Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Now, Trump Meets With House Republicans on Capitol Hill; Supreme Court Rules in Biden Administration Challenge of Idaho's Strict Abortion Ban; Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to FDA Approach to Abortion Pill. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired June 13, 2024 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. You are live in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington.

We begin with breaking news right now. Former President Donald Trump is meeting with congressional Republicans up on Capitol Hill, marking a truly stunning comeback in American politics. Moments ago, the former president arrived at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington, right by the Capitol. Today, he will be trailed by a mobile billboard from the DNC playing this 11-minute video on loop of the January 6th attack.

Today's visit is apparently the first time Trump has stepped foot on the Hill since sending a mob of his supporters to fight like hell, as he said it, on January 6th. Here's how Republican lawmakers reacted in the immediate aftermath of that assault on democracy. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): The president bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): All I can say, count me out. Enough is enough.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: How times have changed. Three years later, the vast majority of Republicans have now endorsed this now convicted felon. Today, they're welcoming back to Washington with open arms, despite the fact that he put their lives in jeopardy when he refused to call off the mob as his supporters stormed the Capitol, hunted for lawmakers and erected gallows. If you think that political violence is all in the past record, recall just yesterday, as we reported on this program, his campaign called to, quote, haul out the guillotine, in a fundraising email.

CNN's Kristen Holmes and Lauren Fox are standing by up on Capitol Hill. Kristen, tell us more about this meeting. What's going on?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jim. I mean, it's significant for the number of reasons that you laid out, but I will remind you that despite the fact that these lawmakers said that after January 6th, they have long come around to Donald Trump, or at least most of them, the Republican Party really rallying around their nominee, despite what happened on January 6th.

And this is significant for a number of reasons, because this is really the first time he has met with a group, a big group of lawmakers like this since he became the presumptive nominee and also since he became a convicted felon. And when talking to Trump's team, they really want this to be about, quote/unquote, unity, getting the party in line behind Donald Trump and really getting the messaging in sync before what is expected to be several very contentious months ahead of November.

Now, the way that Donald Trump's team laid it out to us was that he was going to present his plan to beat Joe Biden in November, as well as talk about a potential 2025 agenda, give lawmakers an idea of how they could help him really lay the table ahead of the November election if Donald Trump is in case to win.

But I know Lareun will talk about this more. Instead, at least the first meeting, which is just with House Republicans, seems to have devolved somewhat into a chaotic pep rally. Our Hill reporters kind of really giving us a line by line of what's coming out of there. Not so much agenda, but a lot of back and forth from Donald Trump.

ACOSTA: Yes, we're getting some pretty interesting tidbits. Lauren Fox, what can you tell us about that? Anything you can share?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, I am standing right outside where Donald Trump is speaking right now. And as Kristen laid out when he walked into this meeting with his Republican colleagues, our CNN colleagues are getting details about what's happening in the room. They saying happy birthday to the former president, his birthday coming up just right around the corner. They also gave him a baseball to sort of celebrate him coming into the room after the congressional baseball game yesterday.

It's also clear that Donald Trump isn't staying on message, and many members that I talked to before this meeting predicted that that would be the case. He's kind of all over the map. He brought up the fact that he really wants to pass a no tax on tips bill. That is something that he's been touting on the campaign trail, something that he brought up inside the room just a few minutes ago. He's also, you know, really laying out some of his frustration with his enemies, including the Justice Department, including Republican strategists he doesn't like. That is all part of what is going on in this meeting today. So, it just gives you a sense of what's happening. Jim?

ACOSTA: Yes. Lauren, thank you so much. I hate to jump in there. I hate to do that.

[10:05:00] I want to go to Paula Reid, who's in the Bureau here with me. Apparently, we have some breaking news out of the Supreme Court. Let's bring in our Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent Paula Reid. Paula, what can you tell us?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Look, Jim, this is one of the most significant cases that the Supreme Court was considering this term. It has to do with Mifepristone, one of two drugs used in chemical abortion. And here, the Supreme Court has decided to just toss the case entirely, arguing that the group that brought this case that was challenging broader access to Mifepristone did not have what is called standing, which is the right to bring this lawsuit.

