Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Supreme Court Ruling Overturns Roe versus Wade Decision Constitutionally Protecting Woman's Right to Abortion; Protests Take Place across U.S. in Wake Supreme Court Ruling Overturning Roe Versus Wade; States Across U.S. Enact Trigger Laws Outlawing or Restricting Abortion after Supreme Court Ruling; Possible Political Effects of Supreme Court Ruling For Midterms Examined. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired June 25, 2022 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:01:08]

CHRISTI PAUL, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning on this Saturday, June 25th. We are so grateful to have you here. I'm Christi Paul. And look who's in town.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Atlanta. Thanks for having me, Christi. Great to finally be with you here in person.

PAUL: I'm happy to host you any time.

(LAUGHTER)

SANCHEZ: I'm Boris Sanchez. You are live in the CNN Newsroom. And this weekend demonstrators have taken to the streets following the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe versus Wade, ending the constitutional right to abortion. It's a moment that antiabortion activists have described as a victory decade in the making.

PAUL: Abortion rights groups are planning more demonstrations today and throughout the weekend after the major protests that we saw in cities around the country yesterday. That just a view of some of them. In fact, I want to tell you what happened in Phoenix, Arizona, yesterday, what you're looking at there. Demonstrations got rowdy, people there banging on the glass doors of the state Senate building.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(SHOUTING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL: Troopers used tear gas to disperse those crowds. And authorities say a monument was also vandalized during that protest. In some states abortion became illegal as soon as the Supreme Court issued its ruling. We're talking about 13 states that have these trigger laws in place activated by the court's decision.

SANCHEZ: We want to take you to two of those states now. CNN correspondent Alexandra Field joins us live from St. Louis, Missouri. We also have national correspondent Nadia Romero live in Jackson, Mississippi. And Nadia, I want to start with you, because you're standing outside the last abortion clinic in that state, and it's been tense out there this morning. There have been some demonstrations, right?

NADIA ROMERO, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Boris and Christi, it has been a long morning so far. Starting at about 4:00 a.m. local time when some of the protesters, the antiabortion activists have come out and started really aggressively in the morning, and threatening and intimidating to myself and our crew, but also to the staff and the volunteers at this clinic, the last clinic in the state of Mississippi, as they open their doors because in this state, the A.G. has to certify the bill into law. And so that won't happen for another 10 days or so. So abortions are still happening.

And at this hour the clinic doors are now open, although they've been allowing women to come in for the past hour or so simply because there's been so much hostility outside of this building. So right here on this corner, things have really calmed down, but we saw that intersection between the antiabortion activists and those who are supporting this clinic and supporting the right of women, who still have that right here in the state of Mississippi, to get an abortion. Things got really loud, really got carried away. The police were called, and things have seemed to quiet down, at least for the moment.

But I don't anticipate that will be happening much longer as the sun comes up and as more people make their way to this clinic because it has so much meaning. For many people, this is a place of refuge, the only place in the state where they can get an abortion. For others, this is the site of pure evil. Listen to one of the volunteers here at this clinic talk about what it means for women over the next 10 days in the state of Mississippi and what happens thereafter.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KIM GIBSON, CLINIC VOLUNTEER: Our volunteers will do always what we do, and that is put the patient first and make sure we can get them in as safely and comfortably as possible in the face of some really monstrous protesters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROMERO: And it has been contentious, as I mentioned, things quieting down now, but more women are making their way here. I was inside of this building, Boris and Christi. I saw a jampacked lobby of women who were very somber. This is a very difficult decision for many of the women I have spoken with who have had abortions in the past or who were there today ready to have their abortions.

This is a deeply personal decision for them. They filled the lobby. I spoke with the abortion provider. He says he's been doing this work for 30 years. He believes in it.

[10:05:02] He says he is not a baby killer, that they are having abortions for nonviable fetuses that could not live outside of the womb. He believes in his work, and he believes that this isn't the end. Boris and Christi?

PAUL: Nadia, we appreciate all your work this morning so much, thank you.

I want to go to Alexandra now, she is talking. She is there in Missouri, and I know that the attorney general there wasted no time taking action after the Supreme Court ruling. Alexandra, what is the latest in terms of the status in that state?

ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This is a morning unlike any in nearly 50 years for the women in Missouri who today cannot get access to abortion in the state they live in. This doesn't come as a shock to them, though. This has been a long time coming, many years, frankly, in the making. It wasn't just the Supreme Court's candidate here in Missouri. People have seen Republican state leaders over time enact more and more restrictions that have limited their access to abortion, and they have watched as Republican state leaders have sought to ban abortion outright.

That is exactly what happened merely minutes after the Supreme Court's decision went down. Missouri is one of 13 states that had a trigger law on the books. That's a law that allows the state to almost immediately enact a ban on abortion. The attorney general of this state proudly declaring that that was in fact the plan here, that that ban would immediately go into effect. Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC SCHMITT, MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL: Here is Missouri, the people's voice has already made clear that Missourians respect the sanctity of human life. We believe that without the explicit protection of the right to life, all liberties are under attack, which is why the importance of this day cannot be overstated. I am humbled to be a part of this and the first attorney general in the country to effectively end abortion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FIELD: That ban here took effect immediately. Missouri was one of 10 states to ban abortion in a single day following that decision from the Supreme Court. In some states there are no exceptions for rape or incest or the health of the mother. The decision here in Missouri met by protests, hundreds of people turning out at what was the last remaining abortion provider in the state to voice their distress. Patients who live in Missouri who are seeking abortion care will be counseled to look at the possibility of traveling over the border into Illinois. Christi, Boris?

SANCHEZ: Alexandra Field, Nadia Romero, thanks to both of you for your reporting.

At the White House, President Biden blasted the Supreme Court ruling, calling it a tragic error, saying that it puts women's health in jeopardy.

PAUL: CNN White House correspondent Arlette Saenz is with us live now. Arlette, good to see you this morning. What is the president -- what more, I should say, is the president saying, and what realistically could his administration do regarding this decision?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Christi and Boris, President Biden this morning described the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade as a, quote, painful and devastating decision for so many Americans in this country. And he said that his administration will now be focusing on what the states are going to do next.

The White House has been bracing for this moment for months, developing contingency planning that really picked up steam when that leaked draft opinion was released back in May. Now, President Biden, as he gave an address yesterday, outlined some of the steps that his administration will be taking. That includes ensuring that they can try to defend a woman's right to cross state lines to obtain an abortion if their state does not allow one. He has also directed his administration to try to expand access to medication that would allow for abortions.

But the president has also acknowledged that there is not much that he can personally do to fully restore that constitutional right to an abortion that had been in place for nearly 50 years. The president said that that must be done through legislation up on Capitol Hill, but the votes to do that simply do not exist at this moment.

With protests also expected to occur over the weekend, the president also urged people to ensure that those protests remain peaceful. He said that violence is never acceptable. Here at the White House this morning, in another historic moment, as the president signed the first major gun reform legislation in nearly three decades, the president also offered an assessment of the Supreme Court.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think the Supreme Court is broken, in your view?

JOE BIDEN, (D) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think the Supreme Court has made some terrible decisions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAENZ: Now, the president there not only referencing abortion, but also a ruling from the Supreme Court this week that really expanded gun rights in this country. Both of those issues, the White House is hoping that both guns and abortion will really galvanize voters heading into the midterm elections. Yesterday, President Biden specifically said that in November, Roe is on the ballot.

[10:10:04]

PAUL: Arlette Saenz, we appreciate it so much, thank you. We want to bring Jennifer Rodgers, CNN legal analyst and former

federal prosecutor, into the conversation, as well as and Joan Biskupic, CNN legal analyst and Supreme Court biographer. We appreciate both of you women. Thank you for being here.

Jennifer, I wanted to start with you, because I think there are a lot of people at home, and they are wondering this. Does this ruling create an opening to criminalize travel to other states if you are seeking abortion services, whether it's the services themselves, or what about the criminalization potentially of medicine related to abortions that could travel to state to state or could be transferred state to state? Is that possible?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: We know that in fact states are already moving to try to make those things criminal, the travel to other states. One of them, I think Missouri has tried to criminalize abortion, if someone actually got pregnant within the state, no matter where they are when they have the abortion, and of course, we know the abortion pills are under attack as well.

There are questions about the constitutionality of laws that try to prohibit people from traveling state to state. And so I do think there will be legal challenges if and when states enact laws like that, and they are susceptible, I think, to successful legal challenges. So I think in the end, probably trying to stop women from traveling out of state using the criminal laws will not work.

