Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Leaked Draft on Striking Down Roe v. Wade; Evacuations from Mariupol; Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ) is Interviewed about Ukraine. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired May 03, 2022 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:25]

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: An unprecedented breach and a stunning Supreme Court opinion draft. Roe v. Wade on the brink of being overturned.

Good Tuesday morning. Good to have you with us. I'm Erica Hill.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Jim Sciutto.

Breaking overnight, a draft -- we should note draft -- Supreme Court opinion obtained by "Politico" appears to show the nation's highest court poised to strike down Roe v. Wade. The move would reverse nearly 50-year-old precedent and lead immediately to the outlawing of most abortions in at least 13 states.

HILL: It is important, to be clear, this is a draft opinion that was leaked. An official ruling likely would not be published until next month, until June. The language could change. This was written by Justice Samuel Alito, circulated among justices in February. The opinion likely has the support of four other conservative justices, including Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

SCIUTTO: Now, we realize this is one of the most sensitive issues in our country's politics. Many of you watching have strong opinions on this and perhaps personal experience as well. As we cover this story today and going forward, we will do our best to be sensitive to those points of view and to have discussions that are respectful of them. And we will have much more on this story throughout the hour.

Plus, we are also following developments today out of Ukraine. Right now the mayor of Mariupol says that a convoy filled with evacuees from that steel plant is making its way now to Zaporizhzhia. This as both sides report fighting around the Azovstal plant in Mariupol just this morning.

HILL: And we will have more from Ukraine.

We do, first, though, want to get to that stunning leak of the Supreme Court draft opinion.

CNN justice correspondent Jessica Schneider is outside the Supreme Court. White House correspondent Jeremy Diamond on the North Lawn.

Jessica, I do want to begin with you. The Supreme Court predictably quiet on this leak. What is next?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Erica, the big question here right now is how and when does the court respond to this. I got in touch with the court's spokesperson last night. There was a no comment and that was all.

We saw the chief justice, John Roberts, leaving his home this morning. Our producer, Nicky Robertson, asked him two questions about the leak, asking if he would investigate. No answer from the chief justice.

So, we're still waiting for more word from the court.

But this is a stunning breach of secrecy for this court. This is a court typically where the justices, the clerks, the staff, they keep things very quiet until they're ready to release the opinions on decision day. That not happening here. We're expecting the actual decision to come down at some point in the next eight weeks.

But "Politico" reporting that this draft opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion that has been in this country since 1973 with Roe v. Wade and then the follow-up opinion in 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Here's some of what that draft opinion says. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision. Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives.

Now, "Politico" reporting this is a 98-page draft opinion. Justice Alito writing the opinion, but joined crucially by four conservative- leaning justices, Justice Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Notably, justices have changed their votes in the past. It could happen again. This draft opinion was circulated back on February 10th. So a lot could have changed.

But if this opinion holds, and if it's what's ultimately released by the court, this would be a 5-4 decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

And, Jim and Erica, we're already seeing states react to this. Democratic governors, Republican governors, crucially there are estimates that about half the states would ban abortion if Roe were overturned. We've already seen many states already acting to enact legislation that would ban or severely restrict abortion. A lot at stake as we see what the court and how the court responds to this.

Guys.

SCIUTTO: Jeremy, we do expect a statement from the White House at any moment. Do you have a sense this morning of what the reaction will be?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, well, we certainly will get a statement from the White House reacting to what we have seen with this leak of this draft opinion. And President Biden himself could also comment on this as he leaves Washington at 11:00 a.m. this morning and heads for a stop in Alabama.

We can look to past statements from the White House and from the president himself to see what exactly we would hear today from the White House.

[09:05:01]

Look, they've made a practice of not commenting directly on leaks in the past. So I would be surprised if they actually directly referred to this draft opinion. But we could hear what we've heard from President Biden in the past, which is to say that there is an unprecedented assault in his words on the rights that are enshrined in Roe v. Wade. He has also talked about taking every step in -- from the federal government's point of view to try and protect women's right to access abortion services. And also we know that President Biden has talked about wanting to codify Roe v. Wade and its rights into law. Of course, that is not practical or possible at this moment given the current makeup of Congress. The fact that the filibuster is still very much in effect.

But you will hear President Biden and the White House also talk about what they have done in the past. We know that over the last several months they have been preparing for this very type of potential decision from the Supreme Court. They have also been responding to the numerous states in recent months that have been dismantling women's right to access abortion services, meeting with reproductive rights activists, meeting within the federal government between the White House Councils Office, the Justice Department, to see what federal levers exist and are in place that they could use to try and stop what they see as a backsliding of women's rights in the country.

HILL: We will wait to hear more on that this morning.

Jeremy Diamond, Jessica Schneider, thank you, both.

