Skip to main content

tv   Open Phones  CSPAN  December 2, 2021 1:30pm-2:29pm EST

1:30 pm
lawmakers are taking a break from hearing testimony from biden administration officials on a proposal to combat illicit fentanyl related substances and reduce the number of drug overdoses in the u.s. we expect them to resume shortly. you're watching live coverage here on c-span3. >> the phones here this morning
1:31 pm
on the supreme court case, the mississippi law heard by the justice yesterday, and the lines again for those of you who would like to see roe v. wade overturned, 202-748-8000, and to keep roe v. wade, that line, 202-748-8001. scotusblog covers the daily goings on. majority of court appears poised to roll back abortion rights. she writes it's been nearly 30 years since the u.s. supreme court's decision in planned parenthood v. casey, which reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion, that the court first recognized in roe v. wade. only one justice who participated in casey the still on that court now, clarence thomas, who joined the dissent, arguing roe was wrongly decided and it can and should be overruled. in terms of the mississippi law, she writes enacted by the mississippi legislature in 2018, the law known as the gestational
1:32 pm
age act, has never gone into effect with the federal district court and the conservative u.s. court of appeals for the fifth circuit blocked the law explaining roe and casey blocked states from banning abortions before viability when the fetus can survive outside the womb. mississippi asked the justices to weigh in after the court agreed to take up the case, the state began urging the court to overturn those landmark decisions. arguing for the state on wednesday, mississippi solicitor general scott stewart told the justices roe and casey, quote, haunt our country and have, quote, poisoned the law, and have, quote, choked off compromise. quote, abortion is a hard issue, he said, and it is a question that should be left up to the people to decide. we would like to hear your voice on that. we'll get to your calls momentarily, but justice kennedy, justice kavanaugh, rather, was asking about the view that the court should get out of the contentious issue of
1:33 pm
abortion. here's part of his questioning. >> the core problem here is that the court has been forced by the position you're taking and by the cases to pick sides on the most contentious social debate in american life, and to do so in a situation where they say that the constitution is neutral on the question of abortion, the text and history, that the constitution is neither pro-life nor pro-choice on the question of abortion. and they would say therefore it should be left to the people, to the states, or to congress. and i think they also then continue, because the constitution is neutral, that this court should be scrupulously neutral on the question of abortion. neither pro-choice nor pro-life, but because they say the
1:34 pm
constitution doesn't give us the authority, we should leave it to the states, and we should be scrupulously neutral on the question. and that they are saying here, i think, that we should return to a position of neutrality on that contentious social issue rather than continuing to pick sides on that issue. so i think that's at a big picture level their argument. i want to give you a chance to respond to that. >> yes, a few points, if i may, your honor. first, of course, the very same arguments were made in casey and the court rejected them, saying that this philosophical disagreement can't be resolved in a way that a woman has no choice in the matter, sxekd, i don't think it would be a neutral position. the constitution provides a guarantee of liberty. the court has interpreted that liberty to include the ability to make decisions related to child bearing, marriage, and family. women have an equal right to liberty under the constitution, your honor, and if they're not able to make this decision, if
1:35 pm
states can take control of women's bodies and force them to endure months of pregnancy and child birth, they will never have equal status under the constitution. >> and our program this morning here on "washington journal" focusing on your input on the future of roe v. wade, some comments from members of congress after the briefing after the hearing yesterday, the oral argument, i should say. representative randy fin straw says this, there's nothing more fundamental and sacred in our constitution that the right to life. at 15 weeks, babies have developed hearts and pump 26 quarts of blood per day. please join me in praying for the supreme court to uphold previability restrictions. dean phillips said imagine if the same energy protecting unborned lives were invested in those lives that are already born. mark green, congressman, as an er physician, i have done hundreds of ultra sounds on preg independent mothers. it's obvious an unborn child in the womb is a human being, and
1:36 pm
diminished respect after today's pitiful show. not since the decision to give the presidency to the standard bearer has the court been so political, and six judges were devoid of any understanding of life's real challenges for women. shame. let's go to your calls. again, the lines, if you think that roe v. wade should be overturned the line is 202-748-8000. if you're for keeping roe v. wade, that line, 202-748-8001. first up is robby in florida. >> caller: yes, i just would like to say good morning, and thank you for having these calls. i can remember back being 75 years old, when at 18, wanting to get birth control. i had to get a note from either my father or my husband in order to get birth control. and that was right here in florida. and young women today don't have any idea the kind of challenges
1:37 pm
