Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Judge Roberts Examined; Proposed Journalist Shield Law; Marital Infidelity; Abortion Questions
Aired July 20, 2005 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN HOST: All right. Thank you, Lou.
Good evening, everybody. Supreme spin: The buzz on Judge John Roberts. It's 7:00 p.m. on the East Coast, 4:00 p.m. in the West. 360 starts now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS (voice-over): The president's man, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. What does his record say about what kind of justice he would be?
Personal conflicts and public politics on abortion and choice. What the women in President Bush's life think. Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?
A revealing portrait. Tonight, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. What made her who she is, and the powerful message of hope she carries around the world.
And cheating hearts. Is it time to forgive and forget, or time to move on? Tonight, a 360 look at surviving infidelity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Good evening, everybody. Welcome to 360. I'm Heidi Collins. Anderson is off tonight.
Here are the questions we mean to ask tonight about Judge John Roberts. Can he clear all the hurdles that are going to be put in his way? Are there in fact two Republican positions on abortion, one male, the other female?
Would a federal law to shield journalist sources be a good thing for al Qaeda?
Being African-American in America makes a difference. Does it also make a difference in Africa? That's a question for Condi Rice.
Finally, a question about betrayal. Can you really recover from heartbreak?
We begin with the curtain now up on act two of the great Supreme Court nomination drama. The central figure in that drama, Judge John Roberts, Jr. He's made his entrance from the stage right, according to the general consensus, and the plot now calls for others to react to him. Expect applause from some, boos from others.
CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley has more now on how things will play out from here.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Ready...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wanted to see if "Hardball" would be interested in having David Leech (ph) or Shannon Kauffman (ph) come on the program to talk about their personal and professional reflections on Judge Roberts.
CROWLEY: Set...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can you support Roe v. Wade and oppose John Roberts?
CROWLEY: Go!
(CROSSTALK)
CROWLEY: Wednesday brought a cacophony to the airwaves, the sidewalks, and cyberspace, as interest groups presented preliminary arguments in the case of Judge John Roberts.
Fearful Roberts is too conservative, the National Abortion Rights Action League called an emergency demonstration. Fearful Roberts will get filibustered, Progress for America, owners of the Web site JudgeRoberts.com, pumped $1 of the $18 million it plans to spend into an insta-ad.
ANNOUNCER: Colleagues call him brilliant and praise his integrity and fair-mindedness. Now President Bush has nominated Roberts for the Supreme Court. Shouldn't a fair judge be treated fairly? Urge the Senate to give John Roberts a fair up-or-down vote.
CROWLEY: On Capitol Hill, Roberts was met by warm Republicans...
SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: He's obviously an outstanding Supreme Court nominee. He is the best of the best legal mind in America.
CROWLEY: ... and distant Democrats.
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), SENATE MINORITY LEADER: I look forward to having some lawyer-to-lawyer talk in the other room.
JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: I look forward to that.
CROWLEY: It is early for partisan battle, but the seeds are there. Democrats reserving their right to object...
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: The nominee will be expected to answer fully so the American people will know whether Judge Roberts would uphold their rights. Anything less would make the Senate a mere rubber stamp.
CROWLEY: ... and Republicans reserving their right to object to objections.
SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (R), TEXAS: But I want the same deference given to John Roberts that I gave to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She wouldn't meet my litmus test of issues, but she is an academically qualified person of integrity with judicial temperament.
CROWLEY: Senator Hutchison did, in fact, vote yes on Justice Bader Ginsburg.
It was a muted, polite beginning to what was expected to be a pitched battle, but there is time.
Candy Crowley, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: A few minutes ago, we talked about Judge Roberts with President Bush's White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card in Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: Let's look at two statements that Roberts has made regarding Roe v. Wade now. In a brief he coauthored back in 1990, he wrote, in part, "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."
And during the confirmation hearings for his current post in 2003, he said this: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
So can you tell us if Roberts thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned or not?
ANDREW CARD, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Well, I think that, first of all, Judge Roberts responded exactly the right way. He responded for his client, President Reagan, when that document was written at the Justice Department and he was responding on behalf of the administration.
And he also responded appropriately to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he was considered for the seat on the D.C. Circuit by saying that he would faithfully execute the law of the land and that he would respect that.
So I think that's the right answer. And I'm sure that Judge Roberts will give an appropriate answer when he appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the context of his confirmation to be a member of the Supreme Court.
COLLINS: But you have to know Democrats want to hear specifics. Senators Leahy, Schumer and Kennedy, only a few of those who have come out and said we want to know where Roberts stands on the issues.
