Skip to main content

tv   Cavuto Coast to Coast  FOX Business  June 24, 2022 12:00pm-2:00pm EDT

12:00 pm
the 10 year treasury yield above 3%, going up, bitcoin at 20 one thousand dollars, no impact. >> reporter: this is the first winning week for the dow, nasdaq and the s&p in four weeks. with all this going on we had a rally. stuart: neil: stuart, i don't want to extend this , but you said something interesting, that i learned in the united kingdom, i guess, it's not a court-issued sort of an edict here so when boris johnson was critical of what our court did today, now, they have an abortion law there that goes up to 24 weeks, up to that point, you could terminate a pregnancy so this was decided politically. it's a law on the books, am i reading that correctly? stuart: you are that is correct. it's a settled issue in britain. the anti-abortion sentiment is very very limited because it is
12:01 pm
settled by parliament. it is the will of the people expressed in votes. i think that's what happens here with the supreme court ruling. neil: got it. got it that's very very interesting. all right, i appreciate that, my friend, have a great weekend. stuart, much appreciated here. to stuart's point, what now is happening here after the supreme court decision today that over turned roe v. wade after the better part of half a century is what the states do. more than half of them now have the so-called trigger laws in place that would make abortions illegal once this was released and now of course it is released , this decision. we're going to be talking to ken paxton the texas attorney general there they already have the six week ban in effect waiting for that trigger, no doubt that trigger and the meter on it started to run. he will join us exclusively the texas attorney general on what texas does now, and at least 25 other states that might
12:02 pm
be contemplating the same thing. welcome, everybody i'm neil cavuto. you are watching "coast to coast" and coast to coast this is gripping a nation that has seen abortion laws change and break a roe v. wade precedent that now is leading up the states to restrict or eliminate abortions. let's get the implications of this as crowds build outside the u.s. supreme court. you're seeing ahead of this , the fencing was put up in place. it's bringing a lot along both sides here. hillary vaughn at the white house on how all of this is going down, because we will be hearing from the president in about half an hour, right? reporter: yeah, that's right, neil. the president will be giving remarks. his reaction to the supreme court decision at 12:30 p.m. today, but we are already getting some idea already of what the next steps could be for the white house. press secretary said yesterday as the white house braced for this decision to come down, that they would push congress to
12:03 pm
restore roe. the precedent also previewed how he would feel if this decision were to come down. back in may, he was asked about the supreme court leak that previewed that this was something that could be to come. >> if this decision holds, it's really quite a radical decision. >> do changes need to be made to the court in light of this? >> no we just got to choose. i mean look, one of the reasons why i voted against the number of the members in the court, they choose to acknowledge that there's a ninth amendment. i'm not prepared to leave that to the whims of the public at the moment, and local areas. reporter: coming in from both sides of the aisle on capitol hill. a big push from democrats for congress to codify roe now, even moderates like senator joe manchin say he would support that move. we heard from the attorney general merit garland of the justice department. he says he supports congress moving to do that.
12:04 pm
progressives though are pushing this to use as a way to echo origin to revisit calls to expand the supreme court saying that this decision was made by a republican-controlled supreme court. there's also a big contingent of black congresswoman led by congresswoman ianna presley writ ing a letter to president biden asking him to declare a public health and national emergency and asking him to use any and all executive authorities to address the public health crisis our nation will face if roe v. wade is dismantled. democrats are also using this to push ahead into november, saying or warning that states will not stop at just restricting abortion access but instead, will push to restrict access to things like birth control. >> we cannot allow them to take charge so that they can
12:05 pm
institute their goal, which is to criminalize reproductive freedom. this cruel ruling is outrageous and heart wrenching, but make no mistake, again, it's all on the ballot in november. the supreme court has ended a constitutional right. reporter: and we've already heard from the campaign committees at the dnc and others they issue this statement, make no mistake the republican party will not stop at overturning roe the 2022 election will now determine whether new cruel and punishing restrictions will be put in place on women and families. the stakes of novembers elections could not be higher and voters will make their voices heard by standing with democrats up and down the ballot so, neil, it's very clear among democrats that they are going to be laser focused on this issue from today all the way until the november election in the
12:06 pm
mid-terms. neil? neil: hillary, do we know when the president does speak, he's going to add a line or a statement about not acting out violently against justices or protests, that can sometimes turn pretty scary, of course in light of that one 26-year-old man who wanted to kill justice kavanaugh. do we know whether he will be adding that to his remarks? reporter: no, neil. that is a valid question, because even the leak at the time as you mentioned provoked violent threats against these supreme court justices and now certainly with the decision set in stone and finalized there is a big concern among all about the safety of supreme court justices. it took a lot of teeth pulling on capitol hill to get congress to actually cast safety and security for the direct family members of the supreme court justices in light of the riots or the protests outside of supreme court court justices homes, so it'll be interesting
12:07 pm
to see if that is something that the president mentions today but we'll be in that event with the president and we'll certainly be sure to ask about it if he does not mention it. neil? neil: oh, i know your reputation , hillary. i have every reason to believe you will be chasing that one down. hillary, thank you very very much, hillary vaughn, following all of that. we are hearing a number of lawmakers now discussing this decision where the supreme court essentially said that mississippi's abortion law that came in place in 2018, it bans most abortions after the first 15 weeks. in other words abortions can't be held after 15 weeks of the pregnancy. so the supreme court going ahead and adjusting roe v. wade, one of the things we discovered quickly after this is it wasn't an outright ban, as much as returning roe v. wade and leaving it up to the states and in this case, agreeing with the measure that was taken by mississippi to stop such abortions after 15 weeks. a number of lawmakers,
12:08 pm
republican and democrat are talking about it right now. let's go to capitol hill. >> we must stand together and say enough. the court affirmed today that every life is worth living. my prayer is that america will reclaim our identity as a nation whose god given rights, our life , liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all. and i'm pleased to introduce -- >> [applause] >> a gentleman whose made it his life mission to protect life and reclaim life in america, chris smith, gentleman from new jersey. >> [applause] >> thank you so much. today, ladies and gentlemen, is a brand new opportunity to defend tstlnerable from the viof abortion and that includes the baby and the mother, the co- victim of every abortion. for decades, right up to this very moment abortion advocates have gone to extraordinary lengths to ignore
12:09 pm
trivial and cover up the battered baby victim. they have aggressively fostered a culture of denial, disrespect, a culture of death and a bias against babies. back in 1973 the supreme court in an infamies decision called roe v. wade said we need not resolve the difficult question when human life begins. they side stepped it and legalized abortion throughout presidency. justice byron white at the time, called it an exercise, and the alito majority opinion issued today just a couple hours ago, at long last recognizes the need for elected representatives at the local and federal level, to take the action about abortion. hopefully it'll be on the side of protection but as kathy morris rogers said a moment ago there is a bill pending right now that's an existential threat to the lives and dignity of unborn children. it would allow abortion right to birth and eadviceer ate every single pro-life from women's
12:10 pm
right to no laws to parental notification statutes throughout the entire country. it passed the house last september, every one of us voted and spoke against it, and its pending in the senate, so while this is a major step forward, it also means we're in an area where we've got to fight even harder to defend these innocent children and again, as i think all of you know, with ultrasound , the visibility of an unborn child is more apparent than ever before. the other side says that it's not a human being. well what is it that you're watching, when mothers give birth to a new baby, long before that, what are the pictures that are on the refrigerator? the pictures of the ultrasound of that unborn child. birth is an event that happens to each and every one of us. it's not the beginning o of life and we want to protect all life. thank you. it's my honor to introduce ann wagner, the prime sponsor. neil: we're monitoring a number of republicans are responding to this decision in favor, we're going to continue doing that as
12:11 pm
we will the democratic speakers take to the microphone here. you're hearing much about what this decision that essentially overturns roe v. wade comes down to, the viability of a life. when does a fetus become an active life that you cannot touch. now, in this case, in the mississippi law that was upheld today by six of the supreme court justices, the whole issue is around this idea that you can't have abortions past 15 weeks, and after that, you are dealing with a life. now, others have criticized that , that the roe v. wade map had long considered that a fetus became an active human being, if you will, a meaningful life, potentially outside the mother's womb at or around 24 weeks of pregnancy. now, the average of abortions in this country, a small percent of them get that far, but the fact of the matter is, even if we were to revert back to
12:12 pm
mississippi's 15 week policy, it would still be certainly far greater at that level, the 15 week level than for example, the 12 weeks allowed in finland. the 14 weeks allowed in argentina. the 12 weeks in italy. the 12 weeks in ukraine. 12 in russia. in ireland, where it's 12-14 weeks. denver, 12-14 weeks, so again, this period of which abortions are cutoff and we compare how we are to the rest of the world, they have far more restrictive policies in place now. now again, in our country, the vast majority occur under 15 weeks. the overwhelming majority of abortions, but i just wanted to put this in context here, where we stand versus the rest of the world and where it stands. nevertheless, the lawmaker reaction we're getting is fast and furious.
