situations. years ago they opened up all of the mental hospitals and the supreme court decided that the living conditions were not up to par. lastly, i'm not sure i want a federal judge or any type of judge making the decision on second amendment rights. i'm a gun owner, 78-year-old vietnam vet, and i don't want a liberal judge deciding that for me. but i would like to hear your address on ssri's.

host: appreciate your call. guest: you know, we have moved away from institutionalization, which is actually a good thing. the problem in our country is that we have not increased the availability of community mental health resources. so, you know, putting people in an institution was a very ineffective and inhumane way to treat anyone with a mental illness. to health's health, and there are effective ways to treat that, and yet we do not invest in those effective ways. community health systems have been underfunded for decades. i would also note that there is the dsm v, which has diagnostics for a wide range of mental health conditions. so, we do know what mental illnesses are, and what are some of the symptoms and factors of those mental health conditions.

so, there is quite a bit we know about that. host: he also touched on what i think a previous caller was alluding to, and said something along the lines of, the moment of some of these shootings is not a -- a mental health issue, but strong emotions come into play. anger, revenge, vengeance, jealousy. that cause the use of that firearm. that does not necessarily indicate a mental illness on the part of the person who used the firearm. guest: yes. those are not mental health conditions. there are a lot of angry people in this country, and that is often what comes into play and is the trigger for these acts of violence. but people often conflate that with having a mental illness and having a psychiatric disorder does not mean you are going to engage in that violence. but anger certainly is a huge factor. host: atlanta.

bob is up next on the republican line. caller: yes, my regards to hannah wesolowski, but it appears to me she doesn't know what she's talking about. i used to work in a psychiatric hospital, which got close in georgia by a bunch of do-gooders like her who think you can just call somebody and it will get handled. there are times when you are actually crazy, you need institutionalization. you need a good psychiatric hospital to stabilize you. i can tell by just looking at her she has never been in one or anything else. host: ok, bob. care to respond to that, hannah wesolowski? guest: no one would debate that some people need inpatient care, and that is not what i was saying. however, that is not how most people with a mental health condition need to receive their visits. host: on to joan in minnesota. joan is on the democrats line.

go ahead. caller: my thing is, i think dwight eisenhower said one of the best things in the world is, beware of the military industrial complex. i think the industrial complex has overloaded this country with guns, and we keep lambing and on the people and their problems, and all of this other stuff when all that we have to do is take that military firearm out of the hands of the people in this country, let them have their hunting guns or range shooters, and all of the good things that are a pleasure to them, and get the ar-whatever out of the hands of everybody, because what the industrial military complex is way too strong, and the people need to speak up, and their voices need to be heard instead of being squashed. thank you. host: hannah, you may have mentioned this kff survey

earlier. this is one that caught our eye. this says more than half of u.s. adults have experienced a gun-related incident, including one in five have been personally threatened with a gun or had a family number killed with a gun. 37% of those surveyed have been threatened by a gun. is there any research into the mental health effect of the continuing news about mass shootings? the presence, the daily presence of shootings in violent crime, certainly in some of our cities? guest: not enough, for sure. there is not enough research to know the impact, but we do see a significant increase in mass trauma, particularly those most directly impacted. you look at the impact on parents, on kids across the country going through shooter drills in their schools, there is a component of that that certainly impacts individuals and kids in particular, that are growing up with this as normal. you know, there is a huge

concern about what being part of a gun pulled on you, what that does to you. and the ptsd that might result. i can certainly cause ptsd for some individuals. certainly not everyone. so, looking at how we provide better mental health services to individuals as a result of our gun violence and gun epidemic is crucial here. host: what is the role, in the case of the mass shooting, where often trauma counselors will go in and talk to people. what is their role primarily? guest: their role is to process what people are feeling, to validate that. it is important that we do it not only for the individuals who were part of the shooting, but also police officers, but they witness is absolutely devastating. we also see high rates of suicide among law enforcement, so these trauma counselors can help process that and help individuals understand what their triggers may be, what they

are feeling, and what they are feeling is valid, which is also important. host: on to portsmouth, virginia . dr. butler, is it? go ahead. caller: yes. host: you are on the air. caller: yes, i trained as a psychiatrist. i did not have personal patients to do it, so i switched to surgery. however, i would like to ask, what do other countries do with respect to this issue? and what laws, if any, did they pass that we might consider that would bear on this question? in particular, is this a national problem of employment and opportunity for hope and being able to earn a living, or

is it something more subtle? i ask that, because i don't know the answer, and i'm fascinated by your program. host: thanks for that. hannah wesolowski? guest: i can't say i am an expert in international policies and what other countries do, but i do know that the availability of firearms is much more limited in other developed countries. and certainly when other countries have had horrific acts of gun violence -- australia being one example -- they have taken significant measures that have vastly reduced subsequent acts of gun violence. so, i cannot speak to all the policies in place, but i know the availability and the lack of restrictions on firearm usage and the types of firearms certainly contributes to that in this country. host: and here is richard in gillette, wyoming. ahead. caller: yeah, you know, an

earlier caller mentioned the military-industrial complex in eisenhower's speech. originally it was the military-industrial progression all -- progressional that the advisors suggested he take the word congressional out. my issue on red flag laws, what i have heard about them is they lacked due process. i was wondering if that lady could speak to that. host: ok. guest: that is a common misconception about extremist protection orders, or red flag laws. while a judge can issue a temporary order that lasts for a couple of weeks, that has to be followed up by a more extensive hearing where the individual does have due process, can speak for themselves, present evidence. the petitioner also has to testify. due process is absolutely a part

of this, and something we strongly support. do not want anyone to have their rights unfairly restricted, and that is an important component of these laws. that an individual has a say and is able to represent themselves in a court of law. host: our guest is>> "washingto" continues. host: we will get to your calls in just a moment. open form is a chance for you to call in on public policy news you are reading about. (202) 748-8001, republican line. it is (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents and all others, (202) 748-8002. we will start with a tweet by karen tumulty this morning. she is talking about an article in the "washington post." secret and top-secret documents were now available to thousands of discord users, but the leak

would not come to the attention of u.s. authorities for another month. she is linking to this front-page story in the "washington post." military -- leaker had military access. the man behind a leak of u.s. government secrets that has exposed spying on allies, revealed the grim prospects for ukraine's war with russia, and ignited diplomatic fires for the white house is a young, charismatic unenthusiastic who shared highly classified documents with a group of acquaintances searching for companionship amid the isolation of the pandemic. united by their mutual love of guns, military gear, and god, the group of roughly two dozen men and boys formed an invitation-only clubhouse in 2020 on discord. you can read that link the investigation peas in the "washington post co. -- post." walter in west palm beach.