So, this was considered one of the biggest cases that the justices were reviewing this term, potentially for the impact that any decision that would have restricted access to this drug could have had obviously on people across the country, but also potentially on the election.

But here, the justices, they have decided that the group that brought it, they do not have the right to do so, so they have tossed it entirely. The question they were looking at here is whether the FDA overstepped its authority in approving broader access to Mifepristone. As I said, Mifepristone is one of two drugs used in chemical abortion, which is the most widely used form of abortion in the United States.

There are two drugs, Mifepristone and the Misoprostol. They are prescribed often to implement a chemical abortion. So, this was obviously a hot button issue, something that could have enormous consequences. But here the Supreme Court has decided to toss the case entirely, saying that the group that brought it just didn't have standing.

So we're waiting. There are other opinions this morning. We're watching and waiting to see what those are. Jim?

ACOSTA: Yes. Paula, let's could just tell our viewers about this one more time. It sounds as though what you're saying is that women who use Mifepristone or want to have medication abortion can continue to do that. That is essentially what the Supreme Court has done today. That will continue to take place. And this is a defeat to anti- abortion forces who had hoped that perhaps the Supreme Court would knock out Mifepristone too.

REID: Well, Jim, I want to clarify. The Supreme Court has not really ruled one way or another on Mifepristone, but on this particular challenge, they have said that they're just tossing the case. They are not going to rule one way or another on the FDA's authority generally or on this drug. But they're saying, look, the group that brought this case, they don't have standing. So, they are tossing this case, arguably sidestepping the issue for now, but I would fully expect that a similar challenge could come back to the court in a different form, potentially with someone who does have standing, and then they may or may not opt to weigh in on the bigger question of broader, more easy access to Mifepristone. ACOSTA: All right, Paula, yes. Thank you for that.

And I want to go to Meg Tirrell. She's also with me now. Meg put this in perspective for us. This is an important ruling that we're getting from the Supreme Court today, this rejection of this challenge.

MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: This is an incredibly important ruling because medication abortion is the most common way that people in the United States access abortion now. It accounted for 63 percent of abortions in the most recent year's worth of data from the Guttmacher Institute. There were more than a million abortions in 2023, so that's more than 600,000 people who accessed abortion using these medications.

As Paula said, though, you know, we've heard from a lot of folks in this space who are watching this case very closely that it's not the end of this question. We are expecting potentially to see these questions come back. The fact that this is tossed out on standing, this is not going to be the end of the road for the questions around access to Mifepristone.

But certainly there were concerns that a ruling against the FDA in this case would roll back access to Mifepristone, to make it more difficult to get, especially through telemedicine, which has become an increasingly common way that people access medication abortion in the United States as more and more restrictions are put into place in different states.

There were also threats to the pharmaceutical industry and to the FDA's purview. Those aren't necessarily going away this case does come back and then is heard differently on the merits, but there were major concerns that overturning an FDA judgment through the courts would threaten the way FDA regulates medicines, would threaten the pharmaceutical industry's ability to depend on the FDA as the key regulator of medicines, Jim.

ACOSTA: All right. Meg Tirrell, very significant development coming out of the Supreme Court. want to bring in Gloria Borger, who's with me here in the studio. Gloria, I mean, this is a major development. I mean, obviously, if the Supreme Court had done something to take away access to Mifepristone, this would have just sent shockwaves around the country.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: You know, more than half of the women terminating pregnancies in this country right now use this pill. And so that would have had a huge effect. Also, the people who petitioned the court wanted a prescription for this drug to have to be done in person, as Meg was saying, person to doctor rather than get just getting it at your pharmacy or doing it virtually, and that won't be the case.

And so, you know, as Paula was saying, they didn't decide the case.

[10:10:02]

They decided the people who brought the case didn't have standing to bring the case, but it has the same impact, which is that the Mifepristone can still be used in the way that it's been used for decades, and it has been deemed to be perfectly safe and will continue to be used by more than half the women in this country who are seeking a way to have an abortion.

ACOSTA: Fascinating, all right. And we have other folks who are standing by to weigh in on this. I do want to go to Dr. Reiner. You're with us as well. Dr. Reiner, your reaction to all this.

