Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Supreme Court Draft Opinion Strikes Down Roe V. Wade; Biden Travels to Alabama to Visit Weapons-Making Facility; Former Journalist Turns Meme Into Fundraiser to Help Ukrainians. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired May 03, 2022 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:02]

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY EDITOR: They seemed to be allowed through. But, still, this process has taken significantly longer than the officials are trying to arrange it had hoped, and that I think raises concerns about whether the volume of evacuees, the 100,000 people still left no Mariupol is feasible given the Russians' lack of compliance.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: And often attacking those corridors directly. Well, the relief, they must feel they are lucky to be alive. Nick Paton Walsh, thanks so much.

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: I want to show you now the scene outside the Supreme Court today, less than 24 hours, in fact, just over 12 hours into that draft memo was published showing the high court would strike down Roe v. Wade. Again, it's a draft memo. We are getting more response from Capitol Hill. Stay with us. We're going to bring you that after this short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:35:00]

HILL: This just in to CNN, we are now hearing from the top Senate Republican weighing in on this draft opinion from the Supreme Court, which would overturn abortion rights, again, a draft opinion.

SCIUTTO: Yes. CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju joins us now. So, Senator Mitch McConnell, what are his thoughts?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, we're hearing very sharp partisan reaction on both sides. Republicans mainly focusing on the leak, the unprecedented nature of the leak of that draft opinion that came out last night and Mitch McConnell going after the notion that this was leaked to the press, and he said in a statement, this lawless action should be investigated and punished as fully as possible. The chief justice must get to the bottom of it, and the Department of Justice must pursue criminal charges if applicable.

Democrats on the other hand are not focused as much on the leak but on the implications that if this draft were to become -- if this were true, if this holds, if this becomes the law of the land, what it would mean to abortion access to millions of women across the country.

Now, just moments ago also, the top Democrats in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, announced his intention to try to force a vote to codify the right to an abortion into law, but there is a math problem facing Chuck Schumer. That is 60 votes are needed to overcome any likely filibuster attempt in the 50/50 Senate. That is not going to happen. Kyrsten Sinema, Joe Manchin also oppose changing the filibuster years. Manchin himself opposes abortion rights. They do not have the math there.

And also there's a question about how some of the senators are responding in light of what they're seeing here. One of them, key senators, Susan Collins, she cast a key, almost decisive vote to get Brett Kavanaugh on the court back in 2018. At that time, she made very clear that she believed that Kavanaugh in their private meetings indicated that he would not overturn Roe versus Wade, but in a statement just moments ago, she said that she believes both Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch were inconsistent in their testimony and also in their private comments as well.

We tried to ask her if she felt misled in any way by Kavanaugh. She said that she not only referred to her paper statement but, nevertheless, a lot of reaction coming from Capitol Hill, mostly partisan reaction, but some of those key senators grappling with this potential decision as well. Guys?

HILL: Yes, absolutely. Manu, I appreciate it. Thank you.

Just ahead here, we'll speak with a Republican who worked to help get Samuel Alito confirmed to the Supreme Court, why he sees this draft opinion as a major victory for the conservative movement.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:40:00]

HILL: Our top story this morning, Politico obtaining a draft of a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that would strike down Roe v. Wade.

SCIUTTO: Joining us now to discuss, Scott Jennings, former special assistant to President George W. Bush, actually worked on Justice Alito's Supreme Court confirmation hearings while in the Bush White House. Scott, good to have you on.

I'm not going to play Alito's answers from his confirmation hearings in 2006 just because we played it in the last hour and, again, this hour, but briefly, paraphrasing, regarding Roe and his respect for precedent as a justice, he said that when a decision is challenged and reaffirmed, strengthens its value, also that when people come to rely on it, that adds value. And he also said that there is wisdom embedded in decisions made by prior justices, that when asked specifically about Roe v. Wade.

Why would that statement still stand given his willingness, it appears, to overturn Roe v. Wade despite meeting those standards, as described?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I mean, justices never -- and I think this is a tradition going back for people who have been nominated by presidents of both parties, they never promise how they're going to vote on any particular case, and so to say that you will respect precedent is one thing, but that doesn't make -- that doesn't make it that you're locked in to every decision that's ever been made ever by the Supreme Court. Obviously, the Supreme Court has gotten things wrong throughout our history.

And so I think for those of us who are on the conservative side of American politics, it's been expected that people like Justice Alito and the others who are said to be in favor of this decision have long thought that Roe versus Wade should be questioned because it was a bad decision to begin with.

SCIUTTO: His answers, they were not general about -- he was speaking specifically about the Roe v. Wade precedent there.

JENNINGS: Yes. And it looks to me like from this decision, they studied it carefully and came up with the idea and the judgment that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. So, respecting precedent does not mean that you have to give up on the idea that something can be investigated in the future. And that's exactly what they've done here. And, by the way, I'll just say, that's exactly what conservatives would expect people who are said to be constitutional conservatives on the court to do, for people like us, Jim, we don't believe the right to abortion exists in the Constitution. And so returning it to the political venues in our mind is the right thing to do.

HILL: There's been a lot of talk today about what else is not in the Constitution, if you take that view, right? Do you see this as perhaps leading to other rights tied to privacy now being perhaps up for grabs, whether that's contraception or same-sex marriage?