that we have had to fight to break through so that we don't end up being like some of the women over in these middle eastern countries where they have to wear these full body coverings and they can't go out of their houses. we're stepping backwards with this court. they're showing themselves to be very political. and it shouldn't be a political football. of course, i believe that it also should be argued on the separation of church and state because i believe as most christians do that we're a spirit, not a body. and so therefore, i think that they're taking a lot on to destroy -- and these three appointments that were made under donald trump were, after holding merrick garland off from being appointed for a year, where mitch mcconnell, the republican senate, and donald
1:38 pm
trump really damaged our supreme court. >> okay. to milton in philadelphia. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i support -- i'm pro-choice. but what i see this court doing is it's not going to overrule roe but it's going to weaken it to the point where it may not overrule it to the point where a woman ain't going to have a choice to get an abortion. i find the right hypocritical on this point. they always claim i'm for pro-life, right? but the same programs that will help raise that child, that help that mother raise their child for housing, food, the programs to help that mother, they're the very programs that they want to cut. i find their position to be hypocritical. if you're for life, then be for life from the time that it enters the womb until the time turns 18. you want to cut education, you want to cut the very programs that help their child, and then another thing, too, about the
1:39 pm
right. when you ask them, especially the woman you had on yesterday, they pressed her, do you support exceptions for rape or incest. they never answer that question. they always manage to avoid that question. so you have a woman, let's say she's raped or molested. she has to carry that baby to term and carry that baby. no one questions that. no one answers, what if your child was raped? would you want your child carrying that baby? the right is hypocriical and they never answer that particular question. >> next up is jerry. jerry is in nebraska. good morning. >> caller: yes, i would like to know, it seems like there's a double standard or whatever. if you murder a woman that's pregnant, you can be charged with two murders. how can it not be a murder when you're aborting a baby? >> next to ivan in cape cod,
1:40 pm
massachusetts. go ahead. >> caller: hi, good morning. i believe that anything that happens that takes away some of the unbelievable power that the federal government now has over all of our lives is a good thing. i think we're much better off with state control. >> ivan, you're on the air. go ahead with your comment. >> caller: yes, i think that the government, the federal government is way too strong in our personal lives, and if they do overturn roe v. wade, it will put this decision back into the state legislatures where it belongs, and i think that's the way the constitution was set up and founded. i think our federal government has become way too powerful, way too overreaching, and this is a great example of something that will try to correct that very, very dangerous trend. >> this is "the washington post" this morning, online,
1:41 pm what abortion laws would look like if roe v. wade were overturned. and their chart of the united states. there are about a dozen states that explicitly protect abortion. many of the other, and the post says about 22 states, would ban or severely restrict abortions. according to data they have from an organization that focuses on reproductive rights. in tennessee, good morning to rich. hello there. >> caller: good morning. just a few quick points. the pro-abortion counsel's main argument is seemed to be they kept returning to stare decisis. and when justice kavanaugh rattled off a long list of precedents that had been overturned, their basic response to that was, well, that's different. you know, in those cases.
1:42 pm
and which i found interesting. each case always is different, but saying that it's been precedent for 50 years is not reason enough to not re-examine. >> thanks for your call, rich. to joy in cleveland, who is on the line for those of you calling for keeping roe v. wade decision intact. go ahead. >> caller: i actually do really agree with roe v. wade still being continued for all women since we really have very few choices as far as medicine, we can't even get our birth control pills paid for under certain conditions, yet they pay for viagra for men. so i certainly don't see what the difference is between us keeping abortions versus --
1:43 pm
>> this is from the "wall street journal." their lead editorial this morning online,, justice sotomayor gets political on abortion. the subheadline, she loses her cool during the supreme court's oral argument. this is the justice sotomayor on what overturning roe v. wade might mean. >> there has been some difference of opinion with respect to undue burden. but the right of a woman to choose, the right to control her own body has been clearly set since casey and never challenged. you want us to reject that line of viability and adopt something different. 15 justices over 50 years have or i should say 30 since casey
1:44 pm
have reaffirmed that basic viability line. four have said no, two of them members of this court. but 15 justices have said yes. of varying political backgrounds. now, the sponsors of this bill, the house bill in mississippi, said we're doing it because we have new justices. the newest ban that mississippi has put in place, the six-week ban, the senate sponsor said, we're doing it because we have new justices on the supreme court. will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the constitution and its reading are just political acts?
