one of the antiabortion rights groups is called the susan b. anthonynd, trying to draw a line between suffrage and antiabortion. there is not a clear through line from suffrage to abortion lights -- right the way there is with the e.r.a. but the tactics again are things that were successful ban and are successful now regardless of cause. there is a messaging around abortion rights that is about women's empowerment and women's control of their own bodies and they are trying to limit abortion rights to be misogynistic and that is the through line for people who chose that symbol. but it does go directly back to the suffragist in the early part of the 20th century. host: pat, democratic caller. caller: good morning, thank you. i would like to tell my story. i wanted to be a truck driver when i was a small child. i grew up, went into the army to learn how to drive a truck, came out of the army, got a job and i've been retired for eight years now. my husband and i both retired at 2 million miles, accident free drivers, and we hold everything from campbell's

for ted cruz and i worked with staffers who work for elizabeth warren and those who worked for susan b. anthony pro-life. the way we see together as an organization is a model for this. we do it not by saying, okay, we are all on joe biden's team and let's put on a blue shirt. we stay focused on big values. when the obama campaign said, how can we get people in our tent, i think that's the wrong approach. i think were you just say, listen, we're going to disagree on some things, but i'm to create a space and keep a country where it is safe to disagree and we can resolve our differences in a clear and peaceful way and we will have a peaceful transfer of power. you should not have to check all your priors at the door. you don't have to a democrat in the selection when it is a democracy versus authoritarianism. and is chris christie going to come and speak at the dnc? i don't think it's necessary and i think it's counterproductive. >> can i say one point about that? it speaks to that particular piece of the coalition. i think everyone will come out and vote and say -- i mean, what you are saying,

place, we would all know her name the same way that we know people like elizabeth stanton and susan b anthony. when elizabeth was six years old, her married her off to a man in his thirties named sieber smith. and i am convinced that at the beginning of their relationship it was a happy marriage. but over time it deteriorated. he was not very successful in the different he took in life and she ended up being much of the financial support their family. and by the end of her life she looked back on their marriage with. great bitterness and disdain and complained. in the 1880s that when she married him, she was 16 and he was about 33 when she married him. he was old and very bald. now, first, i have to say i don't see anything wrong with that. and i know about a quarter of you in the room can sympathize with me, but even more so, this photograph taken more than 30 years later and i would kill for a head of hair like that. well, stephen smith, a prominent journalist by his own right in the 1830s, and he created a fictional character that some of you probably familiar with. it's a guy named jack d

our precedence clapper and susan b. anthony list talk about requiring a substantial risk that harm will occur and you argued that's not present here. how are we supposed to find the spot at which the risk becomes substantial? >> your honor, i think this court has always thought about these standing inquiries as a question of degree and you're trying to evaluate whether something is actual and imminent or whether it is conjectural and hypothetical and these terms substantial risk certainly impending which has been used dating back to 1923 get at where a claim falls in this spectrum. >> right. we toss around a lot of adjectives, but i'm trying as a practical matter how do you figure out? what percentage of adverse consequences would be enough? what percentage of emergency room visits would be enough? >> i think the way clapper got at that question and you can see this in footnote 5 of the opinion is to think about whether there is an attenuated chain of contingencies that have to happen. in situations where there is this kind of

but notably they're also hearing from the head of susan b. anthony anthony less that is a pro anti-abortion group. >> and it comes as republicans have >> really been struggling with their abortion message in the wake of roe v. wade being overturned. so that is certainly an area boris, where they're going to look to improve upon their message >> melanie zanona live from west virginia. thanks so much for the update. melanie. >> so we all >> saw how the movie ended now some australian billionaire is banking on rebuilding the titanic. would you get on it? >> we'll discuss in just moments >> if you work in spaceflight, this is the worst possible thing i could ever happen >> my dad died doing what he loved >> space shuttle columbia, her final flight from your sunday, april 7 at nine on scene when these business owners need cash fast, they turned to viz to credit to fund what's next from fitness studios to medical offices and every small business in between. >> we've got your covered whether you need new equipment funds to expand or need money to cover unfo

you are precedents, class mapper and susan b. anthony list. talk about requiring a substantial risk that arm will recur and you argue that is not present here. how are we supposed to find the spot at which risk becomes substantial >> your honor, i think this core has always thought about these standing inquiries as really a question of degree. and you're trying to evaluate whether something is actual an imminent or whether it's conjectural and hypothetical. and these terms substantial risk. certainly impending, which has been used dating all the way back to 1923, get at where a claim falls in this spectrum, right? >> i mean, we tossed around a lot of adjectives, but i'm just trying as a practical matter how do you figure out what percentage of adverse consequences would be enough? what percentage of emergency room visits would be enough? >> i think that the way clapper got at that question and you can see this in footnote five of the opinion in is to really think about whether there is an attenuated chain of contingencies that have to happen i

she's the president of susan b. anthony pro-life, as well as senator lindsey graham, both people who have been talking to donald trump about this for over a year now. but luck, this language that donald trump is using in these interviews isn't entirely new for the past year. he's been talking about. i've been hearing 15 weeks. i've been hearing 16 weeks. he's been very vague in that language. what is new though, is that he's starting to say this more in public now and he's saying this in media interviews and i do want you to just take a listen to how he put it yesterday during that radio interview the number of weeks now, people are agreeing on 15, and i'm thinking in terms of that, and >> it'll come out to something that's very reasonable. but people are really even hard-liners are agreeing seems to be 15 weeks, seems to be a number that people are agreeing at but i'll make that announcement at the appropriate time >> now, kate, i have been discussing this with many of donald trump's senior advisers, including as or as lat