12:13 pm
chad pergram has been monitoring that on capitol hill and has the latest. chad? reporter: good afternoon, neil. one of the things that we're watching here on capitol hill is the security. that's the first thing here. we've seen that the east side of the u.s. capitol is completely closed off. that goes over toward the supreme court and i've just gotten a statement here. it says that the national guard says that it does not have a request from the d.c. government or any federal partners but remains ready if it needs to swing into action here because of this rather tense scene across the street from the capitol at the supreme court now you talk about lawmaker reaction. here are some of the reaction that's ruling in right now. joe manchin, moderate democrat pro-life, he weighs in from west virginia and he says i am disappointed in this decision because he says i think we should keep the status quo. he said i trusted justices kavanaugh and gorsuch when they testified under oath. in other words, the idea here from senators who voted to confirm them is that they believe that roe v. wade was
12:14 pm
established precedent and they were not going to change this. now, from the other side of the democratic caucus, this is the other side of the spectrum here, corey bush, democrat from missouri, member of the squad. she says abortion is healthcare. we don't care what a far right extremist supreme court says. it is the crisis of legitimacy. your racist, sexist, ruling won't stop us. so i asked house speaker nancy pelosi earlier today, i said obviously, you disagree with this decision. when she walked into her press conference just a few minutes ago, she said it is not a good morning. she usually makes a good point of saying good morning to the press, she said today is not a good morning. she said this is extremism to the n-th degree. i said let's go back, obviously you don't like the decision but do you respect the process and she said i'm about truth and honesty. what that is a reference to, neil, is that in 2016 in february of 2016, president obama nominated merit garland for the supreme court. mitch mcconnell, then the majority leader said, we're
12:15 pm
not going to give you a hearing. it is an election year. they never put that justice on the court. then in 2017, what happens? that same vacancy was there, and they used something called the nuclear option. now this is something that the democrats invented in the senate where they were able to lower the bar to confirm a supreme court justice, so would not be subject to a filibuster. never before had there been a filibuster of a supreme court justice. abe fortis faced a filibuster to be elevated to chief justice but he was already on the court. historically that had had not been a trend so they lowered that bar to 51 votes otherwise neil gorsuch would have faced a filibuster and never gotten on the court. then we went through the epic saga with brett kavanaugh in the fall of 2018 so that's two and then just before the election, just days before the 2020 election, you had the death of ruth bader ginsberg, and they confirmed amy coney barrett to the high court completely flying in the face of what mitch
12:16 pm
mcconnell had said several years before when the vacancy opened up after the death of justice sc alia, so again that's why this changed. we talk about elections having consequences, and you can go back to that decision by mitch mcconnell unilaterally. congress was in recession that weekend in february 2016 when justice scalia died and he made that decision on a saturday night we are not going to consider any nominee during this election year and then completely changed his course in the fall of 2020 just before the election and so this is why democrats are so revved up. now what does this mean toward the mid-terms? obviously, we are seeing a lot of resonance on the republican side of the aisle when it comes to inflation and the economy and everything else here. does this energize the democratic base to the point that it does start to change the election? that's something that nancy pelosi talked about in her press conference today. she called this move by mitch mcconnell "hypocrisy" so this is something that's going to be a
12:17 pm
slow-hot burn over the summer months going into the fall, neil neil: you know what's fascinating, chad, because to your point, that really set in motion going back to the refusal of the part of mitch mcconnell to entertain confirmation hear ings for merit garland that paved the way for conservative justices that would take hold under donald trump and create this decision today. fascinating. reporter: it's all about the math and in that case, it was about the math and again, you know, you could even go back to this decision made by harry reid, the late senate majority leader in the fall of 2013 when some of president obama's nominees were not being confirm ed not for the supreme court and that's where they put in what they call the nuclear option to say we're going to lower the filibuster, so really it was harry reid that opened the barn door here and then it was mitch mcconnell who took
12:18 pm
this to the supreme court otherwise, you would not have had the confirmation of president trump's three justices and i'll tell you that is going to be his lasting legacy that he forever changed the court, regardless of what anybody else thinks about president trump, good or ill, that is going to be his most resonant legacy when it comes to policy, because it deals with changing the court, getting elected and changing the court and then a decision of this magnitude here in june of 2022. neil: if you can just in dull indulge me, chad, have he with a single term president able to support three supreme court justices? reporter: not off the top of my head. the interesting thing is that jimmy carter never got a one. he was a single term president and obviously didn't have one. i'm thinking way back in terms of tippie canoe and tyler too, so you had william henry harrison who died, and he obviously didn't get a supreme court justice, because he was just on the court for 30 days
12:19 pm
essentially here, and then his successor had some legendary fights with the senate over all of his confirmations just because they didn't recognize him as the legitimate president. he had descended so quickly from vice president to president that was a problem just confirming anybody in that administration. neil: you're amazing, my friend, thank you for that chad pergram following this development on capitol hill. as we told you a little bit earlier we don't know what will come of this decision, what's next and at what point on a national level we will recognize when abortions are legal, but we do know this much. it won't be determined on the national level. it will be determined by states, and there are at least half in this country, half the states in this country that are contemplating implementing so-called trigger laws that would allow them to make abortion legal in their states relatively quickly, from the moment of this decision. ken paxton is the attorney general for texas. he joins us right now. attorney general, you have this trigger in effect now. what is texas going to do now?
12:20 pm
>> yeah, so this goes into effect, as soon as the supreme court decision comes down there's a period of time where the other side has a chance for a rehearing 25 days or so after that judgment is set in place our law 30 days after that would go into effect. that law was passed by senator paxton, my wife and also representative and so that would go into effect so that abortions be out lawed in texas as soon as that period of time goes by. neil: when you say abortions be out lawed entirely, no matter what point in the pregnancy? >> that is correct. one of the great things about this decision is that places that decision back into elected representatives and people get to make a decision here. every state can make their own decision as opposed to having edict from nine justices that never had any precedent, never had anything to go back, they just made this up and now, the people of every state can make their own decisions, texas, that's massachusetts, california we all get to make a decision
12:21 pm
now. neil: all right, now, as you probably heard, attorney general , a number of company are making moves right now, to assure workers who might want access to abortions to provide the financing for them to go to the states that still allow them , among them, amazon and citigroup, jpmorgan chase, hewlett packard, levi strauss, some of the names i mentioned have offices and business dealings with your state. are you going to do anything about that? would you consider punishing them for doing that? >> look, this is up to the legislature, these companies can make their own decisions about what they want to do with their employees so while i'm pro-life they certainly have the choice in this country to move people around and have access to abortion in states that allow it that's what this decision is all about. it's about real choice by americans, voting in each of the states that they're in so if these companies choose that, it really is up to them to make that decision. that's the great thing about our country. we get to make those decisions
12:22 pm
with elected representatives. neil: all right, now, i believe you have about 60,000 abortions a year in texas. i could be off a little bit. so those 60,000, if it were to continue that way, that stops. so a lot of those people will go elsewhere, and then, this could be a controversial issue for your state. workers might avoid it, or others might welcome it, but what do you think the impact will be if a lot of those people clearly angry about this who are entertaining or want abortions go elsewhere? >> look, people dealt with them , we have lots of people leaving certain states, some of them more little states you're talking about that will provide abortions, coming to our states for economic freedom and other reasons so i'm not particularly worried about that. texas and many republican states are very attractive to people because they have opportunities for better jobs, lower taxes, less regulation and a better court system so look people get
12:23 pm
to choose. that's the great thing about this country. i have no problem with people want to leave our state because they want abortions elsewhere. that is their choice. neil: so would there be any retribution against those who do have abortions? can criminal charges be filed against them as a result of this >> and the answer is it's up to the local district attorney. that authority is given by the texas legislature to each county d. a. we have 254 counties those district attorneys would enforce or not enforce. they are supposed to enforce but some of these d. a.'s already said in more liberal counties they aren't going to enforce that. that's up to the legislature to decide do they want to give somebody else the authority to prosecute that. right now, i have civil authority, we can proceed with doctors who do this up to $100,000 per-violation. neil: but there could be rules even within the state of texas, attorney general, right? some who be criminal charges
12:24 pm
filed against them and in other districts, counties, where that wouldn't happen. that's still a possibility, right? >> that is a possibility. now that's not the way the law works. these d. a.'s are supposed to follow texas law but some said they are making their own laws, and telling the legislature i don't follow laws. i follow what i want to follow, and so they are making decisions and the legislature will have to decide, and the upcoming session in january, do we want to respond and make these laws universal or are we going to let the d. a.'s make the decision for us. neil: if you'll indulge us one more question on this law and how it goes into effect in texas and when it does i understand it would ban all abortions from the moment of fertilization except in rare cases to save the life of a pregnant patient. is that the gist of it? >> that's the gist of it. and that's certainly what the elective representatives pass and certainly think can change that law if they want to because they can do as they please based on who elected them and that's one of the great
12:25 pm
things i think about this decision is we're going back to elected representatives, we're not getting dictate to and i know the president likes to be dictated to by washington, but look, our founders put together a basically laboratories experiment and every state got to experiment with how they want to run their state and this is a perfect example of that. neil: all right attorney general thank you very very much for taking the time to go over this with us. ken paxton is the texas attorney general. i believe kevin mccarthy, the man who could become the next speaker of the house was speaking to reporters on this. i think we still have him, if we can go to him. >> for the most i believe in saving every life possible. look at what we have done. more importantly, look at what the democrats have done. for decades that was a bipartisan position. why does this new radical agenda , when the democrats took the house, the senate, and the white house, even the president biden who had
12:26 pm