1:45 pm
>> more calls in just a moment here on "washington journal." reminder, again, it's a short program this morning. the u.s. house is coming in at 8:00 a.m. eastern for their morning hour speeches. a long day of legislative action expected, as they face a deadline that chad is writing about, tweeting about this morning. he said the threat of a government shutdown is very real. government funding expires at midnight on friday. there's still no bill text for a short-term measure. the sides have still not agreed to a length of the stop gap bill to avert a shutdown. it would just reup funding of current programs at existing levels. but here's the problem, some senate conservatives want to strip out the federal vaccine mandate as part of the bill. a supermajority of senators, more than enough to overcome a filibuster favor funding the government and avoiding a shutdown, but without the blessing of a few conservatives, namely mike lee of utah, the senate can't expedite passage of
1:46 pm
the funding bill. if lee would use all of that available to him, the earliest the government would be funded is next wednesday morning, four days into a shutdown, and that's if the house and senate start advancing the plan today. back to your calls on the supreme court arguments yesterday, and the future of roe v. wade, in indiana, this is howard. >> caller: yes, good morning. i support a woman's right to health care is how i look at this whole issue of abortion. and i just am very horrified by the fact a modern country like the united states of america is still obsessing over this basic issue. trying to stop abortion is a cruel act. a woman has a right over bodily ought oughtonomy. the fetus is attached to her, it's her body. the preference was a woman would
1:47 pm
never choose that outcome if she was in the situation, but the argument once a woman is pregnant is just cruel and crazy. we are a modern people. we're homo sapiens. we should be thinking people. and if thinking people should realize making abortion illegal doesn't make -- doesn't stop aborgdz. it just makes it very difficult for women who are poor and do not have other resources to find how they're going to take care of this health care issue. and in many cases, they're very desperate, and they may prove to choose unhealthy sources. so this whole conversation is highly frustrating. it makes no sense for modern free nation that has personal liberties this country claims to have. >> let's hear from melinda next in memphis. hello there. >> caller: hi. good morning. i was calling just because on both sides, the question would be really, is the fetus an
1:48 pm
american citizen? because you're not an american citizen until you're born on u.s. soil. so therefore, if the fetus is not a u.s. citizen, then you're forcing a woman who is already an american citizen to carry a non-american citizen in her body for nine months, and the only way they can survive and become an american citizen is for her to give birth. so who actually is right? is the fetus an american citizen that has rights? or is it not? that is the basic question. >> okay, here's christy in wichita, kansas. hi, there. go ahead. christy, make sure you mute your volume. go ahead with your comment or question. >> caller: okay. i think that roe needs to be --
1:49 pm
well, just updated. i know you can't update without overturning it, but at the time that it was passed, we did not know that genetically at conception the new organism, tissue, whatever you want to call it, no longer has the mother's dna, no longer has the father's dna. it has its own dna. and it's not viable at that point, obviously. won't be viable for quite a long time. it won't be viable for even longer affordably, but if you want to know when it becomes its own person and it should have a right to life, it's at
1:50 pm
conception. and i wish we had -- i wish there was a better knowledge -- i know i'm stumbling stumbling words. >> no, that's all right. >> caller: but, you know, watching the hearing, it was, you know, the pro-choice side or pro roe v wade side, very articulate, very knowledgeable. they could come back and better argument in my opinion, whereas mississippi was stumbling, stammering like i am. but there's so much more we know now, and so much more that
1:51 pm
everyone should have knowledge of going into procedures to truly give a woman the information to make a very, very, very difficult choice. >> glad you got through, christi, thanks for your opinion. a tweet here from derrick says this, over 70% of americans believe in a women's right to choose, this will be a gross overreach by federalist society judges in stolen seats, he says, they want big government in a woman's woman but are dead silent when there are murdered americans. >> caller: good morning, yes, this is something because we
1:52 pm
