Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Attorney: Texas Woman Leaves State To Get Abortion; Harvard Board Meets Amid Pressure On Pres. To Resign; Special Counsel Asks Supreme Court To Resolve Whether Trump Has Immunity From Prosecution. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired December 11, 2023 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:01:12]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: We're following breaking news into CNN. Kate Cox, the pregnant woman from Texas to - who asked the court to allow an emergency abortion over medical issues, has left the state to obtain the procedure. That's according to a statement from her attorney.

Now, Cox's fetus has a fatal condition and doctors have told her that continuing her pregnancy threatens her ability to have more children. The Texas Supreme Court has temporarily blocked her from terminating that pregnancy.

CNN's Ed Lavandera joins us now live from Dallas. So Ed, what are we learning about her decision to leave?

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, her lawyers say that because she has been caught in this "legal limbo" for the - specifically the last several days and much of the last week, that because of that, Kate Cox has decided to leave Texas and get the abortion elsewhere.

Her lawyers are not saying exactly where she's going, but in the statement they did say that she had offers of help from places in Colorado, Kansas, even Canada as well. Let's get to some of the statement that her lawyers released just a short while ago where she's - where they said, "Her health is on the line. She's been in and out of the emergency room and she couldn't wait any longer. This is why judges and politicians should not be making health care decisions for pregnant people - they are not doctors. This is the result of the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade, women are forced to beg for urgent health care in court."

And that kind of echoes the theme that we've heard from lawyers for the Center for Reproductive Rights, the organization that has been representing Kate Cox here for the last week in her case. She - the lawyers had also said that for - throughout most of the last week, she has been asked several times why not just leave the state originally. Her lawyers had said that she wanted to have the procedure here in Texas. This is where her home is. She wanted to be close to family.

But clearly, the - what has unfolded here in the last several days has changed that calculation, where we now have learned that Kate Cox has left Texas to get this abortion procedure done. We have reached out to the Attorney General's office, Republican Ken Paxton, who over the weekend issued or submitted another motion to the Texas Supreme Court saying that they did not believe that Kate Cox's condition rose to the level of reaching the medical exemption in Texas. And we have been waiting for the Texas Supreme Court to make its ruling since Friday night, but so far, no movement there legally.

So obviously, this legal limbo is what lawyers say has forced Kate Cox to leave the state of Texas. Boris?

SANCHEZ: Ed, on the question of getting clearance to obtain the procedure and the level that legally it has to reach for it to be defined as life-threatening, I'm wondering if this fatal fetal issue is not life-threatening for Texas officials, then what is? Have they given a clear definition?

LAVANDERA: Well, that definition of what reaches the medical exemption is at the heart of all of this. It's not just a part of Kate Cox's case, but there's also a case involving 20 women and two doctors that is also sitting before the Texas Supreme Court as well, as these organizations and critics of the Texas abortion ban have been very critical of this, what they consider to be the vagueness of the medical exemption law and they say more clarity is needed in that.

SANCHEZ: Ed Lavandera, thank you so much for that important update. Pam?

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: All right, here to add some perspective is Dr. Megan Ranney. She's an emergency physician and dean at Yale School of Public Health.

[15:05:00]

All right, so let's dive into this. We're learning that Kate Cox, as we just laid out, has left Texas to get an abortion in another state amid this ongoing legal battle. That wouldn't necessarily be an option for every person in her position, correct?

DR. MEGAN RANNEY, EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN: That's exactly right and that is one of the many parts of this story that concerns me so much. First and foremost, there's the fact that a decision that should be between a woman and her doctor has been taken out of her hands. The second thing that deeply concerns me about what's going on is that because of the legal rigmarole, she's had to delay a needed procedure for several weeks.

And with abortion, getting it earlier is often easier, has less risk and so every week that passes has put Kate and her future family, as well as her current family, at greater risk. And the third part about this that makes me deeply concerned is that Kate is so lucky to have the resources and the support and the time to be able to travel. That is not true for most women. They don't have the money. They can't get time off work. They may not have child care to watch their kids at home.

And so she is, as much as she is in a truly horrific situation, she's also in a somewhat privileged situation compared to other women in the state of Texas and in other states where abortion is restricted.

