tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 22, 2016 4:00pm-6:01pm EST
we were well over 900 and the first year, well over 900, and there are still waiting list's. we are still trying to do the movement in the state of illinois. we have fears about trying to keep these initiatives open. we have the kind of environment open, andceptive, hearing what you shared, how can we be a part of the american dream for some of these people? i i put it in the newspaper, would probably have everybody like, where his back i coming from? but we need to help people -- where is that guy coming from? but we need to help people integrated in our communities. our crime rates have gone down because people have hope. they have hope for their
families. they want to be part of the pta. they want to be part of the community. opportunities are flourishing, but in an environment where we are appealing back the onion on everything, where is the dollar going -- healing back the onion backerything -- peeling the onion on everything, where is the dollar going to come from? that is the environment i am trying to establish in our community. being a mayor, i don't take no for an answer. help. here to we just need to know what the fees are so we can sign up, i guess. who knows? i just wanted to comment. i don't know if that is a question. on where wecomment
are at, because i believe there is hope and opportunity. families are hard-working, want to go to work, have the cleanest houses in town. they cement their driveways. i haven't cemented my driveways. what's that all about? i just wanted to make that comment. >> it's a great comment. , are to follow up on that their federal funding opportunities for cities? all of cities are doing these things and concerned about where the funding is going to come from -- >> [inaudible] >> any thoughts on that from the panel? through the office of refugee resettlement, we provide funding to serve refugee
populations as well as through nonprofit organizations directly. the majority of the funding is going through the states and directed out according to priorities, which are directed -- determined at the national level. on issuesrimarily related to employment or in support of employment. as part ofimpact that for children, as well as english language instruction. that is funded often through community colleges, funding at the state level, as well as transportation costs. the funding is not what some of but the like to see, president's budget request did
call for an increase this year. that. hopeful about there has been a strong commitment from this administration and others in the past to this program as being .mportant we have a state coordinator in illinois, estate refugee coordinator. that may be a good vehicle for what -- for determining the resources are ended rising how those resources can be advising hownd those resources can be accessed. >> there is so much conflict in illinois. the state has deliberately frozen our funds. my community is a town of 40,000 people. over theching all place saying look, you support us, we'll support you. and i'm talking to legislators
from our area. saying we have to do this, we have to do that. i'm tired of it. we finally got them to have a bill to at least pass the money that should already be monthly income. i was a madman. i ended up writing 34 letters to who i hads personally had conversations with. the tone is we have to work past this and get together -- get past this and work together. i would rather have harmony than illinois is not functional right now. too far toave to go see the conflicts. look at the city of chicago. it's a complete disaster. if i have to go to the state on anything, i am reluctant. we need some direct funds. the city of chicago is an 800 the room.lla in
they suck up everything that the surrounding counties or the rest of the state have needs for. we are going to be pretty far down in the pecking order. that's kind of sad. coming out here, being part of the conference of neighbors, we have to find a way to -- i am not saying bypass the state, but my goodness, they are not working very well for us. --gg's i would >> i would just add that we are working with the department of education and the department of new workforce law implementation. i know we are thinking a lot about how we can promote best practices and help people understand how funding can be used. sometimes people don't necessarily know how funding can be used. cbt funding, a lot
of people have been finding creative ways to integrate immigration efforts using those funds. there is something called a network for integrating new americans project which was a pilot project in five communities to figure out how we could do more immigrant and integration. we are doing a great job helping with esl and things, but we need ots,onnect all the other d all the other networks in the community. maybe some people are eligible for citizenship and should learn about that while they are a learningudience english. maybe they are eligible for the workforce and we should communicate that in the colleges and other spaces. what we have found is that by connecting folks with our federal agency partners and our national ngo partners, a learned
how to use other resources and have gotten other grants from the department of labor and the immigration and citizenship work and others. a couple of other nuggets out there. i know in the american progress report we highlighted a number of these efforts. in particular, we are talking a lot about how we can give cities and states the technical assistance and the know-how for how to connect the dots, because has a lotrkforce law of tools people can use that didn't exist before to use that money and creative ways to help refugees. amongis a common theme mayors -- is there a way to bypass states and go straight to the cities?
>> thank you, mayor tate, for taking the leadership on this very important topic for our country and bank all of you for joining the conference of mayors to educate mayors on the importance of being proactive when dealing with immigration and refugees. we have done it in st. louis. we have had nothing, historically, we have had nothing but positive experience immigration, our community, people coming to our city because they are looking for a place to raise a family, get a job, be part of the as far as the refugees that come to our city, nothing but a positive experience because, as a community, we decided in st. louis that not only is it the right thing to do for families that come to our city and to our nation, but it's the right thing to do for our future as a city and as a region. we have us pushed a mosaic
a mosaic- established project, a regional project where we have philanthropic, civic and political communities coming together to make a statement that we want to be a welcoming community. we do a lot in educating the public. we talked to the press. that helps us get our message out in a lot of ways. the work you are doing in the states, talking to communities, is very important. there is a lot to know. nothing buthere is good that can come out of the city and regional effort to be a welcoming community. we help refugees and immigrants into our city, help them find jobs, learning bush, get connected with health care,
-- learn english, get connected with health care, learn about what you need to be a positive part of the community. i am personally engaged in a lot of those efforts. we have a health care center for new americans that come to our city. it is not just for documented citizens. we know it is important for everyone to have quality health care. i do think, really, it's electedt that we leaders stand up and talk about why it's important, how it strengthens our community. with the bosnian refugees, vietnamese refugees, and syrian refugees now, is that these are individuals, as we said, who want something good and better for themselves and their families. it's good not just for them but for all of us that we make sure
we help them with that effort. question -- ie thatto ask one question has to do with the syrian .efugees what can we expect over the next year in terms of how many will be coming to the united states? we are on record that we are on .oard full disclosure, my grandparents came from the syrian territory and immigrated to the united states in the early part of the 1900s. so, we are a nation that was built on immigrants. the vast majority of us are -- our ancestors were immigrants, and i think in order to be a strong nation we need to support the new americans that come to
our nation. >> thank you, mayor, and thank you for your support. this program would not work without the support of mayors like yourself. whenmily came to the u.s. i was five years old, so i am an immigrant as well and i there he much appreciate what this much appreciate what this country has to offer those who decide to move here. our goal is to bring 10,000 syrian refugees this year. we have a plan to achieve that, and to significantly increase it next year. we do not have a specific number for next fiscal year. say thanksalso just to you, mayor, we know you have worked with the small business on a campaign focused on promoting immigrant and refugee stories of people
tools and useba them to start or grow their small business. at the white house, we honored champions of change, people who were refugees themselves or folks who had been here for many generations who were helping to welcome immigrants and refugees. we welcomed a woman who was very much part of the st. louis mosaic project. we are very impressed by the model in st. louis and we always went to lift it up. >> i am the mayor of the city of new haven. our immigration resettlement came to my cabinet meeting about a week and a half that they would
be doubling the number of refugees in our city as well as outside in our region. i really came to thank all the department heads for all the work they have done over the years in helping to resettle people. my question isn't so much about that. i am just wondering if we can -- as i talk to people who have -- are in the process of , sometimes it has taken as long as 17 years for them to get through the whole process. isas wondering if anything being done about the bottleneck and helping people get through the process. a commitmente made to this country, they want to be here, they want to become citizens, it seems to take an inordinately long time.
usdis is the task force for new americans. i want to make sure you get connected with the right field office. i am not sure in particular about the folks who have waited that long, but there is an in thisnderway administration. for the last seven years, we have given out millions of dollars to ngos, sometimes that he is, sometimes community colleges that are working to -- sometimesive cities, sometimes community colleges that are working to promote and give people information about citizenship. a number of people have the have the desire to become
citizens, but cost might get in the way. we have a new fee waiver process that has been used by a number of ngos. we have also kept the fee throughout this administration. there are also a number of tools we interesting have pulled together. there is a practice civics exam online now in spanish and english. into being translated other languages for people who do not speak english. if i could pass the test for citizenship, and i have been in government for a number of years. i would love to help you get in touch with the right people to figure out ways you might be able to partner at the local level.
