caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> you think this is just a community center?

it is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with community centers so students from low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. comcast support c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> today, the chair of the federal reserve will give an update on interest rates and other monetary policy actions, live at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span now, the free mobile video app and online at c-span.org. welcome back. i enjoyed by thomas jipping senior legal fellow at the heritage foundation. welcome to the program. guest: thank you for having me. host: will take your calls in a little bit based on party affiliation.

democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. last year the supreme court overturned roe v. wade. there has been a number of legal challenges since then. can you give me your reaction to that? guest: by saying the constitution does not confer a right to abortion, that lifted -- it is like you're going to a tollbooth your arm goes up a single forward creed that allowed pro-life efforts to go forward. just like under roe v. wade, there is still legal challenges to that from those who want to defeat those kind of pro-life measures. you have a legal challenges to state of pro-life laws. the litigation that has gotten the most attention in the last couple of months actually focuses on abortion drugs.

that was not tribute so much by roe v. wade other than when roe v. wade was in place, challenges to -- of this kind were put on hold but here the abortion drug mifepristone, which is first approved by the -- in 2000 there has been since that time questions about whether the fda went through the proper process to approve that drug. that approval has been challenged in federal court. host: i would ask you about mifepristone and the challenges about the approval process even though it was approved 20 years ago. guest: legal challenges in the three decisions by the fda. the original approval. when the fda approved mifepristone in 2000 it is so on a fast-track process after essentially declaring pregnancy to be a life-threatening illness. i think many people will hear that and immediately say what

that is not make any sense. the other two actions by the fda were in 2000 -- 2016 and 2021. fda lifted most of the safety precautions that had been in place. a group of four plaintiffs, four medical organizations, and quite joe -- have challenge of those under the administrative procedure act. that law requires that when government agencies like fda make such decisions they have to go through a thorough process and they have to consider all of the evidence, they cannot be arbitrary. these groups are challenging all three of those fda actions. host: last week's senate judiciary committee held a hearing on abortion access. and health care. this is the headline of what you

wrote in heritage foundation, hearing on abortion after dobbs shows democrats extremism. explain that. guest: in a couple different ways, the democrats supported the woman's health protection act in the house and senate. while many times there was say this judge puts into statute what it supreme court has said in roe v. wade, goes far beyond that. the woman health protection act would not allow any government, anywhere, to do anything that you can potentially could reduce the incidence of her abortions. it would disallow many laws roe v. wade allowed. it goes far beyond what the supreme court did and it is a pretty extreme position. host: i want to ask you about this reuters article the headline is, u.s. supreme court earned challenge to indiana

abortion cremation or burial law. explain what that law is and why you think the supreme court did not want to take it. guest: the state law is what the title suggests. if i could divine the inner workings of supreme court's mind on whether to take cases or not, i would have a different job. i do not know. ordinarily the supreme court is more likely to take a case where there are two different lower federal courts have addressed the same issue and come to different conclusions. i do not think that was the case with regard to this state law. that may have been a factor. they were not ready to jump in and to take on that issue because the lower courts had not more thoroughly ruled on it. host: let's take a call. john in brooklyn, new york.

my credit. -- democrat. caller: i want to make a shorter statement and get his opinion on abortion. the bible says in any religion all sin is sin. there is no little sin. there is no big sin. people put emphasis on abortion. what about how you treat your friends? abortion is no more sin to god than a lie. or cheating on your wife or lusting at a woman. god does not see big sin and little sin. why do people put emesis on abortion -- emphasis on abortion? host: i know you are not a religious scholar, your illegals caller.