Is he prepared to do that?
CARD: Well, he should respond to questions appropriately so that he does not bias any particular decision that might have to come before the court that he's looking to sit on.
And just as Justice Ginsburg appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and responded to questions that were posed, I expect Judge Roberts to respond to questions that would come from the Judiciary Committee. And that would be appropriate.
But Judge Roberts has tremendous respect in the legal community. He's one of the best lawyers in the country. He argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. He's got an outstanding record as a member of the court itself. And he's got keen intellect. He's got a great understanding of the Constitution, and he respects that Constitution. And he'll make sure that the freedoms and liberties that protect all of us are well-respected and implemented consistent with that Constitution.
COLLINS: It has been suggested that the nomination of Judge Roberts was timed to divert attention from Karl Rove. How do you respond to that?
CARD: I think that's a ludicrous argument. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The president was on a timeline to pick a member of the Supreme Court, consistent with that, which he had been consulting with Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Senator Specter and Senator Leahy.
He wanted to make sure that they had time to complete the responsibilities of the Senate to have a nominee in place so that they could begin the work of the Supreme Court on October 3rd. And we know that, to have a name, you have to have background checks done, and then a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
And the president said that he would work very closely with the Senate to make sure that they had a nominee to consider in a timely fashion. He expected the process to be open, fair and deliberative. But he also wanted to make sure that that nominee would have a chance to sit on the bench when the court convenes October 3rd.
COLLINS: All right. Thanks so much for your time, Andy Card, tonight.
CARD: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: For another point of view, we're joined now also in Washington by Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, who will meet with Judge Roberts tomorrow.
Senator, thanks for being with us. Can you hear me OK? SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: I can hear you just fine.
COLLINS: Terrific. You have said that Judge Roberts needs to answer questions, not only about his resume, but also about his judicial philosophy. What do you need to hear from him in order to confirm him?
SCHUMER: Well, it's a whole range of questions. Supreme Court justices have enormous power. With the flick of a pen, they can change our lives on issues like civil rights, and women's rights, and environment, and workers' rights, and what corporations can and cannot do. And so, it's really important that he answer a whole range of specific questions.
You know, the burden of proof to achieve this amazingly high and powerful office is on Judge Roberts to prove he's worthy, not on the Senate to prove he's disworthy.
COLLINS: You're not asking him to prejudge a case, though. I mean, surely, you would agree that every case is different.
SCHUMER: Yes, this is a ruse. And I wonder why people don't want the questions, the answers to come out.
To prejudge a case by the canons of ethics is very simple. You can't talk about a specific fact situation. In other words, if I were to ask Judge Roberts, how might you rule on Enron, given what they've done? He shouldn't answer that.
But If I ask him -- I want his views on corporate ethics, and I want to know if he thinks the previous three cases on corporate ethics were decided well, and should they be overturned? That's not only legitimate, that's our obligation. And that's what we're going to do. And I hope that Judge Roberts understands that and answers the questions.
You know, we're not going to try to play "gotcha." When I see him tomorrow, I'm going to give him a list of questions.
COLLINS: OK. But yesterday, President Bush said that more than 150 bipartisan members of the D.C. Bar praised Roberts when he was appointed to the D.C. Court of Appeals and yet you voted against him. Why?
SCHUMER: Yes, well, 150 -- you know, these are all lawyers. They're part of the same club. They scratched...
COLLINS: But why did you vote against them?
SCHUMER: ... scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. I voted against him because he didn't answer the questions fully.
I asked him some very simple and easy questions. For instance, what was his opinion of the Morrison case, which overruled part of the Violence Against Women Act and changed the way we regard the commerce clause, which had been part of our law for 100 years. I asked him three Supreme Court cases he thought were wrongly decided. He didn't name -- he refused to answer.
I asked him, what's an example of an activist case, a judge who did an activist case? And the only case he cited was an 1899 case from a state court in California. That was not being forthcoming.
COLLINS: Quickly before we let you go, you've mentioned which questions are in bounds. Which ones are out of bounds?
SCHUMER: Well, I don't think we want to play "gotcha." I don't think we want to try to force him into a position where he's not giving his views but is put in an untenable position.
If he is open, sincere, and full with us, I think he'll work out very well, and then people will know his views and can make a decision. But before the views of the candidate, the judicial philosophy is the most important thing, not the resume.
A great, great, you know, lawyer from Harvard who's going to take away people's rights is not preferable to somebody who went to, say, Utah Law School who will defend people's rights.