they are all about community engagement and citizenship and they are doing even more work on the refugee front. there are waivers for people who who may have trouble with the english language requirement. for older refugees, english is just going to be hard for them to master. we would like to see more availability of waivers for those folks. aree is quite a bit that we doing, and we want to make sure we are partnering with your community in that space. >> my city of anaheim, i am very proud of the people of anaheim and how welcoming they have been to refugees and continue to, but there are also some concerns , that somehow may
what assurances do we have that isis will not have an influence on some of the refugees? could you elaborate on the vetting process? sure, i am happy to. do bothtioned, we biographic and biometric checks on refugee applicants. by biographic, we's name, dates of birth, other information we have -- we use name, dates of birth, other information we have. we look at all of the documents. syrian refugees, in particular are heavily documented. they have passports, id cards, .egistration documents
we work with the inter-agency, lawh is shorthand for the enforcement community. the fbi is involved. the intelligence community, the , andnal security community they are part of our training, so when our officers trained specifically to interview iraqi and syrian applicants, we have invited national security experts to help us be part of the line of questioning. we can test what they tell us against known country conditions. and then there are security that are kind of an alphabet soup. we talk about the class check, the security advisory opinion certain categories of applicants who are deemed a higher risk. we have inter-agency checks with
the national counterterrorism , andr and other partners all of those checks run concurrently. it's not one and done. if somebody is checked, up until the day they travel, if there is any intervening derogatory information, we are aware of that. on the biometric side, we check fingerprints. the fbi, there is that is called ident run by the department of homeland security. example, an immigration encounter overseas -- if an applicant ever went to a u.s. embassy or consulate and applied , their fingerprint might have been captured. when we talk to that refugee applicant, we are able to corroborate that it's the same nationality, same identity, that fingerprint was collected at the
same time and place that is beingtent with what we're told. we check department of defense prints. many iraqi applicants have worked for the u.s. military or u.s. government at some point. in connection with that, they are issued an id card and their fingerprint is captured. we could have someone tell us that we are at risk because we worked with the americans and a threat.ved as within the department of homeland security, we have a as well aswe talk to all the agencies throughout the administration that have an interest in making sure that the program is -- has the best integrity possible while we meet the humanitarian mandates we have been talking about. even before we get to this
very extensive process, a refugee will have to register as a refugee in the country from which they've fled. list ancall from that average of 1%. i am just making the point that someone trying to get into our system would have to have registered as a refugee, set her --months, sometimes years sat around for months, sometimes years, and then go through this very extensive system to make sure they are not a security threat. quick so, if your intent was to do ill will to the people of the united states, this was probably
bestis would not be the way. that the u.s.y government does not take all possible paths into the country as seriously with security. is 10:30 a.m. and i have a flight to catch. i want to thank all of our guests for coming into town when everyone else was leaving. homeh you all safe travels , and i think everyone here, the brave that have stayed for this last day. i want to thank you for all of your help and for the u.s. conference of mayors staff. we stand adjourned. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]
[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> a live look at the white house where president obama and family are planning to stay during this snowstorm. josh earnest was asked what the president's plans were for the blizzard and he responded, my guess is the president will stay warm and toasty inside the white house. the motorcade got stuck in an unexpected storm that resulted in an hour plus commute from andrews air force base to the white house. again, in d c, blizzard predictions for tonight and saturday. presidential candidates are having a town
hall meeting in nashua, new hampshire saturday at 10:00 a.m. several hear from candidates and ben carson's wife. holdsate of new hampshire the first primary on tuesday, if every night. every ninth -- february 9 . tomorrow night, ted cruz will be holding a campaign rally in waterloo, iowa. he will be joined by radio talkshow host glenn beck and iowa congressman steve king. that starts live at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.
steve: well, the countdown is on, and nobody else is going to look at the unfiltered the candidates that we do. we are crisscrossing iowa for the next couple of days leading up to the caucuses. we will be covering all of the , and then keep an eye the caucuspens on night itself because we are the only network who will take you to the republican and democratic caucuses. if you have ever wondered how it happens, watch c-span. david daleiden is the founder of center for medical progress. what is that group? guest: it is an organization of citizen journalists. we monitor and report on medical advances with a special emphasis on bioethical issues that impact human dignity. host: you are known for the so-called planned parenthood tapes. guest: i am.
host: are you antiabortion or pro-life? guest: i am a proud pro-lifer. host: where did you get the idea of interviewing planned parenthood people about fetal tissue? released the time we the first tape, it had been about 15 years since the issue of baby parts trafficking had been part of the national discourse. there was a seminal exposé done on that particular topic in 1999-2000. unfortunately, it kind of got buried in the mainstream media at that time. i first found out about that about five years ago. i was really struck by this paradox i feel is at the heart of it. on the one hand in our country, the baby fetus, their humanity is not considered to be equal to our own in order to be totally protected by the law from being killed by abortion. but at the same time, it is
precisely that humanity of theirs that is completely identical to our own that makes them so valuable for scientific extermination and makes planned parenthood and their business partners and researchers hunt after their body parts like very treasured. -- buried treasure. host: are fetal tissue sales legal? guest: for profit body parts sales of any kind are not legal. host: cecile richards, because of the tapes, this is what she had to say. [video clip] >> planned parenthood has been in the news because of deceptively released videos by a group dedicated to making abortion illegal in this country. this is just the most recent in a long line of discredited attacks over the last 15 years. the latest smear campaign is based on efforts by our opponents to entrap our doctors and clinicians into breaking the law. and once again, our opponents
failed. to set the record straight, i want to be clear on four matters. first, using fetal tissue in life-saving medical research is legal according to the 1993 law 93-4 and the senate based on recommendations from a blue-ribbon panel created under the reagan administration. second, currently less than 1% of planned parenthood health centers are facilitating the donation of tissue for research. third, indo centers donating fetal tissue is something many of our patients want to do and regularly request. finally, planned parenthood allah sees not only comply with but go beyond requirements of the law. the outrageous accusations leveled against planned parenthood based on heavily doctored videos are offensive and categorically untrue. host: david daleiden, cecile
richards, president of planned parenthood, was talking about you. guest: she was. one of the main talking points for planned parenthood has been the videotapes are heavily edited or "deceptively edited." in this case, she came out with what they really mean to insinuate that we have doctored what is being said. , we haved of the day been more transparent than any mainstream media organization in the way these were produced. we have put out full conversations with top level everyone can compare the full conversations to the highlight some reversions we present and see for themselves --summary versions we present and see for themselves. throughout the four points she mentioned, not once did she deny any of the statements on the
video are made by planned parenthood senior-level leadership. we did not put those words in their mouths. those are their own words captured on video for everyone to see. host: did it hurt your legitimacy to go in under false pretenses and edit the tapes in the first place? guest: i don't think so. every news report you will watch on tv, even a live broadcast, is in some way edited or produced to make it more easily presentable for the public. i think most people realize that. most americans think undercover work is important part of law enforcement and journalism. it is an important part of life and discourse. host: how did you get involved in this issue? guest: with abortion specifically with the baby parts issue? host: however you want to answer that? ? guest: i have probably an eight or nine years of experience
doing investigative journalism type work with a focus on the abortion industry and planned parenthood. i have encountered the baby parts issue specifically about five years ago for the first time. i do think there is something about it that is particularly disturbing to people and also throws into stark relief our underlying -- the underlying conflicts the regime of abortion on demand we have in america now presents to some of our core american and human values of human dignity and equality. i am a proud millennial. we grew up in school learning about the history of slavery in america and how there is a dark stain on our history where people used to be part -- bought and sold in our country. you turn around and see companies buying baby parts from planned parenthood. even sometimes turning around and selling entire fetal
cadavers, and people are still being bought and sold in america today because of that. i think that is a contradiction to the values we hold dear and something most americans don't support. host: you are a graduate of claremont mckenna college in california. are you from california originally? guest: yes. host: is this a religious issue for you? guest: i don't think so. my friend and a representative recently authored an op-ed in "time" magazine. thehe end of the day, pro-life movement and our position on abortion is not a religious movement and is not necessarily a political movement. this is a movement about love and compassion for other human beings and for the smallest human beings, for the human fetus. in most states, fetal homicide laws are on the books. in almost every situation, the human fetus is considered equal to another person. , andnly exception for that most constitutional scholars would agree is a big equal
protection violation, the only exception is in the case of legalized abortion. host: david daleiden, are you in favor of outlawing all abortions? of,t: what i am in favor and i have to be a little careful because we don't do model legislation or legislation advocacy. behink the ideal law would similar to laws on the books before roe versus wade. host: david daleiden, center for medical progress, is our guest. final question. i have to follow up on that. what were those laws? guest: the laws in most states before roe versus wade criminalized doctors who would perform abortions, by which they meant feticide, anything that would intentionally kill a fetus.
