Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Protests Across The U.S. After Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade; Missouri Becomes First State To Effectively Ban Abortion; Interview With Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI); George Pataki (R), Former NY Governor, Discusses Trip To Ukraine For Relief Effort; New Gun Reform Law; World Reacts To Supreme Court's Ruling On Abortion. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired June 25, 2022 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:02]
JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington.
Abortion rights advocates are making their voices heard across the country today after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled there is no longer a constitutional right to an abortion. In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, video shows a truck appearing to push through a group of on protesters injuring one person.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (EXPLETIVE DELETED), my gosh.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ACOSTA: As you can see, tempers are flaring. Police say this followed verbal confrontations between the protesters and the driver.
Over in Phoenix, a crowd of abortion rights protesters surrounded the state's Senate building banging on the glass. An official tells CNN law enforcement used tear gas to disperse those protesters.
And states, we should note, are now free to decide abortion rights or lack thereof. As of right now 13 states have trigger laws banning abortions in light of the ruling from the Supreme Court yesterday. And an abortion ban is already in effect in at least six states. Some House Republicans are now pushing on legislation to ban abortion at 15 weeks or after 15 weeks nationwide.
The United States has now joined the ranks of Nicaragua, El Salvador and Poland as the only countries in the world to roll back abortion rights after the last three decades.
Let's begin with CNN's Joe Johns outside the Supreme Court.
Joe, what are you hearing from the crowd out there.
JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Large crowd here at the United States Supreme Court, Jim. Let's just take a look around, and I'll show you the vast majority, the people here at this time are abortion rights supporters. You can tell that obviously by the signs. But there were also some opponents here not too long ago. So we had, as you said at the top, verbal altercations, some confrontational language, some cursing, what have you, but it has remained peaceful.
Still the folks here clearly projecting a sense of anger, projecting almost shock if you will, and that's one of the things I've been asking people about in the crowd here, given the fact that there was so much advance warning that the court was headed in this direction.
Abortion rights opponents have been protesting, if you will, Roe v. Wade for 50 years and then just a few weeks ago, we got that advance opinion, that leaked opinion of Justice Alito really signaling that the court was headed in this direction. So I asked people, look, why are you even surprised? And one woman told me as far as she was concerned, she never believed the United States Supreme Court was ever going to do this.
Jim, back to you.
ACOSTA: All right. Joe Johns, we know emotions are running high, we know you'll stay on top of this. Thank you very much.
Joining me now is CNN's chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
Jeffrey, great to have you with us. Thanks so much. You warned that this day was coming and it came. You were dead on about this, Jeffrey. And typically when the Supreme Court reverses itself it's to grant more rights, not to take them away after 50 years. How do you think this is going to go down in the history of the Supreme Court?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, this is certainly a major moment in the history of the Supreme Court, and I don't know how it will be regarded in the future. But, you know, the reason it was preordained is because the conservative movement mobilized to make its political influence felt in the Republican Party.
I mean, you know, Donald Trump said in the campaign, repeatedly, including in one debate with Hillary Clinton, he said, I am going to appoint justices who will vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. He appointed three justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. And when you combine that with Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito who had already expressed their desire to do so, you know, that doesn't make me a clairvoyant. That just makes me someone who listens to what people say.
ACOSTA: Right.
TOOBIN: And that's just -- so, you know, this decision was in no way a surprise.
ACOSTA: And as you know, Jeffrey, I mean, the repercussions are far reaching. There are states with trigger bans going into place. There are states with very outdated laws. I mean, laws that date back decades, more than a century, I guess, in Wisconsin's case, it goes back to 1849, and it's, you know, up in the air to some extent what's going to happen in some of these places. But the repercussions could go even further than that. Justice
Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion had said that they should reconsider the due process precedence of other cases including same- sex marriage. What do you think? I mean, how far reaching could this be?
TOOBIN: It's enormous. And it doesn't just affect the red states. I mean, remember, many of the states that are declaring abortion illegal are also saying that anyone who aids or abets an abortion could be criminally prosecuted.