They may have some success with trying to stop people from getting abortion pills. Again, this is an area where Biden can take some executive action to try to help the situation. But there are legal challenges. People are already gearing up for those as states are jumping to pass these laws as quickly as possible to try to stop women from not just having abortions in clinics within those states but really to try to reach beyond their own states and stop women from going elsewhere.

PAUL: Joan, I want to ask you about the broader implications here, specifically from Justice Clarence Thomas' concurrence. He said in future cases we should reconsider all of this court's substantive due process precedents. He talked about same-sex marriage, the use of contraceptives, that there could be some legal ramifications there, some changes. Justices, we know, can't simply go relitigate. They need to be tethered to a case that comes to them. Do you think that this statement he made was his way of saying bring me a case?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Yes. He invited greater challenges to broader privacy rights. And Christi, there was a time when I would have said Justice Clarence Thomas alone is saying that the court should reverse Roe, alone is saying how wrongly it was reasoned. But he ended up prevailing on Friday. And who knows what's to come to additional challenges. As a threshold matter, I'd say it seems impossible that suddenly the court would overturn a right to even obtain contraceptives as the Supreme Court said was a constitutional right back in 1965, or that the Supreme Court would say that suddenly its decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015 should be overturned. Both those things seem, as I said, impossible, but today is not the

day to think that anything is impossible given that 50 years of abortion rights has just been rolled back. Now, the majority, Sam Alito, the majority author Sam Alito, said our decision is limited here. But the reasoning of the decision could allow the future courts to go much further, and it certainly will allow challenges.

And I'll just remind you of what the three liberal dissenters wrote. Those justices in the majority are not done yet. And they even cited those kinds of cases from the past, Griswold versus Connecticut on contraceptives, Obergefell on the same-sex marriage right.

PAUL: There is a report this morning from "The New York Times" that they had obtained some staff notes regarding a two-hour meeting that Senator Susan Collins had with Brett Kavanaugh in August of 2018, and in it Kavanaugh said, according to "The New York Times," "Roe is 45 years old, it's been reaffirmed many times, lots of people care about it a great deal, and I've tried to demonstrate I understand real world consequences." And now of course, both Senator Susan Collins and Joe Manchin said not only Kavanaugh but Neil Gorsuch lied, essentially, to them in their private meetings as well as in the hearings.

I'm wondering, Shan Wu this morning said this ruling raises questions about whether sitting justices lied in their confirmation hearings about respecting Roe as law of the land and that they could be the subject of an impeachment inquiry. Is there a likelihood there?

[10:15:11]

BISKUPIC: If you're asking me, I would say no. Clearly what Brett Kavanaugh said to Susan Collins was not the full story from where he sits. He wrote a concurring opinion yesterday, Christi, where he acts as if, of course I was poised to overturn Roe, of course I thought it was not solid precedent. He went through all the reasons of why the action he was taking yesterday was so correct, that it was time to roll back Roe. And he didn't act as if this was some new epiphany he had. He outlined his view of precedent and why this particular precedent was egregiously wrong.

So I believe he probably had some of those thoughts back when Susan Collins talked to him, and he might have accentuated some open- endedness in his thinking. He did what he needed to do to get confirmed, as many nominees have. It just is a reminder that senators cannot take things at face value. And those of us watching the testimony of these nominees, it reinforces what many of us had thought all along. It's kind of just talk, unfortunately.

PAUL: Jennifer, do you agree with that? And a question too, not only do you agree with that, but where does this leave Chief Justice Roberts? Because he seemed to have some efforts that he was trying to salvage this to some degree.

RODGERS: Yes, I do agree with that. Legally, if you're talking about a false statement to Congress, to be a lie that would support like a perjury conviction or even, frankly, an impeachment proceeding, you have to have a provably false statement at the time. If anything, they made kind of wishy-washy promises about what they might do, and that's certainly not good enough.

And as for Roberts, listen, there's no question, he's lost control of this court. This is not the Roberts court anymore. This is the Alito- Thomas court now. He really wanted to take an incremental step here, there's no question. He's throwing around these terms that he calls foundational to the court, like judicial restraint and stare decisis, and he couldn't get anyone to come along with him on that ride. So I think it's fair to say he has just completely lost control of the court. I just don't expect that he's going to be the kind of chief justice he wants to be, guiding the court for years down the road.