supported that remove that. look at ann wagner and when you look at what we can do, we will continue to look wherever we can go to save as many lives as possible. yes? reporter: you touched on this a little bit, but the current laws are still in place right now with the attorney general just not doing anything about it for politics. what would you want to tell them specifically? >> i would tell him less than 140 days things are going to change here and he will have now a congress that will call him up he will now have the ability of a congress to have oversight, he will now have a congress that will hold him accountable. thank you, all, and most importantly, to america, i've continued to pray. one, for the safety of everyone. neil: all right, kevin mccarthy more or less saying that the people have won on this and there is a respect of human life , we're waiting to hear from the president of the united states whose not nearly as
12:27 pm
pleased by this move on the part of the supreme court earlier today, who effectively slapped down roe v. wade as a precedent that has been in place now for the better part of half a century. ahead of that, heyward donigan joins us the rite aid ceo, thank you very much for taking the time to join us on a busy day. you probably weren't aware all of this be happening when you committed to our show and we appreciate you being here. your reaction to this and i am curious as well, since a lot of women maybe rely on rite aid for either drugs or prescriptions, from their doctors, to deal with it and help with abortions. where rite aid stands on this and your reaction to what went down today. >> well, thank you for having me on, and no, i did not expect this , because we've been really focused on our growth strategy and our really strong quarter. this decision, obviously, has a
12:28 pm
big impact. we are an employer of 53,000 associates nationwide and our number one concern has been and will continue to be their health and their wellness. we have already been working with our health plan administrator on contingencies. we aren't able to address the specifics, but i think this just shows the important role of healthcare in people's lives, and we're not in the business that's impacted by this decision although we do obviously sell and distribute birth control and other reproductive assistance, but this is more about our associates at this point. neil: so i'm wondering then, given your work with the 50,000- plus workers a number of other countries, ms. donigan have said and they range from amazon to citigroup, yelp, uber, lyft, apple, i could go on and on that if their workers want to have
12:29 pm
abortions, they will essentially pay for them to get to the states that will still allow them. do you share that? >> again, i'm not really prepared to talk about specifics relative to this. what i was really prepared to talk about is being a corporate ceo and rite aid's work over the last few years and the last quarter, so i would say at this point, that's been our focus, and we will continue to work with our health plan on different contingency plans for our associates. neil: you know, you have been, as you just said, put an incredible quarter, better-than-expected revenue, earning more than most thought you would in an environment where post-covid, a lot of folks thought well maybe that would dissipate or ease. i'm wondering, companies and the ceo's like yourself, then have to give some forward guidance. did this supreme court decision
12:30 pm
today kind of screw up that forward guidance, or make it more difficult for you to gauge the impact it will have on a small percentage, i understand, of women who might use your services or prescribed through your services, medicines to deal with abortion. >> well, i'm really proud of our results and thank you. we had 100 million in ebitda, 6 billion in revenue, beat consensus on both revenue and ebitda and we are getting back to business. we were able to show that we could actually grow our prescriptions, even cycling off all of that vaccine benefit and testing benefit we got in the same quarter the prior-year. i think that the guidance, which is we maintained our guidance on ebitda, and we actually increased our guidance on revenue. there will be no impact on that
12:31 pm
from this decision. neil: if i could switch to covid and the post-covid world a lot of people in this country maybe they are getting cocky or just tired of shutdowns and mass requirements and you name it, how does that affect you now? i mean, many are convinced we're over this , let's move on, the president was indicating earlier this week, we're not necessarily over this. don't get so cavalier about it. i'm paraphrasing. where are you on this , and where rite aid and others like you move from here? >> well, as you, neil, know, covid is nothing to sneeze at, so to speak. it is still circulating widely. neil: absolutely. >> and i, myself know many many people that are suffering from it right now. the beauty is the vaccines really have made such an impact on our ability to live with this so to speak illness. it is circulating widely. we have seen a significant increase in the sale of antigen
12:32 pm
tests. people who can test at home. we continue to offer hundreds of thousands of vaccines. the vaccines have fallen off, and luckily now there's treatment, so there's paxlovid and we are being able to dispense paxlovid, which is a wonderful treatment for people with covid and sell those antigen tests and continue to do vaccines and pcr tests but people are getting on with their lives, and so what's happening is they're getting other illness es. they're getting cough and cold and other respiratory viruses, and we believe that plus allergies are becoming less seasonal and more systemic, so it's obviously not great for america in terms of those who are getting sick but we are back to building our immunity and i think that's really important. neil: yeah, i personally hope you're right about that. heyward donigan, thank you and congratulations on those quarterly numbers, the
12:33 pm
rite aid ceo, who was kind enough to say this whole supreme court decision that sort of turned everything upside down in this world. all right we are not oblivious to the time on your screen, stocks are up today having nothing to do with that building you're seeing supreme court of the united states, where history went down today with the roe v. wade precedent shattered right now, and effectively ending what has been a sort of a one-way policy on abortions in this country that first became legalized in 1973. there were a lot of cracks at it afterwards but this effectively wipes it out and leaves it in the hands of the states from here. i digress, the big stock roundup has nothing to do with that. everything to do with the markets weighing the possibility that the federal reserve might not need to hike so much if the economy given some recent numbers including a record-low consumer confidence report just out today, means we're slowing down to the point that it be risky to keep hiking in that environment.
12:34 pm
mark zandy joins us the moody's analytics chief economist. mark is one of those rare birds, if he has to sort of correct himself, he corrects himself and moves on. it's a wild concept but he, you know, had thought inflation in the beginning be transitory. now he had a lot of company there, for the federal reserve chairman of the entire biden white house, all the way up to the president himself, but he says that this is going to stick around a while, but he's kind enough again to be with us right now. mark, you obviously see things a little differently now. how differently? i mentioned the run-up in stocks and the belief it's going to lead to a slowdown which i know sounds perverse but as you know might ease concerns that inflation gets out of control, because things are forcibly going to come back to earth because things are slowing. where are you on this? >> yeah, well, neil, i didn't know i was a rare bird, but i think that's a complement so thank you. neil: it is a complement, trust
12:35 pm
me. >> yeah, and i take it that way , thank you so much for that. well, i was wrong about inflation in this time last year i thought it be temporary and i was surprised. of course i was surprised by the pandemic. you think back a year ago with the vaccine rolfeout, i thought the pandemic would fade away quickly and it did not and of course supply chains got completely scrambled and of course russia and the war in ukraine wasn't even on myriad after screen and that also has added significantly to inflation , but here we are, and inflation is obviously very high i think it's going to take at least 18 probably 24 months to get inflation back down to something we all feel comfortable with, so we're at 8.5% on the consumer price index you told me we're 6%-ish by the end o of the year and we're back down to that 2.5% target on the cpi by early 2024, but to get there, we need a little bit of luck on the pandemic and what's going on in russia and
12:36 pm
ukraine, and we need some pretty what i'd call depth policymaking by the fed, so it's going to be difficult. neil: all right, now, jerome powell has been among those who said he got it wrong on the transitory nature of all of this inflation so to janet yellen the treasury chief. we haven't heard from the president. i know you're an economist by training and a darn good one. does that kind of thing make a difference? would it be easier if the president just moved forward and said i missed this one. >> well, need less to say, i don't think i should put myself in the position of the president that's a political calculation, right, neil? that's out of my -- neil: i did really want to embarrass you and see what you would say. >> yeah, yeah, i mean i can play king for the day and i'll just say this. it is therapeutic to admit when you're wrong and move on, and you know, focus on the things you can do and you have to think , i do feel for the president because this has got to be really frustrating because he doesn't
12:37 pm
have a whole lot of tools in the toolkit he can use. if it's about the pandemic and supply chains and if it's about russia and higher oil prices, that's a pretty tough one for him to navigate so its got to be incredibly frustrating for folks trying to solve this problem. neil: we will be hearing from the president in less than a minute, mark, on largely on this abortion ruling today, but i did want to get your take on something else. housing that you see falling into a correction, maybe worse. could you explain? >> yeah, sure. it's pretty clear, you know, the feds trying to slow the economy by raising rates the most interest rate sensitive sector of the economy is housing , right, because people have to go out and get a mortgage and to buy a home, and that's tied to interest rates, so rates have risen very sharply here. that's conflating with the run- up in house prices. the affordability has collapsed. just to give you a statistic, if you were a typical homebuyer with buying a tip typical home, 20% down payment -- neil: now we gotta watch, i'm
12:38 pm
rudely interrupting you, mark, for the president of the united states. let's listen. >> today the supreme court of the united states expressly took away the constitutional right from the american people that has already recognized. they didn't limit it. they simply took it away. that's never been done to a right so important to so many americans, but they did it, and it's a sad day for the court and for the country. 50 years ago, roe v. wade was decided and has been the law of the land since then. this landmark case protected a woman's right to choose. her right to make intense intensely-personal decisions with her doctor, free from interference of politics: to reaffirm basic principles of equality, that women have the power to control their own destiny and reinforced a fundamental right of privacy, a right of each of us to choose
12:39 pm
how to live our lives. now, with roe gone, let's be very clear. the hell and life of women in this nation are now at risk and as chairman and ranking member of the senate judiciary committee, and as vice president and now as president of the united states, i've studied this case carefully. i've overseen more supreme court confirmations than anyone today, where this case was always discussed. i believe roe v. wade was a correct decision as a matter of constitutional law and application of the fundamental right to privacy and liberty in matters of family and personal autonomy. it was a decision on a complex matter and a careful balance between a women's right to choose early in her pregnancy and the state's ability to regulate later in her pregnancy. a decision with broad national
12:40 pm
consensus and most americans of faith and backgrounds found acceptable and that have been the law of the land for most of the lifetime of americans today, and it was a constitutional principle upheld by justices appointed by democrat and republican presidents alike. roe v. wade was a 7-2 decision, written by justice appointed by a republican president, rich and nixon. in the five decades that followed roe v. wade justices appointed by republican presidents from eisenhower, nixon, and reagan, george w. bush were among the justices who voted to uphold the principles set fourth in roe v. wade. it was three justices named by one president donald trump with the core of today's decision to upend the scales of justice and eliminate a fundamental right for women in this country.