[15:05:06]
That means people in blue states who send money, who send medication abortions to people in red states, they could be prosecuted. What about the corporations who are saying we will pay to have our employees travel to places where they can get an abortion? Is that aiding and abetting an abortion? I mean, the legal -- just the practical legal implications of the decision yesterday are enormous.
And that's even before you get to the point you were raising about Clarence Thomas' opinion, which -- I mean, he's right in that the logic of the Dobbs opinion, the one from yesterday, certainly does suggest that laws limiting contraception, limiting consensual sexual activity, banning same-sex marriage, that logic would suggest those laws could stand.
ACOSTA: And I have to ask you about this. I don't know if you saw this tweet from Senator John Cornyn of Texas. He was tweeting a response to former President Barack Obama, who was criticizing the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the overturning of precedence. And I guess Senator Cornyn retweeted Obama and said now, do Plessy versus Ferguson, Brown versus Board of Education. Obviously going back to those momentous decisions. What did you think of that?
TOOBIN: I think he's been widely misunderstood, and he's issued some clarifying tweets. You know, it's sometimes a good idea to express yourself at greater length than 240 characters. What he was saying --
ACOSTA: Well, I mean, I should say he tweeted a clarification saying, thank goodness, some SCOTUS precedents are overruled.
TOOBIN: Yes. And his original tweet all it meant was that some bad Supreme Court decisions should be overturned. And he meant that -- it's a good thing that Plessy was overturned by Brown v Board of Education. Now he means it's a good thing that Roe v. Wade was overturned by Dobbs. You know, people can disagree with him about abortion, but he was not saying that we should go back to the days of separate but equal.
ACOSTA: And I have to ask you, Jeffrey, if -- how did we get to the Dobbs decision? I know you and I have talked about this before. Had Amy Coney Barrett not been rushed onto the Supreme Court, which, you know, flew in the face of what Mitch McConnell said when he blocked Merrick Garland back when Merrick Garland was being put forward by the Obama administration? Had those events not taken place, we would not have this Dobbs decision yesterday. I mean, that is just a fair reading of events, correct? Or help me out here.
TOOBIN: Totally. Well, it's even broader than that. You know, the credit or responsibility for the Dobbs decision depending on how you view it goes to Mitch McConnell as much as it goes to Donald Trump. He is the one that prevented Merrick Garland from replacing Anton Scalia. He is the one who pushed through Brett Kavanaugh in spite of the sexual harassment allegation against him. He is the one who jammed through Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg in an extremely abbreviated process.
Those are the three Trump justices, two if not all three of them wouldn't be on the court but for Mitch McConnell. He is one of the absolutely central figures in the history of the modern Supreme Court.
ACOSTA: And let's talk about this flashback when Senator Susan Collins who was against -- she said she was against overturning Roe vs. Wade, defended voting for both Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh putting them on the Supreme Court. Here's what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR, THE LEAD: Neil Gorsuch, for whom you voted, don't you think he's probably going to vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade if given the chance?
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): I actually don't.
DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Are you 100 percent certain, without a doubt, that Brett Kavanaugh will not overturn Roe v. Wade?
COLLINS: I do not believe that Brett Kavanaugh will overturn Roe v. Wade?
BASH: Because precedents are overturned all the time.
COLLINS: They aren't overturned all the time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ACOSTA: I mean, Jeffrey, you know, you and I also have talked about this, how Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett all gave assurances, I mean, I know people want to dunk on Susan Collins, but those -- these were nominees to the Supreme Court giving the country assurances that they were not going to overturn this precedent, and yet they did anyway.
How do you think Susan Collins' statements I guess stand up now? But also what about the fact that we have people who are putting themselves forward for a spot on the high court of this country who were essentially misleading the country about what their true intentions might be if Roe vs. Wade were to come to their desk?
[15:10:04]
TOOBIN: You know, the -- it's hard to know where to start. ACOSTA: Yes.
