Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

January 6 Committee Adds Hearing Tomorrow; G7 Leaders Vow Support to Ukraine Against Russia; Protests Erupt Over Supreme Court Abortion Decision. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired June 27, 2022 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:27]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: Hello everyone. I'm Alisyn Camerota. Welcome to CNN NEWSROOM. Victor is off today.

And we do begin with breaking news, because the January 6 Committee just added an unexpected public hearing for tomorrow afternoon. This came as a surprise, since the committee had said it was taking a two- week break.

Let's go to CNN's Jessica Schneider with more.

So, Jessica, what is this hearing about?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Alisyn, they're really keeping a lot of this under wraps.

So the committee just announced the surprise hearing for tomorrow with very few details. It's set to begin at 1:00. And the committee saying it will present what they're calling recently obtained evidence. They also say that they will hear more witness testimony. The problem, though, no word yet on what that new evidence is or who exactly may be testifying, not even an indication how many people will be testifying.

But there has been this sense that the committee was getting inundated with new information. It was just last week that the committee member Jamie Raskin, he talked after one of the hearings about this deluge of information that the committee had been receiving, including via the tip line that they have.

And even Chairman Bennie Thompson he's been calling for more people to come forward. He's done it repeatedly after some of the hearings. We saw last week, that was hearing five. This would be hearing six. Last week, it showcased some compelling testimony. We saw three former top officials at the Justice Department. They detailed the pressure campaign from former President Trump to overturn the election.

So, really, Alisyn now the question is, who else has come forward and with what information that this committee thought it so necessary to call back committee members during a House recess to really throw together this last-minute hearing happening tomorrow at 1:00? A lot of questions. We will see if we get answers throughout the day,

Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: There are a lot of questions about this. So we also know the committee had said that they needed more time to go through the documentary footage from Alex Holder. So do we think it's connected to that?

SCHNEIDER: It could be. We don't know yet.

But it's interesting that you say that, because he is this British documentarian, Alex Holder. He had that extensive access to Trump, Trump's family, other top White House officials during the election, and also on and around January 6.

So we know, interestingly, that he did meet behind closed doors with the committee last week. We also know he had that subpoena to turn over that never-before-seen behind-the-scenes footage from hours and hours of interviews he got with Trump, as well as the former Vice President Mike Pence, plus Trump family members.

So maybe he gave the committee some insight about Trump's state of mind on January 6. Maybe he gave some more info that led them to go down another path. So it couldn't be potentially that meeting that's led to this urgent add of a new hearing, or it could be something completely different, but we will see -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: Yes, we shall. We will see tomorrow.

OK, Jessica Schneider, thank you very much for that breaking news.

Now to our top story. Today, America is a country more divided than ever. It is virtually split in half between states where abortion is legal and states where it's either illegal or almost impossible to access; 10 states have now effectively banned abortion since Friday's Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe vs. Wade, and more states could join them within days or weeks, including Wyoming, Tennessee and Idaho.

More than a dozen protests are planned across the country today by abortion rights advocates following big demonstrations over the weekend. And they're trying to buy time in the courts, in Utah, Florida and Ohio, to stall abortion bans; 22 attorneys general today reaffirmed that they are committed to supporting and expanding access to abortion care.

The governors of California, Wisconsin and Washington state say they will protect abortion access. But states that are banning abortions are digging in. South Dakota's governor promises she will ban telemedicine appointments for abortions, essentially looking to stop health care providers from sending abortion medication to women in the mail.

Mississippi's attorney general just certified that her state's trigger law banning abortion in response to the Supreme Court ruling. The law was passed in 2007. It makes it a felony for anyone to perform an abortion. It goes into effect in 10 days.

CNN's Nadia Romero joins me now from Jackson, Mississippi.

So it's basically now -- is it fair to say, Nadia, that half the states basically are banning or will have banned abortion?

[14:05:03]

NADIA ROMERO, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it's fair to say, Alisyn.

And especially if you look in the Southern states, there is this, like, red blockade of areas where you will either now can't have an abortion or you won't in the coming weeks. And that includes the state of Mississippi.