COLLINS: Senator Charles Schumer, thank you tonight.
SCHUMER: Thank you.
COLLINS: Erica Hill from HEADLINE NEWS joins us now with some of the other stories we're following tonight.
Hi, Erica.
ERICA HILL, CNN HEADLINE NEWS ANCHOR: Hey, Heidi.
We actually start off in Pakistan. A crackdown there, where more than 200 suspected Islamic militants have been arrested in the past 24 hours. And that sparked this protest at an Islamic school which was raided by police. Authorities say the round-up across Pakistan has nothing to do with the London bombings. But meantime, British authorities have asked Pakistan to pick up a number of suspects wanted for questioning in the bombing investigation. Officials say one of the men was previously implicated in a U.S. investigation on the building of a terror camp in Oregon.
Tbilisi, Georgia, a police officer killed in a shootout while trying to detain a man wanted for questioning in a May incident. You may remember this. A grenade was thrown near President Bush while he was visiting there. Well, the grenade failed to explode. This all happened as Mr. Bush was speaking to a crowd of thousands of people.
Back Stateside, in Rochester, New York, Eastman-Kodak cutting up to 10,000 more jobs around the world. We say more, because that's on top of the up to 15,000 jobs targeted 18 months ago. Kodak has posted losses due to a huge drop in film sales and is transforming itself for digital photography. And on to Redmond, Washington. "Star Trek's" Scotty has died. James Doohan played the chief engineer of the Starship Enterprise in the original TV series and in several movies. He is the one who answered all those calls of "Beam me up, Scotty." Doohan had several health problems, including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. He was 85 years old and will definitely be missed.
Heidi?
COLLINS: Yes, he will.
All right, Erica. Thanks so much. See you again in about 30 minutes.
Still to come now on 360, we put you to the test. When it comes to cheating, women want love, men want sex. Is that true or false? Should you always fess up, true or false? Your partner is more likely to stray after getting engaged or when you're pregnant, true or false?
You can catch your partner cheating -- the promise, "I'll never do it again." Can you really trust that, true or false? Your partner cheats. You should tell him or her over, and over, and over again how angry you are, true or false?
Your husband or boyfriend likes to check out other women. This is a sure sign he's going to cheat, true or false? Take the quiz. A little later, we'll have the answers. Stay with us.
Also tonight, Condoleezza Rice in Africa and talking about her heritage. How being an African-American has impacted her life.
Plus, a proposed federal media shield law to protect sources. But the Bush administration says it could help out al Qaeda. Find out why.
Plus, more of President Bush's pick for the Supreme Court. What Judge Roberts could face in the confirmation showdown from a man who didn't make the cut, Judge Robert Bork.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Somewhat lost in all the talk about the Supreme Court today is another big story in Washington, the ongoing investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's name to the media.
Today, the Bush administration came out against a bipartisan measure on Capitol Hill that would protect journalists from jail time if they refused to reveal their sources. The Justice Department called the bill bad public policy, claiming it would hurt efforts to fight terrorism.
CNN's senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin has more now on the issue -- Jeff?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Thanks, Heidi. I'm joined now by Norm Pearlstine, who is the editor-in-chief of Time, Inc, which is, of course, also owned by Time-Warner, as is CNN. Welcome, Norm.
NORM PEARLSTINE, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, TIME, INC.: Thank you. Good to be here.
TOOBIN: So you go down to Washington today. You've got your nice suit on. You're going down to testify. And the United States, the U.S. attorney general's office, they don't even show up. They say, we're going to -- your proposal for a shield law is bad public policy that's going to help al Qaeda.
I mean, are you down there to help al Qaeda?
PEARLSTINE: Well, first of all, the proposed shield law, which was written by congressmen and senators, has a provision in it that says that it would not apply in terms of imminent national security problems.
Secondly, we have shield laws in 31 states. And we have privilege for reporters in 49 states, plus the District of Columbia, but we haven't had those problems yet. So I was surprised. But, then again, the Justice Department didn't show up at the hearing, either.
TOOBIN: So what's going on here? I mean, here you have, you know, the Justice Department's saying you're helping al Qaeda. You've got Matt Cooper, your reporter, who nearly went to prison. Judy Miller of the "New York Times" is in prison.
The courts aren't helping. Congress isn't helping. You know, I thought we were the good guys. How come we're so unpopular in the press?