TOOBIN: You know, Susan Collins is nominally an independent Republican, but who does what Mitch McConnell wants when he really needs her. You know, she voted against Amy Coney Barrett because he didn't -- Mitch McConnell didn't need her vote. But he really needed her vote on Brett Kavanaugh. So I don't know if Susan Collins was really believing Brett Kavanaugh or she was just giving herself a fig leaf to do Mitch McConnell's bidding, as she frequently does, you know, in tight circumstances.
I mean, you know, and as for the justices themselves, you know, they were playing a game to get on the Supreme Court. All three of them are lawyers. So if you parse their words carefully, the way lawyers know how to speak, they did not explicitly promise to uphold Roe vs. Wade.
ACOSTA: Right.
TOOBIN: They left the impression that they would uphold Roe vs. Wade, which was enough for Susan Collins. So, you know, this was, you know, a game that they were playing, but, you know, those of us who had studied the records of Brett Kavanaugh, of Amy Coney Barrett, of Neil Gorsuch knew this day was coming. And Susan Collins had to know it, too, because anyone with any sense -- and she has plenty of sense -- had to know this was coming. But -- and it did and here we are.
ACOSTA: And Jeffrey, we have to mention that the president was asked about some of these issues, in particular this idea of expanding the Supreme Court that some Democrats want him to entertain. He's throwing cold water on all of that. What do you think?
TOOBIN: You know, I guess I am enough of a traditionalist to think that's a pretty bad idea. I think most people don't know that the number of Supreme Court justices is not set in the Constitution. It is simply a law like any other that could be changed. And, you know, up until just after the Civil War the number of Supreme Court justices did change several times.
But, you know, if you start getting into a situation where the party that doesn't like Supreme Court decisions starts increasing the number of justices, that's an arms race that I think could not really end well for the court or the country. Franklin Roosevelt discovered that when he tried to increase the number of the justices after the New Deal.
I think Democrats, who are frustrated by the Supreme Court, need to do what Roosevelt did, which was win elections. And that's where the future of abortion is going to be decided. Presidential elections, senatorial elections and now state elections about abortion rights.
ACOSTA: All right, Jeffrey Toobin, always good talking to you. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.
TOOBIN: All right, Jim.
ACOSTA: Coming up, the Supreme Court leaving the health of millions in doubt after the Supreme Court decision, leaving it in the hands of individual states. A look at the so-called trigger laws now going into effect around the country.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:17:11]
ACOSTA: Just minutes after the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade, some states effectively banned all abortions through trigger laws that were in place ready to go.
CNN's Alexandra Field joins me now from St. Louis.
Alexandra, Missouri was the first state to effectively ban abortions.
ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, the first, but now one of many. You know, it was already nearly impossible actually to get an abortion in the state of Missouri. There was just one clinic operating and only on just one day of the week. But now it is illegal. All in the space of a day and that is because this state and about a dozen others had spent years preparing for the possibility that Roe would someday be overturned.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FIELD (voice-over): After nearly 50 years, the change came in some states in mere minutes or a matter of just hours.
JOHN O'CONNOR, OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL: As of this morning, abortions performed in Oklahoma or solicited in Oklahoma are illegal.
FIELD: At least nine states effectively banning abortion on the very day of the Supreme Court's seismic decision. Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Missouri, Arkansas, Alabama, Wisconsin and Ohio, all places where abortion is now illegal.
LESLIE RUTLEDGE, ARKANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL: I am proud to announce as chief legal officer for the state of Arkansas that the United States Supreme Court has in fact overruled Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey, thereby restoring the state of Arkansas the authority to prohibit abortions.
FIELD: Planned Parenthood in Little Rock says it cancelled as many as 100 appointments for patients seeking abortions in the hours after the news broke. The court's decision celebrated as a triumph by Missouri's Republican state leaders.
ERIC SCHMITT, MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL: I am humbled to be a part of this and the first attorney general in the country to effectively end abortion.
FIELD: While a Democratic congresswoman from St. Louis brought to tears. The state's last remaining abortion clinic can't perform abortions anymore.
YAMELSIE RODRIGUEZ, PRESIDENT AND CEO, PLANNED PARENTHOOD ST. LOUIS: We notified the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services that we are ceasing abortion services in the state of Missouri. The day we've been warning about for years has arrived. Today and all of the days that led to the overturning of Roe should be stained in our history for which we must learn and do better.
