Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

President Joe Biden Holds G7 News Conference With Volodymyr Zelenskyy; President Joe Biden: Not Confident A Ceasefire Deal Will Be Reached In Gaza Soon, But Hasn't Given Up Hope; Supreme Court Allows Abortion Pill To Remain On Market; Senate Votes On Bill To Guarantee Access To IVF Nationwide. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired June 13, 2024 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:01:25]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Welcome to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

At any moment, President Joe Biden will hold a joint news conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the G7 summit in Italy. This is a high stakes moment for the Alliance. Both leaders are trying to shore up support for Ukraine's defense against Russia.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And they're expected to discuss a new long term security pact between Washington and Kyiv, that comes as former President Trump spoke just minutes ago after meeting with Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

CNN's MJ Lee and Nic Robertson are both in Italy covering the G7 summit. MJ, to you first, what are we expecting to see and hear with Biden and Zelenskyy?

MJ LEE, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Brianna, we are running just a little bit behind schedule. But the stage is set behind us at this hotel in southern Italy, where the president is staying for that joint news conference between President Biden and President Zelenskyy.

Of course, coming on the heels of some major moves by the G7 and the United States this week to try to shore up global support for Ukraine. And when the two leaders take the stage, we expect that they're going to approach the table that is at the middle of the stage. And that is where they will sign that new bilateral agreement between the two countries.

It says that the two countries will cooperate for 10 years on important issues like the production of weapons and military equipment, the training of armed forces and intelligence sharing. And it's really important to underscore just the sense of urgency here that is in place for both of the leaders.

Of course, President Zelenskyy has made really clear how much he is depending on this kind of boosted support from all of the other countries that are supporting Ukrainians war efforts to try to gain momentum on the battlefield. And then, for President Biden, all of this is coming at a moment where

he is just facing his reelection several months away.

And of course, it's very, you know, understanding of the fact and sensitive to the fact that, you know, if there is a second Donald Trump term, that raises a whole lot of questions about what could happen to the U.S.'s support for Ukraine, as well as some of the actions that have been taken here at the G7 this week.

Now, the president is expected to take two questions from two reporters, as is typical at a so-called two and two press conference where two leaders are on stage.

Of course, no shortage of questions, both related to foreign issues and issues at home for the president to be asked about.

SANCHEZ: MJ Biden was also just asked whether he's confident that there will be a ceasefire deal in Gaza soon. How did he respond?

LEE: Yes, Boris, for all of the discussion about the war in Ukraine this week at the G7, the other conflict that has been consuming so much of the president's time, of course, is the conflict in Israel.

And what the president just told reporters is that he is not confident that a ceasefire deal can be reached soon, though he did add, I haven't lost hope.

So, this is the president publicly confirming what had become really evident the last couple of days, that the ceasefire negotiations that have been ongoing for so many months appear to have once again stalled after Hamas responded to the latest Israeli proposal requesting additional changes.

We did see Secretary of State Antony Blinken earlier this week expressing frustration at the seat of the developments, and really even questioning whether the group is interested in the war coming to an end. And this certainly has to be a really frustrating moment for President Biden as well, who has put so much on the line as he had tried -- as he has tried to navigate this war, and it certainly paid a political price at home throughout the course of the war as well.

[14:05:15]

KEILAR: All right, MJ, thank you so much. And obviously, we'll be monitoring the president there to see when he does begin his remarks. As you said, he's running a little late. That is not unusual.

Let's go to Nic Robertson. Nic, President Biden says he's not confident a ceasefire will get done soon. Is that the sentiment that's been shared among the rest of those leaders at the G7?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes, it is. The G7 leaders, of course, signed up to President Biden's proposal a little over -- well, almost two weeks ago now, so there was -- there was broad agreement here from this group of leaders that this was the right approach. And I think pretty much they all follow the same view that the

pressure was on Hamas, they were all signed up to the idea that pressure should be put on Hamas to commit itself to agreeing to this, to agreeing to the terms.

Now, of course, what Hamas is saying is that they have come back with some proposals, they're saying that this is them being constructive, that the read is very clearly that the option here was for them to end the war, end the suffering of the people in Gaza and begin to move towards the things that they want, like the humanitarian access, like the ceasefire, like the withdrawal of Israeli forces.