PEARLSTINE: Well, there are a lot of reasons, I think, that many people have lost faith in the press. I don't think it has much to do with issues of confidentiality. But certainly issues like Jayson Blair, Dan Rather's problems, all contribute to a lessening of trust in the press.
At the same time, we have a very special and very unusual case here involving Valerie Plame, where a special counsel was appointed who called a grand jury and who decided, going outside the guidelines that have been established by the Justice Department, that he wanted reporters to testify.
And we fought that case for close to two years at the trial judge level and the appellate level. We took it to the Supreme Court who refused to hear it, which was a shock to me and, frankly, an outrage. And having realized that we tried every legal remedy, we're now going to Congress trying to get a federal law that really just matches what is already going on in 49 states.
TOOBIN: So when you're not getting beaten up by the right in Congress, you're getting beaten up by the left who say you completely caved and it's outrageous that you turned over the documents rather than going to prison, going into contempt. And how do you feel about that decision two weeks out? PEARLSTINE: Well, first of all, I think individuals such as Judy Miller have a right of conscience that I respect. And I'm sorry Judy's in jail. She shouldn't be in jail. But I respect her decision.
I would have respected Matt's decision, had his source not given him an unequivocal waiver, which made him decide it was appropriate to testify. In our own case, I took a look at the situation. It seemed to me, having tried to take this case all the way up to the Supreme Court, having failed, having issues of national security, and having a grand jury in session, this was an appropriate place to turn over the information to the special counsel, given the uniqueness of this situation.
I still believe in confidential sources. I believe that we need federal legislation so that I don't have to make a decision like the one I made.
TOOBIN: We'll see what happens. Norm Pearlstine, thank you.
Back to you, Heidi.
COLLINS: All right. Thanks, Jeff. And with all this talk about confidential sources, you'd think that they're used quite often, but apparently they're not. Here's a "Download".
The First Amendment Center Research Group conducted an online survey on secret sources. Of the 711 journalists that responded, 59 percent said confidential sources were the basis for no more than one- tenth of their stories. Ten percent said they never use a confidential source.
The center said that while most journalists rarely use these sources, many feel they're essential for certain types of stories.
Still to come on 360 tonight, a Supreme Court nominee has triggered a new debate about abortion rights. We know how the president feels, but what about the women in his inner circle? We'll take a look.
Also tonight, there are plenty of other issues at stake. How would Judge Roberts treat those, if confirmed? We'll look at his record and see what it reveals.
Plus, the nominee who lost. Hear from Judge Robert Bork about the grueling confirmation process Judge Roberts will face.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: As we've been hearing a lot lately, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts will face a tough grilling in the Senate. One person who knows that process well is Judge Robert Bork who was nominated to the court by President Ronald Reagan back in 1997. Strong opposition ended Bork's bid, and Anthony Kennedy went to the court instead.
Not too long ago, Bork sat down with CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who joins me now.
Hi once again, Jeff.
TOOBIN: Heidi, I talked with Bork on July 5, four days after Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement. And we talked about the confirmation process.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TOOBIN: Let's talk a little about the confirmation process itself. You're an expert, having gone through it. What's it like? What's it like sitting up there in front of all those senators, some of who you know are out to get you?
ROBERT BORK, FORMER SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: It's very wearing, because they keep you there for long hours. And typically, your answers tend to get distorted. And you're constantly trying to correct what's being said about you. It's very tiring, and it goes on for day, after day, after day.
TOOBIN: Some have said that the lesson of your confirmation hearing is that nominees should say as little as possible, not commit one way or the other. Do you think that's true?
BORK: I think it's true, if you can get away with it. The difficulty is that the senators more and more demand answers as to how you vote.
Now, I don't think this ancient formula of, I can't answer that because that such a case might come before me when I'm on the court -- I don't think that formula is going to work any more. They really want to know much more in detail how you're going to vote, which is terrible.
It's a terrible way to confirm justices. What it does is recognize that the court has become a political institution, not a legal institution. And you have to make campaign promises, and the senators expect that.
TOOBIN: So let's say a senator asks -- as I expect a senator will ask -- do you think Roe v. Wade should be overturned? What's the appropriate answer?
BORK: Well, the appropriate answer is yes. That may not be the most diplomatic answer.
But you know, you get these people saying, well, it was wrongly decided, but it's now the law of the land and so forth. The truth is that precedent doesn't mean much in constitutional law. It can't mean much.