DR. JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think, you know, obviously, the Supreme Court may made, made the right decision. There are really two drugs that are used in combination for a medical abortion. Mifepristone and Misoprostol, when used together, are very effective and very safe for the termination of a pregnancy, and the FDA has approved the use of, of this combination of drugs for patients with -- people with pregnancies, less than less than ten weeks of gestation.

As Meg has said, it's really become the predominant means of terminating a pregnancy in the United States. And what the Supreme Court action today will help women all over the country, including in states that have severely limited abortion to get this kind of health care.

ACOSTA: Yes. Elie Honig is with us as well. Elie, this would have just been a huge decision if Mifepristone were somehow just taken off the market here as a result of a Supreme Court decision. That is not happening. It's going to remain on the market now.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Correct, Jim. So, the bottom line practical takeaway is access to Mifepristone remains unchanged. The status quo remains in place. What the plaintiffs were trying to do here was roll back a series of expansions in access to Mifepristone that were passed in 2016 and then 2021. And the Supreme Court has left the status quo in place.

The basis for their ruling, and I should note, Jim, this is actually a unanimous ruling. It was written by Justice Kavanaugh. There's one concurring opinion, but all nine justices agreed that the plaintiffs, the people who were suing here to try to roll back access to Mifepristone did not have what we call standing.

And the basic way to explain standing is, do you have a dog in this fight? What's it to you, the plaintiff? Do you have some actual injury? The group that brought this lawsuit was a group of doctors, medical practitioners, who objected to Mifepristone. However, they have the right under law, various law, to declined to prescribe Mifepristone. So, they tried to argue, well, but we might have to treat women who use Mifepristone and then have secondary complications. And the Supreme Court said that's not enough. That's not a direct enough injury. Therefore, you don't have standing. Therefore, you lose, 9-0.

ACOSTA: Yes, I mean, I'll just read from what Justice Kavanaugh wrote. As you said, a unanimous opinion. We recognize that many citizens, including the plaintiff doctors here, have sincere concerns about and objections to others using Mifepristone and obtaining abortions, but citizens and doctors do not have standing to sue simply because others are allowed to engage in certain activities. I mean, I think, Elie, that's what your point was.

And Dr. Pernell, you're with us as well. Your reaction to the practical impact of all this.

DR. CHRIS T. PERNELL, REGENT-AT-LARGE, AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PREVENTATIVE MEDICINE: It means that reproductive justice has prevailed, health equity has prevailed, access to care has prevailed. And what do I mean by that? What we know is that the majority of patients who need abortion care are receiving care via this prescription pill.

But what's more important, it's saying that you don't need to be in person. You can get this prescription via telehealth or telemedicine. Nurse practitioners, physician assistants and even midwives can prescribe the position to those who are in need of the care. And that's fundamentally important because we know and believe that health and health care is a human and civil right. So, should the Supreme Court have ruled that an FDA ruling backed by science wasn't legitimate could have been catastrophic.

ACOSTA: And, Meg Tirrell. Let me go back to you because I mean, one of the questions that I have in all of this is, you know, obviously there are lots of states now where you can't obtain an abortion legally, that procedure at a clinic. Can you receive this pill in the mail? Can you have it mailed to you? How does it work when it comes to that?

TIRRELL: Well, you can, but it's not legal in those states. Abortion restrictions in those states apply to any method of accessing abortion. That doesn't mean that it's impossible. I mean, there are services that will send pills through the mail services based outside of the United States. Over time, you know, there have been challenges to those services, but they do exist.

But, you know, this would have affected abortion across the United States, abortion access, access through telemedicine.

[10:15:01]

And as we've heard, that has become an increasingly important way, people access abortion, regardless of where you live. So, it was not legal. It is currently not legal in states where there are abortion bans to access medication through the mail.

There has been a lot of discussion of an act called Comstock which is a very old law, but prohibits the shipment of things used for abortion through the mail. And I think there were a lot of questions about whether that would come up here, because there are questions about whether that could be used at some point in the future to restrict access to abortion and particularly abortion through telemedicine through using medication abortion. So, we'll have to see, you know, does that sort of come back into the conversation and where does that go going forward. But, no, this was not currently legal in states of abortion bans.