12:41 pm
make no mistake. this decision is a culmination of a dehad in rat effort over decades of said balance of our law. it's a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the supreme court in my view. the court has done what its never done before. expressly take away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many americans that had already been recognized the court's decision to do so will have real and immediate consequences. state laws banning abortion are automatically taking effect today, jeopardizing the health of millions of women, some without exceptions. so extreme that the women could be punished for protecting their health. so extreme that women and girls are forced to bear their rapist
12:42 pm
child. a child of consequence, it just stuns me. doctors will be criminalized for fulfilling their duty to care. imagine having a young woman having to carry the child of incest as a consequence of incest. no option. to often the case. the poor women are going to be hit the hardest. it's cruel. in fact, the court laid out state laws criminalizing abortion that go back to the 1800s, as a rationale. the court literally taking america back 150 years. this is a sad day for the country in my view but it doesn't mean the fights over. let me be very clear and non-
12:43 pm
ambiguous. the only way we can secure a woman's right to choose and the balance it existed is for congress to restore the protections of roe v. wade as federal law. no executive action from the president can do that and if congress, as it appears, lacks the vote to do that now, voters need to make their voices heard. this fall, you must elect more senators and representatives who will codify a woman's right to choose in the federal law once again. elect more state leaders to protect this right at the local level. we need to restore the protections of roe as law of the land. we need to elect officials who will do that. this fall roe is on the ballot. personal freedoms are on the ballot. the right to privacy, liberty,
12:44 pm
equality, they're all on the ballot. until then, i will do all in my power to protect a woman's right in states where they will face the consequences of today's decision. while the courts decision cast a dark shadow over a large swath of the land, many states in this country still recognize a woman's right to choose. so, if a woman lives in a state that restricts abortion, the supreme court's decision does not prevent her from traveling from her home state to the state that allows it. it does not prevent a doctor, in that state, and that state from treating her. as the attorney general has made clear women must remain free to travel safely to another state to seek care they need. my administration will defend that bedrock right. if any state or local official
12:45 pm
high or low tries to interfere with a woman's exercise and her basic right to travel, i will do everything in my power to fight that deeply unamerican attack. my administration will also protect a woman's access to medications that are approved the food and drug administration , the fda. mike contraception, which is essential for preventive healthcare. and the fda approved 20 years ago to safely end early pregnancies, and is commonly used to treat miscarriages. some states are saying that they will try to ban or severely restrict access to these medications but extremist governors and state legislatures are looking to block the mail or search the person's medicine cabinet or control a woman's actions by tracking data on her apps she uses are wrong and extreme and out of touch with a majority of americans.
12:46 pm
the american medical association , the american college of gynecologists wrote to me and vice president harris stressing that these laws are not based on evidence and askings to protect access to care. they say by limiting access to these medicines, maternal mortality will climb in america. that's what they say. today, i'm directing the department of health and human services to take steps for critical medications are available to the fullest extent possible and the politicians cannot interfere in the decisions that should be made between a woman and her doctor. my administration will remain vigilant as the implications of this decision play out. i've warned about how this decision risks the broader right to privacy for everyone.
12:47 pm
that's because roe recognized the fundamental right to privacy , that has served as a basis for so many more rights that have come to take, we've come to take for granted, that are engrained in the fabric of this country. the right to make the best decisions for your health. the right to use birth control, a married couple in the privacy of their bedroom for god's sake. the right to marry the person you love. justice thomas said as much today he explicitly called to reconsider the right of marriage equality, the right of couples to make their choices on contraception. this extreme and dangerous path the court is now taking us on. let me close with two points. first. i call on everyone, no matter how deeply they care about this decision, to keep all protests peaceful.
12:48 pm
peaceful, peaceful, peaceful. no intimidation. violence is never acceptable. threats and intimidation are not speech. we must stand against violence in any form regardless of your rationale. second. i know so many of us are frustrated with this that the court has taken something away that's something so fundamental. i know so many women are now going to face incredibly difficult situations. i hear you. i support you. i stand with you. the consequences and the consensus of the american people, core principles of equality, liberty, dignity, and the stability of the rule of law demand that roe should not have been overturned.