BISKUPIC: Could I add a little P.S. to that, though?

PAUL: Real quickly, yes.

BISKUPIC: Just that John Roberts is still prevailing on issues of race, religion, guns, and campaign finance. So he's lost this big battle, but he still is steering this court on many other conservative issues.

PAUL: Very good point. Jennifer Rodgers, Joan Biskupic, we appreciate your insight and your perspective, both of you. And, ladies, thank you so much.

SANCHEZ: Still to come this morning, President Biden on his way to the G7 summit in Germany, shifting his focus temporarily off the Supreme Court and back on Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

And just moments from now we're going to hear from a Texas state senator. He actually wrote that state's controversial law banning abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. All this as the nation feels the fallout over the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe versus Wade. Stay with CNN. We're back after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:22:38]

PAUL: Norway's intelligence services raised the country's threat level after a shooting in an Oslo gay bar. Police have charged a man with murder, attempted murder, and terrorism in connection with the attack that killed two people and sent eight others to the hospital. We know the suspect is a Norwegian citizen originally from Iran. The head of Norway's security service says authorities have been aware of the suspect since 2015 and spoke with him, in fact, just last month. At the time they were not convinced that he had a, quote, "violent intention." Oslo's pride parade planned for today has been canceled and Norway's police, who are normally unarmed, are now temporarily carrying weapons after the shooting.

So this landmark gun safety legislation that we've been talking about today is happening as the Supreme Court, of course, overturned that New York state law that prohibited people from carrying concealed handguns outside their homes.

SANCHEZ: The decision marks the widest expansion of U.S. gun rights in a decade, but Democrats in New York say that they are still working to keep some public spaces gun-free. CNN's Polo Sandoval has more.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

ZELLNOR Y. MYRIE, NEW YORK STATE SENATE: People are anxious, they are scared.

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Senator Zellnor Myrie among the New York state lawmakers scrambling to respond to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of gun owners wishing to carry concealed firearms in public. A Thursday decision from a conservative leaning court eliminated the century old requirement for New York residents to prove that they have a self-defense need in order to be issued a license to carry a concealed pistol or revolver. It's a ruling that has been called both reckless and reprehensible by some leaders in a state that's still reeling with a mass shooting in Buffalo and another in April aboard a packed subway train in Myrie's own Brooklyn district.

MYRIE: I can't emphasize enough how disastrous this Supreme Court decision is. We do still have some options, but people should be worried about the future of keeping guns off of our streets.

SANDOVAL: Myrie expects to join fellow lawmakers in a special session in the coming days to discuss those options. Some of them include expanding so-called sensitive locations where the licensed carrying of firearms would be banned. Also on the agenda, says Myrie, outlining the training and vetting that will be required for residents taking fresh interests in arming themselves.

MYRIE: I don't think we should be making it incredibly onerous for individuals who are law abiding citizens to try to get a firearm.

[10:25:04]

That has never been what our concealed carry firearm regime was about. It was really about keeping New Yorkers safe because New York and its geography and its density and our history dictates that we're different in many respects.

SANDOVAL: Myrie says the New Yorkers he's heard from recently have been largely opposed to loosening handgun licensing requirements, though there are some who welcome an opportunity to arm themselves.

NANCY NICHOLS, NEW YORK RESIDENT: Absolutely. Especially because I am qualified to do that, and I am trained to do that. And I would feel much safer.

SANDOVAL: New Yorkers like Nancy Nichols who says she was licensed to carry a concealed firearm in Texas when that was required, but she gave up her pistol after moving to New York City eight years ago.

NICHOLS: Because some of us are not New Yorkers and some of us are, I feel like there's going to be a middle split ground there, yes.

SANDOVAL: Where do you stand in that split ground?

NICHOLS: I'm for it. As long as there's proper regulations in place and stuff that we can clearly define who gets to have one and where, I feel like we can actually do that.

SANDOVAL: Therein lies the next challenge in a post-ruling era. Myrie says state lawmakers and New York City officials have to loosen restrictions for applicants while also limiting where they may be able to carry. It will be a tough but a necessary balancing act, says Myrie.

MYRIE: I like to recognize that fear, I understand that fear. But the solution is not more firearms.