there were always exceptions for the life and health of the mother. it is interesting. those laws were made exceptions -- made clear that women would never be prosecuted in those situations. it was criminalizing the conduct of unethical medical providers who would do abortions. host: let's take some calls. joseph is calling from fort lauderdale, florida, on our independent line. joseph, you are on with david daleiden. caller: good morning to both of you. let me start off by saying i am a father of two. i raised my teat of children by myself. their mother had mental issues. i raised my kids by myself for 16 years. life, valuey entire the life of children. i wanted to ask a question.
i did not get an answer from the lady earlier. if a murder is committed when a lady is pregnant, you get charged with two murders, right? if so, what is the difference if you have an abortion? isn't that murder? host: david daleiden. guest: sure. my understanding is i think in thereimately 40 states are fetal homicide laws on the books that do make it equally criminal homicide if you kill a fetus in the process of an assault on a print woman or you kill a pregnant woman and kill the woman and unborn baby, that you can be charged with two murders or fetal homicide. the bourneral level, life protection act also provides the same equal protections to unborn children in all stages of gestation. host: diane is in tennessee. she is a democrat.
please go ahead with your question or comment for david daleiden. caller: good morning. incest ands with rape? you said you are right for life. there are babies starving. people have been killed who are already here. you are not saying anything about that. there are little children everyday killing children. do you say anything? no. you are sitting up there now. you don't have to carry that child. thank you very much. host: david daleiden. guest: sure. for the first question about rape and incest, i think everyone has a lot of compassion for any person who is a survivor of asexual assault. thing a pregnancy in that situation creates is
that if there was a way to do an abortion without killing a baby, i think nobody would have a problem with what is going on. at the end of the day, that is the problem. i don't think anybody wants to punish someone whether they are a woman who is a survivor of an attack or a child completely innocent. nobody wants to punish them for something that is not their fault. as to the second issue, my concern and other pro-life americans' concern about unborn children compared to our concern for other children in bad circumstances, i think if we cannot have compassion for and respect for and protect the smallest and most innocent children, there is no way we are going to be able to effectively take care or have that same concern for those who are in more difficult -- less-than-perfect situations or less than innocent situations. i think compassion begins with the very smallest and the ones
who are so tiny there's nothing they could do to oppress us in any way. if we cannot have compassion for them, we will not be able to have compassion for bigger people. i believe there was a third issue, but i have forgotten it. host: i wrote down the first two as well. i apologize. guest: the third was something along the lines of i am a man and will never carry a pregnancy. i was a fetus. i have the child of a crisis pregnancy situation. my parents got pregnant with me their junior year of college and got married after graduation. there were people who said i should be aborted. i'm here today because their voices did not win the day. i think at the end of the day, abortion -- is not totally correct to say does a woman's issue because it is a human issue. host: is there any middle ground? that is the question we asked donna crane earlier.
between the pro-life and pro-choice position? guest: i think there is middle onund in a political sense what sort of policies we are going to have. i think it is clear from pulling data and testing the attitudes of the ever -- average american that most americans are not in of abortion being practiced in situations where it is most commonly practiced. most americans are ok with abortion to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. in most other cases, most americans do not favor abortion. most americans are in favor of no abortion after three months of pregnancy. that means no abortion in the second or third trimester. i think there is a lot of room for commonsense policies like that where we can move forward as a country.
unfortunately, we are largely prohibited from enacting a lot of those policies because of the row versus wade supreme court decision that persists even though in many ways the precedent is unsettled and we will see interesting things happening at the high court in their future. --in the near future. for the past 43 years, there has been an institutional barrier for democratically grappling with that common ground. host: lara is in pennsylvania, republican line. go ahead. caller: thanks for c-span. i want to applaud david for your courage. you have had to go through amazing, scandalous remarks about what you have done tearingng the unjust apart of unborn babies. but doing it in a specific way to harvest their organs.
for planned parenthood to say youhave doctored the tapes, did not put numbers like the liver is going to get so much, manipulating the procedure to get the highest value is disgusting. the person who said what about those innocent, babies who were the product of that, they are not rate this -- rapists. their fathers were rapists. i know two people who had repressed -- rapist fathers whose mothers in them up for abortion. you should not have to abort the baby because of the way it was conceived. guest: it has been interesting that it has been six months since cmp started releasing the first undercover tapes. planned parenthood has yet to tell us how much money they have received from companies like
stem express in exchange for harvesting fetal tissue. they have yet to explain why one of the chief medical officers was endorsing a stem expressed advertisement for financial benefits to the clinic. they have yet to explain why their senior director of medical services was talking about flipping a baby on ultrasound to harvest more intact fetal organs. the talking point from planned parenthood that the tapes are edited, by which they mean to insinuate they are doctored, is a disingenuous talking point in an attempt to distract what is on the tapes because they cannot deny what is there. host: since you started releasing tapes, are there more tapes coming out? guest: there definitely are. there is a large body of footage from the national abortion federation annual meetings under a tro in a court case now, they temporary restraining order. host: is that because of the
planned parenthood suit against your organization? guest: that suit predates the planned parenthood suit. it is a little different but a lot of similar allegations and issues in play. there are more planned parenthood tapes as well. there is no injunction or tro against those so some are being prepared for production and presentation. host: did you participate in any of the undercover interviews? guest: i did. host: were you with the woman from planned parenthood or somebody else? guest: in most of the tapes we have released so far, i was present for those interviews as one of the undercover actors. there are a few older tapes were i was not one of the actors. but for most of them, i was present. host: adam is in easton, pennsylvania, independent line. i amr: i would like to say amazed in 2016 we are still having this debate about what someone can and cannot do with their on body. i find with groups like your
guest, they are more than willing to tell you what you can and can't do, but as soon as you tell them what they can and can't do, they are up in arms. we have to understand women have a choice to do what they want. if i had told this gentleman what he could do or could not do with his body, i'm sure he would fight me tooth and nail. we have to understand abortion nowadays is not something that is accepted as a whole but sometimes is a necessity, and it is your right to have access to that necessity. ultimately, what does it matter to these people that are fighting for this issue? host: adam, sorry. thought you were finished. david daleiden? guest: it is interesting. if you choose to look at abortion only as an issue of what someone does with their own think you are necessarily going to be ok with
the for-profit sale of baby body parts because those just part of the woman's body anyway? and so there should not be a problem with on the hearts and lungs and livers of unborn children. i think what the guest is saying is out of step with what the majority of americans believe. all of usircumstance, have limitations on what we are able to do in a society where we live together and have to get along. the really extreme pro abortion position he is staking out would permit abortion -- abortion up to nine months of pregnancy, which is permitted in states like colorado and new mexico. it really cuts against the grain of what the public is comfortable with. i don't think that is a winning talking point or issue for the abortion industry. in please guy tweets ask david daleiden why not one
federal, state, or local agency has found wrongdoing at planned parenthood. guest: i don't know that is correct they have not found wrongdoing. it is correct to say there have not been indictments filed or full on prosecutions yet. there are ongoing state, federal, and local criminal investigations. we will see what comes of those in the next year. host: when will we get more from these court cases? are they in the discovery mode right now? the lawsuits. guest: those cases are at different places right now. it is a little complicated. they are probably not likely to yield anything quickly. i think the timeline is going to be stretched out for both of them. whetherainly i do think more information comes out through the select committee congressional investigation or through some state and local criminal investigations or through the discovery process
and litigation process of the lawsuits ongoing, i think you will start to see in the next year a lot more primary source document type evidence corroborating a lot of what was on our videotapes. host: what is posted on your website? posted are the full media release videos cmp has put out so far, both the summary highlight versions and full footage of those conversations that went into the highlight versions. we also have a document vault that has a lot of primary source documents we received from whistleblowers and others who work inside the abortion industry. also, that we gathered at different industry trade shows. there are a few other pages of a blog with press releases and contact forms. things like that. host: how are you funded? guest: we are a nonprofit, tax-exempt recognized by the i.r.s. we are funded by donations from the public who has been generous so far.