12:49 pm
with this decision, the conservative majority of the supreme court shows how extreme it is, how far-removed they are from the majority of this country. it made the united states an outlier among developed nations in the world, but this decision must not be the final word. my administration will use all of its appropriate lawful powers but congress must act and with your vote, you can act. you can have the final word. this is not over. thank you very much. i'll have more to say on this in weeks to come. >> [overlapping speakers] neil: all right, hearing from president biden that this is a sad day for america, essentially saying that it's up to americans now to remember this in november , when they vote for those who will protect the
12:50 pm
woman's right to an abortion to choose for herself what is best for herself, but it occurred in an environment where given this roe v. wade which in the law of the land for the better part of half a century now, what happens now, we're already hearing mike pence celebrating this today saying this next move to a national ban on abortion period. shannon brean following these fast-moving developments. you know, shannon, first of all, i did notice president biden making an added plea to not respond violently, eluding to the protest outside supreme court justice, particularly those who might have voted for this today, so he's aware of the tenuous moment we're in but what do you think? >> yeah, i think it was very good and important that we hear that from him because we've heard it from the white house press secretary saying the president condemns this , he
12:51 pm
doesn't want to see violence but it's great to hear those words from him because we know there are groups openly calling for that. there's a group that's taken credit for the number of attacks on pro-live pregnancy centers and religious outlets, they said they find joy in attacking and they now call for a "open season " and say that they want it to be more difficult to clean-up than graffiti or vandalism, so, they aren't making any bones about exactly what they are after, and what they called for is a night of rage. there are posters here around d.c. saying get to the streets, take to the streets tonight. we just heard again from governor glenn youngkin out in virginia where some of the justices live saying listen we're calling people whether you agree or disagree, please don't be out on the streets we're monitoring every one of the justices homes and most of them are not at their homes as you would not be surprised t find but good to hear that from the president. we'll see how things go in the next 24-48 hours with the calls for people to attack these clinics, to go after these justices, and putting their information out there. its been very clear from a
12:52 pm
number of different groups hinting at things saying lets get creative with our protest but we want you to show up so we'll see about that. but the case is very clear today the 5-4 opinion very much mirror s what we got in that leak ed opinion. not long ago, where they say essentially, this is a matter to go back to the states roe really short-circuited that whole decision. this overturned, those are the words its gone and now goes back to the states we heard from a number who say today we're kicking in restrictions or we're now opening up abortion through the ninth month. states are free to do what they want. people will travel. the president talked about we want to make sure people can travel if they want to be able to for an abortion number of states had said we will provide funds to help you, number of employers we have a growing list saying we will provide money for our employees to travel if you're in a state that won't provide you an abortion and you want one it's going to be part of your benefits package now, so this is something that has divided the country for 50 years i'm not sure that today's case will end that debate in any stretch. neil: you know, shannon, i had a
12:53 pm
chance to talk to the attorney general of texas people ton and paxton and he raised that texas is a triggered state that would have laws banning abortion out right from the moment of fertilization i wonder whether the other states that are also have these triggers in effect whether it's that sweeping, and then, would the next move be and the attorney general denied it, whether it be criminal penalties for women who ignore that. where do you think this is going >> yeah, there are some states that it is that blunt. it is that early of a restriction. others have more of the range of a heartbeat law, 12 weeks, 15 weeks the mississippi law is 15 weeks but a number of states despite that are going to tighten even tighter than that. so we'll have to see where they go. there's been nearly every law that i've seen that's a trigger law in that direction of the state level saying that they will never criminalize penalties against the woman if against a
12:54 pm
doctor or against somebody who would aid or a bet in this abortion but we have signs in front of the supreme court right now of people saying i will happily aid an abortion so people will challenge these laws and take on the criminal penalt ies but nearly every state law said they will not penalize the woman herself. neil: so let me ask, there were 16 states in the district of columbia that already have protected access to abortion sites, and another couple dozen just the opposite. do you know from a legal point, shannon, whether doctors or medical facilities in states where they are looking to have these trigger no-abortion-type laws put into effect and soon, whether they're in some legal danger themselves. >> yeah, they probably are. depending on the wording of each states laws and that's the thing here is this court said it should be up to the states so people closest to those who
12:55 pm
elect them, who will make these decisions so there are various penalties depending on the state and where that may go for each of them. it's going to be very different. in a number of states that had these trigger laws in that direction more restrictive, there are abortion clinics that simply packed up and left and they left no option because they knew they probably would not be able to operate following this weeks opinion in those states so a number of states now will have no operable abortion clinics, because they simply can't survive under the states laws there, but they will move to other states, some of them have said, because in places like colorado and california, new york, there will be an expansion and probably they will take on additional patients who will come from other states. neil: so i know you have a lot of reporting on this and its been great. i'm curious in washington where you are now, i know about the beefed up security outside the supreme court, obviously they are going to do the same outside these justices homes to your point, i doubt very much they will be there, but having said that, how else is
12:56 pm
washington d.c. itself preparing for what could be a long maybe pretty heated evening? >> uh-huh, yeah, we got a trickle this morning, a hint that maybe this decision was coming and as we looked around here, i'm just between the capitol and the supreme court. this little grassy area. there was definitely a beefed up police presence. i've got a lot of friends who have spouses and work in law enforcement in this region and they have been on high alert. neil: oops, we did lose her there. again, getting a lay of the land there in washington d.c. where you could see these crowds not too far from the supreme court here, actually, they cordoned off this area. it's pretty low key for the time being, if you look at the gravity of all of this , what's gone down, not so bad. it's an american rights protest, american right to express your opinion, both for this decision and against this decision, but again, even the president of the united states said everyone has to bring it down, i'm paraphrasing here and that any
12:57 pm
threat and violence against the supreme court justice cannot be allowed or condoned. all right, we talked as well about the political implications of this but there's a corporate side of this too where a number of companies have left to promise those employees who want access to abortion they would provide the financial means for them to get it even if it means traveling out of state to get that. they include hewlett packard and jpmorgan chase, levi strauss, ye lp, uber, citigroup, amazon, i'm told that up to 110 companies have issued a memorandum to assure their workers that the company will look after this if they are seeking abortions. gary kaltbaum joins us right now gary, we booked you before we knew, of course that the supreme court decision would go down, but that part of this story & companyies now wading into this issue for those who might welcome that news, there are going to be those who will not,
12:58 pm
and why the companies are staking a position on this , good or bad. what do you think? >> well, every company gets to decide what's best for their company, their employees and their shareholders and you had a lot of companies before the ruling came down today, actually make the move to pay for travel. i believe apple and amazon were weeks ago, and now, it's about three words, safety in numbers. the more companies that do that i think the more companies will follow suit and so i think we'll probably start hearing about 400 and 500 companies, and they just all get to decide what's best. i suspect this weekend is going to be a lot of zoom calls and a lot of go-to meetings, between the higher-ups and pr departments to make sure this is handled correctly, because you know what's happened here in florida with the parental rights bill that got a little crazy and has now calmed down but that one would say that's a tip-toe through the
12:59 pm
tulips compared to this with the decision for one side, and again, i think corporations are going to be a lot more and i think probably next week we'll hear and three, four, 500 companies. neil: yeah, what's interesting about the florida bill everyone referred to it is disney was weighing in on that, as much to reflect on its workforce and looking after them, even though there were those who were against such protections who felt that disney wasn't listen ing to them but it was also stating a physician, we oppose this political position we oppose it and all these companies i mentioned clearly are saying to their workers we've got your backs financially if you need to get this , fine, without judging it either way, but they are establishing a political position as well, right, in so doing, many people are going to closely scruitinize where does this company stand or
1:00 pm
a company i've invested in or a company whose products i use or parts i frequent on this issue. could it get to that point, that they will be in controversy, either way on this. >> there's always that risk. this one has a chance, you don't know what fuse is going to be lit. you don't know what company or people that and you don't know how big it is going to get. it was 9-to-5 or 9 tonight every day the parental rights bill and governor desantis. it got noisy for quite a while. we will see how it plays out but this will last a while. these companies have to be careful about their wording, how far they go with it but
1:01 pm
safety in numbers is the name of the game. a lot of people follow suit and you can't protest and not attend to all these companies out there. are you sitting in your house doing nothing? i suspect a lot more companies and it will be a while this is going on. neil: no matter what the company does, they will take off somebody. it is a little bit of a different day but you are a different kind of watcher. i appreciate all of the above. charlie gasparino is following this, how they handle this, a difference between the woke movement, it is a different play here and companies that promise protection for workers who if they need it can get it from companies to get financial support to go to states that will allow abortions but it can
1:02 pm
be a sticky path. charles: a great point. if you notice what jpmorgan is doing, the biggest banks attract the most attention but it is every bank on wall street. every major fortune, 50 companies, fortune 100 and 500 are telling their employees this. you have benefits. we will allow you to get a benefit out of state. if you are in new york, and for some reason you can't get a knee replacement, we will pay for your benefit. in the same vein, if you are in alabama and you want to take your benefit of an abortion we will pay for that abortion across state lines where abortion is legal. that is how corporate america is handling this, trying to be apolitical.
1:03 pm
a huge change from 2020. you don't see jamie dimon taking a knee anywhere. you don't see major ceos putting out statements. every company has been pretty quiet on this as if to explain the benefits, and explain the benefits in a pretty apolitical way. abortion, reproductive rights which they call the euphemism it is will be provided as part of the healthcare plan. we will pay just like if you can't get your knee replaced in new york or alabama we will pay travel expenses to get it done someplace else. one thing i heard you and gary talking about, the disney example was key. disney didn't win on any front by opening its mouth. half its workers hated the fact
1:04 pm
that it was taking a stance on the alleged don't say gay bill. a vocal part of its workers said that it didn't go far enough. by going out there, there is no benefit and this is a divided country, why would you anger 50% of the population. the other thing i'm hearing at the banks is that a lot of their employees are for overturning roe versus wade. you would think these bankers are so cosmopolitan they are for reproductive rights, they look at this and are saying, constitutional right to kill a baby, essentially what it is. that doesn't mean you shouldn't have a right if you live in a certain state and voters approve of that practice but it is an interesting issue.
1:05 pm
major companies, it is not a black-and-white issue. with everything going on, democrats will look to feed on this to change the course of the midterm elections with inflation and recession and pocketbook issues, wonder how much people will care about this, not saying nobody will care, activists will care on both sides but is it front and center for the radical middle of this country to borrow a term from dick miller, 60% of the country and i wonder. it is very contentious, very gray. what you see out of corporate america is reflected in that. they are not getting political with this. to be it is fascinating. it is a 180. neil: a lot of the workers at these companies are anti-rovers is wait and welcome this and might take offense to the company funding directly or not having abortions.