SANDOVAL: Polo Sandoval, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

PAUL: So from abortion to guns to the economy, all of it is on the ballot for the midterms. Will these issues be enough to sway voters? We're taking a look at that, next. Stay close.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[10:31:08]

SANCHEZ: After decades of inaction from Congress even in the face of gun violence and mass shootings across the country, this morning President Biden signed a major gun safety bill to address a growing epidemic.

PAUL: I want to discuss what impact this legislation as well as the recent SCOTUS rulings will have on the upcoming midterm elections. We have CNN political commentators S.E. Cupp and Karen Finney. Ladies, so grateful to have you here, thank you for being here. Good morning to you.

I want to start with you, Karen, if I could, please. When we talk about the millions of dollars that are being invested now for mental health and school safety and crisis intervention programs, and that so-called boyfriend loophole, which was a big one for people, expanding background checks for younger buyers. And they have incentives for states to establish red flag laws as well, crisis intervention programs. There's a lot in this bill that finally went through. There's also a lot that did not.

My question to you is, when we talk about this gun safety bill, is the potency of this issue enough to override some of the other issues Republicans are going to cite, such as the economy, to get voters, particularly Democratic voters to the polls?

KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Sure, it's a great question. I think for those voters, it certainly shows progress. And even some of the most staunch gun reform activists have said a step forward is better than no steps forward at all.

At the same time, as you point out, there's a lot more that is needed. And frankly, I think what happened in Congress was undermined by what the Supreme Court did. And so that brings the issue back to the fore in the minds of voters.

What it will really come down to, though, in November, for those voters for whom this is the mobilizing issue, who do you trust? And this is true on both sides of the aisle, by the way. Who do you trust? When it comes to gun safety, Democrats tend to do better. And so in those communities where you have parents and others who remain concerned about crime levels, about wanting to go farther in some of these measures, I think it will be a positive for Democrats.

SANCHEZ: And S.E., on the Republican side, 29 Republicans from both chambers alongside pretty much all Democrats voting to pass this bill. Do you see this being an issue for those Republicans when they return home and are primaried from the right?

S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Here's the weird thing. So usually when there's a Democrat in the White House, the gun issue is very good for Republicans. Gun ownership goes up, NRA membership goes up. That has not been the case in this administration. Actually, NRA membership and donations are down. And frankly, the Supreme Court ruling, which was good for Republicans and folks on that side of the issue, actually took a very good issue off the table for Republicans. So that combined with the Roe ruling I think is all very good news for Democrats. And I don't think this will play much at all for the Republicans who voted for these discrete pieces of gun legislation. I think actually this all works in Democrats' favor for midterms.

PAUL: So I wanted to ask you something about that regarding the Roe verdict, or the Roe ruling and what this means for midterms for Republicans. I want to listen to Ashley Allison. She's a political commentator and former White House staff member under President Obama. And she said this isn't just about abortion itself. There are some -- this really bleeds into other areas. Here she is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[10:34:57]

ASHLEY ALLISON, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE STAFF MEMBER: This is not just about a woman's right to choose. It is very clear, and people should take note, they are coming for everyone. If you are not a white, conservative male, they want to take your rights away. This time it's abortion. Next time it will be marriage equality. The next time -- they've already done voting rights. Every right we have fought so hard for is at stake right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL: S.E., how do Republicans counter that?

CUPP: Well, yes, I think the Roe ruling was a huge -- they might like the outcome, but politically I can't imagine a better turnout engine than this ruling for Democrats. And you can make the argument that the Republicans' legislative victories and the Supreme Court victory by a conservative court are regressive. They're taking us backwards. Whether you like them or not, you can't deny the fact that they're going backwards, right, they're taking us back to a different time when these weren't rights.

Republicans are banning books. It really does feel anachronistic with where the country is. And so I think that's a good message for Democrats. Look, the economy is still going to be a huge driver for the election. But I absolutely think, look, the Democrats got a big boost from both of these rulings, I feel like, and they needed it, politically.

SANCHEZ: Karen, go ahead.

FINNEY: I was just going to say, the other way to think about this is that if you think back to the civil rights movement and so much of the legislation that was passed, Brown v. Board of Education, the voting rights act, that was all about expanding rights. But the message from the court now is, the court is not a place to go to expand or protect your rights.