host: is there a timeline for any tapes to be released? are they all under restrictive order now? guest: the only tapes under restrictive order of those specifically from the national abortion federation's annual meeting in 2014 and 2015. the national abortion federation is the trade organization of abortion providers in the united states. another, thatly would be 40% of the footage we gathered in the two and half years of the project. we have released approximately 20% of the significant footage so far. there's probably another 30% of footage unreleased now. we are working on producing that now. host: would we see that in the next couple of months? guest: definitely. host: db, democrat, go ahead. caller: i am an old lady. i have had experience with this
issue, personal experience. what strikes me is women have the power, and that is what the men resent, that women have the power to decide whether they want to have a child or not. i think they should have the power. i wonder about this fetal tissue stuff. does it have any value? these youngdn't girls giving up their fetal tissue, shouldn't they get the money? thank you. host: phoebe, are you still with us? caller: i am. i know it sounds like a nazi. but on the other hand, when i had my abortion, the someone wanted to buy the body parts, i would have said fine. i needed the money then. i had my abortion a long time ago. you don't really have to go to a doctor. that is what i learned because there were not anyone i did it myself. host: before roe v wade?
caller: absolutely. it was a most in the last century now. it is a shame. it is a real shame women are put in this position of having to go to some higher authority when they are taken care of themselves at a very emotional time. host: david daleiden, what do you hear from her? guest: i'm going to strike out a little bit on a limb on this one. orhink people watching listening this conversation can hear some of the pain in her voice talking about that experience, talking about all of the stigma that goes into unintended pregnancy, some of the fear, the need for a solution to try to get out of that situation. i think that is something we all need to be honest about and need to have a lot of compassion for that kind of situation. it is not just men.
pro-life men and women and men and women across this country, i don't think we resent but are horrified by the idea that any person can choose another person lives or dies. and that any person could go on to sell the body parts of that person who we are choosing to kill or not kill. at the not just rhetoric end of the day when we talk about the humanity of the unborn baby and what that means. you want to talk about the value of fetal tissue for research or extermination. what about the value of the human fetus in all of his or her integrity as a human being? you can say harvest the brain, keep the brain intact so you don't destroy it. planned parenthood will get $75 that specimen. $700 andess might get some researcher will use it for a study. how much more valuable with that beef it was kept in the child and the baby was allowed to live and contribute to society? i don't think any of us are
doing and have ourselves a service if we deny that real, physical reality. i think that comes through in the pain you hear in the voices of people like phoebe who have been through that experience. there is an expense we have to be honest with. otherwise, we will never heal and be comfortable as a country. host: it was 43 years ago the roe v wade decision was decided by the supreme court. this past fall, c-span did a series of landmark cases that this country has faced. we finished up with the roe v wade case. we are going to re-air the program tonight at 630 -- 6:30. it looks at the history and the result. 6:30 tonight on c-span. richie in butler, kentucky, republican line. caller: how are you doing today?
i want to thank the gentleman for what he is doing. of this newpart generation of christian leadership is worrying more about selling the next book on how to feel good about these things. 78% of americans claim to be christians. yet they sit silently while all these things go on. but they say it is the law of the land. we are the law of the land. in a democratic society, we vote. we don't allow people to stand by and say that. ministers today sitting at home worrying about the next lines they are going to read on the pulpit next week. they are not on the steps of the supreme court fighting these things. thank you for listening to me. keep up the good work. maybe the christians of america will finally wake up. host: anything for that caller? guest: i hear a feeling a lot of american share now, that there
is a crisis in leadership. maybe in spiritual leadership. i am a catholic and a follower of post francis -- pope francis. pope francis has spoken out several times about the issue of fetal tissue trafficking and has had strong words about that. i think it goes hand-in-hand with his emphasis on the importance of compassion and mercy, even for people in difficult situations, and showing that by accompanying people in difficult situations. america is a great enough country that we have been able to put men on the moon. i think we can find better solutions to unexpected pregnancies than the violence of abortion. host: patrick tweets in to you, cmp is partially funded through 501 tax-free status but fights against the use of tax money for planned parenthood. guest: i am not sure i
completely understand the question or objection. it is true cmp is a 501(c)(3). it is true we think planned parenthood is engaged in a lot of unethical and illegal activities that ought to be investigated and prosecuted and perhaps remedied by a loss of federal taxpayer dollars. i don't see a contradiction in those two statements. organsf i donate my after death, is that selling body parts? guest: no, donations are not a sale. what is supposed to be allowed, the way things are supposed to work, is you are allowed to donate your organs or tissues. nobody is supposed to be making money off your body parts. that is where the problem comes in. host: mike is calling in from akron. caller: i'm glad you and i have two things in common. we are both catholic and pro-life. we differ in one main way.
my definition of pro-life may not be the same as your definition of pro-life. as an historian of the catholic church, i realize the catholic church is one of the reasons why so many europeans came to this country centuries ago because of its repressive ways towards the people. thank god the catholic church has changed his attitude in many ways. i think the pro-life as somebody who i don't care what your views are on abortion or guns as long as you don't go around killing other people. you may not be the best example of pro-life, but you are pro-life enough for me. here is my question. i know a catholic. he and his wife go to church every week. they would never have an abortion but they believe a woman has a right to choose like me. if my friend went into a burning building, same people, two kids in his arms, could you look him in the eye and say i am pro-life
and you are not? guest: sure. i don't think it is pro-life to be in favor of abortion on demand up to nine months of pregnancy, selling the body parts for profit afterwards. i don't think that is pro-life according to anybody's definition. i think if you support activities like that, it is a huge contradiction to any other area in your life when you're claiming to respect human beings or value their dignity. i think it puts you on a slippery slope as to whether you're going to be able to continue to extend that same compassion to other people. it is a deliciously vague phrase when people talk about the right to choose because we are talking about a spectrum of nine months of pregnancy, all kinds of different development of the unborn baby going on, and all kinds of different factors and outcomes that can crop up off of that, like selling body parts for profit afterwards.
i get a little impatient with a lot of the word games coming from planned parenthood or their allies because i don't think it is very honest. host: jenny is in tallahassee, florida, democrats line. caller: yes. i have a proposal that is a middle ground proposal and also a question for you. order toal is that in make all of this argument moot, why don't we enact a law that we identify the fathers of each of these children that women are pregnant with? that the fathers will be required to pay half of the medical costs and the cost of while theythe women are carrying these babies, that
they pay half of the cost of raising these children. and the children be required to be raised at the same level the men and women are living. they also are required to take care of any medical costs and costs of anything that involve most children while they are -- those children while they are growing up. and also, my question to you is, do you have any children out there that you are not taking care of? host: that was jenny in tallahassee. mr. daleiden. guest: that is a great comment and question. i think her proposal is excellent from a policy standpoint. i think it is something people could creatively build on. as to the question, i don't have any children.
