state that has that law protecting fetal life says that it protects the life of the mother. if there were an issue where a woman had to have a procedure that would result in the death of the child but also would save her life. that is permitted in every state of the country. we have to have a system that is able to address the reality of

what americans think and most americans don't agree with the actual laws required by roe even though they liked roe in the abstract. we will see a much wider variation where different states and where different people decide to draw that balance. host: about five minutes before the house comes in, let's get to work calls. jimmy from baltimore. caller: my concern is about the democrats trying to pack the court. it is very interesting because that is exactly what mcconnell did with merrick garland that should have been carried through. he had a year to do it. he gave a speech to the federalist society later saying that if he had a year to do it

for trump when you let trump but the nomination through? and he said very dryly with a grin on his face, of course i would. host: carrie severino, merrick garland. guest: when we talk about packing the court it refers to adding seeds to the court. so your political party can take advantage of it. this concept goes back to 1937 when rank lynn roosevelt tried to do the same thing. he was frustrated with the supreme court, they kept finding his new deal policies unconstitutional. he was doing things in american law that have not been done before. he proposed adding seeds of the court which would've allowed him to fill the seats with people sympathetic with us all. it was wildly rejected even in a

democratic-controlled congress. i am not talking about a metaphorical putting lots of people on the bench. we talk about packing the court, that has history in america which was soundly rejected and later rejected by ruth bader ginsburg and justice stephen breyer. liberal justices on the court. that is what the democrats are trying to do to add seeds for political ends. what leader mcconnell did in that case was a different thing. you can disagree with that decision, you can say he should not have held that seat open. that is something different. we can debate it and democrats are in a similar situation. that is something that the political process has a check on. if the american people said this is out of line, we don't think that's appropriate. there were senators and a president up for election at the end of that same year and there

was the opportunity to have people say this is beyond the pale. they did not say that and gave the senate back to the republicans at the end of the time. this was a gamble. it certainly could have gone the other way for him. that is something that has the political process as a check on that. we talk about packing the court, it was a reference to that phrase since 1937 to add to the court itself. that is something i would hope both parties could recognize. host: a final minute sober for the house comes in, as we wait for them, you mentioned a constitutional amendment. is there any issue right now that you think could get two thirds of a vote in the house and two thirds of the house and senate and three quarters of the states to ratify? guest: i think term limits are a

good example. there are both people on both sides of the aisle. law professors have talk this out and proposed various systems. how could you do this in a way to keep it evenhanded. if you had an evenhanded system, i think you could get that overwhelming requirement to pass . i think that would be something that might be a good example for people. there is a way in the constitution, it doesn't have to be something that is done in the closed, secret body of nine judges. host: carrie severino judicial crisis network from the. we always appreciate your time. that will do it for our program this morning. we are back here tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern. but now we take you to live to the floor of the house of representatives for gavel-to-gavel coverage.

>> the house will be in order. the speakers room. washington, d.c. i hear by a point holy, holy, holy lord fill the earth with the knowledge of your glory. as the waters c