-- legal scholar. guest: i understand the point in general. the legal question is whether the constitution which we can all read for ourselves actually does that. i do think there's a difference morally between lying to someone and killing a human being which is what abortion does. i understand his point. does that mean religious people should take other sins more seriously? i do not think that means we should belittle and downgrade the seriousness of abortion. host: i want to play you a portion of the hearing from senate judiciary committee on the supreme court. this is michelle goodwin, law professor at the university of california and i will get your reaction. [video clip] >> in 2021 united supreme court decisively undercut the rule of

law when it overturned roe v. wade. in doing so the supreme court unleashed a torrent of unnecessary uncertainty, fear about the future of protections for women held and their rights to life, liberty, and safety. justice thomas's concurring opinion place all privacy rights on a high alert say for interracial marriage, the status enjoyed by the justice himself. for all other privacy rights including marriage equality, access to contraception, freedom from state imposed realization and more, his concurrence remains a cause for series alarm. despite the promise protections articulated by the majority and justice kavanaugh that freedom of travel will be preserved and that is dismantling of ro would

return abortion rights to the state, today some legislatures are seeking to dispossess citizens of access to the ballot, whether by enacting provisions making it more difficult to vote or engaging in efforts to rewrite state laws related to ballot initiatives and referendum. thereby introducing anti-democratic principles into the democratic process itself. the post dobbs era exposes not only a cruel disregard for the lives of those most affected, but also a lack of regard for constitutional law and foundational symbols and values such as freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of association, privacy and separation of church and state. in the aftermath of dobbs, women, girls, people at the capacity of pregnancy are more

at risk than ever before. host: we are taking your calls for our guest, thomas jipping. on our lines by party affiliation. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you can also send us a text in its rack on social media. guest: i worked in the senate judiciary committee for almost 15 years. i'm not sure i heard more subjects jammed into a few minutes from a hearing witness before. she referred to those most affected by abortion. those affected by abortion are the unborn children who are targeted for death. one thing that struck me from the hearing is that the democratic side, including their witnesses like professor goodwin, never mentioned there

was a second human being in balance -- involved. as justice thomas concurrence in dobbs, i know lots of fundraising, a lot of attention paid to that. dobbs overturned roe v. wade because roe v. wade misinterpreted the constitution. no critics of the course dobbs decision, including professor gutmann, they do not attempt this claim roe v. wade was quickly decided because they cannot. the supreme court correcting that mistake and saying constitution does not confer a right to an abortion was the right decision. it was the correct treatment of the constitution. justice thomas is concurrence merely focus on the message that the court use in roe v. wade to invent or make up the right to abortion. his point was no matter what

right you are talking about, the supreme court should not make things up. if that means other rights are in that category, then they have to be defended. professor goodwin should know, she took that swipe at justice thomas about interracial marriage, she should know that interracial marriage decision was not a privacy rights a decision like the other ones. i thought that was a little bit offputting. host: she also said the dobbs decision released a torrent of uncertainty and fear about women's health. do you agree with that? guest: no. i think that exaggerates the role the court play on these matters. it is not up to the supreme court to settle issues to create uniformity and serenity across the country on all these matters.

the supreme court had a legal question to answer and that was whether the constitution protected the right to abortion. it is not. that was the course of a job and that means the american people through their elected representatives make these decisions. that can be a rough-and-tumble, sometimes chaotic, perhaps even confusing process but that is the way our system of self-government works on any issue. host: bobby on twitter and it says, does thomas jipping know women have and will die due to complications of pregnancy and or giving birth? guest: yes. you ask any ob/gyn, that is what they experience and the medical literature shows. women do die. the maternal mortality is a real thing. i also know that unborn children dying is the purpose of abortion.

that is why it was invented. that is why it is performed. one of the doctors at the hearing actually pointed out when doctors have two patients when there is a pregnancy, the woman and her unborn child. doctors should try to preserve both. host: i'm going to play another clip from the same hearing from a woman who is suing the state of texas after being denied an abortion last year. [video clip] >> on a sunny august day when i just finished the inviting list for baby shower, unexpected systems arrived and i contacted my doctor to be safe and was surprised when told to come in as soon as possible. after an examination we received the news that i had dilated prematurely due to condition and a cervical insufficiency. soon after my membranes ruptured we were told by multiple doctors that the loss of our daughter was inevitable.