i think the broader take away from her question and comment, it is interesting to me that if you insist on making abortion only a women's issue, you're kind of making unintended pregnancy only a woman's problem and obviating any kind of male responsibility for those situations even though there is a lot of mail responsibility for those situations, or maybe we should say irresponsibility. host: have you ever had a friend who wanted to get an abortion? did you accompany her? did she talk to you about it? do you know anybody who has had an abortion? guest: i know a lot of people who have lots of different expense of abortion in their lives. people who are survivors of abortion, people who have had abortions themselves, people who have considered abortion. definitely. i have yet to meet someone who
this really honestly say was a happy part of my life and something i grew up wanting to do. nobody treats it that way. i think that says something about what it really is. host: the path you have taken in this professional path you have taken, what has it done to you in a personal way? take that question and see what you can do with it. know, i say you sometimes i am the product of the public school system in the state of california, which my kind of surprised people. gravew up learning about human rights injustices of the past, slavery, the holocaust, and also the brave people who fought against them in the civil rights movement and the underground railroad. i remember always thinking, wouldn't you want to be one of the people? if you lived in a time like that
when something like that was going on, wouldn't you want to be one of the people who stood up and said this was wrong and shout it from the rooftops -- shouted from the rooftops? if you realized it was going on today, wouldn't you want to be one of those people who is different? that kind of brings me to now. is in aransas pass, texas, republican line. please go ahead with your question or comment for david daleiden from the center for medical progress. caller: yeah. it has been my experience that no matter what i believe, the truth had the power to change what i believed. every time i have run into the truth with a powerful belief, i got knocked down hard. i want to ask you, is there any aborted babies that will be children brought to jesus? host: a religious issue for him, a christian issue for him.
guest: i guess i am not sure if i know how to answer or that i'm qualified to answer. i am not a priest, and i am not a spiritual authority. i don't know that i can make that judgment. every singlek aborted child, and i have encountered aborted children in planned parenthood's we visited, it is a really different, moving experience. some planned parenthood medical directors have written about it themselves and that is something we share in common with them. every single one of them is someone who was a human being, who was valuable exactly as they were. we would have loved them whoever they would have been. she tweets into you that you even stall someone's miscarriage video pretending it was from planned parenthood. guest: that is not true.
i think she is referring to some b roll footage filmed of a born alive infant at approximately a 19-week abortion. one of the interesting things i learned in the course of the undercover work we did, talking with lots of planned parenthood medical directors, lots of different abortion providers, is that in the practice of second trimester abortion, it is not unheard of and not uncommon that you sometimes, depending on the patient's individual characteristics and how they respond to the procedures, it is not uncommon you might have a precipitous delivery before the procedure begins and have the fetus come out intact and you have a born alive infant on your hands. it does not happen every day or every time. it is something that is not unusual. i think that argues for a lot more strict oversight and scrutiny for the abortion industry. host: last call for david daleiden comes from todd in
beachwood, ohio, independent line. caller: i would like to know if you would consider this as a possible alternative to people even getting into this -- the situation of being in an unplanned pregnancy. if the government and planned parenthood in your group worked to build and intensify programs in the taxpayer-funded neighborhood public schools that taught the actual cost of bringing a child -- bringing a pregnancy from conception all the way up to the year 18 in various counties. for includes medical costs going through the pregnancy, the cost of raising a child in the different areas where the individual may be, and giving them incentive to learn what it to get the kids in the schools to understand that as well. our country is built on the strength of our families.
our country is built on the strength of the direction of our families. if you want to keep people from getting abortions, ideally you want to keep them from getting into unplanned pregnancies. that is the best way -- host: i think we got the idea. guest: i think that is an excellent proposal. i think you might have difficulty getting planned parenthood on board with that because the model does not encourage a lot of communication about those issues and strengthening of social ties. planned parenthood is about breaking down social ties and seeing people as individual automatons whether or not those connections. it does remind me of a talking point some people put out to say planned parenthood does more than any other organization to prevent unintended pregnancies because it puts out so much contraception or birth control. if you look at planned parenthood's own numbers in their annual report, according to their own estimates, the number of abortions they prevent per year is around 200,000.
but they do over 300,000 abortions every year. planned parenthood does more abortions than they prevent every year. host: david daleiden, are you >> "washington journal tomorrow "the wally olson of street journal" on the oil market. after that, university of chicago professor harold pollack looks at how single pair health care would work. the plan is purely endorsed by democratic presidential candidate bernie sanders. we will take your phone calls a look facebook comments and tweets. ," saturday journal morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. today marks the anniversary of the roe v wade decision which legalized abortion. tonight we will look at our
program that examined of the case and its consequences since the 19 rerolling. p.m. eastern on c-span. after that, the march for life rally on the national mall that took wasted day -- took place today in washington. >> as i've been watching the campaign this year, it is more interesting to look at the republicans than it is to look at the democratic side. that may have something to do with why there is more interest in these candidates and their books. >> sunday night on" q&a," carlos lozada, nonfiction book critic for "washington post," discusses books by the presidential candidates. >> politicians, who are so single-minded in his pursuit of power and ideology, could have
particularly interesting ones, but when they put out these memoirs, they are sanitized. they are vetted. fory are there minimum controversy. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on "q&a." >> both chambers of congress are out of session today, probably a good thing, considering the weather. blizzard conditions expected tonight and tomorrow here in the nation's capital. the senate returns next tuesday and begins work on an energy bill that would modernize the u.s. electric rate andrea -- electric grid and reauthorize the conservation fund. they will debate the u.s. district court judicial nomination with a vote scheduled at 2:30 p.m. on tuesday. you can follow the senate live on our companion network, c-span2. the house returns tuesday for legislative work, a vote
scheduled for 6:30 p.m. eastern. it will be a short region house with of the chamber scheduled to be in recess thursday and friday. democratic members can attend their annual retreat. watch the house live here on c-span. earlier this week, a few senators came to the floor to discuss the 43rd anniversary of the review a decision from which legalized -- the roe v wade decision, which legalized abortion. we begin with oklahoma senator james lankford. sen. lankford: it is a basic american value, families. love our families, we love our kids. it has been one of the struggles we have had as a nation to receive this collapse of the american family. this basic value that we see that unit struggling. , a husband and wife, and that incredible moment when a lady looks at a pregnancy test and sees that little line,
and realizes there is a baby on the way. country, there a was a decision made by the supreme court, decision forever changed the structure of our families. forever change the value within the country. because, you see, the values shifted 43 years ago, and it changed from "there is a baby on the way" to that family gets to choose if that is a baby or not. to literally be able to say based on the preference of the mom if tissue or if it's a baby. you handle those two things very different. i remember distinctly in my family 19 years ago now when we saw that little line on the pregnancy test and we started having a house ready, and we started getting things organized, and we started trying to figure out how to get our finances in order and everything ready to go because there is a baby on the way.
in those first moments before my wife could even feel she was pregnant, we found out that she was. and that was a child coming to our family. she has a name now. her name is hannah. in the first of our two daughters, between canada and jordan, who understand full well how things darted and what is were like in the day. so much of the conversation out is around preference. if we don't do something to reach into the room and take the child out of the wound, what planned parenthood and other folks would say just remove the tissue, that if something wasn't done from that moment on, there was a baby coming, a baby that would look up in our face and would smile and have a name. americans have lost track of this basic thing. it is not tissue in the womb. when it pregnancy test comes up positive, that is a baby, regardless of the preference of
any individual. that is a baby on the way. cells are dividing. for many don't find out for a couple of months, even, if they begin to figure out some something is changing here and they do test and sometimes when they do the test there was a beating heart that is there. they look in on the sonogram and count 10 fingers, 10 toes. if you were to reach in and do a dna test, you would find out that that lump of tissue that is in there is not tissue. it has dna different than the mom, different than the dad. that is a child, and it is a unique life. and that life is not determined based on preference. that life is determined based on the dividing cells child with 10 fingers and toes. i cannot think of anything else we have an america where anyone can just save based on the preference i choose for that to be a life or not to be a life, based on my preference. i cannot just look at this desk
and say i choose to call that a life. because we don't like that basic criteria. dividing cells function on its own. reproduce. it is life. we know what life is. we can't casually say one thing his life and one thing is not, just like we casually don't just try to fight off the destruction of tissue in other ways. i always smile when i hear folks on the other settings arguments , they want abortion to be safe legal, and rare. i hear it all the time -- safe, legal, and rare. -- whys ask the question rare? if it is just tissue, why does it matter if you remove it? no one has a big national movement to fight off warts on theirh hands, because everyone knows if you have a wart on your hand it is just tissue and that really is your buddy. it is a wart on your hand and it
doesn't look good so take it off. everyone is fine with that. but for some reason there safe, legal, and rare when it comes to abortion could i believe inherently that the folks who " knowafe, legal, and rare that it is not just tissue, or you would not have to say rare. it is in incredibly painful, difficult decision a mom is making, because she knows in her gut that is not tissue. that is a child. a child that would one day have . name, and a smile that is a child. china, the government gets to decide whether it is just tissue or a trial. because-- or a child. because the government will step in and say that if you have a second child, you can't have that. you have to destroy the child did now in their benevolence they say you can have up to two
children in certain areas and regions, but if you have a third one, you have to destroy that child. in america, for whatever reason, individuals with the freedom to be able to say "i prefer for this not to be a child." and suddenly somehow our culture says ok, you can pick. the supreme court in 1973 looked at this issue, and the argued a lot about viability, what they called quickening. this conversation about viability circled around with states make laws protecting the life of children once they reached viability? in 1973 viability was very different than what it is today. there are many children born in a nicu unit, neonatal intensive care unit, and you find a very large area in most hospitals -- you article by and visit -- you ought to go by and visit and go u area, because you
find many rooms, and decades ago that wasn't true. the higher and higher percentage survive. you see, there are children in oklahoma city right now, in the nicu, that way just a tiny bit 2 iphones. that is their weight when they are born. just a tiny bit more than 2 iphones in weight. and yet they are growing up to be healthy, productive kids. they are children. we are getting better in nicu as well learning how to produce oxygen so their lungs develop. visited the children hospital over christmas break and with the physicians there and said what have we learned from what have we gained?