And so I agree with S.E. that part of -- and Ashley, a part of what this message sends is, and the president said it yesterday, if you care about these issues, that's why you have to vote for Democrats, because we need a legislative solution. And there's been a lot of polling that has been done recently by groups like Emily's List, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, that shows these issues are mobilizing for Democratic voters who may have been a little less mobilized before. And it actually moves some voters over to Democrats.

So I think you're going to certainly see Democrats press that advantage in conversation in part because for women -- two things. One, for women, it's not just about abortion. It's about control of our bodies. And certainly, what Clarence Thomas said opened up the door to a number of other issues, as Ashley said in that clip, that will make people very concerned.

PAUL: The concurrence is going to be a really interesting side note to this, certainly, that could become much further than a side note. S.E. Cupp, Karen Finney, we appreciate you both being here so much, thank you.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:42:40]

SANCHEZ: Antiabortion activists and lawmakers are celebrating the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe versus Wade, including our next guest. Republican Texas State Senator Bryan Hughes is with us this morning. He wrote that controversial Texas law, SB-8, that bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. Bryan, we're grateful to get your perspective this morning. There are a lot of women in the United States who woke up today enraged, and they're wondering from folks like you, what gives you the right to decide what a woman can do with her body?

BRYAN HUGHES, (R) TEXAS STATE SENATE: Thank you for having me on. After this opinion, for folks on the pro-life view, this is not a time to gloat. This is a big deal, this is serious. This is a time for us to show love, to reach out to Americans who see this issue differently than we do.

And our responsibility, while we save the life of the unborn child, is to love and respect and support those mothers. And that's what we're doing in Texas in tangible ways. When we passed the heartbeat bill last year, we also put $100 million into a new program just to help those expectant mothers, adoptive parents, those mothers who choose adoption, many programs exist to help Texans who are having a difficult time economically, low-income folks.

But this program is on top of that just to help those moms with baby formula, diapers, parenting classes, tangible things to give them help. We want to save the life of that little unborn baby while we love and respect and support the mother, and we're going to do both.

SANCHEZ: The trigger law banning abortion in your state goes into effect in roughly 30 days. It defines pregnancy as beginning at the moment of fertilization. Are you on board with that?

HUGHES: I'll be filing legislation when the legislature comes back into session that will begin child support obligations at that point. We want to be consistent in this. That's a little unborn baby growing inside her mother's womb. Dr. King --

SANCHEZ: Sir, if we could for a moment, just clarify that for us. Are you saying you believe life begins at conception?

HUGHES: Life begins at conception. If you talk to scientists, if you talk to medical professionals, there are stages of development all the way through the pregnancy.

[10:45:02]

There are stages of development after birth. Little newborn babies are not fully grown. But when that human is in the womb, that's the life we want to protect, of course. In Texas --

SANCHEZ: There are medical doctors and scientists that say life doesn't begin at conception, though. They don't share that opinion. They believe that's a cluster of cells, and that through those stages of development, eventually you can define an embryo, a fetus, potentially as life, but they don't necessarily agree with your point of view. So I go back to my first question, specifically, what is it that allows you to define what life is for women?

HUGHES: Each scientist you're referring to would pick a different point in that development. Each one would. As you know, Democrats in the U.S. Congress support a bill that would allow abortion up to the moment of birth. We know most Americans obviously are not in favor of that. And so Roe versus Wade means this question goes back to the states. So the people decide it through the states.

People are going to vote. And if they don't like the policies in their state, they're going to vote with their feet. People have been doing that. They've been leaving states like California and coming to Texas where there's opportunity and liberty and rights. We respect the rights of those little unborn babies as well.

So this is a decision that should not have been decided by seven old men in 1973. This should be left to the people and the states. And as you know, that's what Roe versus Wade does. It will be an issue of state by state decisions by the people through the legislatures.

SANCHEZ: I understand your point. I do want to clarify that bill that you're referring to that Democrats -- you referred to Democrats supporting a bill that would allow for abortion up until the moment of birth. I don't believe that that's widely supported by a majority of Democrats. I don't know that that's realistic or that that would pass in any of the 50 states.

I do want to get your thoughts on the concurrent -- I want to get your thoughts on the concurring opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas, because he believes the court should revisit other decisions linked to privacy rights, gay marriage, access to contraception, other issues. Are you sharing in that opinion with Justice Thomas?