feel the so-called right people, they claim this is a new person, but the bible clearly says that life begins at birth. birth is the beginning of life, and this is something that all sorts of religious people get into. because they have failed with the living, they claim they are so righteous they are looking out for the unborn. the bible says if you kill a woman who is pregnant it is considered two murderers. in the bible, it clearly says, if you kill a woman who is pregnant, it's one murder. so this claim that the fetus is a person is wrong. the bible clearly says life begins at birth and when it is
1:53 pm
formed and god put the breath of life into the person then it is a human being. so the life at conception is wrong and this is the whole problem with roe v wade -- life begins at birth. that's why we have a birth certificate. we say life begins at birth and life finishes when the person takes their last breath. when god breathe into adam's nostrils the breath of life, he became a human being. >> let's hear from mitzi in silo springs, arkansas. >> caller: thank you, i been watching since 1993. i do not believe a woman should be forced to carry a baby if it is going to kill her. in the other reason for scraping
1:54 pm
that out of your woman, the 2% they call rain and incest but the rest is for convenience. they want to get out there and have unprotected sex, it's your choice to spread your legs or not. the other people saying the bible says life begins at birth, god also says i knew you before you were in your womb so life begins before birth as far as what the word says. why would god say i knew you before you were in your womb if it wasn't a soul-filled person. >> this is the report of the new york times on the arguments yesterday. supreme court poised to uphold mississippi's abortion law. the writing on the case, supreme course looks to uphold the 15
1:55 pm
weeks of pregnancy on what would be a decision to roll back the abortion rights the court upheld over the last half century, after am a hours of moral arguments, the judge considered they are comfortable with the mississippi law even though upholding it would be at odds with roe v wade wade, the established decision, arguing earlier than that would discard precedent and many look to overthrow roe entirely, to ban abortions, in 20 or more states which have been seeking to impose more restrictions and would further enflame the long-running political and
1:56 pm
cultural divisions over the issue. we may remind you, we covered the oral argument on that case yesterday, you can follow it, listen, watch it on the mobile app on the cspan-now mobile app and also catch that online at, chief justice roberts questioned the lawyer for the abortion clinic in mississippi on the question of viability. >> if you think that the issue is one of choice, that women should have a choice to terminate their pregnancy, that supposes that there is a point at which they've had the fair choice, opportunity to choice. and why would 15 weeks be an inappropriate line? so viability, it seems to me, doesn't have anything to do with choice. but if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?
1:57 pm
>> for a few reasons, your honor. first, the state has conceded that some women will not be able to obtain an abortion before 15 weeks and this law will bar them from doing so and a reasonable possibility standard would be completely unworkable for the courts, it would be less principled and less workable than viability and some of the reasons for that are without viability there would be no stopping point. states will rush to ban abortion at virtually any point in pregnancy. mississippi itself has a six week ban, defending with very similar arguments to the 15-week ban and there are states with bans. >> well i know, but i'd like to focus on the 15-week ban, because that's not a dramatic departure from liability. it is the standard that the vast majority of other countries have. when you get to the viability standard, we share that standard with the peoples' republic of
1:58 pm
china and north korea and i don't think you have to be in favor of international law to set the international standards to be concerned if you sure of that particular time period. >> first, that is not correct about international law. in fact, the majority of countries that permit legal access to abortion allow access right up until viability even if there are nominal lines earlier, for example, canada, great britain and most of europe allows access to abortion right up until viability -- >> what do you mean, even if they have nominal lines earlier? >> some countries, your honor, have a nominal line of 12 weeks, 18 weeks, but they permit legal access to abortion after that point for broad social reasons, health reasons, socioeconomic reasons, so they're really not comparable and don't have the same types of barriers we have here.