we feed different now than we used to feed it did decades ago because we understand how they theirveloping and we want digestive system to develop. things are different now and science is forcing the country to rethink an issue again. when is a child of child -- a child? in our basic american values, should we stand up for them? i believe we should. and i'm amazed at the number of months that if they would get a that if theyoms would get a sonogram and see the picture of the child in, they understand clearly that is not tissue, that is a face contact face looking back at me, fingers and toes i can count. there is a beating heart there. that is not random tissue. i don't know if you knew this, mr. president, but they can now do 3-d sonograms and send sonogram to a 3-d printer and actually print out a model of what the child is like in the
womb in that exact position. not only is that cool, as a parent, to be able to say i can hold a model of what my child looks like now at 20 weeks of development, 28 weeks of development, and be able to see a look at their face, but it is revolutionary for physicians that in 20 weeks are reaching into the room, giving anesthetic to the child, and they can actually see exactly what the imperfections are so that when they do surgery, they can practice from the outside before they reach into the inside. the technology continues to advance. i say to my colleagues, at what point will our law catch up with our science? how long will we deny the clear science here? and understand that's a child? i think in the decades ahead, our nation will catch up to the
science. on thewill look back season in our country when we ignored the obvious, when a pregnancy test says positive, that is not positive for tissue. that is positive for a baby. mr. president, i also want to the thousands and thousands of volunteers around the country, many of them coming this week to the march for life, that serve every single week in crisis pregnancy centers around the country, that lovingly want of thems through some most difficult days of their life, as they make her decision -- make hard decisions. and with great compassion, they walk them through a tough pregnancy, and they are with them in the days after delivery, bringing diapers to them, bringing formula to them, helping them in those early .oments
thousands of volunteers around the country do that every single week. good for them. good for our country. good for our value for life. americanss proud when stand up for other americans, no matter how weak they are. >> the senator from washington. sen. murray: thank you, madam president. thank you to my colleagues who are joining me today and so many other efforts to stand up for women. the 43rd anniversary of the supreme court's historic ruling in roe v. wade is tomorrow, so this is an important time to remember how much this decision has met for women's equality, opportunity, and health, why it is so important we continue defending the hard-won gains that women have made, and why we need to keep pushing for continued progress. for anyone who supports a woman's constitutionally make her ownht to
health care choices, this has been a tough and trying congress. to be honest, the beginning of 2015, i gave my republican colleagues the benefit of the doubt. i hope to that in the majority, they might focus more on governing and less on trying to get between a woman and her rights. unfortunately, that didn't last long. it's this congress began, more than 80 bills have been introduced in congress that would undermine a woman's constitutionally protected right to make her own choices about her own body. the house and senate have voted a total of 20 times on legislation to roll back women's health and rights, and that is not all. republicans have pushed budget proposals that would dismantle the affordable care act and slash funding for family planning. and after a summer of using editedve, highly videos to discredit planned parenthood and try to take away healthcare services that one in
five women rely on over their lifetime, the house has doubled down by launching a special investigative committee to keep up the political attacks. and of course, similar efforts to undermine women's constitutionally protected health care rights are under way across the country. nowhere is that clearer that in texas, where an extreme antiabortion law could force 75% of the clinics statewide to close. if that law stands, 900,000 women of childbearing age will have to drive as far as 300 miles round-trip to get the health care that they need. clear, aesident, to be right means nothing without the ability to exercise that right, in texas and hb2 many others like it across the country, driven by extreme conservative efforts to undermine women's access to care, are without question
getting in between women and their rights, especially the rights of women who can't afford to take off work and drive hundreds of miles just to get health care. later this year, the supreme court will decide whether to uphold texas' extreme antiabortion law, and in doing so, they will decide whether women can act on the rights they are afforded in the constitution. this law puts women's rights at risk. it is the biggest threat to women's constitutional rights in over a decade. that is why i'm working with many of my democratic colleagues to call on the supreme court to uphold roe v. wade and protect a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. and today, as we head into a year that is absolutely critical for women, i have got a message for those who want to turn back. those efforts to undermine women's health care are nothing new. women have been fighting them for generations, and we are going to keep fighting back
.oday we are not going to go back to the days when because women have less control over their own bodies, they had less equality and less opportunity. as we defend the progress we've made, we will keep pushing for more come from continuing to expand access so that where a woman lives doesn't determine what health care she can get, to expanding access to affordable birth control and family planning, to fighting back against domestic violence and sexual assault in which disproportionately impact women. we are going to keep pushing for progress because we believe strongly that the next generation of women in our daughters and our granddaughters, should have stronger rights and more .pportunities, not less my colleagues in the senate are going to keep working hard every day to bring women's voices to the senate floor and show that when women are stronger, our countries stronger. thank you, and let's keep up the fight.
madame president, i ask unanimous consent to put into the record the statement from my colleague senator boxer from california. >> without objection. president?: madam >> the senator from hawaii. sen. hirono: i rise today to mark the anniversary of roe v. wade. 43 years ago, within the lifetime of most of us here, the supreme court's decision effectively reversed draconian state laws prohibiting abortion and gave women power over their own health care decisions. , nearly 5000 wade american women died every year seeking abortion care that was legally not available to them. that number dramatically dropped after the decision because women were able to get abortion care from trained medical professionals legally out in the open. the court found that a woman's right to access abortion care is a fundamental constitutional right.
while, as with many constitutional rights, not totally unfettered, this decision enabled women to gain control over their own bodies and in turn, their futures. if the government interfered in other patient-dr. decisions the way that state and federal governments have interfered with women's reproductive rights, there would be a national uproar. why is it different when we talk about a woman's body as opposed to a man's? can you imagine a state passing laws restricting fundamental decisions about a man's medical care? why is it that women have to defend deeply personal decisions over our own bodies in court and in legislatures? i recognize that there are deeply held beliefs by good people on both sides of this issue. which is why the right to choose should be left to the individual woman and her doctor.
yet ever since the roe v. wade decision, state and federal lawmakers have attempted to chip away at a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. hundreds of laws have been passed by states to place limitations and roadblocks to a woman's right to choose. restrictions such as mandatory delays, unduly burdensome regulations, and unscientific 20-week bans, are all it tends to undermine roe v. wade -- atte mpts to undermine roe v. wade. in congress, we see unprecedented attack on women's reproductive health. destructive policy writers in spending bills. attacks on providers. and efforts to reduce access to health care services, all in the name of exhibiting abortions. abortions.ing these attacks are not based on fact or science. they do not advance any public policy goals in the interest of women. which is why many of us characterize these efforts as
womenof a deeply anti- agenda. moreover, these restrictions is proportionally affect women of color and low income women. apparently it is not enough to remove funding for reproductive services. the anti-women agenda includes reducing funding for maternal health programs and services for infants and children. the lawmakers writing these restrictions are not the ones who will have to live with her negative consequences. it is the women across the country who will have to live with these consequences. and of course, the legal battles continue. for example, the u.s. supreme court will be hearing arguments later this year on a texas law that severely restricts the ability of a woman to access safe reproductive health care. my colleague from washington touched on the problems and challenges that this texas law imposes.