Also with us to discuss, CNN's senior legal analyst, Laura Coates. He's a former federal prosecutor and the author of "Just Pursuit: A Black Prosecutor's Fight for Fairness," and Steve Vladeck, a CNN contributor and professor at the University of Texas Law School.

Steve, I want to start with you. This is a draft, as Jessica just pointed out. This was -- this was distributed, circulated February 10th. It's not a final opinion.

However, while it could change, is there any reason, Steve, to believe that much of this would change?

STEVE VLADECK, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, Erica, it's the right question. And I think the best answer is we don't know. You know, the "Politico" story that came with the draft opinion last night suggested that there are, you know, circulating opinions in the court right now, that there are five votes, at least tentatively, in support of this opinion.

Erica, we have historical examples of the court changing its views of a majority opinion becoming a dissent, of votes shifting at the last minute, even in the abortion context. Indeed, Casey, the 1992 decision that's part of what the court would be overruling in this draft opinion, was one of those cases.

So, I think it's really important to put this in context. This is an enormous deal, but it's not a final deal. And we really have to sort of wait to see where the court ends up. If this is where the court is going, though, I think it's easy to see why this is an earthquake. It's an earthquake for constitutional rights in this country, it's a earthquake for millions of women in this country. Frankly, Erica, it's an earthquake for how the Supreme Court approaches older decisions recognizing constitutional rights, not just in the abortion context.

SCIUTTO: And to your point, it's actually two decisions we're looking at, Roe v. Wade, establishing that right to abortion, and Casey, which further codified the timeline before which an abortion is legal.

I do want to ask you, Laura Coates, because this has been something that's been brewing for some time so that at each confirmation hearing, the nominees are pressed on their position, not just on Roe v. Wade, but on precedent. And I want to play Samuel Alito's answer to this question during his own confirmation hearing and get your reaction to whether his answer differed from this opinion.

Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): Do you believe it is the settled law of the land?

JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO, SUPREME COURT: Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973. So, it's been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged on a number of occasions.

And I think that when a decision is challenged, and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value as stare decisis for at least two reasons. First of all, the more often a decision is reaffirmed, the more people tend to rely on it. And , secondly, I think stare decisis reflects the view that there is wisdom embedded in decisions that have been made by prior justices.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Stare decisis, Latin term, legal code for saying basically respect for precedent.

Was that a misleading answer if it is indeed true that Alito wrote the opinion overturning Roe v. Wade?

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it doesn't reflect what he believes today. That is certainly true. And the idea of saying how it essentially has been relied upon by generations of people. The value of precedent is about to have an understanding, collectively as a society, of what people's rights are, the constraints on those rights and the wisdom he spoke about essentially saying that time and time again, as it's challenged, the wisdom has suggested from the very court itself that that decision was decided correctly. Now he comes out in this draft opinion, and, again, it is a draft

opinion and people are allowed to change their minds, but the fact that that draft opinion may have been written by the same person who said those words, suggests that he is suggesting that, no, no, no, it was decided wrong from the get go.

[09:10:14]

That was not the answer he gave there. But we know in Supreme Court confirmation hearings, time and again, one of the reasons that people are losing a lot of faith in the court, they assign a political perception to the confirmation process, is because you'll say what it takes to get the position to then do what you want later.

This does not actually (INAUDIBLE) the benefit of the court, let alone the American people. And I cannot believe that I'm sitting here, Jim, in the year of 2022, a right that I was born into as a society that had, that my mother had, that my grandmother had, that my great grandmothers in her lifetime had, that with the stroke of a pen someone can simply say a fundamental right that is within a zone of privacy that the court has said should be hands off for the government, with the stroke of a pen can be taken away. There are a lot of things now on the chopping block.

And, Steve, you spoke about an earthquake. Well, a familiar phrase, the slippery slope, in the Supreme Court. That which you do in one area could extend to others. Well, fundamental rights include interstate travel, include the idea of same sex marriage, include same sex relationships, just to name a few. Now, this is essentially gone. What's next?

HILL: Well, and, Laura, thank you for leading us exactly where I was hoping to go, to your point, right, and, Steve, you saying this is an earthquake for constitutional rights. While we see in this draft Justice Alito saying, look, this is only about abortion. I'm only talking about abortion here. The reality is, as Laura and you both point out, this does open a can of worms.

What does it mean for those other rights which are also tied to privacy?

VLADECK: Yes, and I think it means two different things, Erica. The first is, it means that it's now open season. And if the court is willing to reconsider Roe, as this draft opinion suggests, what about Griswold, the 1965 decision recognizing our right to contraception on which Roe is predicated, or about the right to make our own choices when it comes to end of life medical decisions? What about same sex marriage? What about interracial marriage? I mean these are all rights that in one way or another the Supreme Court has traced, at least in part, to the same understanding,

But, Erica, I think there's another piece here, which is wholly apart from the legal reasoning and from the threads that start to unravel with an opinion like this, there's the optics of it. There's -- if this court is willing to go back on Roe, for all of the reasons Laura powerfully suggest has become so entrenched in parts of our society, what wouldn't it go back on?