." >> i knew basic information about susan b. anthonyights convention in the 19th century that kind of kicked it off and that was it. >> reporter: the musical picks up the story later in 1913. the year thousands of suffragists staged the first ever big political march on washington. many wearing white, led by a woman on a white horse. >> i work for the movement. not for you. >> why are you tearing the movement in two? >> reporter: the march was organized by alice paul, "suffs" spotlights the cause, warts and all. >> why are you fighting me? i am not the enemy. >> reporter: including the rivalry between paul, played by taub, and carrie chapman catt, played by jenn colella. equally dedicated titans of the movement, but from different generations, employing very different tactics. >> this is not ancient history. we can reach back and touch the "suffs." alice paul lives to 1977. these rights were not inevitable. every new generations has to fight to protect these freedoms again and again and again. >> reporter: as ambassadors for the show's

klapper and susan b. anthony about requiring a substantial risk that harm will occur.t present. how are we suppo■■sind a spot at which the risk becomes substantial? ms. ellsworth: i think this court has ■úalways thought about the standing inquiries as a$o question of degree. you are trying to evaluate whether something is actual andq imminent or whether it is conjectural or hypothetical. and these terms, substantial risk and pending which has been used to dating back to 1923 that we are a claim falls in the spectrum >> and we toss around a lot figure out? wh percentage would be enough and what percentage of emergcy room visits would be enough? ms. ellsworth: i thi ithe way klapper got at this question is to really think about whether there is an attenuated chain and contingencs at have to happen. in suaons where there is is chain of circumstances involving third-party decisions that have to play out and hear the chain is qong. if that putsintiff's theory on the side of conjl or hypothetical and not impending injury. >> howur company aggrieved by the challenge that is b

typical people but you know, i know that marjorie dennis feller, the president of sba, less susan b. anthony, pro-life, has been talking to him a lot about this. i know others have when senator lindsey graham is someone who consistently has been talking to donald trump about the abortion issue. but the thing that's really interesting is that when i talk to the trump campaign in his advisers, they repeatedly always tell me you're not planning for some big policy roll out on this, especially because they didn't even do that during the primary, there were questions during the premier of whether donald trump needed to come out with some more firm policy on what he would do about abortion and donald trump himself did not want to do that because of the political ramifications. ramifications of it. so it is interesting that all of a sudden we're hearing about on abortion again, now that we're in the general and everyone on his campaign does not think that the politics of this is smart or the rhetoric is smart. and so what i've been told, he's doing is he's kind of tests met test messaging, some of

one of the antiabortion rights groups is called the susan b. anthony and, trying to draw a line between suffrage and antiabortion. there is not a clear through line from suffrage to abortion lights -- right the way there is with the e.r.a. but the tactics again are things that were successful ban and are successful now regardless of cause. there is a messaging around abortion rights that is about women's empowerment and women's control of their own bodies and they are trying to limit abortion rights to be misogynistic and that is the through line for people who chose that symbol. but it does go directly back to the suffragist in the early part of the 20th century. host: pat, democratic caller. caller: good morning, thank you. i would like to tell my story. i wanted to be a truck driver when i was a small child. i grew up, went into the army to learn how to drive a truck, came out of the army, got a job and i've been retired for eight years now. my husband and i both retired at 2 million miles, accident free drivers, and we hold everything from campbell

hir t t interpretation they would need to be a situation in iensne klapper and susan b. anthony ho court has always thought about ol conjtus, sub d erceel involving third-party decisions pre justice alito: the fifg ms. ellsworth: that is correct. justice alito: i gather your will sell moio were in place were lifted.maatsc the safe use of the drug. justice alito and you will be harmed because he pany's ability to market its product is how it consials's judgment about access to a drug, correct? it has nevoris justice alito has the fda ever created a drug and then pulled it after experience showed itt hah owo:re than 15 years of a well establishedn r any rem thatpo tst certaif e we have a one 800 number and ai stac t rm tdupr mos done preempts of mifepristone within thosethe issue. justice alito: what is your issue on it,t thought about it? ms. ellsworth: there are lawsuits brohaat courts to sort out.aba justice alito: you do not want to answer? ms. ellsworth: we do not have a wthretee ouun rereapvebts then applied to mifepristone. it is only one of seven that with respect to pharm