TOOBIN: When you were up for confirmation, it was a Democratic Senate. Do you think it might be different now, with 55 Republicans in the Senate, that a nominee can say, look, I think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. Vote accordingly. Might they not get through anyway? BORK: Well, it might. But you have the northeastern Republicans who want to uphold Roe against Wade. So I'm not sure you have a Republican majority to confirm a candidate who does suggest that it ought to be overturned.
TOOBIN: There's a lot...
BORK: You know, if you look at Maine -- I say, if you look at Maine and other northeastern states, Rhode Island, and so forth and, indeed, Pennsylvania with Arlen Specter, you may get -- you may lose their votes if you don't swear to uphold Roe against Wade.
TOOBIN: Do you think, in retrospect, you were treated fairly in your confirmation hearing?
BORK: No. If you mean, you know -- Senator Kennedy opened up the whole thing before the hearings, actually, with a long list of, what would "Robert Bork's America" be like? If you recall that...
TOOBIN: Back-alley abortion, segregated lunch counters...
BORK: Yes, everything. Evolution couldn't be taught in the public schools, on, and on, and on. Every one of those allegations was untrue.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TOOBIN: Now, judging from the response we've seen so far, Judge Roberts can expect some tough questions, too. But his prospects for confirmation are looking pretty good, Heidi, so far.
COLLINS: All right. Jeff Toobin, thanks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS (voice-over): A revealing portrait. Tonight, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. What made her who she is, and the powerful message of hope she carries around the world.
And cheating hearts. Is it time to forgive and forget, or time to move on? Tonight, a 360 look at surviving infidelity.
360 continues.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: We'll have more on the president's pick for the Supreme Court in just moment. But first, let's "Reset" some of the other stories we're covering tonight.
People in South Texas are cleaning up after Hurricane Emily. The storm made landfall earlier today in nearby Mexico. It is now a tropical storm with winds down to 70 miles an hour. Emily is currently moving westward close to the mountains of northwestern Mexico. And in London, British authorities have told Pakistani officials they want to speak with the Pakistani national who was previously implicated in a U.S. investigation. They say the man was an unindicted co-conspirator in the alleged building of a terror training camp in Bly, Oregon.
In the 24 hours since we've heard that Judge Roberts was going to be the president's pick for the Supreme Court, a lot of attention has focused on one key issue: abortion. You can be sure Roe v. Wade is on the minds of the senators who will question Roberts. But perhaps there are other issues that should get just as much scrutiny.
Joining me from Washington now to discuss some of those is National Public Radio correspondent Nina Totenberg.
Nina, let's go ahead and talk about some of Judge Roberts' decisions. First, the case of a 12-year-old girl arrested, searched and handcuffed by police for simply eating a French fry in the Washington, D.C., subway. Now, he described the policies that allowed that to happen as foolish. But he did write this in the majority opinion, "the question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the district court, we concluded they did not." They found for the WMATA.
Is that a case that will come back to haunt him?
NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: I doubt it. I'm sure somebody will raise it. But that, that -- what you read there is sort of classic judicial restraint exercised by conservatives and liberals alike, which is you make the policies, we enforce them. We don't necessarily think they're wise. But eating in the subway is a crime and therefore they arrested her. Probably they shouldn't have arrested her so nastily he wrote, but they were within their rights.
COLLINS: Hopefully it won't come down to French fries.
But moving on, environmental groups have been expressing some opposition to Judge Roberts. And this may be why. In 2003 he ruled against protecting the rare California toad -- arroyo toad, that is -- writing it just like this. "A hapless toad that for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California." Will decisions like this provide more fodder for environmentalists?
TOTENBERG: Well, for environmentalists perhaps, but somehow I don't see it as the sound bite on the nightly news. Although it does show you he has a sense of humor.
COLLINS: Yes, it certainly does.
Now, are there cases Republicans will point to that show Judge Roberts is clearly unbiased?
TOTENBERG: Well, I'm sure there are lots of cases. I mean, he's had something like 60 opinions that he's had this -- in the two years he's been on the court, but most of them are not terribly controversial. Probably the most controversial thing he's done was join an opinion last week reinstating military tribunals for war crimes at Guantanamo Bay at the base of Guantanamo Bay for accused war criminals.
These are tribunals that had been struck down, because the lower court had said they provided no due process of law because the defendants weren't necessarily even going to be at the trial, they weren't guaranteed a lawyer, and a whole bunch of other things.
COLLINS: So, in the end then, Nina, when you look at Judge Roberts' record outside of abortion issues, is there a lot for Democrats to sink their teeth into at the upcoming hearings?
TOTENBERG: You know, we're 24 hours out, and I know enough to never presume that there's going to be nothing. I assume that we will find some things that will become more controversial.