morning, walter. caller: good morning. i would like to make a comment about one of the callers from the last segment concerning the issue of mental health and guns. i would like to suggest that there is a narrative that is abroad in this country, that whenever there is gun violence in black communities it is mainly a criminal justice issue, and when there is gun violence in non-black communities, that it is a issue that is of despair and anxiety and other kinds of mental illnesses. mental illness occurs in the african-american community as well. and much of the violence that occurs there is a result of mental illness that occurs based

not necessarily on internal issues, but based on external, systemic racism that causes people to behave in ways that are sometimes not productive. the thing that i think we have got to do is be aware that whether mental illness is in the african-american community or in a non-black community, it is the access to those implements of destruction, namely guns, that causes the person who may be having some mental illness issues to perpetrate the kind of violence that they do. thank you for c-span. host: on to jason in north carolina. caller: good morning, bill. i would also like to sort of talk about what he was just mentioning. that last caller -- let's go

back to the lady you just had on. she was bragging about australia and how they took their guns. they also send their police out to harass and injure their own citizens that even bothered to step outside of their homes. or protest. that is what you get when you take peoples firearms. like that old lady who called, she said she wants to take our ar 15's, but let us keep our 36 -- 30.06's. she doesn't know what she's talking about. a hunting rifle is twice as deadly as any ar 15. but anyway, thanks for letting me get that out of the way. i would like to actually talk about the insurrection that happened in tennessee, whether windows were smashed, police officers were injured. i was going to go somewhere else. now i'm trying to be nice.

police were injured. they took over the capital of tennessee and they withheld it while they were in the process of doing their duties. the same thing happened in washington, d.c., but nobody wants to call what happened in tennessee an insurrection. it is because the people who did it were black? has anybody ever thought about that? oklahoma, a couple of months ago their capital was also taken over. when it comes to joe biden and kamala harris -- thank you, bill. when it comes to joe biden and kamala harris, they cannot go to east palatine -- east palestine, because they are trump supporters? but they can bring these so-called black activists to the white house, send kamala down to tell how great these people are who led an insurrection? the same thing we have heard for the last two and a half years. the same thing that happened in tennessee and nobody will call it an insurrection. host: in tennessee there is news.

second expelled tennessee democrat returned to the tennessee legislature. the second democrat to be expelled last week after joining protesters in support of new gun safety laws was reinstated to his seat on wednesday. the shelby county board of commissioners voted unanimously to appoint justin pearson to fill the seat he lost last thursday after a super majority of republicans voted to boot him from office. the legislator was elected earlier this year and joined two colleagues and hundreds of students and parents calling for government action in the wake of the march 27 shooting at a nashville elementary school that resulted in six deaths. in detroit, anthony is on the independent line. caller: good morning, bill. i'm thinking about the -- i don't if you saw -- i'm sure you have some feelings about it -- on mpr and twitter they got labeled, i don't know, government-affiliated or government-funded. i think it is pretty interesting. i don't have a problem with it because in the old twitter regime they had labeled rt

russia state-affiliated, and cgtn china-state affiliated. that should definitely be labeled u.s.-state affiliated. i wonder what c-span1 do. i know you guys don't get your funding from their. host: c-span has no government funding, so we could not be labeled a government -- yeah. caller: you could totally be labeled affiliated, because everything you guys say is a total regurgitation of government propaganda, from covid, to hunter biden laptop. you guys cried wolf with russia. you can't say that anymore. you guys cried wolf, c-span too. host: this is the story our caller was talking about. npr quits twitter after being labeled state media. npr will no longer post fresh content to its 52 official

twitter feeds, becoming the first major news organization to go silent on the social media platforms. in explaining its decision npr cited twitter's decision to first label the networks state affiliated media. the same term it uses for propaganda outlets in russia, china, and other autocratic countries. npr writes that the decision took the public radio network off guard. when queried by npr tech reporter bobby allen, twitter owner elon musk added that he might have gone the wrong. twitter then revised its label on npr's count -- account to government-funded media. npr is a private nonprofit company with editorial independence. it receives less than 1% of its $300 million annual budget from the federally-funded corporation for public broadcasting. catherine is in new york on the democrats line. go ahead. caller: hello.

thank you for taking my call. i think that the lobby we should be fighting is the liquor lobby. the protestant women that were educated nurses, that put prohibition in place. we are going toward this -- talking about mental illness and we are leaving out this power of all call -- power of alcohol. he needs to be put in the letter of the law, not 12 step programs. the mentally ill should be given injections, not pills. can get the money into the drug of their choice. we don't want to fight the liquor lobby. it is a social lubricant. we teach children that it is a social lubricant. as long as you are going to have that liquor going on you were going to keep having the mental illness and the guns go off. that liquor is the gateway drug for all of the other drugs. it is a ok for the youth to go ahead to other drugs they choose to do.

we don't want to fight the liquor lobby in america. mental illness, guns, alcohol is the source of this mind-changing chemical, especially in young people's minds. as far as mental patients not been violent, i followed somebody for 30 years on long island here and was in a building in allen park with 100 other mental patients, and the police were there most often than not. i don't think anybody has the stamina in this country, the moral will, to make that not be a reality anymore. as long as we want to keep alcohol around the guns are going to keep going off. host: leah in anderson, south carolina, next up. caller: yes, good morning. two comments. my husband is a member of a special unit team with law enforcement. and when they go into the situations even with one shooter

