Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Judge Temporarily Blocks SC's New Abortion Law; No Deal On Debt As Negotiators Scramble To Avoid Default; Indiana Ob-Gyn Reprimanded For Discussing 10-Year-Old's Abortion. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired May 26, 2023 - 14:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[14:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to CNN NEWS CENTRAL. And we begin this hour with news just into CNN.

South Carolina judge has just temporarily blocked the state's new restrictive abortion law. The governor signed that bill into law yesterday banning most abortions after just six weeks.

CNN's Dianne Gallagher. She's been following the story. Dianne, this, of course, does not strike down this law for good but it does temporarily block it. How long, and what happens from here?

DIANNE GALLAGHER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: So, Jim, we don't know for how long at this point. Judge Clifton Newman today granting that injunction which temporarily blocks that new abortion law banning most abortions after six weeks from going into effect until the State Supreme Court can review it or some other legal action by that state court is taken. Now, this is something that to people in South Carolina sounds familiar because the state Supreme Court actually did strike down a very similar six-week abortion ban earlier this year.

In fact, that was something that was discussed many times in both the House and the Senate, while they were arguing and debating this particular legislation with opponents of the legislation saying that it was not different enough from that original bill -- that original law to sustain another Supreme Court challenge. Now, just 24 hours really after the governor signed this bill into law yesterday, well, that is when the judge made this decision. I have a couple of statements that are still kind of coming in right now.

South Carolina's Republican Attorney General Alan Wilson telling me we are considering all our options. We've defended the like -- the right to life in court before, and we're prepared to do it again. The Senate President Thomas Alexander also a Republican, saying I remain convinced that the heartbeat bill is a cons -- is constitutional and that the state Supreme Court will agree.

However, the president of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, Jenny Black says that our doors remain open and we are here to provide compassionate and judgment-free health care to all South Carolinians. We have a long fight ahead. We will not stop until our patients are again free to make their own decisions about their bodies and futures.

Now, look. Jim, there has been a change to the state Supreme Court in South Carolina since they initially struck down the first six-week abortion ban. The author of that opinion was at the time the only woman on the Supreme Court, she has since retired. In South Carolina, once a judge becomes 72 years old, they must retire and be replaced by a man. South Carolina is the only state that does not have any women on its state Supreme Court.

And look, lawmakers told me last week -- the end of this week that they thought that they had tweaked this language enough to where it could get by on this new state Supreme Court. That's still to be determined on when they will take this up and what that action will be, Jim. But again, this now means that abortions are legal in the state of South Carolina up to 20 weeks until some action is taken on this new law making it again the most lenient of most states when it comes to access in the Southeast at this point, as neighboring states, including here in North Carolina have passed more restrictive legislation after that Dobbs rulings that the U.S. Supreme Court handed down last year reversing Roe v. Wade.

SCIUTTO: Well, then, of course, the six-week ban would make it among the most restrictive in the country. We'll see where that goes from here.

GALLAGHER: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Dianne Gallagher, thanks so much. Boris.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Russian airstrikes hitting a psychiatric hospital in the Dnipro in southern Ukraine earlier today. The attack killed at least two people and hurt 30 others, including two kids. You can see from this video showing the scene, an emergency responders battling the fire that broke out when the building was hit. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy calling this an attack by terrorists.

We want to take you now live to Dnipro and CNN's Sam Kiley, who has been following this for us. Sam, describe the scene. What are you seeing behind you?

SAM KILEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris, it's 11 hours since whatever hit this medical clinic did that. Now, a good deal of the front part of this building has been taken down by these diggers and cranes. But you can see also there -- I hope you can make it out, they're still spraying water into that. They're actually collecting burning debris, putting the fire out, and then taking it away in dumpsters.

Now, two people were killed here. The local authorities, Boris, are saying that's nothing short of a miracle because the -- it could have been much, much worse. But the numbers in this clinic were down because one medical shifted left and the other medical shift hadn't got underway. So, there were fewer people there.