Behind me is the last abortion clinic here in Jackson, closed today, back open tomorrow, performing abortions, because, even though the first female A.G. of the state of Mississippi certified that as law today, it doesn't go into effect for another 10 days.

So that's why behind me is still a place for anti-abortion protesters to gather. Now, if you go just next door to Alabama, their abortion ban went into effect right away on Friday, once Roe v. Wade was overturned, and their trigger law had been on the books for decades. And it also happened in Oklahoma, the A.G. certifying that legislation first thing in the morning and then immediately sending out a press release and releasing a statement saying that anyone who performed or solicited an abortion in Oklahoma, that is illegal.

This is what happened inside of a women's clinic when they learned that news. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREA GALLEGOS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TULSA WOMEN'S CLINIC: It was a very difficult moment for, obviously, our patients in the waiting room, but for the staff and the physician that was there that morning having to break this news.

There were shrieks and cries and screams of just utter despair because of this decision and what that meant for Texas women.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROMERO: I spoke with the staff members as the clinic behind me. They're going to shut down, move operations to another state.

They say they have been in contact with other clinics in other states where they have effectively banned abortions. And they're working together to have these funds in place so that women can access monies so that they can go to different states to find this health care, because they will have to travel several states over in order to do that.

And there are, Alisyn, a lot of legal ramifications that are happening right now, legal objections, including what's happening in the state of Florida right now. More than a dozen organizations are before a judge in Florida asking him to block the state's 15-week abortion ban that is supposed to take place -- go into effect on July 1 -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: OK, Nadia Romero, thank you very much.

Another battleground area in the abortion debate are pills that terminate pregnancy. One telehealth company tells CNN the demand for abortion medication more than doubled just since the court's decision.

As we have mentioned, in South Dakota, the governor is pledging to target mail-order abortion pills.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. KRISTI NOEM (R-SD): What the Supreme Court said was that the Constitution does not give a woman the right to have an abortion.

MARGARET BRENNAN, CBS NEWS: Right.

NOEM: That means that, in each state, they will make the decision how they handle these situations.

BRENNAN: Exactly. And that's...

NOEM: In South Dakota, we've already had a bill passed that said on telemedicine abortions, that we don't believe it should be available, because it is a dangerous situation for those individuals without being medically supervised by a physician.

BRENNAN: OK.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Anti-abortion activists say that their fight is not over, despite their win with the Supreme Court's decision.

And that includes our next guest. Kristan Hawkins is president of Students For life of America. The group is fighting to abolish all abortion in the U.S..

Kristan, thanks so much for being here.

KRISTAN HAWKINS, PRESIDENT, STUDENTS FOR LIFE OF AMERICA: Thanks for having me.

CAMEROTA: So I have read to me that even as you celebrate this decision, you're still poised to take several more steps, including what we were just talking about, which is preventing women from getting those so-called abortion pills.

But the attorney general of the U.S. said on Friday that the DOJ will protect and preserve women's lawful access to that medication. So how do you plan to get around that?

HAWKINS: Well, the Supreme Court said on Friday unequivocally that there is no right to abortion in the Constitution and that this is a decision that's best to be solved at the state legislative level.

And so we will be working state by state. And we have been working, for example, in South Dakota there to pass laws to protect women from these dangerous pills that result in injury, infertility and death, as well as the death of their preborn child.

These are dangerous drugs. We know of over 24 women that have already died in America using these dangerous pills, despite the FDA removing all the safety rems on these pills, because the abortion industry used the COVID crisis.

(CROSSTALK)

CAMEROTA: OK. I mean, there were -- as the study that I have seen, there were 24 deaths attributed to these pills over 18 years.

So, the FDA has ruled that they're safe. And, I mean, just to put that in context, there's something like 700 women a year that die from pregnancy complications.

(CROSSTALK)

HAWKINS: Well, we don't actually have -- I understand that.

(CROSSTALK)

CAMEROTA: That's from the CDC. So, it's more dangerous to carry a child than to abort a child.

HAWKINS: Well, I think it's -- you can't make a comparison between abortion deaths and tragic deaths that -- other tragic deaths that occur when a woman is pregnant, because we don't actually have a national abortion reporting law in our nation.

Abortion...

[14:10:08]

CAMEROTA: OK. Fair.