, or, god forbid, multiple shootings, they go in and it is there is no time to bring in a trained behavior specialist to speak with these people because they have already stepped back and stewed for weeks on what is bothering them. ok? number two, i have a comment about the democrats. in 1865, when the land was supposed to go to the ex -slaves and abraham lincoln was mysteriously shot and a democratic president came in, andrew johnson, yes what he did? he took back every bit of that land. there were no mules involved.

they took back every bit of that land and gave it back to the white folks. they have been promising things back from 1865 and they are not coming through. thank you. host: we will go to john from brooklyn, georgia. on the independent line. host: how are you all -- caller: how are you all doing today? a little while back we were talking about the mental illness people. they want to know what the government or everything else with our taxes. a prominent doctor says that the patient is mentally ill, then the patient is mentally ill, he is not doing it to have something to do, that is his job. they should be able to pay for it. other countries do. we have the largest economy in the world.

another thing after this gun thing, and i will leave you after i speak to that, every time we have a school shooting they all get together and i might have to blame this on the republicans because they are the ones who close it down. with all of the promises they got about guards in the schools and at the doors, all of this talk and rhetoric and we keep having children and adults shot and killed because of this. it is too damn cheap to do it in the government does not want to do it. the state does not want to pay for it. somebody needs to do it or retired military just to get somebody out there and guard the doors. the cameras do not shoot them. they just come into the door and going into kill five or six

people, we are the richest and best country in the world, we have to take control of what we are doing. this is going out of control. host: this is the headline from "usa today." tim scott moves closer to challenging trump and other gop rivals. "he forms an exploratory committee" and he announced that yesterday by video. here's a look. [video clip] >> on this day, april 12, 1861, in this harbor the first shots of the civil war were fired. and our country faced these defining moments, would we truly be one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all? america's goal was put to the test and we prevailed. today our country is once again being tested and our divisions

run deep and the threat to our future israel. joe biden and the radical left have chosen a culture of grievance over greatness. they are promoting victimhood instead of personal responsibility and indoctrinating our children to believe we live in an evil country. all too often when they get called out for their failures they weaponize race to divide us and to hold onto their power. when i fought back against their liberal agenda they called me a prop and token because i disrupt their narrative and threaten their control. they know the truth of my life disproves their lives -- their lives. i was raised by a single mother in poverty, the spoons in our apartment were plastic but we had faith and we put in the work and we had an unwavering belief that we could live the american dream. i know america is a land of

opportunity, not a land of oppression. i know it because i have lived it. that is why it pains my soul to see biden liberals attacking every rung of the ladder that helped me climb. if the radical left gets their way, aliens more families will be trapped in failing schools, crime-ridden neighborhoods and crushing inflation, but not on my watch. this is personal to me. i will never back down in defense of the conservative values that make america exceptional and that is why i am announcing my exploratory committee for president of the united states. [end video clip] host: so tim scott not entering the race but forming an exploratory committee. news about the first debate. a republican from "the new york times" the gop picks fox news as a first debate. it is open forum on washington

journal. we go to kenzie in baltimore, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to speak as a person who is a victim of god violence. twice in my life i have faced a gun, once as a 10-year-old child in an all white neighborhood and the other as a 19-year-old on a bus on his way home from work where i was shot in the head. neither times were crime or mental health the issue. the both times was because they thought a person with a gun's personal and petty prejudices and having a gun on which to act on them. we talk about mental health issues. we talk about crime. we do not talk about simply

having a weapon and personal issues and having that weapon being able to be used to prosecute those personal issues, grievances, and grudges. we talk about hunting, but i wonder how well armed are the deer that you need a military grade weapon to take them down. what kind of armor or kevlar is under their fur that requires that kind of ordinance? that is pretty much all i have to say. we do not need as a populace to be as armed as they are because several hundred years ago the founding fathers lived in fear of the british re-invading. we now have a military to handle those things. host: next up is martin from new york city.

good morning. caller: good morning c-span. a lot to talk about this morning. you know, everybody has flaws, men and women have flaws. donald trump's flaw is that he has a big mouth. joe biden's flaw is that he is destroying america as we know it. i will take the guy with the big mouth. i want to talk about transgender. the transgender thing is a mental illness, anybody with half a brain. it is scientifically impossible to change a man into a woman or vice versa because of dna. no matter if you wear a dress and say you are a woman or whatever else you do your dna remains male because you are. host: we had a caller yesterday

early in the show calling us from indiana and mentioned this story in the "wall street journal" which was happening as we were on the air and our caller was actually from richmond, indiana. toxic smoke from industrial fire forces thousands of residents to evacuate. smoke filled the air as fire engulfed six buildings in richmond, indiana. the photo of the aftermath from "the wall street journal." from atlanta, emmanuelle on the independent line. caller: a couple of points. a lot of the callers call into the show and if you listen to them, the caller from several calls back and this was listening into -- in terms of how he said or how he said it.

i was thinking this might very well be someone who one day could be encouraged to be angry enough or passionate enough to go out. listen, she said that the situation in tennessee a bunch of black protesters took over the state house. most of the people protesting were actually white and female. the other thing is racism, narcissism, white supremacy, ego, maniacal behavior as well as paranoia might be classified as mental illness is that are causing a lot of the mass shootings. that is something we need to take into consideration. the last point, i think white

supremacist sympathizers and rationalize errors, and conservatives -- rationalizer and conservatives might be most of the people committing mass shootings. host: we talked about npr dropping out of twitter due to it labeled as a government-funded media. this person on twitter said "npr receives 1% of its funding from government funds. rt is 100% funded by the russian communist party." here is a little bit more detail on how npr is funded from " influence watch." they say in 2020, national public radio earned $270 million in revenue and it is generated from a wide variety of sources. in 2017, it got ready percent from its corporations, 19

percent from corporate sponsorships, 10% from foundation donations, 10% from university licenses and 4% from governments from member licenses. we have mike in orlando. go ahead. mike, orlando, florida. you are on the air. we will go to dori and spoke a, washington. -- in spokane, washington on the independent line. caller: this is the result of not treating people with mental illness. my daughter's husband left her with a mental breakdown, not paying bills. he works for a cybersecurity company and he will not speak to her. i have called the police and i been paying as much as i can, even the taxes on her house. her rental was just burned down

because the people were not paying and so she did not even get the rental payments from the rental. both houses are paid for, that she is not getting a dime. he would like to have a divorce now, but there is no possibility for her to even contact him. it has to be through somebody else. now the rental has burned down. i have even paid the taxes on that and there is no help for that now because houses burned down. host: onto el paso, texas. this is paul. welcome. mute your volume and go ahead with your comment. caller: ok. i was listening to the lady and i do not think people understand how serious the anxiety and stress is.