again, this law, which disproportionately impacts low income women, has already severely affected the ability of women in texas to get the care they need. the rhetoric around this case, as well as the rhetoric employed by abortion foes, has become increasingly dangerous, leading to attacks on providers, clinics, and women seeking care. i hope we can all agree to not return to the pre-roe v. wade landscape, where women in danger their lives seeking reproductive care, and thousands died doing so. i urge my colleagues to join me in assuring that women can continue to control their own destinies for the next 43 years and beyond. madam president,
tomorrow marks the 43rd anniversary of the u.s. supreme court's ruling in roe v. wade. recognizing a woman's constitutional right to liberty and personal autonomy in her decision whether to have an abortion or not. this landmark case not only recognizes those rights, but is also responsible for saving countless women across the country from the devastating outcomes of back alley abortions. i want to speak to that because i have personal knowledge here. i was young states attorney in vermont before roe v. wade. i will never forget getting a police, and went with them to the emergency room of a local hospital. a young woman was there who read hadly died -- iwho nearly died from an unsafe illegal abortion because she could not legally receive that care a doctor.
i want to speak to that tragic history today because i feel the current effort in many states to roll back roe vs. wade by denying women access to doctors could drive women back to the start in dangerous times. -- those dark and dangerous times. with the decision in roe vs. wade, abortion was illegal in my state of vermont. despite the state ban, many women desperately needed and sought this medical care and some doctors risked their freedom and livelihood by providing women with abortions local hospital. these are safe abortions and medical facilities, they save women's lives, a protected their health. knowing this, i made clear to doctors in my county that i
would not prosecute even for providing this medical attention to children in a medical context. i did, however, prosecute to the full extent of the law others who preyed upon women's fear and desperation by extorting them for unsafe back alley abortions. there are 100 senators in this body. i am the only united states senator who has ever prosecuted somebody in an abortion case. and i vividly remember that case. 1968, when i was called to the hospital to see this young woman, as i mentioned. she had nearly died from hemorrhaging caused by the botched abortion. and i prosecuted the man who arranged for the unsafe and illegal abortion that nearly killed her. after that case, witnessing firsthand the tragic impacts of the lack of safe and legal
abortion care, the women and families of my state, i talked to a local doctor about challenging vermont's abortion law. a year later, a group of women and doctors got a class-action case -- brought class-action case to overturn the law. is case was filed as a suit a state prosecutor, but this is the test case against the law that publicly welcomed the case. even when the state attorney general's office told me they lacked the resources to devote to defense in this case, i decided to file supreme court briefs of my own. file briefs of my own. but the case was unable to proceed. the particular nature of the constitutional claim to abortion, which is by its nature time-limited claim, made it
extremely difficult to bring actionable cases before the court. later that same year, we get another chance. where i represented the state and i did the briefs. the case quickly made its way to the vermont supreme court. now, at that time, our state's high court was comprised entirely of republicans. but these five conservative justices understood what we had been arguing all along. the statute's stated purpose was to protect women's health, and yet denied women access to doctors for their medical care, was sheer and dangerous hypocrisy. where is that concern for the health of the pregnant woman when she is denied the advice and assistance of her doctors? thatourt's ruling
protecting women's health required access to safe and legal abortions assured that the women of vermont wouldn't know longer be subjected to the horrors of back alley abortions of back alley abortions. it was a victory for women's health in vermont, even the the attorney general at that time move for the argument. i told the court, estates 's attorney,a state that i had no objection to the ruling. a year later, the supreme court in roe vs. wade held that it was now the law of the land. women have the constitutional right to their autonomy and protect therity and decision to have the abortion and make a decision with their doctors. i recount this history not just to mark another year of women's rights and 50 under -- and safety under roe vs. wade, but also to connect to the history to the attack today on women's access to safe and legal
abortions that are threatening to take us back to those times. states looking to roll back the men's rights and have returned to -- women's rights have returned to penalizing doctors. ,hat i find most appalling these states passing these laws claiming they somehow protect women's health. these laws have nothing to do with women's health. they have everything to do with shutting down women's access to safe and legal abortion. and when you denied women access to doctors for medical services, you'd deny them their constitutional rights. but you also deny them their safety. in some cases, their lives. this is a fact that legislators passing these laws either callously ignore or willfully choose not to hear. i saw her that case as if it was yesterday. i still remember that young
woman. and i still remember the history of the person who was performing those illegal abortions. why i joined an amicus brief with 37 other senators, and inbers of the house, the case currently before the supreme court, our brief urges the court to overturn the state law and requires doctors to provide -- would provide abortions face onerous restrictions on procedures that are completely unrelated to protecting women's health. this texas law would have the allct of shuttering 75% of women's health clinics that provide abortion services in a state. it would also shutter all the other services they provide.
already it has had a devastating effect on women's health. the university of texas study showed that after the law went to 240,000, 100,000 women try to end pregnancies on their own without seeking medical attention. turn, they'veo resorted to illicit drugs and even self harm. this law -- that this law was passed as a pretense to women's health is a travesty. it should be struck down. supreme court justices cannot ignore the impact the state law on thousands of women in texas and across the nation. when i see these efforts to prevent women's access to safe and legal medical services, i think about all the young women in vermont grew up knowing that the constitution protects their liberty.
both the u.s. constitution and the vermont constitution. i also recognize they are capable of deciding for themselves how to control their life and destiny. they and generations after them never experience otherwise from the supreme court. i will speak further on this subject another time, madam president. but when i think with that young woman turned to -- what that young woman turned to in vermont , our case upheld our constitution's right to privacy. i applaud those five very
conservative very republican supreme court justices who wrote it in a unanimous opinion. madam president, i yield the floor and asked that michael statement he made part of the record. >> today marks the 43rd anniversary of the roe v wade decision which legalized abortion. a live look at the snowy u.s. capitol, were both chambers of congress are out of session. blizzard conditions expected here in washington, d.c., later tonight and into saturday. the senate will be returning tuesday and begins work on an energy bill that would modernize the u.s. electric rate and reauthorize the federal land and water conservation fund. they will also debate a u.s. district court judicial nomination come with a vote on that schedule for 2:30 p.m. eastern. meanwhile, the house will return also on tuesday for legislative work come with votes scheduled that day at 6:30 eastern time
could it will be a short week, though, in the house, with the chamber expected to recess on thursday and friday so democratic members can attend their annual retreat. watch the house live here on c-span. also here on c-span come in about 50 minutes, we will show you our final "landmark case" program, which examined the roe v wade case and the consequences since its initial 1973 ruling. roe v wade,"ses: 6:30 p.m. eastern time on c-span. after that, in march for life rally that took place on the national mall today, 8:00 eastern time here on c-span. >> book tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend on c-span2. here are some programs to watch for this weekend. eastern,night at 8:30 charlie savage argues that president obama, who came into office saying he would turn back the excesses of the bush
administration, has picked up where president bush left off, wars."book "power then at 10:00 p.m. on "after words," former senate leaders tom daschle and trent lott on point."ok "crisis they are interviewed by former congressman jc watts of oklahoma. just incredible come insatiable demand for more and more money is one of the issues that has exacerbated all of this and made it harder for the leaders to bring people together because, first, they are not in town. second, they are doing all of this other stuff that doesn't allow them to be the legislators they were elected to be. third, you have got the special interest pressures. >> as tom said can we don't want to just say this is how we did things, or even look at history. history is littered with dysfunction and challenges. george washington also had to resign because of a tree.
