while the trying to figure out whether that violates global trade rules, japan is also upset that americans could be dis, incentivize from buying japanese cars. meanwhile, the u. s. is busy dodging the very same rules. it's acting on its allies to a dot, taking a careful step back from the cliff after allies have taken of flying leap right off it. earlier this week, us ship maker and video said, for example, that it has a new chip writing for the chinese market that will meet the new u. s. export controls, which are meant to essentially blocking china economically. washington's trying to get allies, japan, and you countries like the netherlands, for example, to follow these new export rules in an effort to economically blockade china. here's what the chinese foreign ministry said about those efforts. this is not the way an open and honest major country would act. the world sees clearly what the u. s. is up to any one who tries to block others way will only have his own path

blocked. so the u. s. isn't really playing by its own rules that it's imposing on allies or would like to when it comes to china, or when it comes to russia, either the u. s. has already refused to impose a low price cap on russian oil, which the you wanted for fear of deregulating, the global energy market even more than it already has been. and now we're learning from the western press that the state department and us treasury have been asking us banks to maintain services and ties for certain key russian companies like gas prom or russian fertilizer producing companies. for example. remember how zalinski top economic aid was demanding that u. s. bank stop doing business with russian companies, or else he would seek prosecution of their executives for war crimes. while it looks like he's not going to be able to clean up wall street after all, what it seems like here is that zalinski e u allies and a whole lot of other people are just being led down the garden path. when he

appreciate you joining us on asi international this tuesday, we'll be back in 30 minutes with more of the latest book ah. with school. mm huh. the supreme court of the united states is there session with rulings on a 2 of the most controversial issues in america, gun ownership, and abortion rights. however, were the decisions by the highest court in the land contradictory. while the case of guns it took away the rights of

a state to decide the legislation regarding concealed carrying a firearms. but in regards to abortion, said it was a decision which should be left to the states. why the difference in today's a 1st edition of that $360.00 view, we're going to look at the issue of abortion rights here in america, with the latest ruling reversing. roe vs wade and making the procedure immediately illegal in 13 states with more expected to follow. but abortion is not just a controversial issue in america, and we will not only look at how abortion is handled by other countries. but why many countries that like the united states have recently changed their policy. i'm sky now use enjoined me as we look at abortion in a global context on his inaugural episode of 360 view. hello abortion is one of the most controversial topics in american culture. oh,

wow. oh. and the supreme court decision has fired up this divisive issue, leading to cause for a summer of rage. buildings and you see we're boarded up after the decision came down, riots erupted outside the supreme court, spilling into streets across america, even shutting down highways. is it this reaction solely unique to america? now we want to take a look around the world at which countries have the most restrictive and most similar laws to america. when it comes to abortion. now, polling shows countries that differ on their opinions of abortion, depending on their culture and their religion. for this report, we want to go to our international correspondent. that's right, scotty. we're seeing differences in opinion on abortion across the world. but 1st, i want to start with current global abortion loss before the american federal

supreme court drove drove versus wait, america had the most lenient abortion loss. if you look at the map created by the center for reproductive rights, you can see america's laws were comparable to most of europe, china, russia, columbia, argentina, turkey, and australia. this countries in blue have the fewest restrictions on abortion. however, let so mean into china. we're in the past 6 month, the chinese state council has issued guidelines to restrict the number of abortions . shina is going through our fertility crisis as the one child policy has led to a male dominated population. now china solution is to restrict abortions and citizens can no longer abort the baby due to it gender. this all began with the one child policy were families wanting a boy to carry on the family name girls or either ill cared for or died shortly

after birth or heated until school age. starting in the 1980s when doctors could predict the sex of the baby before it was born. the number of pre term abortion skyrocketed and has now led to a large male population. in china. in the more rural provinces were 2, children were allowed per family to help on the farm. you see a higher number of girls you can see in the map, parts of china had by one to for rachel of girls, 2 boys. while the government has did these new sex, selective abortion, prohibition appall from world public opinion that org fine, 67 percent of people in china would re fair the government leave. these matters to that individual, half of the port countries believe abortion decisions should be left up to that individual. this includes 6 countries where abortion is legal, france,