1:06 pm
i did have the right aid ceo on earlier. they are coming off of a good quarter, i did raise the issue in some of these states where, abortion members would become law and in a matter of weeks, take doctors prescriptions for postabortion treatments that they might be running afoul of the law. she dismissed, too early to know for sure that this is a small part of their business but these issues will start coming up. >> if right aid dispenses an abortion pill that will be a problem at some point. it will be interesting to see if the supreme court, that will be a local issue to deal with,
1:07 pm
they will take that up within the law probably. just, things are coming up and i'm not a lawyer. i'm someone who talks to lawyers all the time but that is what i think will happen. it will be dealt with in various laws and we will see what happens. we should point out roe versus wade was established law for 50 years, i don't know the exact date. but abortion was never settled. it has been tearing at the heart of the country since that time and there is something to be said for why are we electing judges to decide on something people should decide on, whether their state wants to have something.
1:08 pm
i happen to be pro-choice, full disclosure but i can see the logic in saying there is no constitutional right to kill a baby. there is a constitutional right for the first amendment. there is not a basic right, to be honest with you, to kill a baby and that resonates. neil: what stuart varney was mentioning a lot of countries particularly great britain where it is in the hands of the politicians and parliament decides as it has decided that abortions are fine up to 22 weeks, but that was decided not by courts but by politicians, that is what president biden was saying, got to elect people decide once and for all and not leave it in the hands of a judge.
1:09 pm
that is just -- interesting about britain that they put that in the hands of politicians, it would be their country's policy. >> national policy, why should national politicians in california be dictating the rights of florida and alabama. that's why the country is thinner than theirs. it is one thing to elect people. and and where you live you should decide when a law like this, has -- we are not talking about getting a drivers
1:10 pm
license. at pro-choice as a matter of public policy i can understand, and it should be up to the states, and >> and what constitutes of a human life. what it established in 1973, with regard to the fetus, the court located at the point outside the mother's room or viability of said fetus.
1:11 pm
the supreme court was saying in 1973 a human life isn't a human life until 24 weeks to pregnancy. what is at stake is mississippi 2018 law they put into effect. and 6 weeks and get into the medical weeds. and and how the supreme court defined at the time, 24 weeks, you are not a life, not a viable life. 24 weeks and one day, you are a life.
1:12 pm
removing that at that point is murder, what it comes down to. what is at stake, what is going on, the supreme court effectively saying in a 6-3 vote, what mississippi did and the way it characterized a law that would ban abortions after 15 weeks is the 15 week level sounds right. if we went that name as a nation, we would be very very much below the ease with which abortions are allowed overseas. for example let's say you stuck with that policy is that mississippi now has, 15 week cut off. it is a 14 week cut off. in finland it is 12 weeks just as it is in italy and ukraine, 12 weeks, russia, 12 weeks, ireland, 10 to 12 weeks, denmark, 10 to 12 weeks.
1:13 pm
many other countries have slightly more in the netherlands, 24 weeks, examples such as australia 22 weeks. to put it like this, in the scheme of the united states versus all other countries we went from the supreme court that had seen through roe v wade the cutoff point and allowing point for abortions going up to 24 weeks, virtually every other major western country on earth has a lower level at which time you can allow abortion. don't want to make an ethical judgment on it, just saying, because roe v wade which is the definitive stance on abortions and when they are allowed in this country pushed it to 24 weeks. virtually the rest of the globe
1:14 pm
is less than that, in some cases half that. the backward step this country is taking compared to so many countries, it is not a huge leap backwards. surprisingly generous to those who still want to have abortions even at this level. i wanted to but that in some context. back to hillary vaughan at the white house, didn't leave anyone surprised he did address the potential for violence, that everyone should pool down but obviously he sees this as a galvanizing force for democrats in november. >> he was calling for voters to have the final word in all of this but made the point he does not think the supreme court should have the last say. he wants congress to get to work.
1:15 pm
>> doesn't mean the fight is over, the balance that existed is for congress to restore the protections of roe v wade as federal law. no exec of action from the president can do that. this fall, roe is on the ballot. personal freedoms are on the ballot. >> reporter: senator bernie sanders is calling to get rid of the filibuster so congress can codify roe v wade, president biden admitting they don't have the votes to do so but president biden is encouraging women to travel to other states to receive abortions if they can pointing out this decision does not restrict them from traveling somewhere that allows abortions to get abortions, he will protect the right of women to remain free and travel safely
1:16 pm
out of state to obtain this service. this is calling for voters to have the final word in this and saying in november they need to elect representatives that will support codifying roe v wade in congress but a moment he expressed to everyone wants protests to remain peaceful peaceful peaceful. he said it four times. he did not want intimidation and violence is never acceptable but in the same speech we heard the president put the blame for this decision on three supreme court justices he said in his speech were nominated by donald trump. name dropped in a way justices brett kavanaugh, gore such and barrett who received a lot of violent threats and this decision by the conservative majority supreme court showed
1:17 pm
how radical they are, how extreme they are and how far removed they are from the majority of the country. the president made a point to ask everyone to be peaceful he had a lot of scathing words for the supreme court and called out three of the justices over high court. neil: it will be a galvanizing force for democrats in november but a battle between how people feel about this versus economic conditions, gas prices out of control, normally, the economy dictates how and election turns out. i don't know whether this does it for democrats but i am going into an area of politics where i know from the past elections have largely been decided on bread and butter issues. could be wrong.
1:18 pm
is a hail mary pass to say look at this? >> reporter: absolutely correct. we've already pivot their messaging solely to this. they started fundraising, pushing this message out, they want the social issue to trump all economic issues. even democrats themselves have admitted inflation is a very big problem. high prices are a big problem for everyone. that a losing issue for people in power running for reelection. a winning issue may be keeping people in power to codify roe and take further steps to put this at the federal level back in place but voters are going to choose between whether this socially she was a big enough issue to override the issues they are facing every day when
1:19 pm
they go to the gas station. neil: hillary vaughan at the white house. a couple dozen states with trigger laws, talk to the attorney general of texas where they have a measure that would ban abortions outright from the moment of fertilization. the former federal prosecutor, katie, on the state level, all these states succeed in triggering these triggers that make abortion outright illegal, texas is more extreme among them but having said that. where do you see this going and what the legal fight will mean on the state level. >> reporter: it is far from the legal word on this. it is the beginning.
1:20 pm
brett kavanaugh said it best that the constitution is neutral on the issue of abortion, an issue for states to decide. that the misleading statement because they know there are many states that will illegal eyes abortion or limit it while others will openly allow it. there's going to be a conflict between states for people traveling in or receiving by the male. this won't be an easy solution for every legislature, extreme things on both sides and that will continue this clash the court claims they were trying to resolve the issue to the states. neil: i was speaking to ken paxton, texas attorney general and looking at the applications of this. i got into the criminal charges that could be filed not only
1:21 pm
for women who still try to have abortions but doctors who perform them or companies who provide drugs to help them. it gets to be a 40 issue. >> talking about the history of the country for criminalizing abortion for providers not so much for women that are receiving of the abortion but that to me as an open question if they are willing to say the states have broad rights to regulate this. something we are looking out for. neil: if you are a doctor providing services that are contemplating doing this. wherever you feel on the issue isn't as important as looking at the legal impact of this.
1:22 pm
if she had right aids and some of these states. prescriptions from doctors, the effects, treatment after an abortion, could they be on dangerous legal grounds? could charges be filed against them and make that very difficult? >> i think so and i would tread carefully if i were in that position. the supreme court left this open to the states even the extent of criminalizing those actions. even if they are charged or prosecutor or able to get your case overturned that could be a long road to hell and on the committal side it is different from being subject of a civil lawsuit.
1:23 pm
it is a question for all the folks who want to provide these services. they might think twice. i certainly would. neil: the other issue is all these companies from amazon to apple and others that indicated to women who might work for the more need an abortion they would provide the financial support for them to get it, as welcome as that would be for some part of their population, i am sure there's just as much of that population, represents the company doing that. that is another tough area, is it not? >> the problem is there's no middle ground to be had. there are people in extreme ends of this and the decision came down, never able to be in the middle like justice roberts suggested because it is either a federal constitutional right or it is not and because of
1:24 pm
that, the clear law that the majority sees here, don't see any sort of reconciliation between the two sides. other people think you should have access at all times. there is no middle ground in my mind that will alleviate concerns. neil: someone likening it, the civil war, slave state and anti-slave states, will it be that crazy, the abortion states or non-abortion states, it could turn into a mess? >> i wonder about the polling. there is polling that suggests half the country supports some access to abortion, half the states asked them to overturn roe versus wade, people become in favor one way or another,
1:25 pm
that to be remains, a long process of pro-life advocates, it is a political decision, they took pains to go why this is the law and it is not anything to do with politics and it is an interpretation of the constitution that should have always been the case. there is some way as our country to revolve this. in terms of rectifying those extreme viewpoints. neil: i always got a lot hearing your take on this. the court is saying those six justices, should have never taken up this case, and ending a fetus's life any more than it should be ruling on the sanctity of life. is that where they are coming from?