it is clear this is not a question of if we would lose our baby, it is a question of when. i asked him could be done to ensure the respectful passing of our baby -- i asked what could be done to ensure the spectral passes of our baby. i needed an abortion. they explained there was nothing they could do due to the antiabortion laws that is of which had taken place two days after my water broke. even though we would with complete certainty lose below -- willow my doctors did not feel safe intervene. i should not have had to wait in anguish for days for the inescapable state that awaited. but this was august 2022 in the state of texas where abortion is illegal was a pregnant person is facing a life-threatening condition, aggravated by, caused

by or from a pregnancy. people have asked what we do not travel to a state or the law are not so restrictive but we live in the middle of texas the nearest sanctuary state is at least an 8 hour drive. developing thespis -- sepsis that can kill, is a death sentence. host: what you think of that? she said she had to get to life-threatening status before doctors would treat her. even though they knew she would lose the baby. guest: i'm not a doctor but there are other doctors on the panel one of whom an ob/gyn in ob/gyn practicing in texas for more than 30 years. she explained that that was an incorrect interpretation or application of the law. she explained doctors always may use their reasonable medical judgment in determining such questions. the law does not require that you wait until death's door

before you can perform an abortion. anyone can read the law for themselves. it is not required that. there seems to be pushing the narrative of confusion that said only doctors who have no idea what to do in these situations. i do not believe in doctors -- i do not believe that is true. host: i guess it is a question of some doctors being afraid of breaking the law, and may be going overboard. guest: they should not have been. there are laws governing medical practice across-the-board. but doctors always have their own reasonable medical judgment to rely upon. in that situation if a doctor thought as he has reasonable medical judgment she needed an abortion, he could have performed one. host: natalie in clearwater, florida. independent. good morning. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. mr. jipping, i do not understand why you despise woman so much because it appears to me that you favor a fetus'life more than the woman. when the law says all men are created equal, does that mean women are omitted from that? guest: the answer to your last question is no, the word man in documents like you are referring to is a term that applies to all human beings. second, i encourage you to rethink the way you look at issues and people who disagree with you on these issues. the fact of the fact of someone disagrees about the value of human life before birth does not

mean they despise anyone. your life is just as valuable before you were born as it is now. it is not a matter of favoring -- pitting the unborn child against his or her mother. one other doctors in the hearing she said unborn children and their mothers are not natural enemies. what we have come to a point where they are being treated or thought of that way and i did not believe that. -- i do not believe that. every one of us was a living human being before we were born in our lives work just as valuable then as they are now and i think we ought to have a higher, not a lower value of all human life. host: let's go next to nisi in southfield, michigan. caller: good morning. he is talking about women's rights.

they allow them to take a woman's rights from her then they will take other rights from others. everybody do not believe in religion. ok. we have to respect that because there is a 200 -- 280 plus in the world and we have the world in america. how would he feel live woman said men had to have a vasectomy at 10 years old it is easier -- which is easier than having your tubes tied? he is not a woman. he does not have a regina. he knows nothing about a woman's body. if you want to control anybody, control yourself. don't know human being have a heaven or held to put anybody in and god said do not doubt -- have a heaven or hell and god

said do not judge. it is a bunch of homeless kids. everything the heritage foundation stand for they want to take from the people instead of helping the people. host: let's get a response. guest: with respect i would say to you what you said to me is take care of your own body. abortion is not about a woman's body. it is about someone else's body. we somehow have a race the unborn child. as i said to the previous caller, you were a living human being before you were born. this should not be any more opportunity to kill you then as it should be now. abortion involved killing of a living human being, and i think that is the highest value we can have in our laws.