FIELD: The swift action coming because six of the nine states banning abortion immediately had so-called trigger laws on the books, even before the court's decision came down. Laws that could be implemented quickly to end access to abortion. In some states, that's even in cases of rape or incest and even when the life of the mother is at risk.
[15:20:01]
Trigger laws in seven more states will bring more near or total bans on abortion in the coming weeks.
DR. COLLEEN MCNICHOLAS, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, PLANNED PARENTHOOD ST. LOUIS: Today is truly the worst kind of we-told-you-so moment of my entire career. I'm angry. I'm angry for every patient who has no other choice but to flee their home state for abortion care.
FIELD: The list of states where you can't get abortion anymore expected to grow and quickly even in states without trigger laws. A federal judge in Alabama granting an emergency order allowing the state to implement its abortion ban effective immediately. An Ohio judge now also allowing the state to implement its abortion ban. While Indiana's governor is calling for a return of the general assembly to pass a new anti-abortion law.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FIELD: And the number of states where abortions are not being provided anymore now jumps to 10. Utah, the latest state to enact its trigger law banning abortions. As for what people who are seeking abortions will do, well, here in Missouri for years they have been advised to cross the border into Illinois. We can expect now that even more women from Missouri who had been treated in St. Louis will also look to go to Illinois. Illinois was also serving patients who are coming in from Texas. And the expectation now, Jim, is that Illinois will be serving patients from a number of other states, too -- Jim.
ACOSTA: So many lives impacted by this. All right, Alexandra Field, thank you very much.
Abortion is still legal in the state of Michigan, but a law from nearly 100 years ago is creating a major fight. We'll explain. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:26:02]
ACOSTA: The governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, has filed a motion with her state's Supreme Court to protect abortion rights after Roe vs. Wade was overturned. The concern is an old law on the books that dates back to 1931. It criminalizes abortion without exceptions for rape or incest. Right now it's not being enforced because Planned Parenthood got an injunction blocking it, but anti-abortion groups as well as the state's majority Republican legislature, they want to see that law dating, again, back to 1931 reinstated.
Joining me now is Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Dingell.
Congresswoman, thank you so much for being with us. How big is the risk to women in Michigan right now, and how do you stop what is being contemplated in Michigan, bringing back a law from 1931?
REP. DEBBIE DINGELL (D-MI): So the governor has taken -- it's good to be with you, by the way. First let me say that.
ACOSTA: Yes. Thank you.
DINGELL: The governor anticipated this and actually began this legal effort a number of months ago when the decision was issued yesterday, has asked for an expedited decision from the Michigan Supreme Court. But, Jim, I want to tell you, there are immediate consequences. Belmont Hospital, which is one of our major hospitals in the Southeast Michigan area, that's now become part of a broader hospitals throughout the state has already said that they will not be doing abortions.
And they weren't someone that was doing it in -- every day, but they were doing it in medical situations. I had women call me last night and this morning, that one woman is someone that has had a number of miscarriages and her doctor has now told her that she had a miscarriage, she did not know if she would be able to complete the medical procedure.
This is -- it's leading to confusion. People do not understand that this is about women's health and it's obviously in Michigan right now it is still legal. The hospital was assured that it was still legal not only by the governor but by the attorney general. There are consequences for this decision.
ACOSTA: And your state shares borders with Indiana and Ohio. Right now abortion is still legal in both states. Both state legislatures appear poised to pass bans, though, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. I guess, is Michigan going to help out women and I guess girls we should say, you know, girls could be affected by this, who travel to Michigan?
DINGELL: So, you know, the president has made clear that he's going to -- the Justice Department will make it safe for people to travel. We even live across -- quite frankly Canada is closer to me than any of those states that you'd mentioned. And the prime minister of Canada has said that he will help people.