great britain, the united states or crane russia and china. not surprisingly, france and great britain came out with the highest number of in the beatles preferring the government take a hands off approach to abortion restrictions. france allows abortion on demand up to 16 weeks while britain allows abortion up to 24 weeks. or if the baby would be born with physical or mental handicaps, or would bring physical or mental harm to the mother. but breton also does not require doctor's under duty to perform the surgery. meanwhile, 3 of the countries were the people, one less government involvement have have restrictive loss. this includes pollen, mexico, and south korea. through, over the years, mexico's loss had the loosening and now restriction very at the state level. on the

other hand, in countries like indonesia, thailand, iran, i, nigeria, people believe the government should restrict abortions, but only indonesia has an overwhelming 60 percent support of the government using criminal enforcement. well, 84 percent of nigeria believes in restricting abortion. only half of those 42 per cent in tor don't believe the government should have criminal enforcement. currently, nigeria only allows abortion to save a woman's life, while indonesia only allows abortion to save a woman's life and in cases of rape or fetal impairment. however, when looking at the sample, these views have substantial differences. when you add religion door, the catholic church is very clear on abortion views and has even turned down certain public figures from accepting communion due to their outspoken support of abortion. christian pollard showed the most liberal views. 65 percent are in

favor of leaving that association to the individual and only 8 percent support criminal penalties. muslims have the highest percentage of supporting a government's restriction on abortion at 59 percent with 31 percent in favor of the government enacting criminal punishment to enforce abortion restrictions. according to the world public opinion poll, there were no significant differences of opinion in their findings between men and women in the study for 360 view and books. and oh, thank you for that report. now in a welcome, in worry, riling to an attorney and legal analyst where we thank you so much for joining us on this new initial show. thank you for having me. it's an honor to be your 1st guess. well, let's talk about this because how has the supreme court decision really, how is it already impacted the states across the country?

well, it's already impacted a number of states because some of them have passed. what we typically refer to as trigger laws. meaning that when an event takes place, it triggers the law in motion. so with the anticipation of this ruling, a number of states passed laws that said if row were to be overturned, that abortion would either be illegal or restricted in certain ways in those particular states. and with the docs decision coming out last week, that was in fact the event that they were referring to that would trigger those laws going into effect. so we already have seen a number of states. the law has changed or certain other states that never repealed old abortion laws. for example, wisconsin had an 849 law bidding worship on the book that was never appealed. just wasn't in force while row was supreme court precedent. so that's really what we've seen is that these trigger laws are either already going to affect or have a timeline where they will be going into effect soon and worry. i found it

interesting. these trigger laws were not just passed within this latest legislation . it was 8 years, 5 years, 6 years, 7 years. and a lot of these people did this is campaign promises just to fulfill a pro life promise. think he ro versus wade would never be overturned and here we are. and those laws are going to an effect, but there are some state judges who are temporarily blocking these abortion bands in some of these states. now is this legal with the supreme court who is supposed to be obviously the highest court of the land, their decision? and how do you see this playing out? well, i think the short answer your question is that it's complicated. so in many cases, the types of arguments that we're seeing. so louisiana, for example, the trigger law and not state was state. but the reason was because the law was unconstitutionally vague. the plaintiffs there argued that there were a number of laws had conflicting provisions. so it was hard to comply with the law until those ambiguities will result. so in that sense, yes, it's legal, but it probably does nothing more than by time. while state legislators who are

obviously very passionate about their pro life views will respond to what the perceived ambiguities are. a court decision comes out. in contrast, in utah, for example, the plaintiffs there have argued that even though there is not a national constitutional right to portion that utah state constitution, reserves that right. so the state constitutions very, in terms of what their language specifically says. so that will really vary from state to state in terms of what those specific state constitution say. so for example, in colorado and they didn't include in their state constitution, a legal right to abortion. most states have not done that, but how we interpret things like a right to privacy protection. that is going to be an issue in a lot of these cases. so at this point, in terms of the lawsuits that we have seen, yes, they are legal and it's oftentimes we have a big president like this, the changes the legal landscape. the question becomes not what is legal and what