1:26 pm
>> in part es. their main point is rowand casey were wrongly decided, there was never a constitutional right to an abortion, the federal government never should have been regulated in this. this is a political and may be a religious decision for some of the justices to limit this opportunity for people but according to the majority opinion this was based solely on constitutional interpretation and legal interpretation of what the constitution protects versus what is left to the states and the electors, a legal quagmire on its own. neil: i wasn't done. i want your thoughts on mike pence who was already overturning roe v wade saying there should be a national ban on abortion. whatever your views on that
1:27 pm
subject, some will get heated, but i do wonder whether 50 state rulings on this issue is productive either. should there be a national view on this as we have in britain or go 50 different states. it wouldn't be 50 different states, half feel one way at half the other way. is that a national precedent or is a danger? >> a national precedent goes both ways. if there are folks who've federally codify roe, the other is nationally as well. even gun laws, that's different analysis but there are differences that when you are in a particular state you are obligated to follow the law of the land in that location. that may be the wave of the
1:28 pm
future that state have to individually figure out what to do with that and it is not something we haven't seen before. it cuts both ways. the power to criminalize abortion is the same as the power to allow it nationally, depends on folks who are elected. neil: a cool legal line on that. david, what can you tell us? >> i'm going to get back out-of-the-way. neil: it is neil at fox business. >> reporter: i apologize. it allowed, outside the supreme court, getting both sides of the spectrum. quite a bit of tension when this came down.
1:29 pm
a live look, the pro-choice demonstrators, pro-life demonstrators are on the other side but the energy for the most part, emphasizing the right to protest. following the january 6th attack on the us capital. those will be here this summer but as far as the crowd outside the supreme court, there's the expected demonstration activity but nothing out of the ordinary, law enforcement, uniform and undercover but for now, it is a historic day outside the us supreme court. neil: be safe in the middle of that with the reaction many people thought would happen. peaceful but heated and to say
1:30 pm
nothing that it is going to get hot in this period in washington. i want to talk to doctor makary and put this in perspective. i want to go a different route with you. i was looking at the time of the roe v wade decision, how the court defined when life begins is what this comes down to, at 24 weeks. it came to the conclusion, meaningful life outside the mother's womb or viability doesn't occur until 24 weeks of pregnancy. we know from a lot of advanced medical imagery and sophistication the that was significantly off. i wonder where science places
1:31 pm
the viability of a human life. >> you are right. roe v wade was based on viability and it is a changing dynamic. the viability is as low as 21 weeks and we do operations on babies in utero called fetal surgery to try to provide medical care for babies when they are still in utero. we see babies now better understood in the womb, babies can feel pain as early as 12 weeks. at 18 weeks, our baby is resisting the instruments of abortion during an abortion procedure. we know more and viability has changed since the time of roe v wade. neil: it was a 2018 law that would ban abortions after 15 weeks, essentially claiming the
1:32 pm
medical argument, that is a functioning life. that is a life that is now in place. anytime before that, you can have an abortion anytime after that. what do you make of that? >> we are given the narrative that abortion is a dichotomous consensus, you're for or against. pugh family research foundation has solid data that shows 56% of people say it depends on gestational age of the baby and when you get to the third trimester 75% of americans are against legalized abortion. i don't understand how people believe in abortion in the third trimester. i watched an abortion as a medical student. it was difficult to watch the parts of a baby in her suction canister. i can imagine it's got to be more difficult for the mom going through it.
1:33 pm
the hippocratic oath long said we as physicians would never of a woman anything to cause an abortion and that was altered. the ancient hippocratic oath was changed to be more politically correct and in line with this narrative that women have a right to choose at any point during their pregnancy. neil: we are at this point now where some states are going so far in the case of texas where i talked to the state of attorney general a while ago from the moment of conception. others are still playing with these numbers but i am wondering where we go. as you said, there is no hard and solid evidence because what we used to think was a nonlife 24 weeks into her pregnancy we
1:34 pm
learned is anything but. we also learned babies born prematurely didn't have a chance decades ago now thrive, sometimes being taken out of the womb two months into the pregnancy. i'm going where you think this goes and you and your colleagues in the medical community go with this leaving aside the legal challenges that some abortion providers and doctors who offer services in some states that outlaw them, forget legally, i wonder where you think this goes. >> i can tell you the concept of a baby in the womb at 15 to 18 weeks resisting the instruments of an abortion to me says there is an implicit moral message there and that is what a lot of people say. in the first trimester i haven't made up my mind, i can see both arguments, the second
1:35 pm
trimester it doesn't seem right and the third trimester is broad consensus. they have been legal in parts of the united states and maybe they will continue to be in states that allow that but some companies are talking about travel benefits for their employees who want to get an abortion so they pay $4000 for the employee to travel to get an abortion out of state. some companies are doing that. we can't regulate people's ability to travel but you will see these migration patterns to get an abortion. neil: -- this get into a slippery area. we treat abortion is another form of birth control? >> that's the moral hazard, you see more utilization of that service and in the united
1:36 pm
states the group that seeks abortion, many teenagers do so, widely available, you don't do much to get an abortion. i do worry about that. 650,80060,000 abortions a year in the last few years. half of those are as a result of medication but the others are instrument abortions and that is where people have a tough time with it. neil: thank you very much. giving this perspective on the science. doctor marty makary, we will keep following this story. keeping up the market numbers. we are up strongly today completing what will likely be the first up week in four for
1:37 pm
the major markets. what is driving this today is the idea that the federal reserve will knock down inflation. and slower mortgage activities and new home sales activity, building permits all trending down and be things will slow down. the threat of higher interest rates is already doing its job and sending those market rates down even though we have a bit of a backup today the belief seems to be the recession itself, the slowdown will mitigate the damage and it might not be that bad. there are different ways to read that, different companies with different guidance
1:38 pm
depended on different industries involved but for now, buyers are of the view that this is the of it and the fears that we get through the worst of it but today they think less like that. more after this. we listen. like jack. he wanted a streamlined version he could access anywhere, no download necessary. and kim. she wanted to execute a pre-set trade strategy in seconds. so we gave 'em thinkorswim® web. because platforms this innovative aren't just made for traders -they're made by them. thinkorswim® by td ameritrade i have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. so i'm taking zeposia, a once-daily pill. because i won't let uc stop me from being me. zeposia can help people with uc achieve and maintain remission.
1:39 pm
and it's the first and only s1p receptor modulator approved for uc. don't take zeposia if you've had a heart attack, chest pain, stroke or mini-stroke, heart failure in the last 6 months, irregular or abnormal heartbeat not corrected by a pacemaker, if you have untreated severe breathing problems during your sleep, or if you take medicines called maois. zeposia may cause serious side effects including infections that can be life-threatening and cause death, slow heart rate, liver or breathing problems, increased blood pressure, macular edema, and swelling and narrowing of the brain's blood vessels. though unlikely, a risk of pml--a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection--cannot be ruled out. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions, medications, or if you are or plan to become pregnant. if you can become pregnant, use birth control during treatment and for 3 months after you stop taking zeposia. don't let uc stop you from doing you. ask your doctor about once-daily zeposia.
1:40 pm
hi, i'm denise. i've lost over 22 pounds with golo don't let uc stop you from doing you. in six months and i've kept it off for over a year. i was skeptical about golo in the beginning because i've tried so many different types of diet products before. i've tried detox, i've tried teas, i've tried all different types of pills, so i was skeptical about anything working because it never did. but look what golo has done. look what it has done. i'm in a size 4 pair of pants. go golo. (soft music)
1:41 pm
1:42 pm
neil: a couple big developments on capitol hill. the abortion flip on the part of the supreme court to essentially upend what had been policy on life issues if you will going back to row for you wade in 1973, criticism from boris johnson and emmanuel macron. there' s a difference in those countries where their governments decide this, not their courts. macron critical of that and
1:43 pm
direction for american women even though they have their own stipulations about when abortions are allowed, nothing past 16 weeks. in our country up until the decision today it was up until 24 weeks. the law kind of of the land. mississippi measure that defines abortions as illegal after 15 weeks. looking for those abroad, less onerous provisions on this than they do over there. i want to pass that along. their governments decide this issue. legislative branches decide this issue, not their courts but we will keep an eye on that and something that happens closer to home with the house passing is expected the gun safety bill that won bipartisan support in the senate, 50 republicans, to chad pogrom on that and how the votes went down. >> reporter: they passed this 10 or 15 minutes ago.