[14:05:05] But the majority of people in there that were injured in terms of profession, certainly there are six doctors at least who were injured and two people killed. A total of 30 people were injured in what was -- according to the World Health Organization, there has been a systematic targeting of medical facilities and medics across the country throughout this war, with nearly a thousand occasions being recorded by the welfare -- health -- World Health Organization, excuse me. And we saw, of course, a similar pattern in Syria where the Russians were absolutely systematic about the destruction of medical facilities.

But this is also a civilian area anyway, where it's difficult to see at night but we're surrounded by residential buildings. There's an apartment block there. There are several more over in that direction, Boris.

And for -- because of the targeting of civilians, and above all, the targeting of a medical facility, the French government -- and no doubt other elements within the international community already describing this latest attack as a war crime, which President Zelenskyy inevitably almost calls a terrorist crime, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Yes. The international community decrying this as a violation of international humanitarian law. Sam Kiley, thank you so much for that reporting.

Let's get some perspective now from General Mark Hertling. He's a retired Lieutenant General in the United States Army, also a CNN military analyst. General Hertling, always great to see you. Appreciate your perspective, sir.

Not the first time that we've seen Russia target civilian infrastructure, but this attack specifically, on a clinic, a hospital that treats patients with mental illnesses, this seems especially egregious.

MARK HERTLING, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: It is, Boris. And when you take a look at the targeting that Russia has executed throughout this campaign, as you just said, they have targeted hospitals, schools, civilian infrastructure, and civilian apartment buildings, with some of the most devastating of weapons systems. You know, in just looking from afar at that building, that was a thousand-pound or greater bomb that hit that thing.

It was a missile or a bomb or something but it was huge. It wasn't just a small thing. And it was purposeful because that hospital is in the middle of a very large town, Dnipro.

And again, it just summarizes the Russian way of war. As Sam said, they've done it before in Syria and Chechnya, and all the other places they have fought, and it just exacerbates the suffering of the people of the country they are going up against.

SANCHEZ: So, in your mind, how much does this sort of targeting have to do with the upcoming Ukrainian counteroffensive that we've been anticipating now, for some time? Is this potentially an act of desperation, or is just -- this is just part of the standard operating procedure of the Russian war machine?

HERTLING: I personally don't -- I know a lot of people have been saying this is sort of Russia's way of actually trying to stop the offensive by Ukraine. I don't believe that. They have been doing this since the beginning of the war. They have done this in every conflict they have been in in the 20th century since Mr. Putin has taken over.

Again, I'll emphasize. It is the Russian way of war to purposely target civilians in violation of The Hague Convention and the Geneva Protocol. So, the president of Russia, his generals, and whoever is deciding on these targeting, are all guilty of war crimes in my view.

SANCHEZ: General, I also wanted to get your thoughts on the Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte. Today, he told journalists that the decision to send F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine had not been finalized, yet the Netherlands is supposed to leave the training mission on those jets. What do you make of his comments?

HERTLING: Well, what we're looking at is, Boris, I think is their commitment -- a long-term commitment to Ukraine. This is what's been pre-empting some of the weapons systems. Again, the focus has been on what can Ukraine put to use right now, what can they logistically support, and what can the allies provide.

When you're talking about a complicated system, certainly, you can put a pilot in very quickly and teach them how to train the F-16. It's all the accompanying equipment, the supply, the support, the maintenance, the supply chain, that is more and more difficult. So, what you're seeing is a preparation for the future.

Even with the announcement two weeks ago, I said, you know, it's great that there are some countries that are willing to give up F-16s but it's going to take a long time and you're not going to see those aircraft in this upcoming being offensive. Those will come later. But it is a signal -- excuse me a signal certainly to Russia that modernization of the Ukrainian military is coming and the West will continue to support it.

[14:10:03]

SANCHEZ: General Mark Hertling, we have to leave the conversation there. Appreciate your analysis.

HERTLING: Always a pleasure, Boris. Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Thanks. Jim?