So I'm just talking about how you were citing that it was dangerous to take the abortion pills.

HAWKINS: Sure.

CAMEROTA: It's much -- it's far more dangerous to carry a child and to...

(CROSSTALK)

HAWKINS: We don't know that. We can't say it's far more dangerous because we don't have any comparable statistics, because we have no national abortion reporting law.

CAMEROTA: OK, let's move on. Let's talk about the women who will cross state lines to get an

abortion. So I know that you're talking to I think some legislators in Missouri about what to do about that.

I think you were quoted in "The Washington Post" as saying, look, if you travel out of state for an abortion, that abortionist can be held liable. How do you imagine policing that? How will you know if a woman is going from, say, Missouri to Illinois for an abortion or to visit a relative?

HAWKINS: There's a lot of different strategies being thrown around, questions about how to best protect women from these predatory abortionists, who really profit, financially profit off of the despair of women, as you -- we heard in the earlier clip.

And these are tragic circumstances, for sure. I know there's been conversations about ensuring that if an abortionist is committing abortions against citizens of one state, that state may be able to say, look, we have an interest in protecting the preborn human beings in our state who are citizens, as well as their mothers.

And that is what the Supreme Court said on Friday, that states do have a legitimate interest in protecting preborn life, just like how we have a legitimate interest in protecting children from opioid abuse and things like that.

(CROSSTALK)

CAMEROTA: I understand, but how will you police it? How will you know if a woman is crossing the border to go get an abortion?

HAWKINS: Well, there's been talk about using civil suits, similar to the Texas -- the landmark Texas heartbeat law, where, if a family member or a spouse knows of an abortionist who's preying upon a vulnerable woman who's committing an abortion, who's sending these dangerous pills without a woman ever even seeing a doctor to confirm she's not experiencing an at-risk, life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, that a civil suit could be brought.

She could bring the civil suit upon the abortionist herself.

CAMEROTA: And what do you think should happen to doctors who perform abortions? What should the punishment be?

(CROSSTALK)

HAWKINS: We have been very clear in the pro-life movement that we believe it is a criminal offense to dismember human beings in the womb and prey upon vulnerable women who are the second victims of the abortion industry.

CAMEROTA: Kristan Hawkins, thank you for sharing your perspective and what you plan to do next. We appreciate it.

HAWKINS: Thanks for having me on. CAMEROTA: Let's bring in CNN legal analyst Areva Martin. She's a

civil rights attorney. Harry Litman is a former U.S. attorney and a legal affairs analyst for "The Los Angeles Times," and CNN political analyst Margaret Talev, she is the managing editor of Axios.

Great to have all of you here.

Areva, the Supreme Court decision Friday seems to have opened a huge can of worms of confusion, some of which we just talked about in that previous segment. What are the biggest legal questions now, in your view?

AREVA MARTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, thank you, Alisyn, for asking that question. I was listening to that segment.

The short answer to the question was were asking is, states won't know. They will have no way of knowing if a woman crosses the state line from Missouri and goes into Illinois and has an abortion there, unless the government engages in very, very intrusive means to track and follow women and to follow what happens with them with respect to confidential communications that they have with their doctors.

And, as you just said, this decision has created sheer chaos, chaos, because you have different states that have different laws. You have some that banned outright abortions, some that restrict abortions. There's this big issue about telemedicine, if I can have a television -- a telemedicine visit with a doctor in a state like California that allows for abortion, and if that doctor can then mail me abortion pills to a state perhaps that has banned abortions.

We know that the federal government, not state, controls the mail, in the same way with respect to travel. And Justice Kavanaugh himself acknowledged in that -- in his concurring opinion in Dobbs that the government could not prevent women from traveling from one state to the other state.

So I think we're going to see massive litigation being filed by some of these conservative activists, as well as GOP legislators, who are trying to intrude into the area of law that has been traditionally covered by the federal government.

And, at this point, Alisyn, it's very clear to me that cases about abortion are going to make their way back up to the Supreme Court, because this issue is far from settled.

CAMEROTA: Harry, your legal takeaways of what the next steps are legally?

[14:15:00]

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: First, I agree it's far from settled, going back to the court.