But this is a man who is the quintessential Washington establishment lawyer. A really nice human being. A very conservative lawyer who is quite beloved by Democrats and Republicans alike with whom he's practiced law both with and against.
And one of the interviews I did last night was with Bob Bennett, President Clinton's lawyer, who said -- who sang his praises and said this was a superb appointment. And as to the objections about abortion he said, well, essentially he said elections have consequences. If a Democrat got elected, this guy wouldn't have been chosen.
COLLINS: Nina Totenberg from NPR, thanks.
TOTENBERG: Thank you.
COLLINS: 360 next, inside the president's inner circle. What do the women closest to him think about the abortion issue? We'll tell you.
Also tonight, Condoleezza Rice traveling abroad. The secretary of State sharing her very personal messages of hope.
And a little later, if you think your spouse is cheating, take our infidelity quiz to find out if it's more than just your imagination.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: This just in to CNN now, NASA has set a date for the launch Space Shuttle Discovery. If all goes according to plan, Discovery will lift off next Tuesday morning, 10:34 a.m. As you may remember, Discovery has been grounded since a fuel gauge problem was discovered last week. Its lift-off will be NASA's first trip to space since the Columbia disaster.
Getting back to the Supreme Court now, the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court instantly triggered the hot button issue in the confirmation battle: abortion. There is no doubt what the president's position is, but what do the women in his inner circle believe should be done?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think a hospitable society is a society where every being counts and every person matters. I believe the ideal world is one in which every child is protected and welcomed to life.
COLLINS (voice-over): What may surprise you is what the women closest to President Bush think about the issue -- his wife Laura Bush, his mother Barbara, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. All three have made statements supporting a woman's right to choose.
Let's start with the first lady. During a 2001 interview on the "Today Show," Mrs. Bush was asked about her personal views on abortion.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Should Roe v. Wade, for example be overturned?
LAURA BUSH, FIRST LADY: No. I don't think it should be overturned.
COLLINS: But three years later, in a 2004 interview with the "Washington Times," asked if life begins at conception, Mrs. Bush said, sure. And asked if she is pro life, the first lady responded with, yes I think abortion should be rare.
As for Barbara Bush, she doesn't like to dwell too much on the subject, but when pressed, she speaks her mind. I hate abortion, she said. But I just could not make that choice for someone else.
And what about Condoleezza Rice, one of the president's closest confidants? Earlier this year on "Meet the Press" she weighed in on the abortion debate.
TIM RUSSERT, HOST MEET THE PRESS: You told the "Washington Times" on Friday you were mildly pro-choice. What does that mean?
CONDOLEEZA RICE, SECRETARY OF STATE: It means that, like many Americans, I find the issue of abortion very difficult. I believe it ought to be as rare as possible. Nobody wants to see anyone go through that. I favor parental notification, I favor a ban on late-term abortion. But I, myself, I am not a fan of having the government intervene in the laws.
COLLINS: Three women from the president's inner circle. When it comes to abortion, do they have any influence on the president?
JENNIFER STOCKMAN, REPUBLICAN MAJORITY FOR CHOICE: He has many women in the White House. Obviously, he supports women running for elected office at all levels. It's not, he's not anti-women at all. It has nothing to do with that. He's anti-choice. So, it is a little surprising how the women in his family can be, in fact, pro-choice and, yet he not have a softer edge on the issue.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: A surprising statistic on abortion. Here's the "Download". A new survey reports the number of U.S. women having abortions is at its lowest level since 1976. And the trend shows a steady decline in the procedures. In 1990, 1.61 million women had abortions in the United States. In 2002, the number dropped to 1.29 million.
Erica Hill, from HEADLINE NEWS, now joining us with some of the day's other top stories.
HILL: Hey again, Heidi. We start off with a second chance for an Australian beauty therapist sentenced to 20 years in jail. A court to day in Bali, Indonesia, gave permission for Chapelle Corby's lawyers to call more witnesses. Corby's lawyers believe the extra witnesses could free her. Corby was sentenced in April for drug smuggling.
In Washington, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is upbeat about the economy. On Capitol Hill today, Greenspan said the economy will continue to grow, but added that to keep it on solid footing it will be necessary to continue raising those key short term interest rates.
And Hurricane Emily, now a tropical storm nine hours after making landfall. Winds are now down to 70 miles an hour, still pretty strong. The storm is headed westward now through Mexico. In Texas, they are cleaning up after the storm spawned a series of tornadoes when its northern bands hit. A little bit of a mess -- actually a big bit of a mess.