myself, i was undergoing a therapy of valium, 10 milligrams six times a day which helped me to control my depression, my ptsd and different sayings. an intern at texas tech psychiatry department here after three interns prior to him continued beyond this valium therapy or -- therapy. but this in turn decide -- intern decided to take me off of that. in the past year and a half my body has just crashed. i am not going to shoot people or anything like that but the doctors out soap scared of person -- so scared of prescribing valium. these young doctors do not understand that valium, the

therapy of valium controls their anxiety. and if you can control the anxiety and stress, which leads to a lot of more serious mental problems,>> washington journal . host: we are joined by a alina salganicoff co who i -- who is the senior vice president of kff. she is joining us to talk about the rulings on the abortion pill rulings in washington state and in texas, that morning and thank you for being with us and up early in california. tell us how these pills, particularly the one in question, mifepristone, how does this work? guest: a lot of individuals have

learned a lot about abortion recently. medication abortion is one of two pills taken in a medication abortion regimen that ends a pregnancy and so that you take this pill and then there is another pill and that causes the body and the uterus to expel the pregnancy. host: how commonly is it used in the united states? guest: well about 53% of abortions in the united states were estimated to be medication abortion pills, and these are abortions that occur before 10 weeks of pregnancy. host: so there are two cases that deal with the medication. one came up in texas and one in washington state. help us understand what the two cases, the similarities and

differences between what they are about. guest: these are two sides of the same coin. the case in texas is a group of antiabortion advocates and medical providers have challenged the fda's approval of the drug saying that it was done improperly and that the research that the fda used was not correct. and so they challenged this and they also challenge the process. this judge, who is a judge out of amarillo, texas who has a history of doing antiabortion advocacy and legal work basically ruled that the fda did not rule properly and approving mifepristone and that the drug's approval should be revoked.

of course that has huge implications for access to mifepristone. at the same time there has been another case in the state of washington that is 18 attorneys general from states who are mostly blue states, i think all of them. they challenge the medication abortion approval in a different way and they say that the restrictions currently part of the medication abortion approval are inappropriate and unnecessary. and so that judge basically cited with the fda -- sided with the fda saying that the current process will apply, but only for the states that are part of this lawsuit. you basically have conflicting rulings with one of the judges saying that the approval process was not correct. and ruling to block the approval

of the drug and the other saying that the fda process was correct and ruling at least temporarily to uphold. host: went to the fda first approve mifepristone? guest: this drug has been approved by the fda for over 23 years now in the year 2000. so it has had a very long record of safety and effectiveness in the united states. host: in the texas case there has been movement, as you know overnight. this is the reporting on that in "politico" appeals court keeps it on the market but limits the access of federal appeals court ruled late wednesday that "an abortion pill can remain on the market under strict provisions that prohibit its use under -- beyond seven weeks of private --

a pregnancy. the 42 page order from the fifth court -- fifth circuit court of appeals temporarily blocking the aspect of the federal ruling that suspended the 2000 approval of the drug. by a 2-1 vote they permitted other aspects of the ruling that would block a seven year effort by the fda to widen access to the drug." this stalls the process of the lawsuit, correct? guest: well, this is basically blocking the judge's full order from going through. an important thing for people to understand about mifepristone is that the drug has been very severely restricted in terms of distribution over the years. initially the drug was approved only physicians could provide

this medication. it was only recommended up to seven weeks of pregnancy. it requires three visits. you had to dispense this and start taking the medication in person and the dose was three times higher than what is recommended today. so over the years, as with many drugs, the fda has changed the restrictions as more information has come in about the safety and effectiveness and the best use of this drug. most recently in 2023, a new set of risk evaluation mitigation strategy, and those are the conditions that the fda applies to certain drugs, and what they said is that they have been changed and now you can mail the drug safely. the dosage was actually lowered

in 2016 to 200 milligrams and the dates of which it is effective in the pregnancy was expanded from seven weeks to 10 weeks. the ruling of this circuit rolls back the clock to 2000 meaning that the drug can no longer be mailed, it is only approved up to seven weeks of pregnancy, only doctors can dispense the medication, and it must be done in person. of course that is going to dramatically limit the distribution of this medication by rolling back the clock. host: we welcome the viewers and listeners the conversation. the lines are 202-748-8001, the republican line. 202-748-8000 for democrats.

independents and others, 202-748-8002. she is the vice president of ks -- kff. reading some of your analysis on the implications of the rulings it was interesting that you pointed out that the plaintiffs contend that in 1873 anti-obscenity law, the comstock act comes into play, why is that? guest: this law is going to be much more visible in this whole discussion and coverage about this. about access to medication and abortion. this is an 1873 antiobscenity law that bans the mailing of anything that facilitates abortion. and so it has not really been an issue in the past because the

risk mitigation guidelines would limit the mailing and now people call it a zombie law because people did not actually follow or use the comstock law. initially it limited the mailing of anything considered obscenity as well as mailing contraception over the years, the courts have kind of dropped the contraception antiobscenity -- and the obscenity as mores have changed. host: we have callers waiting. let us go to stephen in windsor, connecticut on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to broaden this discussion a little bit more on the fact that --