what we want to do is look forward and say here are some we think would make a difference. eastern, night at 8:00 journalist examining the changing world for young women in the middle east in her book "excellent daughters." she looks at the kind of choices young arab women are making and how they differ from those of their mothers. >> women are going to university in greater numbers than men all over the region, and especially in the health countries -- gulf countries, the proportions of women or even greater compared wille men, and the women tell you this is partly because it is a socially acceptable way to delay marriage, or to be outside the home and away, that their families. for. -- that their families will support. >> botch book tv -- watch book tv every weekend on c-span2. television for serious readers.
is donna crane, vice president for policy at naral pro-choice america. a couple supreme court cases coming up that involve abortion. what are they and what is naral's position? guest: there are two important cases. one pertains to abortion and the other is reproductive rights for sure. the first case will have a look at the texas is law that some of your viewers might remember wendy davis made famous with her filibuster. the texas law closes abortion providers and a very deliberate way by imposing so many regulations on them that they cannot possibly stay in practice . the law has gone partially into effect and has closed more than half of the providers in texas. if it goes fully into effect, nk, lessll be, we thi than 10 abortion providers in the state. what happens with the supreme
court case does not just affect texas women. it could have effect on women across the country. there are abortion bans with a softer name. the second case deals with contraception. you might recall the affordable care act make sure that every health care plan must add concert poster -- contraception without an added cost. some people may remember the hobby lobby case. this is a second set of challenges. the question is here -- does your boss have a right to decide whether you the employee can have come to hous contraceptivee ar or not? host: let's go back to the texas case for a minute. is it unreasonable to say a medical provider needs to be licensed by a local hospital? guest: absolutely. not unreasonable to have safety regulations. as a medical procedure, abortion is regulated as any
other procedure would be. there are plenty of state and federal laws that make sure health care safe. however, the texas law and similar ones across the country are actually targeted specifically at abortion providers and add regulations that are not in any way related to whether that care is safe. thenumber of parking spaces clinic has, how big the janitors closet is, those kinds of things will not in any way enhance women's health or their safety. they are all about looking at what restrictions we abortion provider cannot possibly meet and then imposing them only on abortion providers with a full purpose of closing their doors. host: the second case -- the aca case. if you're going to work for thos the little sisters of the poor, don't you expect you would agree with their positions on issues? guest: actually, no.
the little sisters of the poor are a good example because they employ people of all faith and no faith. the mission that they undertake serves people of all face and no faith. this is not a religious enterprise. this is very much a social service organization. we wholly respect the fact that the women themselves or a boss himself might have personal views about contraception. we totally believe that they should be able to carry those beliefs out in their own personal life. i would be the first person defend a boss who says i do not agree with contraception. that is how you will carry about your personal life. we do not agree that in their capacity as a employer that if they are not a religious organization, and they are not. they are carrying out a secular mission. it is not right to impose those views on someone else. that is where the right of conscience ends. host: would you have a problem with the catholic church did not pay for contraception with their health care? guest: i think that's a very
different question. if you're are looking at an explicitly religious organizations like a church, i think that's a different question. it's not even at issue here because the policy does already exempt churches. secularalking about organizations that hire people who might or might not agree with that. they are carrying out a secular social service system. if you are a nurse or a home health care aide, you're not necessarily following the religious teachings of that employer. it is becoming a bigger issue by the way as catholic facilities are buying up more and more hospitals around the country, acquiring general hospitals and other kinds of hospitals. do we feel comfortable having them impose their beliefs on largest loss of employees and clients? host: have you ever attended the march for life? guest: inadvertently i have.
i got caught in traffic in the best way to get out of it is to march. host: is there any middle ground between naral and a pro-life organization? guest: the american public is vastly pro-choice all th. seven out of 10 americans want abortion to be safe and legal. what we find is that our opponents are not just antiabortion. if they were, they would actually agree with us that we can do a lot more in the area of contraceptive coverage and sex education to actually help prevent unintended pregnancies. it would therefore reduce the need for abortion. i feel very much that is where the common ground is and we certainly invite our opponents to join us there. we also believe that is where the vast majority of americans are. host: how did you get involved in this policy issue? guest: i've always been passionate about this issue.
i remember be much younger and talking to my mom about it. i've never dream that someone in my generation would have to fight this fight. but here we are. it's an extremely important year. i do not think i've seen so much of that state -- so much at stake with a puzzled jewel -- the present selections -- presidential elections and the supreme court nominations coming up. it's exciting time with a lot at stake. host: there's an article this morning and "the washington times." what it talked about is that younger women are more pro-life rather than pro-choice. " nancy keenan, the former naral president, saying she was troubled by the intensity gap between older women and millennials. she is saying that a lot of millennials are on the pro-life side. guest: that is certainly not accurate. the americanound the marylan
league and anecdotally is that younger people are more pro-choice and more respectable of the diverse the of families we have in america and are more tolerant of lgbt writes and women's rights. we have seen a resurgence of feminism in recent years, which is great news i as well. we do not agree that there is a generational issue. we find younger americans are more pro-choice. we find that younger americans care about a broad swath of issues. women like my mom's generation and older had personal expenses when abortion was illegal. that probably and prints you -- imprints you and a different way. it is not more or less, but different.
i can tell you as someone who speaks to a lot of different rooms that i've never seen such intense interest on the part of young people. host: donna crane is our guest and is the vice president of naral pro-choice america. maureen in indianapolis is the first up. go ahead. now, murder is called a medical procedure. --iewed that to our video that to our video where planned parenthood employees, doctors, etc. were drinking wine and eating lunch and discussing how they are going to harvest organs the best way. i can't think of anything more inhumane than 55 million unborn babies getting slaughtered by women like you. maybe the holocaust. no, it's worse than the holocaust. it is unbelievable.
host: that is maureen in minneapolis. two issues there -- the use of the term murder, slaughter, and the videos that our next guest put out. guest: i certainly respect the fact that we disagree. in no way, shape, or form is legal abortion murder. that is what we believe strongly . i would also comment that it's very important to understand that fetal tissue donation is a very important ethical and legal option for women who are ending pregnancies. fetal tissue has led to important advances in scientific research. this is entirely proper and legal and ethical. i'm proud to consider myself an ally of planned parenthood, which conducts proper health care services and meets the very
highest standards of ethics and quality. we certainly disagree. host: dan is in new hampshire on the democrat line. you are on with donna crane of naral. caller: good morning. perhaps your guest could do a little tutorial on lady parts. conception is an unobservable moment in time. it could come anywhere between copulation and six weeks when a woman realizes she is pregnant. for her rights on something that you don't even know is silly. if you outlaw abortion, you can always go to mexico where they investigate miscarriages. they prosecute women in mess carriages. -- miscarriages. peru,r instance in 11-year-old girl was forced to have a baby because they
outlawed abortion. a separate question for you next guest and i hope that you do not let him slide on it -- the last caller talked about murder. how about the guy that shot up the clinic and repeated the next guest claimed that they were chopping up body parts? that is murder. host: any response for that caller, donna crane? guest: thanks very much for the observation. i share your sense of dismay and irony that there are some on the other side who believe abortion is murder but also are prepared to use any means possible in exercising their rights. i think really the most isortant fact in this debate that without the right to control our own bodies and to make our own private decisions and our families on if and when
to have children that women cannot participate fully in society. we cannot realize our full potential. families don't drive and communities don't thrive. is a slaves to our biology terrible thing to do and a progressive society. keeping abortion safe and legal and making sure contraception is widely available -- these are critical protections that we have to keep in place if women are going to be full partners in society. that is the most important thing about this debate. host: hey ralph put out is -- naral put out a state-by-state report card on abortion rights. hy is it that hawaii gets na minus in a state like massachusetts gets a c plus? several states get an f. guest: we are very proud of this research c. some of the states may surprise you. some states may seem progressive, but their legislatures are not as
progressive in the case of women's rights. we weigh the different laws on the books and states and we tally them up. there are some states that have what we call refusal laws, which allow for health-care corporations to refuse to provide certain services. other states have really progressive loss and we simply bounce them out. host: california is the only state on your list to get an a plus. guest: that is right. as a california native, i'm very proud of that. host: bill is coming in from pittsburgh. caller: good morning. i'm calling because it have all e views views, i would say extremist, talking past each other on this issue. that a womanelt should have the opportunity to