BROWN: Yes. I mean, she was 20 weeks. And you really do have a tight timeline between that, right? And when the baby could be considered viable outside the womb and then that even limits your options even more if you want to get an abortion, if your state doesn't allow that.

Of course, Texas is one of the most strict on the books. And you have Ken Paxton, who is a lawyer, not a medical doctor, we should emphasize, he is arguing that this woman's situation does not fit the definition of life-threatening of Texas law and that her future fertility is not impacted anymore from this pregnancy with any other pregnancy.

I mean, basically, he's saying just because this fetus has a life- threatening condition, that doesn't impact her future fertility more than any other pregnancy, even if it was normal. What do you say to that?

RANNEY: So just as I can't weigh in on the nuances of the law, similarly, it's not a lawyer's place to weigh in on the nuances of medicine. If this woman's doctor is saying that carrying this likely - this pregnancy to term is threatening her future health, we need to take her doctor's word.

Moreover, as an emergency physician, what worries me even more is all of the folks that are coming into emergency departments across the state of Texas and in other states with similar laws, who don't have the time to wait, who are literally facing life-threatening conditions, the physicians caring for them are being forced to go through the same legal rigmarole in order to care for the patients in front of them who are facing incredibly time-sensitive, life- threatening conditions.

Again, not to say that Kate's case is not time-sensitive. Each week that passes puts her and the rest of her family more at risk. And if I can say one more thing here, it's that I get deeply worried about what would happen to the United States if folks had to travel outside of the U.S. in order to get this life-saving health care, because abortion is part of reproductive health care. Luckily, right now, there are places within the U.S. that Kate can travel to.

BROWN: There is so much focus on the physical aspect of this and whether it could be life-threatening or not. But what about the emotional distress for this woman? She's obviously decided to travel outside the state. But just going through all of this and being forced by the state to carry a baby with a terminal genetic condition against her will, as a pregnant woman myself, I can just say pregnancy in and of itself is very stressful and hard. And then all of this on top of that, the emotional distress.

RANNEY: Yes. Pamela, I think that's such a great point. And in fact, there are lots of studies that show that when women are able to access safe and legal abortion, it improves their mental health compared to women who are forced to carry a pregnancy to term against their will. That's even more true in a case like this.

I am not a maternal fetal medicine physician, but friends who have had to deliver that news to their patients that their patient is carrying a fetus that has a severe chromosomal abnormality like trisomy 18. It is one of the most devastating pieces of news that a woman and her family can receive.

And to then be told that you don't have the choice about what to do next, knowing that you are carrying a fetus who is unlikely to survive to birth, much less after birth. I mean, that just adds another layer of loss of control, of trauma and of stress. Never mind for her little kids who are watching their mom be pregnant and how confusing that must be for the rest of her family and the emotional stress that they're under.

[15:10:04]

It is a horrible situation all around.

BROWN: That's a really important point. Do you worry that this could also endanger the lives of millions of women and their children because doctors could simply choose to leave Texas or refuse to practice there, given the legal limbo that they could be faced with?

RANNEY: That is - as a public health professional, that's one of my biggest worries. Certainly the single case is upsetting and heartbreaking, but we already face one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the developed world here in the United States. We already have millions of women nationwide who are living with limited access to high-quality obstetric care. That's part of the reason that we have such high maternal mortality rates.

And we have studies showing already that these states that pass restrictive abortion laws are less likely to attract new OB-GYNs. So newly - new physicians are less likely to pursue their training in these states. So it's worsening that existing problem of lack of access to physicians. It is then going to continue to worsen maternal mortality rates, access to high-quality health care. It is just a really bad situation from a public health perspective. And, of course, it's a situation that's preventable if we just recognize that abortion is part of health care.

BROWN: Dr. Megan Ranney, thank you so much. Boris?

SANCHEZ: The number of Harvard faculty members backing their university president is growing by the hour. To put it into context, Claudine Gay, has been under pressure to quit, along with the presidents of Penn, MIT, for their testimony last week to Congress. They failed to unequivocally say that calls for the genocide of Jews violate their school's code of conduct.

On Saturday, Penn's president, Liz Magill, resigned. But on Sunday, Harvard faculty began circulating a letter declaring that the university should keep Gay and resist political pressures. More than 700 people have signed it so far, and they are not the only Harvard members now advocating for her as the university board is meeting today.