1:44 pm
there were 14 republican yeas on this legislation. there were 15 republican yays in the senate yesterday. a smaller percentage in the house of representatives, this is the first time they have approved a major piece of firearms legislation in congress since the brady bill in november of 1993. they had the ruling at the supreme court and republicans were and rapture did by the decision. gop members tried to contrast their victory buy what they expect and outrage from pro-choice voters. >> right to life has been vindicated. the supreme court was not bullied by the far left. threats of violence against the justices did not win. and the truth is pro-life americans are not planning a night of rage. >> reporter: mems of the squad
1:45 pm
like cory bush tweeted we don't care what a far right extremist supreme court that is in a crisis of legitimacy says, you're racist, sexist, classist ruling won't stop us. gop members say one man is responsible for the ruling. >> unbelievable. i expected it, thank god for donald trump putting up justices. great day for life. >> reporter: today's ruling was set in place years ago. senate majority leader refused to allow a hearing on the nomination of merrick garland to the high court. mitch mcconnell muscled through the confirmations three trump justices that included amy kohny barrett days before the election. nancy pelosi called out mcconnell. >> the respect the process even though you vehemently disagree with it?
1:46 pm
>> i am about truth and honesty. i don't respect that process. they must have a different view of precedent from what their votes have. >> reporter: the gop scored the policy win today but democrats hope the political energy moves there voters at the polls this fall. neil: you were out pretty good student of political history. most elections are decided by the economy and that will trump all, no pun intended to the former president. the economy look dicey. today's gain in the market notwithstanding, if all year, the bear market has been volatile with inflation and gas prices at record highs, you know the drill and that will cost democrats more at the polls than any blowback from this decision. what are you hearing from that front? >> every political poll taken so far indicates people are mostly concerned about inflation and gas prices. this could change things.
1:47 pm
the problem democrats have is there are so many inherent biases built in here the way redistricting worked out for republicans, the way swing districts are going toward republicans, it will be hard for democrats to keep the house but where this could make a difference is in senate races. does this help in georgia? thing about herschel walker against rafael warnock or maggie hassan in a competitive race. in the senate this could make a difference and you have a little bit of attrition and what the republicans are projected to win, it helps democrats in those senate contests. maybe they get to 51 or 52. neil: you reminded me it is about galvanizing your base. for a lot of democrats inspired by president biden this might
1:48 pm
do the opposite, might inspire them to get to the polls and try to exact their revenge that way. regardless of the economy or anything like that. galvanizing the base potential. >> midterm elections are about giving the base out and this gives president biden the ability to go into districts and states he might not have gone into before. the other part of a conversation, nancy pelosi and other democrats said joe manchin does not what to change the phila buster, kristin sinema does not want to change the filibuster, if you get to 53 democrats maybe the nuclear option, we talked about this, you change the precedent in the senate's where you lower the bar from 60 votes to end the filibuster on legislation down to a simple majority and then may be they could codify roe v wade if they lower the fill buster bar, that is the selling
1:49 pm
point in the senate race. that universe is not formed yet and that will be interesting to watch them pick up 2 to 3 senate seats on the democratic side and of those senators are willing to change the senate filibuster policy as it pertains to little is -- legislation like abortion. neil: it happens sometimes, your last appearance here, we go to merrick garland's situation where mitch mcconnell halted that nomination in an election year, that paved the way for donald trump and his supreme court justices that are instrumental in this key decision. if you don't mind for viewers who missed that this could go back among those democrats who are furious about this to harry reid. >> harry reid opened the barn door in november 2013. approving many of president
1:50 pm
obama's lower court nominees, lower administration nominees. what he did is put into effect the nuclear option. this is where you back the senate into a parliament tree cul-de-sac, they have unlimited debate, this was not debatable and with some very fancy parliamentary footwork if you have a simple majority, you can change not the rules of the senate but the precedent and the ruling by department aryans that it takes 60 votes to end of filibuster on judicial nominations and executive branch nominations. the democratic chair overruled the parliamentarian and you can do that with a 51 majority. 51 vote majority. they establish to the nuclear option lowering the fill buster bar from 60 to 51 yeas for all types of nominations except the supreme court. let's go to 2017. this empty supreme court seat left over that president obama
1:51 pm
nominated merrick garland for in 2016 and no supreme court nominee ever faced a filibuster. you had a fordyce, chief justice and 60 yays. he had this problem with the nomination of neil gorsuch. he won't get 60 votes. he will be filibustered. it is a new precedent in the senate. he took that page from harry reid's playbook and lowered the bar, nuclear option 2, 60-51 for supreme court justices and that is how they were able to confirm these trump justices over the past four years. neil: amazing. you got a perfect score on your sat, didn't you? i didn't do too hot on the act.
1:52 pm
neil: i was the guy behind you. moving your shoulder a little bit. thank you very much. there we go. we are up 680 points. the supreme court decision, some optimism here, things are slowing down enough, the market hopes to mitigate the damage from higher interest rates overall higher period. this is proving it maintains itself, the first up week. at least four. you are watching fox business. (vo) while you may not be a pediatric surgeon volunteering your topiary talents at a children's hospital — your life is just as unique. your raymond james financial advisor gets to know you, your passions, and the way you give back. so you can live your life.
1:53 pm
that's life well planned. another crazy day? of course—you're a cio in 2022. but you're ready. because you've got the next generation in global secure networking from comcast business. with fully integrated security solutions all in one place. so you're covered. on-premise and in the cloud. you can run things the way you want —your team, ours or a mix of both. with the nation's largest ip network. from the most innovative company. bring on today with comcast business. powering possibilities.™ like any family, the auburns all have... individual priorities. some like strategic diversification. some like a little comfort, to balance out the risk. others want immediate gratification... and long-term gratification,too. they have their own interests, but at the end of the day there's nothing like being...
1:54 pm
a gold-owner. visit to see why gold is everyone's asset.
1:55 pm
1:56 pm
>> neil: i want to pivot to what democrats are planning to galvanize on, this decision today to improve their chances in november, so michelle, from a market perspective, if this has changed the midterm math equation, more in favor of democrats, that's a leap to put it mildly, would that be disruptive to the markets? >> i'm not sure if that would be the defining disruption to the market because we still have so many other factors that can be disruptive to the market.
1:57 pm
the main one of course is still in place. i really believe that that might -- the top billing because that's what feel the most. we see no reaction in the market to the news today. so based on that, i think that's what we have to look at going forward is where's inflation go, and can the fed really deliver the soft landing and keep it under control? i personally am skeptical about that for many reasons, but i would certainly like to hear david's thoughts on that. >> neil: i'm not interested in david's thoughts on that. [laughter] >> neil: no, really, david. >> david: i'm just tv candy here. [laughter] >> neil: you and i have long heard it is the economy, stupid. to michelle's point that i think still agree with that that that would decide this, but what do you think? >> david: i think michelle's right on. i mean, the fact is right now i think it rates something like 6% of the voting public says abortion's the most important
1:58 pm
factor. overwhelmingly it is still a pocketbook issue. it could change of course as people mull this over, but, you know, the american public is really so divided about the whole idea of abortion. on the one hand, you have 63% of voters saying they want roe v. wade to stay. on the other hand, 54% of voters say abortion should be mostly or always illegal. so it's like, you know, they've been fed sort of misinformation about roe v. wade, what roe v. wade is, and i think since we've got four months until the election, i have a sense that all this is going to calm down, and to the extent that abortion has jumped to at least a little higher than where it was, it's going to come back down again, and the economic issues will take over. >> neil: all right. we're told that there's limited time for the economy to turn around or at least the perception of the slowdown. michelle, what are you looking for the next few months? >> well, right now, just to
1:59 pm
finish a little bit on the abortion issue, and the ramifications for the markets, even in the more intermediate term, we know if we have polarization, that could cause unrest which would not be for the market, and could be inflationary, the dollar drops as confidence in the united states having their act together starts to fall. that could also have a bullish consequence for gold which would then be perceived inflationary. i want to mention that there is something to keep an eye on and kind of ties together with what we're looking at here, which is inflation, so really that's kind of what it is going to boil down to. powell said that he cannot control through higher rates food or energy costs going higher, people kind of put that statement on the shelf and feel like the drop we have seen in
2:00 pm
commodities has been enough. it hasn't really been. commodities are volatile like that. if you look at the 70s, we certainly saw evidence of that. >> david: like she said. >> neil: i'm way too young to remember that. david, i apologize, i want to thank you both very very much. >> david: absolutely. >> neil: we've been dragging you throughout this whole thing, that's my bad. i appreciate your insight into all of this. charles payne has a lot on his plate for the next show. he always does. no one hits it out of the park like him. here's charles to make sense of this crazy world. >> charles: i will try. thank you very much. good afternoon. i'm charles payne. this is making money. breaking right now, stocks, we have a strong bounce going. the question is can this become a monster rally, or maybe something more? investors are continuing to get aggressive, maybe even more aggressive, but there are some lurking signs we must pay attention to. we will break it all down. my take away, you want me to talk about it? i can't wait. wall street wants the


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on