there was an article about wisconsin and how -- there is evidence that you are with it, the younger people under 30 came out and drove that election. i am not sure if you have statics on this thing. i think that people are becoming one issue voters. what is your take on the effect of -- of this affecting the electorate? guest: on this decision on the election? caller: just all of these laws restricting abortion, this is

influencing the electorate. host: we will let you go, a little hard to hear some of it. how do you want to respond? guest: i am not sure that i completely understood the question. this clearly is an area that has activated voters. i think what people should recognize is that the efforts to limit abortion access did not begin with the dobbs decision. there have been laws enacted in many states over the years permitted by the supreme court's determination that states can regulate abortion to limit access. even before the dobbs decision was issued, abortion access was limited in many states. the dobbs decision allowed states to ban abortion and 13 states have fully with very limited exceptions, and these

are in areas that voters now, when we have seen in many recent elections have in many cases cited -- sided with the support of abortion rights and allowed individuals to make their decisions. host: is the attempt to permanently shut down fda approval of mifepristone? guest: that was the original request which was to overturn the approval, that is correct. that would limit its distribution across the country. the fifth circuit has said that the approval cannot really be question because the statute of limitations has passed. it was approved in 2000. they said that the ability to limit the fda's deceptions -- decisions to limit abortion, they basically have merit. as a result, they are basically

applying the limits from originally in 2000. host: brenda from manchester, washington -- manchester, massachusetts. go ahead. caller: i just want to say on the broad spectrum of the abortion issue i cannot believe it is a pro-life issue, it is a pro-birth issue and to all the people so concerned about the infant babies being murdered. if it is a baby and has a soul and if it has a soul your tenants say it is an innocent soul. so that soul is going to go directly to god, bypass this hell on earth, have the utopia of heaven. let us let god, your judge, determine the decisions made by the women who are making them. i say this as a woman who cannot

ideologically have my own children. i have taken guardianship, i volunteer in my local school. i love children. i myself would never have one, that is not my choice to make for anyone else. once again, all of the people out there basing this on religion, this is not a religious decision. we have a separation of church and state. states shall not govern religion, religion shall not govern the state. thank you so much. host: any response? guest: no. i am not sure what to respond to. host: i think you mentioned in the beginning, how late in the pregnancy, up to what month or week can mifepristone be used? guest: it has been up until the ruling approved to be used two up to 10 weeks of pregnancy.

the vast majority of pregnancies occur in the early weeks before nine weeks. so this ruling now, it is -- if it is not appealed and i do not know what the biden administration is going to do. things are moving quickly and whether they will field this to the supreme court. this affects pregnancies up to 10 weeks. if this stands that it would roll back the clock and it will be pregnancies up to seven weeks. host: "the new york times" says that democratic states is stockpiling abortion pills and they are using the university of washington and the department of corrections to stockpile a four year supply of the drug and it is fast-track legislation allowing health-care providers to distribute it. officials in maine where 70% of abortions are done using pills and and marilyn said that they were exploring purchasing --

maryland said that they were exporting burgeoning additional doses. and california purchased an emergency stockpile. does that surprise you? guest: i think these are states that are all committed to making sure that abortion is available to residents. i do want to say that there are two different pills that are being discussed. california said that they were going to stockpile one drug. and even though access to mifepristone might be restricted, it is used -- the other is used alone to manage abortion as well in many countries. it is slightly less effective but very effective and has greater side effects when used alone. clearly the preferable from a medical standpoint is to use a combination of the two. mifepristone alone is safe and

effective. but i it would also say that it is used also as part of pregnancy loss and mitch care -- and miscarriage management and has been recommended as the preferred method by the american college it -- the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists which represents ob/gyn's in the country. host: karen in iowa. good morning. caller: my question is why are the democrats pushing more that the pills are not used by abortions but management of miscarriages and things like that? because people have been known to bleed out and die. host: what did you say at the end? caller: people are going to end up without the proper medical care when they are miscarriage thanks -- miscarriageing and

bleeding out and dying. jim from mississippi on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to ask, henry olson wrote an op-ed in "the washington post" titled the abortion is not the magic will it that democrats think it is and he was talking about the election in wisconsin. i just wanted to ask your guest, do you think that this issue has the strength to rally voters like almost what is it a year from now? or will there be a certain amount of getting used to the new restrictions over the coming months and years? guest: i will just say that i am not a political scientist, but i will tell you that the issue of abortion, particularly when it

is the central issue on an election, particularly the loss of abortion rights has engaged voters, particularly young voters. so i think that is something that the democrats will likely hang onto in the coming elections, that is something we saw in kansas and wisconsin and there have been other examples. i think we are likely to continue seeing this issue. those of us who work on the issues recognize that this is a marathon. it will be a long and protracted battle for the country in terms of abortion rights and access. right now many of us feel like this is a sprint. but, for many people this issue is not going away and this is an issue that women deal with of a reproductive age and honestly their partners.

you know, on a regular basis. host: "usa today" supreme court reporter has a piece "can biden ignore the courts. the experts say it is an explosive idea and that several democrats in congress are saying that the fda should ignore the ruling in the texas case." what is the downside of something like that, for the fda to continue to make it available and to ignore the ruling of the case? guest: from what i have heard from the president and biden administration they will follow the courts and the rule of law but they will challenge this as far as they can. i think it is unlikely and would set a bad precedent not just for this administration but future administrations to disregard a court ruling, even though we really do not want to have the courts being in the position of

making determinations of which drugs are safe and effective in this country. it is highly specialized and you really want to have people who are experts who are relying on good science to make sure what we have available is safe and effective and that is the intent of the biden administration. host: ramona in lithonia, georgia on the democrat line. caller: good morning, everybody. this is two things that i want to say. the women in the 70's were performing abortions on themselves with hangers in closets and elsewhere and they were killing themselves. and abortions crossed all political lines, republican women, democrat women and

independent women were performing abortions. i know for a fact that anything that prevents an abortion, they will perform abortions on themselves. they would not be any law or anything that will prevent abortions. and then also if men were capable of becoming pregnant they would be performing abortions too but they cannot so they do not understand. also, i wanted to say that women are going to die. we are going to die and dark and lonely areas and they will still perform abortions. and also i wanted to ask, is there a study on why do women resort to abortion, and is there any way to help prevent them from having abortions and giving

them another way out. why are they having abortions in the first place? guest: there is a lot in that comment. first of all you are right. women have been having abortions basically since the beginning of history. and our grandmothers and great-grandmothers had abortions and we just do not know about it. and so the situation with self managed abortions is different than it was in the days before rowe because women can take pills and can get them through organizations even outside of the country. the pills like mifepristone are generally very safe and effective so this kind of back alley abortion model really does not apply today, fortunately.