COLLINS: Yes, that's right. Erica, thanks. We'll see you again in 30 minutes, after we tell you about this, though.
Listen up. Now, a "Download", a shark tale. Would you like to see a picture of a very big loser. There it is. Believe it or not, this 1,191 pound, 13 foot long tiger shark did not win the Boston Big Game Fishing Club's Monster Shark Derby held over the weekend at Martha's Vineyard. That's because the guy who caught the thing missed the deadline by six minutes. Wonder what slowed him down? Probably kind of hard to reel that puppy in.
Anyway, "360" next. A message of hope from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as she travels through Africa.
Also tonight, a true/false quiz every couple needs to take. A sample question now. Confess, you're a cheater? Take the test on that, coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Others bring things back from their travels abroad, but Condoleezza Rice, who happens just now to be making her first visit to Africa as secretary of State, takes something along with her instead -- her own African-American heritage and lessons drawn from this country's experience with slavery.
CNN's Andrea Koppel takes a look at the gifts without which the secretary of State seldom leaves home.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: With an almost evangelical zeal, Condoleezza Rice speaks of her past as she travels the world. In Paris --
RICE: In my own experience, a black woman named Rosa Parks was just tired one day of being told to sit in the back of a bus. So she refused to move. And she touched off a revolution of freedom across the American South.
KOPPEL: In Cairo --
RICE: There was a time, not long ago after all, when liberty was threatened by slavery. The moral worth of my ancestors, it was thought, should be valued by the demand of the market, not by the dignity of their souls.
KOPPEL: And in the United States.
RICE: I, personally, am indebted to those who fought and sacrificed in the civil rights movement, so that I could be here today. I, Condoleezza Rice, do solemnly swear --
KOPPEL: As the first African-American woman to hold the job of secretary of State, Rice has gone out of her way to make her race a constant theme wherever she goes. Her mission? To illustrate that even the United States, a full-fledged democracy, has a checkered past, but changed, nonetheless.
RICE: The first secretary of State of the United States was Thomas Jefferson. But Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner. What does that say? It says that people and institutions are not perfect. You have to struggle every day.
KOPPEL: As a young girl growing up in the segregated South in the '50s and '60, "Whites Only" was a familiar sight.
RICE: I understood that something was deeply wrong in Birmingham, Alabama, when I didn't have a white classmate until we moved to Denver, Colorado.
KOPPEL: Unlike her predecessors Colin Powell, the first black secretary of State, and Madeline Albright, the first woman to hold the job, Condoleezza Rice has translated her personal experience into a very public crusade to help spread democracy through the Middle East and beyond.
KIRON SKINNER, STANFORD UNIVERSITY: She provides a moral guide and has now an international platform to tap into her own background and American history to provide support and advice for those struggling on a similar path.
MICHAEL MCFAUL, HOOVER INSTITUTION: People don't understand that about Condi. They think of her as Secretary Rice, and they think of her as Stanford Provost, but she knows what it is to live in an undemocratic society.
KOPPEL: Professors Michael McFaul and Kiron Skinner are both former colleagues of Rice from her days at Stanford University. Both agree her childhood had a profound impact on the woman she is today. In an interview with Larry King, Rice said her father, a minister and a high school guidance counselor, had to take up arms to defend his family against white knight riders.
LARRY KING, CNN HOST: Did you see him take the guns?
RICE: Oh, absolutely. Every night he and his friends kind of organized a little brigade.
KING: How old were you?
RICE: I was 8 -- 8 years old.
KING: You remember that?
RICE: I remember it very, very well.
KOPPEL: Still, Rice says those experiences didn't leave her bitter, but rather even more determined to be the very best.
RICE: Our parents told us: All right, it may be that you can't have a hamburger at the Woolworth's lunch counter and it may be that you can't go to this amusement park Kiddie Land (ph), but don't worry, you can do anything you want.
KOPPEL: And now, as a black woman who's reached the pinnacle of success in a profession dominated by white men, Rice hopes to use her life story to inspire the oppressed around the world, convinced the survival of hard-won freedoms here at home will depend on spreading democracy overseas.
Andrea Koppel, CNN, at the State Department.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: Fascinating woman.
Let find out what's coming up at the top of the hour now on PAULA ZAHN NOW. Hi, Paula -- also a fascinating woman.