But of course, there was a lot of detail that wasn't made public. And some of that appears to have been, what Hamas was pressing for.

But I think you'll find in Europe at the moment, you know, a degree of frustration, just like the United States that this is having an impact on politics, and life of people, you know, on the streets in all communities.

It may not have the same -- quite the same political implications that it's having for -- you know, for President Biden in the upcoming presidential elections.

But for example, look at the U.K. elections that are coming up on the Fourth of July. There are certainly people, candidates, independent candidates who are putting themselves forward, because they don't think the current government or even the opposition is doing enough to support the people in Gaza.

And therefore, they're likely to take votes away from the Labour Party who are expected to get voted in.

So, this is something that all these leaders are feeling at the moment.

SANCHEZ: Nic, pivoting back to Ukraine, what's your sense among G7 leaders about the urgency they feel to get aid into Ukraine as soon as possible, given what we've seen our setbacks, recent setbacks on the battlefield against Russia?

ROBERTSON: No, look, if they're really frank, the answer is there was a huge amount of frustration, watching the United States go through a -- for them, painfully long and torturous process to get the money approved for that big commitment of 60 billion that came -- finally came through a month or so ago.

It wasn't that the European Union had plain sailing with their plans to put 50 billion commit -- $50 billion worth of military and other support to Ukraine. There were a couple of European Union members, Hungary, one in particular, who were against supporting Ukraine in this way.

So, they had their own problems there. There was frustration watching the United States go through its process of making that aid available. But the reality now for them is the concern that there could be a change in presidency. So, whatever is agreed here, potentially could get overturned if it were Donald Trump that got elected, and took -- decided to withdraw the level of support he has for NATO, the level of support that there is right now for Ukraine.

I think that's why, certainly for Ukraine, and certainly for the leaders here, the urgency they had around the table was really to get that aid that's built off the frozen Russian assets. The profits from those assets, get that as alone in the hands of the Ukrainian government by the end of this year.

Because therefore, that $50 billion would have been handed over to the Ukrainians. And that's not something an incoming Donald Trump as president could then change, but everything else here remains in flux to a degree.

KEILAR: All right, Nic, thank you so much.

And we are awaiting remarks from President Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. It is getting into the 8:00 p.m. hour there in Fasano, Italy. It's going to be sort of an evening event here if they don't get underway soon. So, we'll be keeping an eye on that and bringing that to you as soon as it gets started.

[14:10:08]

SANCHEZ: We're also tracking major news stateside, a significant development in the battle over reproductive rights. The Supreme Court unanimously rejecting a challenge to how the FDA regulates mifepristone, the abortion pill, this means the drug remains on the market and can still be mailed to patients without requiring them to visit a doctor in person.

KEILAR: This was a case that was brought by a group of doctors who are opposed to abortion. And in the court's opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that citizens and doctors do not have standing to sue simply because others are allowed to engage in certain activities, at least without the plaintiffs demonstrating how they would be injured by the government's alleged under regulation of others.

SANCHEZ: We're joined now by CNN Medical Correspondent Meg Tirrell and CNN Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent Paula Reid.

Paula, first to you, this decision comes the same month two years ago that the court took away a woman's constitutional right to an abortion by overturning Roe versus Wade. How significant is today's decision in that context?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's fascinating because this has been one of the big cases that we've been watching for its potential impact, right, on women who need this drug on the FDA, its regulatory powers, something that the Supreme Court had opted to weigh in could have enormous implications for the entire pharmaceutical industry and other medical devices, then also potentially impact on the 2024 race. But they have effectively sidestepped this issue. Standing is a technical aspect of what you need to bring a case. And they're saying that the people who brought this challenge did not have standing, they have not illustrated that they have an injury, if they have a complaint or concern about mifepristone.

Justice Kavanaugh and the other justices suggested that they go call their Congress person to talk about legislative solutions or go through the executive branch. But this is not the way they can bring a case to the Supreme Court.

But I fully expect that others who may have standing will try to challenge the same issue. And then eventually the Supreme Court may opt to weigh in, but here they have preserved the status quo.