does not. but what does the implementation look like in figuring out the details of the implementation can get quite complicated. so that's what we're starting to see now with some of the state court decisions. which when you realize of the supreme court is just based on it's not necessarily on the issue of abortion, but on the 10th amendment. this is exactly how it's supposed to be playing out according to constitution. each individual state making the rules for their land if they have not already. but now we are hearing this pro, abortion is call a summer of rage. you saw that initially. we'd even see that building up to the decision from a democratic leaders to a video of a pro lifer who was actually beaten and rushed to the hospital all by a group of antique members. should this behavior be condemned, especially by leaders of the democratic party, who are obviously upset with the decision? well, i certainly think that behavior should be condemned. i think that violence should be condemned and pretty much all instances. and over the past couple of years,

we've seen some, some conflict between what constitutes a protest. obviously there's a constitutional right to protest. and when that protest crosses outline towards violence and we don't want to promote violence. and it's certainly, i think leadership starts from the top so you can certainly have your opinion, you could be angry, you could disagree with that decision. that is absolutely you're right. but i think when you start in plucking violence, injuring other citizens in inflicting damage on property, that's the thing that are politicians on all sides, i think should be condemning regardless of circumstance. so as i think so, and yet you're not hearing very much coming out from in fact you've heard a lot of them in the streets, actually encouraging people to take this route. like i said, peaceful, protest protected by the constitution. but this violence is something that i almost see as recently becoming an answer for when you disagree with something, you actually take the violence into damage and property. but another argument that

come out for pro abortion is this idea of climate change. you know, the fact that they, we have this overpopulated world studies have shown that a child is one of the worst possible things you can do to the environment. we're not just talking about in your own home that we know a child can reflect within 5 it we're actually talking on the bigger picture. you know, when it child is a big, big deal. how do you think this push towards a greener future has actually impacted possible changes in abortion policy, which is obviously to limit the amount of children that are able to be born? well 1st i just want to say that as a mother of a toddler, yes, i can confirm that. destroy your own home in a matter of minutes. what to do a your bigger question about environmental policy. i think that that's certainly a factor and people who are supportive of rates worship, they want to appeal to people in any manner that will get them to support their side. and that's true of any policy argument. so people are not receptive to the

traditional arguments about abortion, perhaps they'll be receptive to this is green or planet argument. with that being said, i don't know how much of a as factor that truly is, because i think that we've seen people who hold these beliefs, they've been pretty steadfast in their beliefs even before there is this push for greener climate. there are many people who feel that, you know, this is a right bodily autonomy and while i think that this talk of climate change certainly adds to it, i don't think that it's necessarily a game changer. i think that even if that argument were off the table. ready would still be seeing a lot of what we would be seeing today in terms of the arguments for people who are in favor of abortion. so, i mean, yes, i think it's a factor, but i don't think it's a game changer. ok, so one other factor has come out because no one ever expected this to happen. companies almost immediately are now offering to pay for travel. all this to other

states for their employees to get abortions. i have to tell years of working female my red flags went up on this one because obviously is this because they just feel bad. they want to take care of their employees, or is it actually because it's cheaper for a government, for a, an employee to, for an employer to actually pay for the employee to have an abortion, rather than actually offer decent maternity paternity leave or any sort of program that makes it a better working environment for working mothers like yourself. well, i think we could certainly have another conversation about what adequate maternity turn the leap looks like. we could do a whole nother show about that. so i, well, i get bogged down in the details there. well, economics are probably a factor for some companies. i think the bigger factor is we've really seen over the past couple years companies waiting into the culture war in a way that they have not in the years previously. i mean, look at what just happened with, with disney in florida. and whereas before, companies didn't want to offend any potential customers, regardless of,