This is -- I really don't believe that people understand how important this is that this is about women's health. And this is an individual's right to make a decision and it should be between her, her doctor and her faith. Not a government and not justices of any court. ACOSTA: And I mean, it has been returned to the states, but, you know,
the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, says he supports legislation to codify a 15-week ban on abortion, a ban on abortion after 15 weeks. We know that former Vice President Mike Pence who wants to run for president supports a nationwide ban on abortion. So even though, you know, I guess, proponents of what came down from the Supreme Court yesterday are saying oh, it's going back to the states, it's going back to the people to decide, there are folks inside the Republican Party who are talking about having a national -- having national laws on this now.
DINGELL: People need to understand that elections have consequences. And I would like to tell people who are listening today, I've been talking to people nonstop since I got home late yesterday. They need to read this decision.
[15:30:00]
And they need to read the words of Justice Thomas, who believes that a number of other decisions need to be revisited and let's start with contraception.
I am sorry, but nobody has the right to tell a woman what kind of medicine she can take, be it a birth control pill or anything else.
We will fight it at the federal level to protect women's health care, period.
I have spent 50 years, since I was in high school, fighting to make progress in so many areas. And I am not -- I am not old and I have a lot of fight and passion in me.
But I am seasoned. And I'm not going to see the progress we've made in bringing freedom and equality and justice for every American to go backwards.
And that's what we're looking at right now. And we cannot let that happen. And every American needs to know it is their fight, too.
ACOSTA: And President Biden was asked about this and he said that he does not want to see the Supreme Court expanded. He is against that. But he has described overturning Roe v. Wade as a tragic error by the Supreme Court.
Do you think the president should reconsider that, this idea of expanding the Supreme Court?
DINGELL: I think -- look, I -- I'm probably more of a traditionalist than many. I find myself today thinking, what do you do -- I, quite frankly, do believe that we were led by Supreme Court justices.
We had two United States Senators who voted for them and would not have been confirmed if they had not voted for them or didn't feel that the truth was told to them.
I think we really need to study, what are the options? We need to look at, do we continue to have lifetime terms?
I also think -- I've been someone that's been reluctant on the filibuster to come out. You shouldn't need 60 votes when the majority of the American people feeling the way they do.
I think we have to look at everything. I think we need to do it in a very calm, measured, intentional way. But we need to take the anger that we have right now, turn it into action. Not violent action.
I think this country right now is raw. I'm worried about it, as I'm out and about. Was at a vigil last night with several thousand people.
We need to start voting in November. These elections really have consequences this year.
ACOSTA: Congresswoman Debbie Dingle, you're absolutely right, these upcoming midterms are hugely important.
Thank you very much for your time. We appreciate it.
DINGELL: Thank you.
ACOSTA: Coming up, a surreal split-screen moment in America as Congress passes the first bipartisan gun safety bill in 30 years right after the Supreme Court makes it easier to carry firearms in public.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:38:19]
ACOSTA: It appears that Russia's slow and steady advance in eastern Ukraine is paying off. Ukrainian troops are pulling out of the city of Severodonetsk after grinding street battles that have gone on for about two months.
This is significant because it was one of the last major strongholds to keep Russian President Vladimir Putin from that wider goal of taking the Donbass region.
Meantime, down south in that country, Ukraine is reporting a new missile strike that was caught on camera in Mykolaiv. There it is right there.
Its mayor said no one was killed in Friday's attack, which hit a gas station, but it comes on the heels of multiple back-to-back missile strikes over the past two days.
Joining me now is former Republican governor from New York, George Pataki, who's planning to travel to Ukraine to help build some temporary houses for families left homeless by Russia's invasion.
Governor, thank you for joining us. We appreciate it.
Why are you making the trip? Why is the cause so important to you?
GEORGE PATAKI (R), FORMER NEW YORK GOVERNOR: Well, Jim, you just see the devastation that you just showed, and what you don't see are the literally millions of Ukrainians displaced internally who have no homes, who have no place to go.
Millions have fled across the border but millions more are internally displaced.
So what we're doing is working with the Ukrainian government to try to get all the help from the West we can to rebuild the housing, particularly in places like near Kyiv.
So that families who have nothing -- by this fall, and it's going to be cold and bitter -- will have a place to stay.