but we are seeing women actually be at considerable risk around miscarriage management where in states where abortion is banned, women are showing up at emergency rooms or are having a miscarriage or pregnancy loss and there might be a fetal heartbeat still that they know that this pregnancy will ultimately not be viable and the clinicians and doctors at the hospitals are not giving approval to do the abortions and saying please come back when you have a fever and in sepsis or start bleeding because then it will be clear. whereas before the doctors -- before the dobbs decision it would be very clear and the clinicians would be able to perform an abortion basically to -- basically the same procedure as an abortion to end the pregnancy and take the risk out

of the medical situations at the woman is facing. host: "the new york times" has a piece about are the abortion pill safe. this is a university of california study. "a vast majority of the studies report that more than 99% of patients who took the pills had no serious complications. the uncommon cobb -- complications can include lead transfusions or major surgeries and they compare procedural abortion, only .1 6% of the patients had serious complication rates in medication abortion, .31%. during childbirth, the rate of serious complication rate is 1.4%. one of the argument in part of the plaintiff's case was that the medication was unsafe. guest: the research does not bear that out, and i

participated in a national academy of sciences study on abortion safety and quality in 2018, and we reviewed reams of evidence and found abortion to be safe and effective. so mifepristone has a very long safety record and so despite the claims of the plaintiffs and this case, the research does not bear that out. host: teresa up next on the independent line in massachusetts. teresa, good morning. caller: hello, i just want to say that first i am a pro-lifer and i have never had an abortion. the first thing i want to say of a two part thing, men have been able to used prophylactics for years and get them over the counter. so women should be able to get

the birth control and the pill and abortion pills. i am a little bit nervous. host: it is ok. caller: they should be able to get pills over-the-counter. and the next thing, the second part is the man of the federal -- men of the federal and state governments that are against abortion should not even talk about it. as far as i'm concerned. and then the other thing that i want to say is you know, women that get pregnant that do not want to have children should have the opportunity to have an abortion through their doctors as long as it is within a certain amount of time like they

wanted to do 10 weeks or not medically informed about all -- i am not medically informed about what is safe or what is not safe. host: we appreciate your phone call. on her point about birth control , is there a concern that potentially birth control methods and birth control pills and etc. could also be subject to future litigation or legislation in some of these states? guest: some are concerned and actually justice clarence thomas actually raised in his concurrence to the dobbs decision the need to revisit the griswold decision, which basically was a decision that granted the right to contraception and the right to privacy. there is concern but also a tremendous amount of misinformation and confusion

about contraception. we have seen this in polling work that kfs has done where individuals do not understand the difference between emergency contraception which you can take up to five days after unprotected sex to prevent a pregnancy, but it is a contraception. it does not end a pregnancy and mifepristone. we have even seen most recently in iowa, the attorney general say that they are removing emergency contraception as something that the state would fund for women who have been victims of sexual violence. there is a tremendous amount of confusion and how it will affect the court and how it will affect actually common practice is a concern to many of us who are working in terms of making sure that people have access to

contraception to present -- to prevent undesired pregnancy. host: a number of drug manufacturer leaders got into the debate with a letter about the texas case in particular. "drug company leaders condemn ruling invalidating fda approval of abortion pill. that is the headline. over the abortion pill on monday issuing a scorch and condemnation by a ruling of a federal drug -- federal drug -- judge and calling for the decision to be reversed." how much influence do pharmaceutical leaders have in cases like this? guest: i just want to say that this case is unprecedented. we have been using that word quite a bit and it is unprecedented. i think the pharmaceutical industry is rightly concerned that a particular process and

approval that costs millions of dollars could affect them, especially right now where we have such polarization or controversy about many health issues. if you look at the issue of treatment for covid or vaccines, you can easily envision millions of dollars that were invested not only by the pharmaceutical industry but the government who researched and developed it and it could be placed at risk if a judge determined that the process was not done correctly. there is as i mentioned a tremendous amount of expertise needed to review drugs and the pharmaceutical industry and investors want to be confident that the determinations made will stick. if they are going to invest all of this time, effort, and money in getting a drug approved. host: the texas case makes it all to the supreme court after appeals, then this would become

an existential christian -- question for the fda in terms of their drug approval role, correct? guest: this is an issue that has not come up in terms of approval. i would say that the fifth circuit in this case did not say that the drug approval has been revoked, but it will likely go to the supreme court one way or another, whether in the short or long term. particularly, you have two conflicting rulings. the role of the fda will continue to be really in the spotlight on this issue and many others. host: next up is lori in youngstown, ohio. go ahead. caller: i just have a couple of comments. i want to be clear that abortion , the whole idea and the whole issue is based and rooted in

patriarchy and religion. roe v. wade, i knew this 35 years ago, it was hanging on a thread and it needed to be caught a five. bodily autonomy for women and men is a given to me, and i have been fighting this for years saying that we needed to codify it and we are now in this boat because they have been chiseling away at this. and this medication, just for the record, it has been on the market for 20 years and is completely safe. i am not saying there are not small issues but it is safe. they have studied and tested and researched it for years. this is a way to oppress women and that is the bottom line. that is all is that about,

keeping women pregnant and in property, the -- and in poverty, thank you first beast -- for c-span. host: do you have a response. guest: you get those who support abortions, i think they side very strongly with the caller. i think who oppose abortion rights view this very differently, and this is an issue that has polarized this country since the decision was made. the roe decision was made in 1973 and we are no closer to resolution. host: question via text. this is a comment. "i am an epidemiologist researcher and i see a large gap between questions of culture, medical ethics and modernization of our health care system. how do we hold a more intentional comfort --

conversation? the health-care initiative does not bring community into discussions of policy." guest: i would agree that we have not had a very good and thorough discussion about how we provide health care and the terms for that and who benefits and who does not. this is clearly one example of a much broader discussion that is needed in the united states about health care and who gets it and who does not and the quality of that care. host: new york city, charles. republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. first of all let me just say i am not an advocate of abortions, but i also believe that there is a time when they are needed and they should be allowed to happen.