PAULA ZAHN, HOST, "PAULA ZAHN NOW": Well, thank you very much. I appreciate your generosity. At the top of the hour, a controversial drug that is prescribed for nearly four million children. Ritalin and similar drugs are supposed to help calm down hyperactive children. Well, we're going to meet some parents who say Ritalin also completely changed their child's personality and not for the better.
Even actor Tom Cruise is among Ritalin's critics. Tonight we want to take a close look at the pros and cons of medicating our children. It's a really tough decision for parents to make and I think we're going to take folks inside the process to understand how painful some of these choices are. COLLINS: Yes. Very tough. All right, Paula, thank you.
ZAHN: Thank you, Heidi.
COLLINS: 360 next, surviving infidelity. Your partner has an affair. Is honesty always the best policy? See how well you do on our true-or-false quiz, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Earlier in the show we peppered you with questions on infidelity. It's part of our "360 Quiz." Now, it's time for the answers. How much do you know about cheating?
Joining me is Family and Marriage Therapist Jane Greer. Jane, let's get straight to this first one. Women cheat for love, men cheat for sex -- true or false?
JANE GREER, FAMILY & MARRIAGE THERAPIST: That's false. Everybody thinks that that's the common notion. The reality is that men and women cheat because they feel emotionally neglected and their needs are not being met. They feel emotionally abandoned. For many men, their intimacy comes through on a sexual basis, so it looks like that. But the intimacy, the connection that both men and women look for, when that's not there, there's going to be, perhaps, an affair.
COLLINS: All right. Number two: A cheater should always, always fess up -- true or false?
GREER: False. Everybody thinks honesty is the best policy, but it's really a personal policy. For some people, cheating serves a point. It becomes a catalyst for them to refresh and renew the notion that they want to stay invested in the marriage and that they're willing to work on making the marriage better.
COLLINS: But you're not saying cheating is OK?
GREER: No, no. No, I'm not saying it's OK. I'm saying of it, sometimes if a person has an affair and they realize that they really love their wife or their husband, they don't want to destroy the marriage. They feel that, you know, that the pain and the aftermath would be so devastating that there would be no way to make the marriage better and they personally take on the burden to use what happened to improve to change their behavior and strengthen the relationship. Then for them, honesty may not be the best policy.
COLLINS: Interesting. All right. Your partner is more likely to stray after getting engaged or when you're pregnant
GREER: Right.
COLLINS: True or false?
GREER: Completely true and you would think, how could that be?
COLLINS: That's terribly sad. GREER: Well, those you think are -- I mean, are you kidding, you're getting engaged, why would you cheat? But, actually those are the points in time where you're taking the next step. You're adding responsibility to your life and for many men and women, as well, they get frightened. They get insecure about the decision they've made and they want to be sure that they're with the right person. So, they wander.
COLLINS: Number four: You catch your partner cheating. They promise, I'll never do it again. You can trust that? -- true or false?
GREER: False. You know...
COLLINS: Do we have any true? Yes. We have one true. OK. False.
GREER: The point to trust is that's based not on words, but on words coupled with behavior. And if a partner says, I won't cheat and you can trust me, then they need to start to show you on a day-to-day basis how they're willing to change their behavior to build back your trust.
COLLINS: Actions speak louder than words. All right. Number five: Your partner cheats. You should tell him or her over and over again how angry you are -- true or false?
GREER: True. However, it's really, really essential to survive betrayal, to vent your anger and most importantly, to have your partner listen and empathize and let you know that they get it. They get how much pain they caused you. They get how angry you are.
That said, it needs to be done in a contained way so that you're not just beating your partner up and clubbing them over and over and over with the anger. So very often, structuring some time to sit down and let me tell you how mad and how hurt I am works really well.
COLLINS: Yes. Violence not good. All right. Number six: Your husband or boyfriend likes to check out other women. This is a sure sign he's going to cheat -- true or false?
GREER: False. False. No, you know, actually it's really important to keep the energy and the, you know, the sexual tension alive in a relationship and in a marriage. As long as he or she is checking somebody else out and brings back that kind of energy into the relationship or the marriage, that works and that will actually enhance your relationship.
COLLINS: All right. Jane, before I let you go, let me just ask you: What is the number one question you get about this?
GREER: Well, many people say, can I forgive my partner once I've found out about the infidelity? And yes, you can survive infidelity and you can forgive your partner. However, there is a lot of work that has to be done. So, you really have to be committed to making the changes.
COLLINS: Thanks for your thoughts. Jane Greer, appreciate it. I'm Heidi Collins. CNN's primetime coverage continues now with Paula Zahn. Hi, Paula.
END
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