[10:45:08]

JENNINGS: I don't know, candidly. I wouldn't expect that in the short-term, certainly. And I think people who are saying that today are likely doing it for political reasons. I think this particular matter has been at the forefront of American political debate for 50 years now, and that's why it's being decided today. It took a long time to go from the Roe decision to today.

So, no, I don't necessarily see it that way, but then, again, who can know what's in the minds of the court, and who knows what cases are going to bubble up, but I don't personally expect that to be the case.

SCIUTTO: Scott, should the conservative position be understood as a complete -- not just complete overturn of Roe v. Wade, that decision how it was decided, but a total ban on abortions? Or should the conservative position be understood -- and, by the way, I understand there's variety within the country and even within the Republican Party, but from your point of view, should the conservative position be understood as something short of Roe v. Wade, perhaps with, for instance, a different viability time line than as presented in Roe v. Wade and Casey later?

JENNINGS: Great question, I think the conservative position should be understood on the legal issue of where is this properly decided. The constitutional conservatives in my party believe that the Supreme Court shouldn't be in this, that it should be returned to the Congress and the state capitals. And as you pointed out, there's going to be a variety of opinions depending on what political jurisdiction you live in. So, if you live in California, you're going to get different political views, and if you live in Alabama, say, or Kentucky, where I am today.

So, I think the constitutional conservatives believe the political representative branches of our government should decide this based on what the people in their states or their jurisdictions want. This doesn't ban abortion. It simply returns it to these venues. The Congress could wade into this. The state capital could wade into this. And I think that's what conservatives have been saying, why should the Supreme Court trump the sovereignty of our Congress or our state governments? And that's apparently what we get.

Although, look, I'm a chicken farmer, I never count my birds before they hatch, but that certainly looks like where we're headed.

SCIUTTO: Listen, I know that this is a shorter conversation than we certainly could on some of these questions, but this is just beginning of that conversation on this broadcast and among others. So, Scott Jennings, we look forward to having you back to speak more.

JENNINGS: Thank you.

HILL: Today, President Biden set to tour a factory which produces Javelin missiles, the same ones the U.S. is sending to Ukraine. Our next guests have to create a viral meme of those weapons, which is now being used to raise millions of dollars to help Ukrainians.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:50:00]

SCIUTTO: Any moment now, President Biden will head to Alabama, this to visit an assembly plant for Javelin missiles.

In Ukraine, the Javelin anti-tank system has been a crucial weapon for Ukrainians in holding off Russian advances. In turn, it has become a symbol of the Ukrainian resistance.

HILL: Our next guest is a former journalist who spent five years in Ukraine after Russia attacked and annexed Crimea and was so moved by the Ukrainian people and what they were going through that he took an internet meme, the Virgin Mary holding a Javelin, dubbed it St. Javelin and printed them on all kinds of merchandise to raise money to help Ukraine, even sending a T-shirt to Ukrainian defense minister who wore it proudly and delivered one to President Zelenskyy himself.

Christian Borys, the creator of St. Javelin, joining us now, he's in Poland today. I mean, you have had -- this really took off and took off quickly. You've raised a ton of money. How is that being used?

CHRISTIAN BORYS, CREATOR, SAINT JAVELIN: So, we donated about $500,000 to a registered Canadian charity called Help is Help, which has worked with Ukrainian orphans since 1991. And then since then, we've just been kind of using it in different ways. Like I went to Ukraine for the last three weeks, and I was looking for different organizations that can -- that can use the funds that we have.

So, for example, we donated to an organization called 2402.org, which supports Ukrainian journalists with things like bullet proof vests, iFax (ph), first aid kits, stuff like that, different humanitarian organizations, yes, just figuring out, you know, which organizations can use the funds that we have in the best way.

SCIUTTO: It's quite an image to see the Virgin Mary holding a deadly weapon. I wonder, why do you believe it's been so successful, this campaign?

BORYS: I think -- so I think that we started around February 15th before the war started. So, I think that when the war started, people were looking for different ways that they could support, and we already existed. So, I think that people looked at us, and they saw that we were already doing something, and also, it was a way to actually show your support, to wear your support, to have a sticker on your car, to have a flag or a hoodie or whatever it might be.

So, I think that it just resonated with people right away because there was such a clear line between good and evil in this war. It was so binary, right? So, people were really trying to show their support as much as donating.

[10:55:00]

SCIUTTO: Yes.

HILL: I know you've had a little pushback on the use of the Virgin Mary, and I thought you had a really interesting take on it. So, I mean, how do you respond when people say, look, this is offensive, I don't want to see that?

BORYS: I think they just missed the point. I don't think it's -- I mean, personally, obviously, it doesn't offend me, right? I can understand why it might offend some people. But I think that they missed the point. It's not mocking religion or anything like that. Interestingly, the World War I museum did a write-up on St. Javelin, and they looked at the history of how religious icons have been used at war. And it's always just been as a symbol of support for people, right, in their worst moments. They're looking for something that they can look to and find, you know, a morale boost or support from.

So, I think that that's how people see it. They don't see it as -- you know, it's not mocking religion. It's not making a joke out of religion. It's just something that they see this religion icon already as a symbol of support, and they obviously see the Javelin as the most important symbol of support from the west, because it was the first defensive weapon system that the Ukrainians desperately wanted from the west, and it obviously has made a huge impact on the war.

SCIUTTO: Christian Borys, thank you so much for joining us today. And thanks so much to all of you today. I'm Jim Sciutto.

HILL: And I'm Erica Hill.

Stay tuned. Bianna Golodryga picks up our coverage after a break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]