SCIUTTO: All right, back home here in Washington, negotiators have just six days left to come to an agreement on raising the debt limit if they want the country, all of us, to avoid a potentially catastrophic default. There has been some progress, not clear they're close to a deal though. As of the close of business yesterday, the Treasury had $49.4 billion in its coffers. By way of comparison, there are 24 billionaires -- individual billionaires on the Forbes real times billionaires list that have a net worth greater than that. We begin with CNN's Jeremy Diamond at the White House. Jeremy, as you know, several Democrats say they will not support any agreement that has work requirements for benefits such as Medicaid or food stamps. The president has expressed openness to at least making those requirements stricter, perhaps lowering the age. How is the White House managing that difference there? Do they believe they can push this forward and lose some Democratic votes?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, look. They certainly know that they're not going to get every single House Democrat on board with whatever compromise deal emerges here. But they also know that this is a deal that is going to need to be bipartisan, and they are certainly using some of these frustrations and these warnings from House Democrats that we are hearing publicly as leverage in their negotiations.

One of the key points that White House negotiators have constantly been reiterating to Republican negotiators is that look, you are going to need Democratic votes. And if you need -- if you -- if you want to get something passed here, you're going to need to ensure that we can bring along our caucus. And the same thing falls on the Republican side where you know, both sides here are really working to try and come up with a deal that they can sell to enough of their caucus in order to get some kind of a bipartisan agreement here.

Now, there's no question that there has been frustration from some House Democrats with the potential for work requirements to be included in this deal and some other matters. Also some frustration with White House messaging with some of the -- which some of these Democrats see as pretty lackluster so far. But you know, ultimately, there's a recognition that this is going to need to be bipartisan.

And look, both sides are working towards this agreement. We've seen potential agreements starting to emerge in terms of a two-year debt ceiling raised in exchange for two years of spending caps. But we know that so many other sticking points still remain, and so there is ultimately no deal until everything is agreed to here.

SCIUTTO: Jeremy Diamond at the White House. So, let's check in on Capitol Hill now where our Manu Raju is. A very quiet Capitol Hill because everybody's left for vacation. So, they're waiting for a phone call to come home. Any chance they're going to get that phone call?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It doesn't seem like it's going to happen immediately. In fact, the vibe coming out of the Speaker's office just moments ago was not a positive one. Garret Graves, who is the speaker's -- one of his top negotiators has been in the room talking to the White House indicated that there's still some significant disagreements between the two sides.

And namely, over that issue that Jeremy was just talking about, work requirements for social safety net programs, food stamps, or temporary assistance programs for needy families. Republicans are trying to push for additional work requirements for people who benefit from those programs. Democrats had pushed back. There are a lot of House Democrats, Senate Democrats were concerned about that. The White House inside the room has not gone as far as what the -- what the Republicans want. They've talked about this discussion, but it's very clear that they have not reached any sort of consensus about how they're going to resolve that major sticking point.

When I asked Garret Graves just moments ago about whether or not Republicans would be willing to drop this in order to get a deal to avoid default, he made it very clear they will not.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. GARRET GRAVES (R-LA): If you're really going to fall on the sword for that, versus actually negotiating something that changes the trajectory of the country for spending, I mean, it's crazy to me that we're even having this debate today.

RAJU: Are you willing to drop that work requirements and they -- just be on it --

GRAVES: Hell no. hell, no. Not a chance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So, very clear there that the Republicans will insist upon that. So even if they were to get a deal on this issue, it's going to take some time to draft the bill, and get it through both chambers of Congress to avoid the nation's first-ever default as soon as next week. Jim.

SCIUTTO: Manu, I know you keep watching it for us. Thanks so much. All right, so let's talk now to South Dakota Republican Congressman Dusty Johnson. He got involved in these talks as well. Congressman, thanks for taking the time today.

REP. DUSTY JOHNSON (R-SD): You bet. Thanks for having me.

SCIUTTO: So, firstly, can you tell us what a sticking point is, OR what the sticking points are at this point in the negotiations?