ACOSTA: Yes, Meg, such important context. Thank you so much for that.

And, Gloria, I did want to go back to you on the political dimension and all of this. Can you imagine what the political impact would have been in the heat of this presidential campaign, the Supreme Court earlier this week tossed Mifepristone overboard.

BORGER: Well, it would have been cataclysmic. I mean, you know, the Democrats, obviously the issue they're campaigning the most on is the Dobbs decision and the throwing out of the right to abortion. This, which is used, as we were talking about, by more than half the women who want to terminate pregnancies in this country, if this were thrown out, I mean, the Democrats would obviously use it. But what would women across the country do? Would they be forced to flee the country? What would, what would the ramifications of this be? I think that's something the Supreme Court was obviously considering.

But it seems to me that this may not be the end of it, because the court -- according to what you just got here from Kavanaugh, the court said it is not clear that no one else would have the standing to challenge the FDA's relaxed regulation of Mifepristone. So, what they're saying is, okay, you folks didn't have the standing because you can't prove that you personally were damaged by the use of Mifepristone. But in the future, I think the door was left open a little bit.

Now, I'm not a legal expert here So you got to ask your legal experts? But that didn't seem slammed shut to me.

ACOSTA: Yes. Elie, let me go back to you on this. Does this -- I mean, is Justice Kavanaugh sending some instructions to future plaintiffs here to some extent?

HONIG: Well, Gloria is exactly right. This does not mean that the legal dispute over Mifepristone is over. It means it's failed for now because this particular group of plaintiffs did not have legal standing. However, as Gloria correctly notes, and it's in the opinion, if there's somebody who can establish standing, and Justice Kavanaugh actually does not say who that might be, but if there is somebody who does have proper legal standing, they can try to revive this challenge.

Now, that would take a long time, probably years, to work its way through the federal courts back up to the Supreme Court. But, yes, very important aspect of this opinion. The Supreme Court does not actually reach or address the underlying question, which is, did the FDA properly approve and then expand access to Mifepristone? They don't even get there. They just say the people who brought this are the wrong people to bring this. You're the wrong plaintiffs. Case dismissed, 9-0.

So, it could come back, but that will take a long time. And we don't know how the Supreme Court would rule in that instance.

ACOSTA: And, Dr. Pernell, Dr. Reiner, let me ask you about this because, I mean, obviously, with the way things stand with abortion in this country right now, and Meg Tirrell was talking about this a few moments ago, it is very difficult for women in a whole slew of states to obtain this procedure now. I was looking at -- there's a New York Times animation this morning showing how much more women are traveling out of their states to other states in order to have this procedure performed.

And so, obviously, this is going to provide a tremendous sigh of relief to a lot of women across this country that they can at least still rely on Mifepristone on abortion medication. Dr. Pernell, what do you think?

PERNELL: And rightly so. We have recent data that over 56 percent of black women in the United States live in a state where there is a total or near total ban on abortion care. So, this type of ruling could disproportionately impact the African-American and black community. We know that within that 56 percent, three states are where most of the black women live, Florida, Georgia and Texas. So, any opportunity to continue to assert reproductive freedom, reproductive justice is not only in the best interest of black and African-American women, but in the best interest of all those identifying as women and birthing people. This should remain a medical decision between a patient and they're doctor.

ACOSTA: And, Doctor, I want to get your take on this too. But I'm told that I need to go back to Paula Reid, because Paula apparently has some new information about the potential impact and all of this.

[10:20:00]

REID: Yes. It's an important reminder, Jim, that this is not the only abortion related case that the Supreme Court is considering this term. Now, we still have several dozen outstanding opinions as of this morning, so it's significant that this Mifepristone case came now, because, of course, they didn't really do anything. They didn't make any new law. They didn't really issue a decision. They just decided to toss it out because the group that brought this case didn't have standing.

So, this is relatively early when it comes to when the Supreme Court releases their most significant and impactful decisions. We still have several weeks and there is another case. It is a case based in Idaho. And it has to deal with when you have state restrictions on abortion, how those can bump up against federal law. Specifically in that case, the Justice Department argued that federal law should trump state law, especially when state laws restrict a doctor's abilities to conduct abortions. In that case, specifically, it's dealing with emergency room care, and whether you can perform an abortion to stabilize a patient or whether you have to wait until a life is clearly in danger.