1:59 pm
so if the court were to leave the line substantially backwards, and 15 weeks, your honor, they may have to consider the time period, if they're cutting the time period roughly in half those measures are much more important. >> viability in question puts abortion in flux, from the new york times. our question for you is about the future of the roe v wade decision. if you are in favor of overturning, i should say, the roe v wade decision, that line if you are in favor, 202700081. >> caller: i just think it
2:00 pm
should be upheld, i heard from that gentlemen from indiana earlier that we are going backwards, not forwards. just sad. i think the woman should have a right to decide to carry the child full-term. i mean, if she can't afford it for whatever reason, you know, it's just sad that we're not going to have the liberty to be equal to anyone else. and those that dorm the past are going to be condemned to repeat it. >> to keith in fargo, north dakota. >> caller: yeah, i don't know why we keep going over and over this. the law, once it's been -- i've seen abortion, i've seen it own tv and those -- they go after an
2:01 pm
actual baby that's got a little head, little crippled fingers. two beady, black eyes. they go after it with forseps and the kid is trying to get away from the forceps. >> more reaction from members of congress to the oral argument yesterday, steve scalise saying this is our moment, a pro-life ruling would save millions of unborn children. the first of three unalienable rights listed is life. congresswoman from florida, if the court overturns or guts roe v wade it opens up attacks not only on the right to choose but contraception, our marriages,
2:02 pm
and freedom as americans. russ fulcher says the supreme court today hearing arguments for the dobbs late term abortion case after 15 weeks when science shows a child can feel pain. ann mclain, today, dc posed to make the most controversial rulings in history, we must caudify the right to abortion and stop government interference in our lives. here, from washington dc here is ralph. >> caller: good morning, in my opinion, it's so binary, you know, you have unlimited rights or you have absolutely no rights at all. and that's because the politicians don't have the fortitude to go in and put
2:03 pm
restrictions. my wife used to be an abortion nurse and they would abort late-term babies and she walked away from the job. she said there were babies crying in the buckets. they were crying in the buckets and the horror of that is just unimaginable. on the other hand, i know a young lady when i was a young man who was 13 years old and had three abortions. the parents never knew. since when did the state have the right to do a procedure on my child and not inform me? my point is, you need to meet them in the middle. you can't have, well, i decided on the ninth month i'm going to of an abortion. i mean, i got into discussion with this with my daughter who is very liberal, she says well
2:04 pm
that would be extremely rare. i said, so is murder. so guys, back off, but the one thing i don't want to see is more riots in the streets because people don't get what they want. so thank you very much. >> outside the nation's capitol in maryland -- >> caller: egregious hypocrites like madison jessiado running against castor in ohio, pulled one on the nfl wife after she gave birth and now with a 33 million can't be bothered to pay any child support to the abandoned child. moreover, madison has no problem
2:05 pm
spreading miscarriage causing covid to pregnant women. if she quits her own vanity, not wearing a mask to get more compliments over her beauty queen face. she doesn't care if women suffer injuries from her own behavior, she's really despicable and i hope marcy castor's campaign staff are listening in, because there's just a treasure trove that they can find out about madison. so i hope madison loses the primary coming up in ohio. >> some changes in the administration this morning in politico in their playbooks, symone sanders they right, senior adviser and spokesperson for kamala harris, expected to leave the white house at the end of the year.
2:06 pm
they reported wednesday night, quote, it was not immediately clear where sanders is headed next or when to be leaving the vice-president's office. second highest profile from the team in the last month, harris's communication directors also said to depart in the coming weeks. sanders, 35-year-old african american strategist and one of the most recognizable advisers leaves over a flurry of stories over restrictions and disorders in the office. one who pushed back on the storylines, defending the vice-president and advocating for her publicly and with one h on-one dealings with reporters. let's hear from anne in fairport, new york. >> caller: good morning, going back to a caller a few people back about woman spreading their legs, et cetera. i think a lot
2:07 pm
of the subtext of this is predominantly males wanting to punish and control woman for having sex on the woman's own terms. we should have a separation of church and state in this country. you're allowed to be an atheist in this country. you're allowed not to think oh, births are god's will. if you have limited resources and do not want to give birth to someone with a severe disability with a low quality of life, that should be your choice, and finally, no one is forced to donate a kidney or other organ or body part to someone to pro long that other person's life. this is the same thing. body autonomy and overturning roe v wade is not going to end abortions, it should be continued.