But, Alisyn, this is a sprawling disaster, and even leaving aside the subject matter, because what you have -- when you used to have other laws that, say, targeted intimate behavior, prosecutors rarely tried to prosecute. Here, you have state after state that is bound and determined and now has wind in its sails from the Supreme Court to eliminate any and every abortion in this country.

What happens with someone who crosses state lines? Well, I'm sorry. Regardless of what Justice Kavanaugh says, if they have made it a crime to aid and abet an abortion in the place you're crossing, that could be a crime. How are they going to find it out? The same way you would find it out if, say, it were a murder, you talk to people, you figure it out, you intrude in everybody's lives.

Is it a miscarriage or an abortion? Well, we have got to find that out. You have a political apparatus now that has gone -- that is going to want to go after and, as far as the Supreme Court says, has the wherewithal to go after any and every abortion here.

So, again, even leaving aside the subject matter, it is an administrative and sort of government overreach disaster.

CAMEROTA: Margaret, we know that, historically, abortion has not been a motivating factor for Democratic voters. Is there any evidence that that is changing or will change starting with the midterms?

I mean, we hear all sorts of lawmakers since Friday saying that they believe it will now change. What do we think is reality?

MARGARET TALEV, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it certainly will change.

And we're seeing already in surveys Democrats saying that measurably they're more interested in voting and people who care about abortion rights talking about that. The question is, how much will change? Will it be enough to impact the outcome of who controls the House of Representatives, who controls the Senate?

So I think these are the big questions. Where will it matter most? It'll matter most in swing states, and in swing House districts. And particularly it will matter if the GOP nominee is strongly anti- abortion and the Democratic nominee is strongly pro-abortion rights.

And so the question is not a matter of if. It's a matter of how much and to what degree. You can see that in the extent to which Democrats are now talking about this issue, and Republicans, for the most part, at the committee level, are trying to talk about inflation and turn the conversation back to the economy.

You can see it in the proliferation of Democratic Web sites now on this issue. And to the broader conversation, this patchwork, this inevitable state-vs.-state test litigation scenario that we're going to see play out, is precisely why you can 100 percent count on efforts to continue to ban abortion rights now nationally in Congress.

The votes for that are not there now. It is highly unlikely the votes for that as long, as the filibuster exists, will be there anytime in the near future. But it took the conservative movement five decades to overturn Roe v. Wade. And they didn't stop until it happened. And so I think, likewise, you will see this push now. And we're

talking about how this is moving to the state level, but it will very much be happening at least on a test case at the federal level as well from now until eternity.

CAMEROTA: Areva, we have heard so much since the Supreme Court decision of how this will disproportionately impact women of color. How so?

MARTIN: Yes, there's actually a Duke University study out, Alisyn, that says banning access to abortions could increase or will increase black women maternity -- maternal health -- maternal death rates, I should say, by as much as 33 percent.

We already know black women die at the rate of three to four times more than white women in childbirth. It's more dangerous for a black woman to have a baby in the United States than it is to have it in a Third World country.

And banning access to abortions is only going to make those maternal death rates even higher, women who will be forced to carry pregnancies, even though those pregnancies cause brain injury and perhaps danger to their lives, women who won't have access to well- qualified providers in their states, women who won't have the ability to travel outside of their states because they won't have the financial resources.

So this ban, this devastating decision by the Supreme Court, of course, is devastating for all women, but it will have and is having a disproportionate impact on women of color, particularly black women.

CAMEROTA: Harry, much is being made about Justice Thomas' concurring opinion, basically saying the court should reconsider cases that protect contraception and homosexuality and same-sex marriages.

[14:20:04]

Is this just a slippery slope argument? Are people being alarmist? Or is that going to happen?

LITMAN: Look, I don't think so. And it's the same point, Alisyn

It may be that Justice Kavanaugh tries to reassure us or Chief John Roberts. But what is going to happen? A state, a red state, is going to pass a law that says you can't have a same-sex marriage, or the governor of Mississippi said maybe they will pass a law against contraception. Then someone's going to be injured. Someone will try to get a license and not be able to get it.