and then i look at all of these people fighting to murder their children and i think to myself why should we fight that, let them get rid of their kids because a lot of those people i would not want to have children anyway. i am saying that i think the republicans are going the wrong way. they ought to embrace it because the democrats have been using this for years and like i say, a lot of them that i see fighting for the right to murder their children i would not want them to have a child anyway. and i would take it one step further and wish that their chip -- that their parents believe the same way they believed. host: another comment from new york from tony and long island with a question for you. "has data come out against -- about the consequences of abortion restrictions and do abortion clinics have stock of these pills?" guest: the data is coming out and there is a very large study

that came out recently from the society for family-planning and they found that the share of abortions was down by 7% so we are seeing in the clinics where it is legal a reduction. although what has happened is that individuals who are seeking abortion are moving and getting their abortion from states where it is legal. i think it is going to be a while before we know the impact and it is a difficult thing to study because there is or has been a lot of stigma around abortion and now there is concern about criminality. so tracking the number of abortions becomes more and more difficult, particularly when we see greater numbers of individuals self managing abortions, that is getting abortions through channels of traditional health-care providers. host: tom is in alabama on the

democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for having her on the show. my question to her is about one thing, about the supreme court ruling on carryback -- carrie beck and the supreme court ruling about eugenics in 1927. and that law that they sterilized carrie beck is still on the record and is still the law. my question is, the same supreme court who is saying that abortion is illegal they say that eugenics was legal, but i do not -- i do not know who supports abortion why don't they

bring up this conflict dating argument with the republicans and with the supreme court because you cannot have it both ways. thank you. and one other question, they are doing eugenics right now in the prison systems. the doctors are performing eugenics on women without their knowledge. and when they find out after they have the surgery against their will they find out that they no longer can have babies, they have been doing this for years. thank you. host: any thoughts on that. guest: well, a lot of the antiabortion advocacy has cited that this is eugenics and there is no grounding that i have seen that basically says that abortion access is equivalent to eugenics in this country at all.

these are also, any of these, there are laws still on the books. the court does not make the laws, congress makes the laws and repeals them. the court views their role as interpreting the laws so they are probably many laws on the books and in congress right now that really have no current applicability, comstock law might be one of those that we are going to be focused on very soon. but, they are still on the books. host: one more. this is janet from illinois. go ahead. caller: i am calling about one of the biggest factors in abortion, the catholic church meddling and women's business as they have been for many years. if you were a young girl in the 60's going to a catholic school the last year school year senior year you were given a course in

marriage and you were told that once you get pregnant you are the secondary vessel, not the primary vessel. you are the thing that did not matter. the most important thing was the baby you were about to bring forth. that is the situation in this world today. who decides what happens to that body? the persons who should decide is the woman herself. host: one more question and we kind of touched on the texas case a lot. the washington state case, what is next involving the states who have approved use of mifepristone? guest: the fda has asked the judge to clarify how they should proceed in light of the texas ruling. so that case right now, we have two conflicting rulings for the

fda so, how this is going to be handled is likely when you have that situation in two quarts, two district courts that have yet to be appealed. it is likely to be headed to the supreme court. host: kfs reporting studies on this issue and many more health issues all available at kff .org. e question for you may be no, you are living paycheck-to-paycheck. maybe monthly social security or monthly retirement or your pension pan -- plan. you feel stressed about the way things are going in the economy? we asked a question based on a survey from cnbc, are you living

paycheck-to-paycheck echo their headline, with inflation stubbornly high, 50% of americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck. more than half. roughly 70% say they feel stressed about their finances. mostly due to inflation, economic uncertainty and rising interest rates. the cost of basic household expenses in the report in this ilities, are alligher than a year ago, weakening purchasing power. nearly 60% of rests cited inflation as the s of their stress, fd by economy wide instability, inflation -- and a

lack of savings. this was conducted before the news yesterday of easing inflation. this is the washington post this morning. inflation is easing, why are people noticing? inflation at its lowest level, they write, you nearly two years, but americans are not feeling much better. new figures released wednesday show that inflation eased in march with prices inching up .1% from a month earlier. and 5% from a year ago. we asked a question based on a survey from cnbc, are y questiol you are living paycheck-to-paycheck? (202) 748-8000 is the line for those making under $30,000. if you are between 31000 and $50,000, it is (202) 748-8001. if it is between 51000 and

$100,000, it is (202) 748-8002 and for those making over $100,000 a year annually the line is (202) 748-8003. at a recent hearing on starbucks, featuring ceo howard schultz, senator bernie sanders spoke with folks who worked at starbuck

doesn't seem conducive in my opinion. host: the reaction to the news yesterday about the consumer price index, the downturn in the consumer price index, eric schmitt, republican senator from missouri tweeted this. inflation has risen, 15.4% since biden took office and has remained above 5% for 23 consecutive months. working-class missourians are hurting. yahoo! finance had a recent report on groceries. they headline. war than half of americans would not be able to afford their bills and groceries if they lost their job. what would your immediate concern, if you lost your job, in a survey, more than half of

overall americans say they would not be able to afford bills and groceries. if americans lost 37% of overall americans surveyed, paying their bills would be an immediate concern. the percentage breakdown is consistently high across all age groups. those who would be impacted are ages 45 to 54 and ages of 65 and older. we have set up our phone lines a little differently by income bracket. her conversation with you, are you feeling like you are living paycheck-to-paycheck? (202) 748-8000 the line for those making under $30,000 a year. (202) 748-8001 between $31,000 and 50,000. between 51000 and $100 -- $100,000, (202) 748-8002 and