Not shocking based on what we saw in oral arguments. But it's still possible that this issue could resurface at the Supreme Court in coming years.

So, now, what we're watching for is their decision on another abortion case that is out there pending because remember, in the wake of their decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, now there were all these challenges, testing the limits of that decision, trying to determine the contours of what exactly it means to send this down to the states. And that other case has to do with a challenge out of Idaho. And what do you do when you have a restrictive state laws and more permissive federal laws?

So, now, that case arguably takes on even greater significance.

KEILAR: Yes, it certainly does. And Meg, what are the practical implications here of this decision for women who are seeking abortion care?

MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, mifepristone is one of two drugs used for medication abortion, which is the most common way that people access abortion in the U.S. that accounted for almost two thirds of abortions in 2023, according to the Guttmacher Institute. There were more than a million abortions in that year. So, that's more than 600,000 people who were accessing this medication.

Now, Telehealth was a key issue here at this -- in this case, it wasn't that the Supreme Court, if it had ruled the other way was necessarily going to take this drug completely off the market. But they were going to roll back how it could be used, including potentially making it so that you could not access it through Telehealth.

And 19 percent of abortions, according to this data, which was as of the end of last year, were through Telemedicine.

So, that was a very important way that people access this drug and it will continue to be so because nothing is going to change as a result of this ruling.

Medication abortion is not legal in states where abortion is illegal, although people do access medication abortion through the mail in those states, that same data providers at about 40,000 people living in states with bans or restrictions, access to abortions from providers in states with shield laws for doctors.

And so, people are still getting access to medication abortion in this way, guys, and this won't necessarily -- well, this won't change anything, but we could see more challenges in the future.

SANCHEZ: And Meg, this case does have implications for the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry more broadly, right?

TIRRELL: Yes, we saw a friend of the court briefs published by the pharmaceutical industry and groups representing them, because they were concerned that if a court could come in and essentially overturn an FDA decision on a drug, then that could open up the entire system. Whatever drugs people wanted to challenge, they could do it through this means.

And so, the pharmaceutical industry was really worried this could upend the entire industry, really, in the sort of gold standard of the regulatory process.

So, they in statements today, sort of breathing a sigh of relief here. They are applauding this decision. We know that the FDA and the Health and Human Services Department also applauding the decision, but we could see more challenges still both to mifepristone and if it comes up through the same pathway, to the FDA and to the drug industry, as well.

[14:15:09]

KEILAR: All right, Meg Tirrell, thank you for that. Thank you to Paula as well.

And still ahead, reproductive rights are also an issue right now on the Senate floor, Senate Democrats forcing a vote on a bill that would guarantee access to IVF nationwide right now. It is though likely to fail.

We'll be joined by a Democratic Senator Tina Smith with more on what she hopes this accomplishes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:20:11]

SANCHEZ: On Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats have forced voting on a bill that would guarantee nationwide access to IVF in vitro fertilization treatments to help people conceive.

It would enshrine federal protections for patients to get the treatment and for doctors to provide the treatment. It would also block any state attempts to restrict access.

Today's vote comes just hours after the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to how the FDA regulates the abortion pill mifepristone. Their decision means the drug will stay on the market, at least for now.

Joining us now is Democratic Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota. Senator, thank you so much for being with us.

Critics have argued that this bill is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. They point to Alabama where IVF clinics were shut down for a period. But state laws were changed and they were able to start up again. I'm wondering what's your response to those who say it's unnecessary?

SEN. TINA SMITH (D-MN): Well, I would say, tell that to the women who have been investing their physical and emotional and financial energies into conceiving a child through in vitro fertilization only to find you live in a place like Alabama, where suddenly, your doctor would be considered committing homicide or manslaughter if the procedure went forward.

Right now, in this country, there are something like 14 states where laws are pending that would essentially criminalize in vitro.

So, I say it is necessary. And I also say that this is a very straightforward piece of legislation that we put forward, it basically would say that you have the right to receive IVF, to provide IVF and to have your insurance cover the cost of IVF.

And to me, that is something that everybody should be able to support. And in fact, across the country, it would be broadly supported by Americans.