ACOSTA: And President Biden announced this week he was giving Ukraine another $450 million in military assistance. Right now, he's on his way to the G-7 summit.
[15:40:01]
What message would you like to see him deliver there when it comes to Ukraine?
PATAKI: I think we have to continue to provide military support, the best possible quality and quantity, just to help the Ukrainians defend their own country.
But the message I would say is that the billions in humanitarian aid appropriated in Washington and announced by the president has not gotten to the ground in Ukraine.
That's one of the reasons we've been there. And we're going to work with the government in Kyiv to have specific programs that they want the U.S. government to fund with all these billions in promised aid.
The message is keep up the military support but change the way the humanitarian relief is flowing because it hasn't gotten into Ukraine.
ACOSTA: Governor, I want to switch to gun violence in this country.
I know, in your state, you had the horrific mass shooting in Buffalo some weeks ago. And earlier today, we saw President Biden sign into law the first major gun safety legislation in 30 years.
But it comes the same week that the Supreme Court, as you know, struck down a New York law ruling that Americans can have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.
Back in 2000, you signed into some of the nation's strictest gun regulations. What was your reaction to the Supreme Court's ruling?
PATAKI: I was disappointed on that. Because I think states should have the authority to act in the best interest of protecting the citizens.
As you said, I did sign a very significant gun control law. It didn't take away the basic Second Amendment rights. But I don't think there's anybody out there that thinks that an 18- year-old or someone just out of a mental institution should be allowed to have a weapon of mass destruction. So there's a reasonable balance.
I think the states, politically, just as with abortion, I think states are capable of achieving a reasonable balance. But the Supreme Court, in this case, has made it more difficult.
ACOSTA: I want to ask you about abortion in just a second. But just a follow-up on what you were saying about gun safety.
Do you think the -- there should be a law making it illegal for people under the age of 21 to purchase assault weapons like A.R.-15s that keep showing up in all of these mass shootings?
PATAKI: I do. Just -- it's just not necessary for an 18 or 19-year-old to -- as we know from experience with driving cars, don't always execute the best judgment -- to be able to buy these A.R.-15s. So I think it makes very reasonable sense to ban that.
Please, it's nice to see Congress work together and pass the gun control law they passed. That is a positive step. And I just hope we can build on that and have an intelligent dialogue between the two parties to pass commonsense solutions.
ACOSTA: I do want to turn to abortion.
I know you are a Republican, but you have opposed bans on abortion in your state when you were governor of New York.
And I wanted to ask you, what did you make of this Dobbs decision yesterday? Do you think the Supreme Court overreached in overturning Roe v. Wade and eliminating that precedent that had existed for more than 50 years?
PATAKI: Jim, that's the word I would use is "overreached." I think Chief Justice Robert said it, what was before the Supreme Court was a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks. They could have easily said that law is constitutional. Without taking the next step.
My understanding of judicial restraint is you deal with the case in front of you. You don't look to make broad, overreaching decisions. And in this case, it seems the majority went beyond what was necessary.
So I was disappointed in it. I think Justice Roberts had it right.
But now I hope the states can act intelligently to pass legislation that the vast majority of people in those states can get behind.
ACOSTA: You are one of those moderate Republican governors. You know, we don't see a lot of anymore. But they used to be pretty politically popular, is my recollection.
And I have to ask you about this, Governor Pataki because, back in May, CNN polled Americans on whether they wanted the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, and 66 percent said no, 34 percent said yes. That's a pretty resounding majority of Americans.
Do you think this could hurt Republicans, what happened at the Supreme Court?
PATAKI: Yes. I think a lot of it is going to depend on what happens over the course of the next six months.
You saw Governor Youngkin in Virginia urge his state to pass a ban after 15 weeks. I think the overwhelming majority of the people in Virginia, and in America, would support that type of legislation.
[15:45:00]
But if you're going to see legislation -- if you're going to see Republicans make an effort to have a national law that makes abortion illegal from day one, then the political consequences I think will be enormous.
I'm a great believer in limited government and letting states determine what is best for people in that state.
I hope Republicans, at this moment, when so many are cheering this decision, understand we should not all of a sudden try to federalize these decisions.