JOHNSON: Well, Manu is right, work requirements have certainly been a bit of a sticking point. I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that when they say they won't vote for any bill that has worked requirements, let's be clear, programs like SNAP or food stamps have had work requirements since 1996.

[14:15:07]

So, anytime they voted for a Farm Bill, anytime they voted for an appropriations package, there have been work requirements for programs like TANF and SNAP. We know they work. I don't understand why this is such a big sticking point for the other side.

We're going to get a deal. We're not going to default. But we do need to have returned to common sense on this issue. It used to be broadly bipartisan. SCIUTTO: So, that's an important statement there, right? You're saying you will get to a deal, you will not default, even if you don't get all you want?

JOHNSON: Well, I don't think anybody has ever been in any negotiation where they got everything they want.

SCIUTTO: Right.

JOHNSON: But Republicans are not going to agree to anything that doesn't fundamentally change how we spend money in Washington, DC. We're at an inflection point. Things are not only as bad as they were 20 or 30 years ago, we talked about the debt then too, but they're much worse now.

In the last 10 years, we spent three trillion dollars just on interest on the debt. Without any new programs, we're not going to spend three trillion dollars on interest on the debt in the next 10 years, it will be $10 trillion. And I know all of your viewers, there are different things they care about. Maybe they care about the new B-21 Bomber, maybe they care about the VA Health Care System, maybe they care about IHS, all of those -- of that virtuous spending is going to get crowded out by $10 trillion of interest payments if we don't change how we do business.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this, then. Even Ron DeSantis has said that under President Trump, he's noted that spending went up. How do you fight the impression -- and as you know the debt limit was raised without objection several times during the Trump administration. How do you fight the impression that folks outside Washington have that hey, my spending's OK to raise, it just they're spending I'm not OK to raise? How do you fight that impression based on what we know?

JOHNSON: Well, first, by setting the record straight. When you say there was no objection, with all due respect, that's balderdash.

SCIUTTO: They passed -- they passed three times --

JOHNSON: I voted against raising --

SCIUTTO: They passed three times under the Trump administration to raise the spending limit.

JOHNSON: No -- well, but there was -- there was a robust objection, including by people like myself. I voted against raising the debt ceiling because I didn't think those deals in the past did enough to change the trajectory of spending. And there were times I voted against spending deals that President Trump negotiated because I didn't think he got a good enough deal.

And when you got a one-party rule in this country, as we did in the last two years, I voted against the $1.7 trillion American Rescue Plan. At the time, I said, how are we going to pay for it? I voted against what's going to end up being the $1.5 trillion Inflation Reduction Act. I said, gang, how are we going to pay for it?

SCIUTTO: Yes.

JOHNSON: I voted against the $1.7 trillion omnibus just in December because there wasn't a plan to pay for it. Democrats are not going to be able to do that for two years and then expect Republicans to foot the bill.

SCIUTTO: I would ask you about another topic because as you know, now the two leading candidates for the GOP nomination have said they would at least consider pardons for January 6 rioters. You've been public about this in those days and the days afterward. You said that you and your staff members were minutes away from being confronted by rioters. Should they be pardoned?

JOHNSON: January 6 was a bad day in American history, and I don't think we should do anything to minimize it. I know not everybody in DC was violent. The overwhelming majority of people who were there were peaceful protesters.

But there were some -- there were some people who committed felonies. There were some people who were there who had violence on their minds, and who broke into a building, and who attempted to cause damage. Many of them did cause damage.

And so, listen, if I was the chief executive, if I had seen that there was some malpractice of justice where somebody with there was exonerating evidence, they were innocent but had been found guilty then of course, I think any chief executive should be willing to correct that through clemency. But I have not seen that kind of evidence.

SCIUTTO: Congressman Dustin Johnson, we appreciate you joining us. We hope you got a chance to enjoy the holiday weekend.

JOHNSON: Thanks so much.