SANCHEZ: It's also generally protecting IVF, broadly supported across the Senate. There were Republican senators just yesterday, Katie Britt of Alabama, Ted Cruz of Texas, who tried to pass their own IVF Protection Act. Why not work with them to craft a bipartisan bill that would pass? Theirs was blocked by Democrats.

SMITH: Well, so, you know, it's interesting to take a look at the bill that they put forward, because I think it tells you a lot of where they're really coming from, there was nothing in their legislation that would have protected access to IVF. There was nothing in there legislation that would have stopped states from restricting IVF.

In fact, the biggest thing that their legislation would do was to say that if a state did take that step, who knows how that would be defined that they would then be denied Medicaid payments from the federal government.

So, they're all you're doing is punishing women, when over 40 percent of the babies in this country are born, covered by Medicaid insurance.

So, there was nothing in that bill that was real. In fact, I think their bill was the epitome of a messaging bill. They were trying to get well on this issue, because they know they're out of step with Americans.

And yet, at the end of the day, they're not willing to come together with us. This is something that is important for Americans to understand.

Because I think the problem here, the Republicans don't have a messaging problem, they have a policy problem. And that was really laid bare today on the Senate.

SANCHEZ: What would it take for you to see from Republicans to give you a sense that movement toward a bill protecting IVF nationally, was actually going forward?

SMITH: Well, I'd like to see them come to -- come together to say that they are ready to pass legislation that would stop states from putting restrictions on the policies that end up clobbering in vitro fertilization.

You know, if you have a state that is passing a law, which says that life begins at conception, you are essentially taking a step that would criminalize in vitro fertilization.

And so, that's the gap that we have here in terms of what we really need to do to protect families who are pursuing this.

I mean, it's close to a miracle, the medicine and the science that is able to help infertile couples have a child.

SANCHEZ: Senator, I also wanted to get your reaction to the Supreme Court decision earlier today, rejecting that lawsuit that sought to challenge the FDA's regulation of mifepristone. I imagine you welcome this decision.

SMITH: Well, I see this as a reprieve, not a vindication. I think that the court -- it would have been inconceivable that the court would have agreed that these doctors that came together -- anti-abortion doctors that they had standing in this case, that they actually had been harmed in some way. So, they did I think the only thing that they could do.

But it's important to understand that they left the door wide open. In fact, they nearly invited the next challenge and we know that there are going to be challenges out there coming forward very quickly that will continue the effort to say that we should not be able to mail medication abortion, through -- put send medication abortion through the mail.

[14:25:13]

And I mean, let's be honest, we also know that the Trump camp, which is responsible for all of this has plans to use their executive authority, should he become president again, to ban mailing medication abortion and abortion generally.

So, this is a real challenge. This is why I'm working to pass the repeal of the Comstock Act so we can stop that from happening in the future.

SANCHEZ: Well, to pick up off your point about the Trump camp, we actually heard from former President Trump in his meeting with House Republicans, our sources indicate that he walked a line on abortion. He told his colleagues to be smart on how they campaign on the issue, but to not be afraid to paint Democrats stance as extreme.

He argued for exceptions, when the life of the mother is at risk, for incest and rape. How do you think Republicans might move forward on painting Democrats as extreme when it seems like President Trump is trying to hedge the position more broadly?

SMITH: Well, I think you're absolutely right. He is trying to hedge his position because he realizes that his policy position is broadly unpopular with the American public.

But I don't think American women are going to be conned by this. They know that Trump is the one who put these anti-choice judges on the Supreme Court, that he is the one who was responsible for these Trump abortion bans that are across all of the country. Meaning, one in three American women of childbearing age don't have the freedom to make their own decisions.

And that's the reality. And I think that people are going to -- are very focused on that reality and not what he happens to say today or yesterday or tomorrow about how he's trying to moderate his position.

SANCHEZ: Senator Tina Smith, we have to leave the conversation there. Appreciate you joining us.

SMITH: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Of course.

Just few minutes from now, President Biden will be alongside Ukrainian's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy facing questions from reporters. They are at the G7 summit in Italy and we're going to bring you their remarks as soon as they start.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)