of issues that social climate has changed, the culture wars have escalated and there is no expectation. i think, particularly with the younger gent, the, that, that companies take a sam from some of these issues. and so i think we're seeing that more and more. i mean, really, i think that the death of george floyd was a turning point in terms of companies waiting into the culture war. so i think that this is just, you know, not no exception, that they're continuing to make statements on cultural issues where they would not have before. and this is companies, i think, particularly companies to perhaps are operating in your faith and want to appeal to the population in the workforce there. that's, that's a stance that they're, they're going to take. so, i mean, again, i think that economics certainly play a factor. we think bigger pictures just corporate landscape has changed and we now see businesses take samples on controversial issues when that's not something that

they did even just a few years ago. well, obviously things are changing and worry. i appreciate you joining us in lending your legal insight. thanks for joining us. ready, saddling, brandish or breaking afterwards? we're going to give you more of the a $360.00 view on abortion. ah, what he's got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is on, often has very dramatic development. only personally and going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very difficult. i'm time to sit down and talk with

oh, well, come back to you at 360 view, i'm your host, scotty. now hughes. now america was founded as a country with the right to choose your religion. but it has historically been found and mainly on christian views. as the country has progressed, these religious views have been pushed out of politics, schools in the home. and how do different religions integrating and these social pushed to wipe out religious influence? change a population's view on religion. well, we went to bring in play clackamas itsyana colleague, welcome, and thank you for joining us all the way from london. thank you so much for having me. i'm very excited. ok, so located there in the u. k. you have a lot of the same freedoms in england as americans when it comes to the freedom of

expression. would it be strange to see people violently protesting the way they are right now considering the roe vs wade decision? i think on a see abortion has been legal in the u. k. since about 967. and you can actually still have an abortion here up to i believe 23 weeks into pregnancy. and abortions can only be performed later on in the stage. and if there is some sort of significant risk to the mother's life, or if there is a fatal fetal abnormality that's detected. but i don't think, you know, after the roe v wade decision, i think that there has been a lot of misleading just misconception throughout, especially in my generation. i think a lot of people love to jump on the bandwagon of whatever's trending on social media and whatever it is without actually having any sort of basis and understanding and knowledge of this is because this is such

a complex issue at the end of the day and it's a very nuanced issue, but i don't think there hasn't been protests that i know of yet. but you know, who knows, who knows has just started. well as we were talking about before, even during the break it or whatever starts in the u. k. usually funnels across the u. s. a few weeks later, this started, this argument is started mainly because probably it's an election year in united states. you'll see it in a few weeks when parliament of parliament decides to take it up. and as you point out, england like america and most of europe really does have some very, lacks abortion laws, termination of other regulated c is up to those 24 weeks or as they would harm the mother. or if a child could possibly be born with a physical or mental disability, a lot of this debate actually came from post. what happened up until the moment of life was what were the debate coming from? now i also ask you about the muslim community, because here a lot of our laws are based off of judeo christian believes. but how does the muslim really actually feel about abortion laws in the u. k. and how do you

actually approach it from the muslim perspective? so, you know, as a general consensus, i think muslims view abortion as her arm and it's unlawful and it's forbidden and islam. however, there are a few exceptions. and i think islam is one of those religions that take, that takes the golden mean, if i can say when it comes to this issue. and by which, i mean, basically that it takes the middle path and says that, you know, abortion is permissible up to a certain stage of the pregnancy. and most islamic scholars, i think, would agree that the termination of a pregnancy for fetal anomalies is allowed before installment. and i'll tell you what i mean by that. but i think you, however, after $120.00 days, abortion is only deemed acceptable if the pregnancy poses any exceeding danger to the mother, or if the fetus is actually examined, to have any sort of abnormality or will, or caught, or it, or, you know,