CNN's Matt Egan joins us now with the latest. So Matt, who else is coming out in favor of Gay staying on as the Harvard president?

MATT EGAN, CNN REPORTER: Well, Boris, last week there was this intense backlash against Harvard's leaders. We heard from donors, and CEOs and lawmakers demanding that Harvard cut ties with Claudine Gay. And now there has been this impressive show of support for Gay from within the Harvard community and it's building by the hour.

Here's the latest, black alumni have gathered more than 800 signatures in support of Gay, arguing that no one understands better than her the need for Harvard to be against hate. And they point out that Claudine Gay is the daughter of Haitian immigrants.

Now, we also have heard from the Harvard Alumni association's executive committee. They put out a statement of their own saying that Claudine Gay has their "unanimous and unequivocal support." And saying they have full confidence in her leadership during this difficult time. And all of this is on top of the now more than 700 Harvard faculty members who are pleading with Harvard officials not to give in to political pressure by parting ways with Gay.

And what's interesting is that some of the Harvard faculty members who are coming out in support of her, they've actually been quite critical, including Harvard legal scholar Laurence Tribe. He had slammed her testimony as deeply troubling, but now he's telling me that he signed this statement.

He said, "Once external pressures, whether from ultrawealthy donors or from politicians pursuing their ideological agendas, override the internal decision-making processes of universities, we are on the road to tyranny."

So, Boris, will all of this be enough to save Claudine Gay's job? It's not clear yet. But what is clear is that, unlike Penn's Liz Magill, she does have a significant amount of internal support.

SANCHEZ: Matt Egan, appreciate the update. Thanks so much, Matt.

Still to come on NEWS CENTRAL, in an extraordinary move, special counsel Jack Smith goes directly to the Supreme Court to resolve whether Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution. The latest attempt by Smith to keep Trump's election subversion trial on track and on time.

Plus, intense fighting continues across Gaza as casualties mount and the humanitarian crisis grows. The southern city of Khan Younis is now the epicenter of hostilities. We have a live report coming up in just moments from Tel Aviv.

And later, one of Vladimir Putin's harshest critics appears to have simply vanished. Alexei Navalny's team say they haven't had contact with him in six days.

That and much more still to come on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:19:03]

SANCHEZ: We're continuing to follow breaking news. Special counsel Jack Smith has asked the Supreme Court to decide whether Donald Trump has immunity for alleged crimes he committed while in office. This would be the first time that the high court could weigh in on the historic prosecution of the former president. And it comes as we're getting new polling out today with just five weeks until the Iowa caucuses.

BROWN: Yes, a poll from Des Moines Register shows Trump holding a significant lead at 51 percent. And a new CNN poll also shows Trump with an edge against President Biden in two battleground states, Michigan and Georgia.

So for more on all of this, we are joined now by CNN's Paula Reid, Kristen Holmes and David Chalian.

All right. So, Paula, let's start with you and this extraordinary request by the Special Counsel. I got to say, when this popped up on my phone today that they put in this request, I thought, wow, that's significant and it's a pretty aggressive move by the Special Counsel.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: You're absolutely right. It is significant and it is aggressive, because here the Special Counsel is trying to ensure that this case, their election subversion trial against former President Trump, goes before a jury before the November election.

[15:20:06]

So they're asking the Supreme Court to just decide whether Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution or if he's barred from prosecution for double jeopardy because he was impeached but not convicted on similar charges. Now, the special counsel doesn't think either one of these apply, but they want to resolve these questions so this case can go to trial in March as scheduled.

Trump, we know the key to his strategy right now is delay, delay, delay. These are legitimate constitutional questions that have never been resolved and he is litigating them. But now this question is expected to go to the Court of Appeals, likely eventually the Supreme Court. But the traditional path could take months, even potentially over a year.

That's why the special counsel is saying, look, we need you to decide this now. We need you to decide this because it is in the public interest that this case go to trial before the election. And interestingly, they are relying on precedent from the Nixon era, from the Watergate investigation, where the Supreme Court was able to resolve some key issues very quickly.

Now, of course, the big question is, well, what's the Supreme Court going to do? It's unclear.