2:08 pm
. >> caller: thank you for taking my call, interesting anecdotal comments over the past couple callers. i got lost in their stories. this isn't really about roe v wade, this is about a state's ability to truncate their own laws. for example, roe v wade does not make any laws. what it does is prohibits the un -- let's see, how do i put it. it prohibits you -- no, it allows for states to pass laws that would allow abortion. it doesn't require they would pass laws to allow abortion. now, i know you don't comment and you're going to push the button on me, i can see your hand down there. >> i'm not doing that. i have to eventually. >> caller: sorry the video had a time delay. so one more point and i'll get off. so, you know, why can't
2:09 pm
mississippi make its own laws? i'll tell you why mississippi can't make its own laws, because we fought a civil war and the federal government and the north won. and the south is under that defeat and it hasn't changed. so, you know, i believe mississippi should be able to make its own laws and i'm not pro-abortion either but we need to keep within the boundaries of law and you should maybe recharacterize this argument as not being pro or roe v wade should be overturned because that's not what they're deciding. >> all right, to midland texas, caitlin is on the line. good morning. >> caller: hi, i just wanted to say, so my daughter's birthday is today and i didn't find out she was inside of me until she was four months growing. i feel like, she is my youngest,
2:10 pm
and i feel like she wouldn't even be here today if it wasn't for the fact that a, i don't believe in abortion, and also our federal government should be able to uphold the law so we can take things to higher ups when we need, you know, i live in texas where they put a ban and i appreciate the ban on abortions they have put. she is the youngest of a few children and i can honestly say, there are so many people i do know that, like my dad was born in 1937, and they didn't even have roe v wade back then. his mom tried to kill him seven times before he was born by many disgusting stories. >> did you say seven or several,
2:11 pm
not that it matters. >> caller: seven. one of them was jumping off of a barn. this is during the depression, right before the depression and he was the youngest of five kids. so one involved a coat hanger, she tried to take a coat hanger, a plow tool, i mean, he still survived. so, i'm here. >> and obviously, your grandmother told your dad these stories about all this. >> caller: yes, because it was only because of him they could keep a cow. she was actually grateful. i mean, i just believe that we're a nation that was formed under god. it says it on our money, it says it on our bill, and i feel like my father was also a preacher, so i feel like, i know very well, and why were reformed. >> bringing it to current date,
2:12 pm
caitlin, we're talking about the mingling of the mississippi case, roe v wade, and the texas case went before the supreme court. the restrictive law in texas, you support that law? >> caller: i do support it, and i have four girls and i support it. my youngest just turned 11 today and i am a good parent so i know what each one of my kids are doing and i'm very in touch with them and i feel like, you know, we should have restrictions on abortion. >> right, but what happens if, what happens if the worst case scenario, what happens if one of your girls gets pregnant at a young age and isn't ready to take on motherhood what do you think you would do? >> caller: i was actually rped when i was 13 but i didn't do anything about it, i prayed and i had a miscarriage so i feel like we should provide good
2:13 pm
parenting for our children and if we have good parenting for our children, we won't need to worry about where were they and what happened to them? i mean, i've been a homeschooling mom for years and i feel like knowing where your kids are and having that interpersonal relationship leads them to not have the what-if moment and go behind your back and have an abortion. >> okay, appreciate you getting through this morning. the opinion of the washington post on the argument in the court, perilous turning point is the headline, write that the other shift has been the making of the supreme court, reshaped after several conservative justices due to a mixture of under handed politics and pure happen stance, court's authority derives not from the ability to make declarations, it lacks such power, but the fact that americans respect its decisions. those decisions must reflect
2:14 pm
more than pure whim, the court should overturn precedent only in certain circumstances, they must exercise extra care in roe v wade, in casey, reinforcing its status as the law of the land. it should enforce such status only in the wisdom it proved wildly bad. that is not the case in roe and casey. from greg in pennsylvania. >> caller: good morning, stop citing to the washington post on anything. we know exactly what their position is. go to other media sources. it seems to me that this is, this issue, i'm a lawyer, i've done lawyer for 42 years. i'm the oldest of seven kids. my ex-wife would have aborted my
2:15 pm
third if -- i don't know why she didn't. during the divorce, i found out she was contemplating that. i wonder what he thinks about this. this whole issue of abortion is, it's not all black or all white. it is not. there are good arguments on both sides. the question is, should be, is this in the constitution? that's what the supreme court is all about. they are not another house of representatives or senate. their job, their only job, like an umpire in baseball or referee in football, is it a strike, or not, is it a catch, or not.