it is a right. we mean i want to do. in the context here, whether there is a legal right and there ought to be legal protections for life rather than legal protections for taking life. host: jodi is next. winesburg, kentucky. republican. caller: america is wrong that i will get out and i will never date a woman have an abortion or had an abortion. it is wrong. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: in the reaction? -- any reaction? guest: i think we need to be

honest about what abortion is and what abortion does. abortion advocates today? as if this is the middle ages but we are befuddled about when human life began and what is going on in the womb. we know. everyone knows. either of us somehow became a living human being we popped out of the womb, we were a living human being before, we are the same human being before. we need to be honest about that. if someone believes that killing a child they do not want should be a right, or should be legal, just say so. but that is what abortion does and we should be honest about that. host: would you agree with abortion in any cases? guest: the so-called rape, incest, health problems life of the mother that constitute 5% of

abortions. i guess many people that are abortion advocates that want to focus on the teeny slice. would you agree to make abortion illegal in the other cases, the cases where there is no health problems? where the mother is not at stake. there is no rape or incest involved in of course they do not because that is not the issue. the issue is whether abortion takes the life of a human being and it does. host: karen is a democrat in warren, michigan. hi. caller: good morning. i had a question for the guest. what about women who have children who are not there and the neighbor or the boyfriend takes and rapes the girl and if she has a baby -- if the

pregnancy of the fetus, she should be allowed to have an abortion at that point? host: in the case of rape? caller: yes, or incest or the next-door neighbor raping the child. guest: add to the hearing we saw a clip from one of the witnesses there talked about the coercion that takes place for women to get abortions. that in fact pressure from boyfriend to do not want to take response ability, from parents and others, actually create a situation where women who did not want to have. -- did not want to have one or course to have one. every person who is capacity to

get pregnancy is the woke term being used as the -- use these days. they all considered it thoroughly and they all know what they are doing when in fact that is not the case. we need to be honest about abortion. host: shane in kentucky. republican. caller: good morning. i want to thank your guests for the way he is logically handling many of these callers here. i have several points. this is the issue of semantics. i noticed your title supreme court a future access. in the future of ending the murder of children so i would encourage all of us on the pro-life side not to fall into that semantics trap and to

always point out with the is really about. -- what the issue is really about. i'm a veteran. i get my health care to do and became aware in february that in september of 2022 the biden administration had -- have began to kill innocent children in amino states like in kentucky, tennessee, louisiana -- state laws protecting children. vba -- the v.a. director has gone as far to say if the woman shows up at aba emergency room in the opinion of the doctor will bring abortion were now

unemployed in kentucky to those places and kill that child. host: this is in a v.a. emergency room if a woman is in a emergency and needs an abortion because of an emergency? because her health is at risk? caller: in the opinion of the doctorate which is another issue. your guests doing a good job by dealing with. again this is written nowhere in the constitution as anguish comes from -- the language comes from the exceptions of rape and assess. cash and incest. think about what we are talking about. to say the way in which a human being was conceived somehow give

license to killing a human being. where talking 1930's germany stuff. host: let's get a response. guest: it has to do with federal funding of abortion. i'm not sure that necessarily relevant but the issues we are talking about here are the real issues. president reagan had an essay published 10 years after roe v. wade in 1983 called abortion and the conscious of the nation. he said the issue is not when life begins it the value of human life. when the supreme court overturned roe v. wade, it

somebody else that they cannot -- interfering in too many things in our lives. transgender, gays. that is none of their business. they are paying taxes. we have bigger things to worry

about and we are never hearing about these doctors. what happens if somebody comes in with a miscarriage and cannot perform? with no brains, some with no lungs. they cannot abort those because of the laws. this could cause a woman -- this could cost a woman's life. host: let's get a response. guest: a miscarriage is not an abortion. a miscarriage is as different from abortion as dying from natural causes is as different from dying from homicide. everyone knows the difference. this has nothing to do with miscarriage. with regard to having bigger issues, in my view, there is not any bigger issue than whether innocent human beings can be killed for any or no reason.

i don't know a bigger issue of that that there is, so i think this is the biggest issue. we do need to wrestle with it because a lot of other things in our society depend on the value of that we give human life. host: now it is robin in new jersey, democrat. caller: yes. host: sorry about that. caller: i am a biological mother, an adoptive mother, and a foster mother. i have never seen the heritage foundation support childcare or helping working women or c.a. s.a. or other places kids can end up. i believe it is between a woman, her doctor, who is the most intelligent person to help you make that