SANCHEZ: Yes, an open question.

And as Paula was saying, Kristen, this cuts right to the Trump strategy of delay, delay, delay. How are they responding to this?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, we're still waiting for an official comment here. They have not gotten back to us as to how exactly they're going to deal with this. But I do think that this is the most important aspect of this, which is that Trump's legal strategy is - exhaust every possible legal avenue that you can and delay, delay, delay. They want this to be pushed till after the election. And if Trump wins the election, they don't believe that charges could be brought against him if he was a sitting president. So this is a part of a larger strategy and that's what we've seen.

As Paula said, this could have taken months, and months and months had it gone through the appeals court, then up to the Supreme Court. Instead, they're saying, let's just cut to the chase and essentially calling their bluff, putting them on notice that they're going directly there to kind of cut out the middleman. And again, obviously, we don't know what that means. We don't know if the Supreme Court will even take it up. But it is definitely a - as you said - aggressive maneuver.

BROWN: Yes. And we know that these legal cases have not hurt Trump's popularity, among Republicans, right? And this new CNN poll is really illuminating what some of these GOP primary voters think when it comes to Trump's fitness for office, even if these charges end up - he gets convicted or they end up being true.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Sixty-four percent of Republican primary voters in Michigan say if true, they're not relevant to his fitness for office. Seventy percent of primary - Republican primary voters in Georgia say that. So the vast majority of Republican primary voters in both of these states, which have pretty early primaries after the initial four states, say this just should not be a relevant factor in their vote, even if he has proven - all these charges of him overturning - attempting to overturn the election are proven true.

SANCHEZ: Something that struck me about the polling, David, is kind of the two different strategies that these candidates have to take on. For Trump, it's engaging with voters that historically have shied away from the ballot box. He drove them out in 2016.

For Biden, it's getting folks that showed up for him in 2020 that don't seem that enthusiastic this time around about voting for him. Is that an accurate representation of the numbers?

CHALIAN: Sure. And I would argue that Trump drove new people out in 2020 as well when he got 74 million votes, more than he got in 2016. He has a unique ability in American politics to bring new people into the process. We see in the Des Moines Register poll today 63 percent of first time caucus goers are with Trump.

SANCHEZ: Wow.

CHALIAN: That's 50 points ahead of anyone else on that score. That shows his ability is still there to bring new people into the process and you are right to point out that there's an enthusiasm disadvantage for Biden. Take a look at one of the states in our battleground state polls, you see the enthusiasm gap. Actually both in Michigan and Georgia where likely Republicans - Republican-leaning and Republican- leaning independents - 72 percent of them say they are extremely enthusiastic to vote in 2024. That is true of only 59 percent of Democratic and Democratic-leaning independents.

That is a gap that the Biden team will have to close between now and next November.

BROWN: Because we know how narrowly Biden won, right, with his key battleground states, two of them right there we just showed. How motivated are voters about going to the polls next year?

CHALIAN: Well, we have seen a recent youth poll to say about young voters sort of disengage a little bit, saying they're less interested in voting in 2024 than they were at this point in the 2020 cycle. But we have a long way to go before its full activation time, right? The parties have until next November. But you see at this moment in time, Republicans do have an advantage on this score.

BROWN: And what about - you talked about the young voters, how is the Hamas-Israel war impacting them potentially?

CHALIAN: Well, we asked in Michigan how that is impacting the race. And you see that overall, there - it's actually a pretty equally divided kind of electorate there.

[15:25:08]

If you put up the numbers on the screen on the Israel-Hamas war, you would see that the plurality think that the United States is doing about the right amount. But there are significant portions of the electorate that think that the Biden policy is going too far and some who think it's not going far enough.

SANCHEZ: Wow, fascinating.

Dave Chalian, Paula Reid, Kristen Holmes, we covered a lot of ground. It's been ...

BROWN: We really did. That was a lot.

SANCHEZ: ... yes. It was a great and exhausting panel. Thanks you all so much for joining us.

BROWN: All right. Coming up, intense fighting today in Gaza as Israel's military drives deeper into the Palestinian territory. The number of Israeli soldiers killed in Gaza is now 100. The Palestinian death toll tops 18,000. We will have the very latest.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)