By the way, Jim, I was listening to your intelligent discussion with Congresswoman Dingell. I think Democrats may take another look at whether they think the filibuster is such a bad thing if Republicans control Congress and some in my party try to enact a national ban.
So leave it to the states. Allow the politicians to make a decision based on what's best for the people in the states.
If we try to nationalize this, I think it will resound negatively politically in the fall. We'll have to see.
ACOSTA: If the midterms were not in November but in a month from now, do you think that this has the potential to energize Democrats to the point there could be consequences for Republicans?
PATAKI: There could be consequences. But on the other hand, I think we've seen that President Biden has the lowest poll numbers of any president I've seen in my lifetime.
And inflation is just killing families across America. And ultimately, people vote their pocketbooks.
In this case, I think they're going to take a look and say this administration in Washington, with Democrats controlling both Houses, has just done a horrible job on the economy, inflation is out of control, gasoline $5, an open southern border. This isn't the only issue.
I think it means Republicans do have an excellent chance this fall, particularly, if they allow the Supreme Court decision to play out at the state level. ACOSTA: Governor George Pataki, thanks very much for your time. We
appreciate it.
PATAKI: Thank you, Jim. Nice being on with you.
ACOSTA: All right, coming up, the world reacts to the historic Supreme Court ruling rolling back a woman's right to abortion.
You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:51:56]
ACOSTA: Harsh criticism today from around the world after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
CNN's Rafael Romo is with me now.
Rafael, tell us how this is echoing outside the country?
RAFAEL ROMO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Jim. Well, the reaction to the Supreme Court's decision was both swift and unequivocal from leaders from around the world.
Canadian Leader Justin Trudeau called it "horrific," while French President Emmanuel Macron referred to the landmark decision as "appalling."
At a press conference during Commonwealth leaders in Rwanda, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson had this to say about the court's decision.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BORIS JOHNSON, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: This is not our court. It's another jurisdiction. But clearly, it has massive impacts on people's thinking around the world. It's a very important decision.
I've got to tell you I think it's a big step backwards. I think it's a big step backwards.
JUSTIN TRUDEAU, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: Judgment coming out of the United States is an attack on women's freedom. And, quite frankly, it's an attack on everyone's freedoms and rights.
It shows how much standing up and fighting for rights matters every day, that we can't take anything for granted.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROMO: Jim, the United States is already home to some of the more restrictive abortion laws along its democratic allies in the G-7 and other international alliances. So these reactions are not that surprising. On the other side of the spectrum, the Roman Catholic Church applauded
the ruling. The Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life expressed support to the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The statement issued Friday, only hours after the ruling, in part, the statement says the following:
"The court's opinion shows how the issue of abortion continues to arouse heated debate. The fact that a large country, with a long democratic tradition, has changed its position on this issue, also challenges the whole world."
The U.S. has now joined several other nations, Jim, including Nicaragua, Poland and El Salvador that have rolled back abortion rights.
Back to you.
ACOSTA: OK, Rafael, thank you so much.
For more than 15 years, "CNN Heroes" has been honoring everyday people changing the world. But this Saturday, we'll take a look at some not so everyday people making a real difference.
CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta sat down with actor, Sean Penn, and the co- founder of CORE, his disaster response nonprofit.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Do you think of your work as heroic?
SEAN PENN, ACTOR & CO-FOUNDER, CORE: I have gotten to have a front-row seat to what heroism is.
When I was walking back over the border after the trip during the invasion into Poland and almost every car that was lined up.
And almost every adult person was a woman with one or multiple children who had no interest in leaving their husbands, who, both by choice and also by mandate, had to stay in the country from 18 to 60.
[15:55:04]
You know, what's a hero? If your eyes are open, if your heart is open at all, boy, it's not hard to find it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ACOSTA: We'll have Sean Penn in our next hour as well.
To find out more about Sean Penn's philanthropic efforts, along with those of Chef Jose Andres, Glenn Close, Mila Kunis and more, tune in tonight when "CNN Heroes Salutes" premieres at 10:00 Eastern.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