And there will be a lawsuit. And it will go up to the Supreme Court. What do they do then? Do they duck it? And they have said that, look, there is zero interest in the woman for the abortion decision. And that reasoning, many people have pointed out, extends to these kinds of things Justice Thomas is talking about.

So the trigger that they have put in the hand here, it's not the goodwill of the nine or five justices. It's individual red states who are vying to see who can pass more restrictive statutes. Those issues will certainly come up. And the Supreme Court decides what it wants to hear. Maybe it ducks at once or twice, but it just can't permit these things to go on without deciding.

And one of the most poignant conceits of the whole opinion is the sense that maybe now they're out of the business. On the contrary, they are going to be in it and for years, because these fights will be waged beginning at the state level.

CAMEROTA: Areva Martin, Harry Litman, Margaret Talev, thank you all for your expertise.

So, what's the next move for the White House? CNN's Dana Bash is going to sit down with Vice President Kamala Harris. And you can see the first part of this exclusive interview at 4:00 p.m. Eastern.

Meanwhile, Russia is making significant advances in Eastern Ukraine. We have new details on how the U.S. is responding. And President Zelenskyy says more than 1,000 people were inside this mall in Central Ukraine when a Russian missile struck. We have new details next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:26:35]

CAMEROTA: Ukraine's President Zelenskyy is accusing Russia of bombing a crowded shopping mall in Central Ukraine.

He says more than 1,000 people were inside. At least 10 people are dead. Another 40 are injured. Zelenskyy also addressed G7 leaders virtually today, pleading with them for more weapons to help end Russia's war by the end of the year. The leaders vowed to continue supporting Ukraine for -- quote -- "as long as it takes."

Meanwhile, in Eastern Ukraine, Russian forces are making significant advances as the war enters its fourth month. A source tells CNN the U.S. plans to announce the purchase of a new missile system for Ukraine.

Let's bring in Colonel Cedric Leighton. He's a retired U.S. Air Force colonel and a CNN military analyst.

Colonel, always great to see you.

So let's just -- if you could just start by giving us your assessment of where the war stands today. Has it shifted in Russia's favor? And could Ukraine lose this war?

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, Alisyn, it's great to be with you.

The real issue is, yes, they could lose this war. The Ukrainians could. One of the big issues that you have here is what's happening here in the east. So these areas are going to be the really big ones that you have to concern yourself with. One of the key things is the town of Severodonetsk and its sister city of Lysychansk, these cities right here.

Those cities are where the fight is happening. If Ukraine loses the Luhansk oblast, the Luhansk province, then Russia will gain one of their war aims, which is to capture that province. The other province is the Donetsk province, which is the southern part of the Donbass region.

This area right here is harder for the Russians to capture. But they are obviously moving forward in this direction towards Slovyansk. So it is absolutely possible that the Russians could take this territory. It doesn't mean they will win the war in this particular case, but it would get them closer to achieving a goal like that.

CAMEROTA: And so, Colonel, as we just announced, the U.S. says it's set to announce a new advanced medium-to-long-range missile defense system for Ukraine, along with new shipments of ammunition and radar systems.

So where will those make an impact? And can that turn the tide?

LEIGHTON: So this system that we're talking about here is called the National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System, or NASAMS, for short.

And it can hit targets more than 100 miles away. And that's going to be a key factor right there. If it can do that, it can give the Ukrainian forces a bit more power to move into areas that they otherwise haven't been able to move into.

It protects this -- the same system protects Washington, D.C., and other high-value targets within the United States. And, of course, it will require some training probably about 10 to 13 weeks of training. So, where could it be used? Well, let's take a look at the big map right here.

It could be used in a standoff way from a position like this, and it could potentially get into areas that the Russians control by being placed in the right area. So, it could make a big difference, because what it does is, it hits those targets about 100 miles out.

And it can actually limit their effectiveness when it comes to their ability to attack Ukrainian forces.

CAMEROTA: President Zelenskyy once said that he wants to end this war before winter sets in at the end of the year. Is that realistic?

LEIGHTON: That is going to be tough, because, Alisyn, the Russians get a vote in this kind of a thing.

The -- you know, as we say in the military, the enemy always gets a vote in what actually happens on the ground. It is possible if the Russians are stopped in

[14:30:00]