SCIUTTO: All right. We're going to go to the White House now where President Biden is hosting the LSU Tigers women's basketball team celebrating their national championship win.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Distinguished guests, the President of the United States and Dr. Jill Biden, accompanied by the Vice President of the United States and Coach Kim Mulkey.

[14:20:29]

DR. JILL BIDEN, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: Hello, everyone. Go ahead and sit down. I'm so proud to welcome the 2023 NCAA champions, the LSU Tigers to the White House.

In this room, I see the absolute best of the best, Jasmine Carson who led the team with 22 points, going seven for seven in the first half. Angel Reese, who broke the NCAA record for double-doubles in the season. Alexis Morris, who lead with nine assists. All of you who work together as one, scoring the most points ever in a women's title game. Watching you was pure magic. The way you pass like you could read each other's thoughts. The air is crackling with the electricity of that connection.

The crowd seemed to breathe with one breath. Our hearts racing to the rhythm of each thump of the ball. Every basket was pure joy.

And I kept thinking about how far women's sports have come. I grew up before Title Nine. And young women in my day just didn't have the same opportunities to play sports. I see a lot of head shaking.

Over the years, we've seen the push and pull of progress, including in women's basketball. The attempts to create women's leagues, the 1996 Olympic team, the WNBA, and this year, when almost 10 million people watch your final shattering records.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Applause there at the White House for the LSU Tigers, NCAA women's national basketball champions this year, getting there due, a little celebration at the White House. And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:27:05]

SCIUTTO: An Indiana doctor who revealed that she had provided abortion services to a 10-year-old Ohio rape victim last year is now being ramped up -- reprimanded by the state's medical licensing board. Yesterday, that Board found Dr. Caitlin Bernard liable for violating patient privacy laws. This case is getting national attention following the Supreme Court's ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.

CNN's Athena Jones joins us now with more detail. Athena, so the consequences here were not for providing the abortion for this 10- year-old who was a victim of rape and that's how she got pregnant, but for speaking about it publicly. How did this work?

ATHENA JONES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Jim. That's right. This all stems from an interview Dr. Bernard gave to a reporter with the IndyStar, that's the largest newspaper in the state of Indiana, in which she described this little girl from Ohio. She talked about her being a 10-year-old pregnant girl from Ohio. She also referenced the gestational age of this fetus because the reason the girl had to travel from Ohio to Indiana is that Ohio had implemented a six-week ban and she was passed that date only by a few days.

They did that of course after the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade. And so now, this doctor, Caitlin Bernard is going to be fined $3,000. She'll get a letter of reprimand. But this is important, she will be allowed to continue practicing.

Now this decision came after a very long hearing. It was more than 14 hours long before they even went to deliberations. I watched much of it and it was fascinating to watch. You're seeing the two sides arguing over what is considered protected health information under HIPAA.

That's the federal law that protects patients' privacy. The case as I said, seems from this interview, the state's HIPAA expert argued the information that Dr. Bernard provided a 10-year-old from Ohio who's pregnant could allow that 10-year-old to be identified.

Of course, the HIPAA expert on Dr. Bernard's side argued the opposite saying age, state, and pregnancy status are not considered protected health information and are not included among the 18 examples of that kind of information under HIPAA. Dr. Bernard testified that she didn't violate these laws. And she also didn't violate her own hospital's policy. She also had this to say. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. CAITLIN BERNARD, INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH: I don't think that anybody would have been looking into this story as any different than any other interview that I've ever given. If it was not politicized the way that it was by public figures in our state and in Ohio.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JONES: And so she, of course, feels that this has been all a sort of a political exercise. Now the Attorney General of Indiana, Todd Rokita, who's who filed the complaint initially against Dr. Bernard. He put out a statement handling the decision. This is what he said in part.

This case was about patient privacy and the trust between the doctor and patient that was broken. What if it was your child or your patient or your sibling who was going through a sensitive medical crisis, and the doctor who you thought was on your side ran to the press for political reasons? It's not right. And the facts we presented today made that clear.