2:16 pm
that is their job. if 70%, according to the washington post and all the liberal cites that you quote all the time, support roe, then what is the problem? when it goes back to the states, by the way, there are 9th and tenth amendments, please but those up, so that people understand the ninth and tenth amendments are relevant to this question, and if 70% support it, who knows. they may be able to abort kids after birth in some states. wouldn't they be really happy about that? this is not a question covered by the constitution. >> did you get a chance to hear the oral argument yesterday, greg? >> caller: not all of it, no i did not. >> what's your sense of what they might do with all of this?
2:17 pm
>> caller: my sense is it's too early to say. i've been a lawyer, as i said for 42 years, i went to west point, i went to vietnam, i was airborne ranger. >> glad you got through this morning. couple of comments on twitter from members of congress after the debate, after the arguments yesterday. sean cassadin, congressman says nearly 1 in 4 woman will get an abortion before the age of 45, someone you know or love had an abortion, must strike down the attempt to end a choice to choose. senator tillis says each of us has a duty to protect the most vulnerable stop ending innocent unborn lives.
2:18 pm
and from congressman lloyd shmucker. carol is in chicago. go ahead, good morning. >> caller: hi, am i on? i am? oh, thank you very much. yeah, i'm not so sure that i really -- it's not that i don't want to overturn roe v wade but i'm not necessarily going to keep it. i'm going with make a different approach on the whole subject. when roe v wade was first founded and the supreme court made their decision, i'll make a different approach on this. part of it was whether or not it is a basic surgical procedure, which it is, but whether in the hands of a medical professional or your girlfriend, you know, with coat hangers or turkey basters or something else, so
2:19 pm
basically, roe v wade taking all the other issues out of it. basically, takes the criminality out of it, that prior to that, md would lose their medical license, convicted, removed from the ama, and they would go to prison for a minimum at least two to five years. so by doing what they did, it took the criminality out of it. but only to the clinical level, where you go to a hospital, you know, so the question is for all this time, the supreme court, i find it, this is a very difficult thing if they overturn it or keep it. because it's been considered, it's been on the books for so long. and i don't see, my question would be, if the supreme court overturns roe v wade, would all these doctors then simply give
2:20 pm
this up? and this has been for over 50 plus years, would they give this up or continue to do the procedure? >> to john in virginia, good morning. >> caller: hi, and good morning. i agree with the lawyer who called in a couple calls ago. this is a constitutional issue that basically questions whether or not the federal government should be making these decisions, these political decisions, or whether, and legal decisions, or whether or not the people of the various states or republics should be making these decisions. so i would hope that the u.s. supreme court would decide that this belongs back in the states. secondly, i think what we're dealing with here is, broadly speaking, is a legal and political issue with regards to
2:21 pm
men and women taking responsibility for the liberty that they have. in other words, the basic law is if you commit an act that predates a life, you are responsible for that life, male and female. if a man gets a woman pregnant, often times he is held responsible for the next 18 years of the man's life, the father's life, to take responsibility for that child. so i don't really have a problem with the basic idea that woman should be held responsible for their acts and i'll finally say that i think abortion should be made available, but it should be restricted, because we should be held responsible for the acts and liberty that we also want. >> thanks, john, this is the pin
2:22 pm
i know of cal thomas and the opinion pages of the washington times. connecting the, a mississippi law that would ban abortion after 15 weeks. the arguments, pro and con are familiar, but there is a greater argument to be made for upholding the law and should a majority of justices decide to do so, overturn roe v wade, he writes the greater argument begins with several questions connected to abortion, they include, why is there so much looting, why the indiscriminate destruction of property, why so many shootings in our major cities? disrespect and devalues babies yet to be born has led to disrespecting the lives of those already born as well as property that belongs to others. how else to describe what looks like an everything in our streets. cal thomas writes. bob is in baltimore.