more than that, (202) 748-8003. stephanie is on the line in brooklyn, new york. caller: yes, good morning. i am calling because i am retired and i am living as you say on a fixed income now. i will tell you a story. when i was working for new york city hospitals, the city hospital in the 80's, i started in my early 20's. i was making good money. i was able to get an apartment at a young age. i was able to pay my rent with one check. have a little left over and with the next paycheck, i had money. and i was able to do what i had to do. at that time i was able to establish three thank you

counts. now you can't do that. i hear young kids that are working. they are not able to obtain an apartment. they still live with their parents because it is very hard because of the money. so now we are not living like we are supposed to. nobody lives comfortably anymore. there is no middle class. it is gone. it is the working who wore and the rich -- working poor and the rich. there are no longer mom-and-pop shops. this country has changed so much with corporate greed. they say capitalism is good but it is not good for everybody. not for the working people as our money does not go into wall street. have a good day. host: i appreciate that. we will go on to brian on the

under $30,000 line calling from minnesota. caller: yes, i'm 66 years old. i am living from paycheck-to-paycheck. i am on social security. probably about -- maybe a little over $12,000 a year. most of my expenses are rent, utilities, food. i have a deduction of medicare, $150 a month. i am not stressed because what i do is if i can afford it, i don't have a car, i ride around on a bicycle. i am doing the best i can. so i wanted to say to americans, if you can't afford it, you've

got to make changes. host: our previous color said nobody lives comfortably anymore. do you feel you live comfortably? caller: yeah, i live comfortable. i can walk, see and hear. my arthritis is getting to me. if i can't pay my bills i will try to find work again but i will be probably the last applicant to be hired because i am old. host: there is another thing you mentioned, your arthritis. in the past year or so have you had medical bills or emergency bills? you don't have a car, but bills that surprise you that you were not able to pay? caller: i don't have any. i just take ibuprofen once in a while. host: we will go to greg in

fayetteville, north carolina. good morning. caller: i am not living paycheck-to-paycheck. however, that is because i'm working two jobs. some that is not being talked enough about is the cost of rent . my rent went up $180 a month which is a drastic increase. shopping around to other places is not better. the other part is also, the uncertainty and it does not look like it is going to get better in the next couple of years even though inflation has gone down a little. there is a lot of pessimism about what the economy is going to be doing which does not help things.

so i am thankful i'm not living paycheck-to-paycheck. but again, i am having to work two jobs to make that happen. host: how old are you? caller: i'm 63. host: i appreciate it. andrew from brooklyn heights, ohio. hi there. caller: i wanted to call in with the project, i would love to know what is being done to address global poverty issues/ . host: sure, go ahead. caller: what we can do domestically speaking is important, but i think one of the most foundational he important things to building a stronger economy is international investment. i believe the way to reduce global poverty, by creating

better infrastructure abroad, we can increase domestic jobs and investment here and i don't think that is being talked about to a great deal. host: what are some of the suggestions that they bring forward in your view? the best suggestions? caller: just increasing awareness so that more can be made and increasing access to education. one of the leave -- leading causes of global poverty is a literacy rates throughout the world. --illiteracy rates through the world. there is something known as the read act signed in 2017 and they are looking to get people involved with reauthorizing that act, which provides $5

million to increase global literacy rates and address systemic poverty based on inability to communicate stemming from educational problems around the world. host: one of our previous callers mentioned uncerta in the economy. the cnbc has another survey. your money financial confidence survey. they say just 13% of americans say they are confident in america's banking system. this is after the collapse of silicon valley bank. they banking crisis is not the only stressor on people's minds. seven and 10 people are stressed about their personal finances and about half say their overall financial stress has increased since before the covid-19 pandemic. 58% of americans describe themselves as living paycheck-to-paycheck.

we are focusing on this this morning and the wake of the consumer price index numbers asking are you living paycheck-to-paycheck and how the economy is doing. (202) 748-8000 for folks making under $30,000 a year. between 31000 and $50,000, (202) 748-8001. between $51,000 a year and $100,000 a year, (202) 748-8002. and more than that, (202) 748-8003. mike pence recently talked about the economy. >> the advantage we have having returned to private life and going back home to indiana, people stop and talk to us about what has happened in their lives in ways that comes more difficult when you are in elected office. american people are hurting.

they are deeply concerned about the future of their kids and grandkids. i talked to a woman at a gas station in indiana not long ago. two little kids in the back of the car. it was a nice little sedan, nothing fancy. and i said how are you making out with the gas prices?? she said i only have to go to the food bank once a week. i said are you and your husband out of work? she said no, we both work but with the prices going up the way they are for groceries and gasoline, we have had to go to the food bank. but she said the people are very nice. you look at the statistics and national review, how many americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck. that is for the american people to focus on. host: former vice president mike

pence back in march. the response to our opening question on washington journal, on social media and via text to (202) 748-8003. this one says i have a plan, i get social security, my union pension almost the same as social security. i have between $3000 and $4000 in the bank every month, i have been helping my children pay their bills. working a good union job has helped me all my life says joe in hartford, kentucky. steven in gladstone, michigan. somehow i managed a mortgage under the poverty line but why are groceries going up? diesel fuel is rising. i work full-time but make enough that i don't get any assistance. i need dental work and home repairs but i can't think about

addressing it. it is stressful. prices go up but wages are stagnant and have been since -- life expectancy declines in the u.s. is an oligarchy and the oligarchs are without mercy. that is in philadelphia. and talking about legislation and a bill he is proposing, the average cost of childcare he says is $60,000 a year. many teachers are paid unlivable wages. the median annual wage for childcare workers in 2021 was $27,680. my bill will make care more affordable and give the wages they deserve. next is terry. go ahead. caller: i am 68 years old, i broke my back twice and i still have to get out and go to