if it's possible that it will have any sort of severe disability. but you know, what's really interesting is that even within each school of islamic thought, there is honestly a lot of variance, a lot of disagreement on abortion. and there is a lot of dispute about which circumstances really qualify as an acceptable reason. and this difference, i think of opinion is based on which stage of pregnancy do scholars think that the soul really answers the embryo? so you know, to really answer your question. i think muslims, in today's progressive age to have such her have a much more, i think the liberal approach to abortion and the laws in the u. k. tend to mirror that ideology. so, you know, especially especially for the muslim youth that are heavily, heavily influenced by social media and just pop culture. so on a surface level, honestly, i don't think it's a very polarizing issue within the muslim community, because i think we'll come from the very ethical background that has instilled

a basic moral code within each of us. so in bangladesh, for example, where i'm from, the general consensus among an overwhelming majority of the population will always align more with conservative principles. if that makes sense, now you are current a london resident. but as you mentioned from bangladesh, which borders indian have knowledge of this culture and india work, courts have been perceived as a very progressive. more than 70 percent of the abortions in india are because of unplanned pregnancies or health complications and legally admissible reasons. even then a quarter of them actually take place at home, not necessarily in a facility. how much could a restrictive abortion on the u. s. actually have this ripple effect on accesses to services, information choice and resources for abortions in india, you've been considering their already very progressive. and can i 1st address that there actually are no restrict of abortion laws in the u. s. united ticket that

you're obviously referring to, the so called restrictions that have resulted from overturning of roe v wade or the harpy laws those, those were in place even before rose roe vs wade. if you could, your heartbeat and abortion was not certain states had those, those were i'm talking about the restrictions that have been in the u. s. the right . so you know, i just wanted to address at the roe v wade thing is like the general consensus about roe v wade and what people are deeming it to mean is a complete fallacy. because i think there's a massive misconception because abortion hasn't been bound in the u. s. right. and the reason why roe v wade, i think was overturned, is because abortion rights were never part of the constitution in the 1st place. so now goes back to obviously each individual state on a case by case circumstance, which means abortion is still at accessible in almost every single state. but this is actually a win for both sides. whether you are pro life, whether your pro choice am cecily, a big win, if you, if you believe in democracy. but secondly, i think abortion laws may have

a ripple effect in india. but only i think in the metropolitan city areas where people have, you know, become more progressive or they could because because of western ideologies and particularly the american way of life, which is obviously now become like a standard for living amongst a lot of people who live in the cities, but in the rural areas you'll find that, you know, there is, and i sorry, in the rural areas where most of india and the population reside. they're actually very entrenched in ancient religious morals and values and principles that so, you know, there isn't always, will be a very strong cultural identity when it comes to foot for the, for the vast majority of the population. you know, at tianna kelly. thank you so much. for joining us on that very controversial issue and kind of giving us a little perspective of how not only people knew k, but as well as how the influences might have on other countries. policies such as india, thanks for joining us. thank you so much. gantski here you know the debate regarding

abortion, not only here in the united states, but around the world is a combination of environmental and theological influence, which results in government policy. in fact, i cannot think of a controversial health topic whose legislation is a less to do with science and more about the country's a religious perspective than abortion. maybe this is why we are seeing such radical changes these days. but science does come back into play in regard to preventative options. and will those now become more of a priority to have access to and by who and let us remember, mankind can only continue if they are fruitful and they multiply. therefore, the challenge for all should be not to figure out how to prevent life rather how to create a world which encourages a good life. i'm sky now. hughes, giving you the $360.00 view of today's news from around the world. thank you for

watching. ah ah no look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people. are you a robot must obey the orders given by human beings except where such order to that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. the point obviously is to great trust, rather than fear i would like to take on various jobs with artificial intelligence . real, somebody with a robot must protect its own existence with

a, with the fact that i'm here today with a delegation to review cooperation to see how we can pick it forward a to long term sustainable basis. i think she is most of all russia and india focused on energy stability, as well as a mostly polar approach to global security as well go host cindy is foreign minister american states, the policy crucial mid term elections with the country. they can only crisis the main concern for many for takes a, the ruling democratic, more worried about dishing out the big bug c plus.