SCIUTTO: Yes.

VLADECK: I mean this seems to be not just about the doctrine, but about the court as an institution and its willingness to go back on really things we've come to take for granted in this country.

SCIUTTO: Laura Coates, question here. There is an argument that this is a right better decided or adjudicated or granted, if that's the right term, by elected representatives. Whether that be Congress or state legislatures. Is there -- is there something to that argument?

COATES: Well, in a way we've seen this movie before, when the individual states' rights try to overshadow what is the collective universal understanding of the Constitution in this country when it comes to issues of race, when it comes to civil war, when it comes to a whole host of things.

Interestingly, of course, individual states ought to be able to have some impact on that which is geographically unique, for example, areas that would only pertain to a particular constituency but the areas and the ideas of reproductive health. There are women in every state in this country. And there should be the rights that are inerted (ph) -- that are invested in men in this country in a similar fashion.

Interestingly enough, Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court justice, as you well know, has talked about the idea of a rejection of a patchwork of laws as it relates to marijuana, for example, and the idea of almost asking people, hey, inviting the people to say, is there a case that the Supreme Court ought to look at to do away with the patchwork philosophies that a person in one state doesn't have more rights than a person in another state. If they're willing to address and evaluate the idea of a patchwork as it relates to marijuana, surely we should be able to have an addressing of a universal approach as it relates to women's rights in this country.

And that's part of the consequence of a decision like this. By returning it to the states simply because you believe that it is a political wedge issue, much of the reasons we are the United States of America that we are today is because the courts stepped in to resolve the political wedge issues, according to the Constitution. That is not happening here.

SCIUTTO: Laura Coates, Steve Vladeck, clearly the beginning of a conversation on the repercussions of this. Thanks so much.

VLADECK: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Still ahead this hour, we're going to speak to abortion rights opponents who say this potential Supreme Court decision is the culmination of decades of work.

[09:15:03]

HILL: We will also be joined this hour by the president of Planned Parenthood in the Great Plains region, which has already seen a surge in women seeking care in those states since the Texas abortion law went into effect. What are they planning for now?

But first, we are live in Ukraine. Some civilians managing to escape Mariupol. This, though, amid reports of heavy explosions at that steel plant where hundreds more remain trapped.

Stay with CNN. We'll have you the very latest from the front lines.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: This morning, the mayor of the besieged city of Mariupol says an evacuation convoy, which includes many of the first group of people successfully evacuated from the Azovstal steel plant, where so many had been seeking shelter, has now begun moving.

[09:20:04]

You're looking at pictures there from the coastal town of Berdyansk (ph), towards, and this is crucial, Ukrainian-held territory.

HILL: Now, this as Russians forces continue bombing the sprawling facility. More than 200 civilians remain trapped there, waiting, hoping for evacuation.

CNN international security editor Nick Paton Walsh is in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine. That is where many of the evacuees are able to leave Mariupol, that's where they're arriving.

Nick, what is the latest this morning?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY EDITOR: Yes, well, look, I mean we've been hearing about their imminent arrival all day, frankly, but it does appear we are a matter of minutes away from seeing the first arrivals from Azovstal steel plant. Why are they so important? Well, obviously, because of what they've endured over the past two months. Some of them, we're told by a leading Ukrainian official here, women who have been here since the very beginning of the war, two months underground, finally emerging here into this evacuee reception center here in Zaporizhzhia.

But, too, this 106, that's the number we've been given by the Ukrainian officials here arriving, are kind of a test case, so to speak. It involves the United Nations and the Red Cross negotiating with the Russians to get these people out in the bid (ph). But that mechanism can be used again and again to get some of the hundreds of thousands civilians still left in Mariupol out here to Ukrainian held territory.

I have to tell you, it's not been a textbook operation. It's been slow. It's been constantly delayed. And there are still some doubts as to the timing here, although I have just been warned off to one side that we might be seeing them arriving in imminent minutes ahead.

But it is, obviously, utterly vital because it suggests that there might be the possibility of the U.N. here, and the Red Cross, to get the Russians to do, frankly, which most modern armies would have done on a matter of decency months ago, and that's let a civilian corridor of people out from harm's way.

But what we've been seeing here in the past days is a slow drip of people who have made their own way out of Mariupol, under their own steam, found themselves blocked and checked by Russian forces, an often circuitous journey here towards Ukrainian-held territory. And the hope being today that possibly in the next minutes we might start to see the beginning of what people hope on a U.N. and international level could be a longer term effort to get people out of harm's way in Mariupol.

Back to you.

SCIUTTO: Nick Paton Walsh, good to have you there.