That is another case that hasn't been decided yet. And even though we are, of course, watching for the major cases related to former President Trump, his possible immunity, January 6th prosecutions, I would say that what they decide in that next case, if instead of tossing it like they did there, if they actually issue a decision, whatever happens there, Jim, it could actually have potentially a bigger impact on the November election than any of the Trump related cases.

So, even though this is one big abortion question before the justices, they have sort of sidestepped it, saying the people didn't have standing. We still have another abortion case outstanding. So far, we've had three opinions this morning. That's going to be it. We'll have more tomorrow, though.

ACOSTA: Yes. And I do want to ask Meg about that as well. Dr. Reiner, I mean, in a hospital setting -- you're accustomed to those hospital settings. I mean, this, that Idaho case has huge implications for hospitals across the country.

REINER: Yes, exactly. And I think, you know, all of these potential actions before the court really attempt to handcuff physicians in the treatment of their patients.

I just want to go back to the case that the court did decide on today. You know, this was brought by a group of physicians whose charter of their group basically states that they believe that life begins at fertilization. So, this was really not a case brought with concerns about the safety of the drug or whether the FDA correctly approved the drug or appropriately changed how the drug could be prescribed. It was really just a vehicle to make abortion harder in the United States brought by a group of physicians, you know, whose intent is exactly to do that.

ACOSTA: Yes. Meg, what do you think? I mean, I remember when we covered the Idaho case, I mean, that has major implications as well.

TIRRELL: Yes, absolutely. Idaho has a very strict abortion ban, and the EMTALA case, that case that Paula was talking about, which we're still waiting to hear the decision on, that concerns hospitals that participate in Medicare, which are essentially most hospitals, and their obligation to provide stabilizing care when somebody comes in, including in a situation where that might require an abortion. And these are very sad, upsetting situations, often with wanted pregnancies. But if there is not that care delivered in that emergency setting, that could threaten organs, the future health of the pregnant person.

So, that is what that case concerns. And a lot of people are really looking forward to hearing what the outcome is. We have already seen an impact in Idaho on the medical care system from its abortion ban. We've seen doctors leaving that state. We've seen patients who are pregnant. The doctors advising them on their first prenatal visit to buy life flight insurance so that they can be helicoptered or flown out of state if they have an emergency that requires abortion care, because things have gotten so confusing for doctors are so scary for doctors in that state, not knowing exactly what kind of care they can provide. So, that will be a very consequential decision.

ACOSTA: Yes. And, Gloria, I mean, it is fascinating to see the Supreme Court, I mean, sort of write a practical, sort of pragmatic decision here, not a sweeping ruling.

BORGER: Right. Particularly after Dobbs, right? And it was clear to me just from what we're reading through here, is that the court just decided they didn't want to touch this because the people who brought the case didn't have the standing or the right, or didn't show damage, so they didn't have the standing to bring the case. So, in that sense, you get a unanimous decision because it's kind of black and white, right? Either you have the standing to bring a case before the Supreme Court, or you don't.

Now, as Kavanaugh said, this doesn't mean that in the future, somebody who has standing, who can prove some kind of damage or impact couldn't bring this case again against Mifepristone, and maybe the result would be different. But now, you know, when the Supreme Court sees something that says, well, you know, you don't really belong here, that's kind of a no brainer for them.

[10:25:05]

ACOSTA: Yes, very interesting. All right, a unanimous decision in this very important case.

Everybody stand by. We're going to take in a quick break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: Welcome back. We're still covering the latest in this Supreme Court rejection of a lawsuit that would have challenged the use of Mifepristone abortion medication in this country.

I want to go back to Paula Reid. Apparently there have been some other action at the Supreme Court. Paula, what can you tell us?

REID: Yes, Jim. We got three opinions this morning. We've already talked about the Mifepristone one.

[10:30:00]

But I want to talk about another case you've been watching for. It is commonly referred to, quote, as Trump too small.