HUGHES: In the 1960s and 70s the court interfered in a lot of areas of life they had never been in before. They went beyond the Constitution, beyond the laws. Roe versus Wade was the high point, or the low point, of those rulings. And so the ruling today just means that the federal courts and the federal government will leave the states and the people more liberty to make their own decisions. That's all this is about. I don't have bills in mind to file along those lines. We're focused in Texas on coming back and providing more support for those moms and babies. That's what you'll see from us here in Texas.

SANCHEZ: As you noted, Texas allocated $100 million to expectant moms and adoptive parents, but there are women out there who say that even with that financial support, it's not enough. They would like to see an expansion of health care beyond those $100 million. But yet many Republicans do not support expansions of health care across this country, certainly not socialized medicine. So what would you say to women who say that it's not enough, what you're offering is simply not enough?

HUGHES: We added the $100 million in addition to Medicaid and health care services that are already available. We added $100 million last year when we passed the heartbeat bill knowing more babies and more moms would need help. Now that Roe is gone, more babies and more moms will need help. So look for us to come back and provide more funding. We're talking about real, tangible help for those moms. We're serious about this.

SANCHEZ: State Senator Bryan Hughes, one more question for you. Specifically, a procedure that may be impacted by this decision, in vitro fertilization, IVF, a process that many women use to get pregnant, it does often result in the destruction of embryos. But it is the only way for some couples to be able to conceive. Would you support legal protections for IVF?

HUGHES: I want to be clear about this. The exceptions in this bill are like the ones we put in our pro-life laws for the last 20 years. And so if the mother's life is in danger, if there's serious risk to the mother's health, of course that's always going to be protected. Nothing is going to change as far as that goes in this bill. We want to make sure that's taken care of.

SANCHEZ: But that doesn't answer the question about in vitro fertilization.

HUGHES: I'm sorry, what exactly is the question?

SANCHEZ: In vitro fertilization, this decision by the Supreme Court, it could make it difficult for women to receive that treatment because in the process of administering IVF, often embryos are destroyed. And you just said you believe that life begins at conception. So I'm wondering if there's a contradiction there for you?

HUGHES: Each state is going to sort these things out. In Texas we're going to protect innocent human life in the womb. Now, if the mother's life is in jeopardy, if her health is in jeopardy, of course. If the mom seeks an abortion --

[10:50:03]

SANCHEZ: But not if she's the victim of rape or incest?

HUGHES: -- we're going to make sure about that. Beyond that, we're going to protect innocent human life growing inside her mother's womb. That little baby inside her mother's womb is the most helpless, the most deserving of protection, the most innocent a human can ever be. So we want to make sure those little lives are protected. We want to be clear on that.

SANCHEZ: State Senator Bryan Hughes, I would love to continue testing your ideas, but that's all we have time for. So thanks so much for joining us.

HUGHES: Thanks for having me.

SANCHEZ: Stay with CNN. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:55:13]

PAUL: For more than 15 years, CNN has been honoring people, everyday heroes we call them, that are changing the world. This Saturday, as in today, we're taking a look at some not so everyday people that are making a real difference. And we want to introduce you to global humanitarian chef Jose Andres, founder of the disaster relief nonprofit World Central Kitchen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSE ANDRES, FOUNDER, WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN: My challenge is how we can keep nimble as we grow, but is still keeping the spirit of being fast. We've been in the last few days alone in Bangladesh. We've been in Oaxaca. We've been, unfortunately, after the shootings, in Buffalo, Texas. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Andre's incredible drive and resilience is captured

in a new documentary aptly called "We Feed People" directed by Ron Howard.

RON HOWARD, DIRECTOR: I was fascinated by how he instigated this amazing program in a short period of time and grew it into something so substantial, so meaningful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: You can find out more about Chef Andres' incredible relief efforts along with those of Sean Penn, Glenn Close, Mila Kunis, and more when "CNN Heroes Salutes" premieres tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern right here on CNN.

PAUL: Good vibes, too. That will do it.

SANCHEZ: We could use some good vibes, that for sure.

PAUL: Yes, I know, I know. We're so glad that you spent some time with us in your morning and keep us company here. We hope you make some great memories.

SANCHEZ: And don't go anywhere, because there's still much more ahead in the next of the CNN Newsroom. Fredricka Whitfield picks it up after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)