I'm joined now by New Jersey Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill. She currently serves on the Armed Services Committee. She also, we should note, served in the Navy for almost ten years as a helicopter pilot and a Russian policy officer. Knows a lot about this issue.

Congresswoman, thanks so much for taking the time this morning.

REP. MIKIE SHERRILL (D-NJ): Thanks for having me.

SCIUTTO: So we now have a proposal for 33 billion more dollars. A big chunk of military, as well as humanitarian assistance to Ukraine. The issue throughout has been both size and speed of this aid, getting it -- getting the right weapons to Ukrainian forces, getting them there in time.

In your view, is that happening now sufficiently for Ukrainian forces to hold back this attempted Russian advance?

SHERRILL: Well, since I said from the start, after visiting Ukraine, talking to President Zelenskyy about a week before the Russian invasion, we have got to supply the Ukrainians with the weapons they need to fight off this aggression.

And it is in large part because of this support that the United States and our NATO allies have provided to the Ukrainians that they have been so successful in their fight. We are seeing them utilize our support in a way that has really been breathtaking and has made me incredibly proud of the support of the United States and certainly Congress needs to act quickly and get this passed as soon as possible.

SCIUTTO: There is a lot of attention on this May 9th victory day parade. There are some U.S. officials who believe that this may lead to an announcement of an expanded military operation there, even the possibility of declaring war, leading to a national mobilization of Russia, a draft. There are other U.S. officials I've spoken to who are more skeptical of that and believe that the Russian president may attempt to declare victory for gains already made in Ukraine.

Where do you stand? What are you look for on May 9th?

SHERRILL: Well, you know, we'll see what Putin says. I think the misinformation, disinformation effort to the Russian people by their government has been ongoing throughout the whole war. So, we don't know what they may try to purport has happened in Ukraine. But what we do know is that where Russia had at one time hoped, I think, to announce victory on May 9th, now they're be doing nothing of the sort. They simply have not had the expected gains that they and most people around the world thought that they could make with their military. And that is, again, because of the success of the Ukrainian troops and their -- their real desire for democracy and their pushback against this horrible aggression.

[09:25:05]

SCIUTTO: I want to ask you now about a different topic. "Politico" obtaining what it says is a draft decision by a majority Supreme Court justice to overturn Roe v. Wade. If this does turn out to be the decision of the highest court, in your view, should Congress act to protect abortion rights and would the Democratic leadership and majority have the votes to do so before the midterms?

SHERRILL: So, like so many women, people across this country, I heard this last night and really wrestled with what this would mean basically all night. It's just shocking to see this. It's always felt in this country like women have been second class citizens. We have fought very hard for every gain we have made.

When I graduated from the Naval Academy, I was the first class of women to graduate with the ability to go into combat, lifting those restrictions. And so we have fought tooth and nail for what I think of is sort of the crumbs at the table of justice. And now we are seeing just those very, very small gains now being rolled back.

And this is, you know, our founding fathers, I think, were very worried about a tyranny of the majority. This is a tyranny of the minority. This is, you know, a very few people on the court and elsewhere, rolling back protections that for 50 years this has been really the law of the land and that we have -- we have fought for, we will continue to fight for that, and work to pass what we can in Congress.

I think, you know, going into November, the choice right now is very clear, if we care about things like women's rights, if you care about things like voting rights, if you care about our democracy, this has really set a bright line for what we need to do going forward.

SCIUTTO: New Jersey is a state that has protections. Its own statewide protects for a women's right to choose. Do you expect that New Jersey would, again, if this turns out to be true and Roe is overturned, would become something of a haven, of a place where women would come from outside of state to get abortions?

SHERRILL: Certainly. But we know that so many of the women who seek abortions don't have access to resources. So when you're talking about large parts of the south, large parts of the Midwest rolling back protections for women, and we know some states have laws on the books, that when this is, you know, if this -- if this is actually what the Supreme Court passes, those laws will immediately go into effect, rolling back protections for women across large portions of the south and Midwest. So, certainly, states like New Jersey will become a haven to people, but will women have the ability to get to New Jersey? Will they have access to that?

So, make no mistake, we're talking about rolling protections back for women who, you know, may die if they give birth and what is the decision they're going to make with their healthcare provider? What if a young girl gets raped and is pregnant? Where are the protections there? This is really breathtaking, and I think shocking, and yet something that we have seen at work for many decades. As much as I am shocked as I sit here seeing this brief, I'm also, in many ways, this was expected and anticipated. So, we have an incredible amount of work to do.

SCIUTTO: Yes, it's a very public effort through the years.

Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill, thanks so much for joining us. We look forward to having you back.

SHERRILL: Thank you.

HILL: Still ahead here, as was just being discussed, that immediate trigger effect that could take place if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Just ahead, you'll hear from a Planned Parenthood president in the Midwest about what she's anticipating.

That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:30:00]