2:23 pm
go ahead, bob. >> caller: thank you, i'd just like to make two points. the first point, make sure our viewers know this is not overturning roe v wade. they're trying to reduce the number of weeks before a woman can have an abortion, i think previous caller made a good point. many men are held accountable for taking care of the moral hazard they created a baby, making sure they take care of that baby. so just make sure -- i'm against abortion, i don't like it, but, you know, you got to have revisions, you know, something happens, if a child will end up in a life that's not, you know, acceptable in this society, they're not going to live a quality life so you got to make -- so that's my first point. you know, this isn't overturning roe v wade, this is provisionist, so everybody calling in saying god this, god this, i'm a christian, i love god and jesus, that has nothing to do with this. there are revisions made for it,
2:24 pm
and you have so many people out here saying the government shouldn't make me get a vaccine and then saying i should be in control of my body. you can't have it both ways. so if you're going to follow a maniacal maniac and follow the doctrine, you couldn't have it both ways. you can't call in here saying i support this satanic worshipper and then say i don't want the people to be in control of their body but i want control of my body and you impacted many lives because you don't get the vaccine and other people are dying, so you can't have it both ways. thank you -- >> thank you, five more minutes of calls, house coming in at 8 o'clock eastern this morning. we hear from roy, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'm calling in because i've been listening to the callers and i'm hearing the mention of viability and mention of where life begins and this question come to me.
2:25 pm
when does life begin? some people claim it's at conception. my question is, do babies born in nine months after conception. if life begins at conception, why at nine months after they come into this world, the person is only one day old, not nine months and one day. i would like to hear people respond to this one. if i'm being generous, that the person is before, there should be ruling on everything. we can't go wild one way and wild the other way. we should stay balanced. that's how i am concerned. so i'm not against ruling, but overreach is a problem for me. and i don't know whether or not these people are going too far because i'm not sure, i'm not an
2:26 pm
expert, i'm not a doctor, or scientist, but my question, again, is why, after nine months, do the creature and being coming into the world is not nine months and one day? >> next call from roseville, michigan. >> caller: how are you? i've been a proponent of a woman's right to choose. i always was part of that group with the private decisions, whether it was abortion or assisted suicide or getting a vaccination or whatever. if you have -- if you are expecting a child and you find out that that child is going to be defected in some way, you should have the right to say i want a perfect child. i don't want to have to have that child being ridiculed or bullied or anything. the child should be the way you
2:27 pm
want it. and when somebody comes along and says well you can't have an abortion you know, who died and left you boss? it is a private decision, it is a decision between a woman and god and that they have to say lord, forgive me for putting, or ending this pregnancy because my child will not be perfect and i have been a proponent of a woman's right to choose ever since they had roe v wade passed and i don't want that law taken away. a woman should have the right to make up her own mind and, you know, do that on her own, without having anybody butting in. >> all right, see if we can get one more quick call here. sean in key west florida, house is moving in, what do you say? >> caller: returns us to the dark ages, i want to say the
2:28 pm
abortion recognizes the pain of children through rape and incest, give no thought to the survival of that life, food, education, mother and child, no their job is done when the conference is assuaged, these people avoid the reality that there are two people in creating a life, nobody mentions responsibility for the other person. well we do now. we want to see action. any unwanted pregnancies result in immediate castration of the perpetrators. >> let you go there, here, the executive director of the aids institute. michael ripple, welcome to washington journal. >> good morning, bill, thank you for having me. >> joining us here on worlds aids day, december first, tell us how it became world's aids day and what is the focus on this day? >> well the history of the


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on