Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
CNN International: Ukraine Says It's Creating A "Security Zone" On Russian Soil; Source: Hamas Will Not Participate In Doha Ceasefire Talks; Annual Inflation Rate Slows To 2.9 Percent, Lowest Since March 2021; Trump Heads To North Carolina To Talk About Economy; Missouri, Arizona To Have Abortion Ballot Initiatives In November. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired August 14, 2024 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:38]
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: It's 8:00 p.m. in London, 10:00 p.m. in Kyiv, 2:00 p.m. in St. Louis, Missouri, 3:00 p.m. here in Washington.
I'm Jim Sciutto. Thanks so much for joining me today on CNN NEWSROOM. And let's get right to the news.
We begin in Russia, where Ukrainian forces are advancing further into the country. A truly remarkable reversal of fortunes, two-and-a-half years since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a week into this surprise incursion. And the Kremlin still does not seem to have answers to attempt to push the Ukrainians back.
Overnight, Kyiv conducted its largest attack on Russian airfields since the full-scale invasion. Kyiv now claims to control more than 1,000 kilometers of Russian territory. That is similar to the amount of Ukrainian land Russia has seized this year, the Russian foreign ministry said today that peace talks are, quote, on pause for a long time.
CNN's Fred Pleitgen has the latest on this Ukrainian offensive.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: A humiliating scene for the Kremlin. Ukrainian troops sweeping through a Russian village behind a U.S.-supplied MaxxPro armored vehicle.
Kyiv soldiers taking down the Russian flag in another town with Ukrainian TV reporting from the scene.
Ukraine's top general telling President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the advance continues.
Troops have advanced one to two kilometers in various directions, he says, and then adds, since the beginning of this day, we've taken captive about 100 enemy soldiers.
The Ukrainians say they want to create a buffer zone in this part of Russia to stop Moscow's army from attacking Ukrainian territory in the future. But the blitz offensive is also a major morale boost for Ukraine, commander fighting side Russia tells CNN, catching the Russians off guard.
They were shocked by such a rapid advance, he says, they were in tactical encounters and willingly surrender to the defense forces. And then every warrior, every soldier who defend their homeland probably had a dream team of stepping onto Russian soil and destroying the enemy there. These feelings are impossible to forget.
While the Russians claim they are stopping Ukraine's assault, releasing this video of their jets dropping powerful glide bombs, Ukraine says it shot down a Russian warplane and a security source says it launched the biggest drone attack on Russian air bases since the war began.
Russian leader Vladimir Putin has vowed a crushing response to Ukraine's incursion. But even Kremlin controlled TV acknowledging that won't be so simple.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Unfortunately, I must say that in some settlements, the enemy is holding that ground and we will need to fight them out of there. That will not happen as fast and as easy as we wanted to.
PLEITGEN: The Ukrainians have said they will continue to push forward and fortify the gains they've made, hoping to withstand the massive counter attack the Kremlin has promised.
Fred Pleitgen, CNN, Berlin.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: Our thanks to Fred for that story.
Here now to discuss more, retired Colonel Cedric Leighton, now a CNN military analyst.
So, lots of questions for you here. I mean, the first question is, how Ukraine manage this and how is Russia still more than a week in on its back foot here attempting to defend its own territory?
CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yeah. I think the key thing here is surprise, Jim, the fact that the Ukrainians were able to pull it off. So they had great operational security. The people that knew about it were a very small circle of Ukrainian -- of really top Ukrainian officials, the president, the commander in chief of the armed forces, those people and, of course, the people that they needed to have that. And then the troops only found out about it within 72 to 24 hours --
SCIUTTO: Interesting.
LEIGHTON: -- depending on the unit, before they actually marched in.
So on the Ukrainian side, it was a major success from an operational security standpoint. For the Russian side, I think the big problem is that they weren't prepared for any of this. They had no real border defenses. They didn't have a wall at the border. They didn't have the kinds of things that you would expect to them to have in fairly controlled society like Russia is.
SCIUTTO: So we hear Putin promising a crushing response. What kind of response should we expect?
[15:05:00]
And should we be concerned about severe escalations even for instance, the use of a tactical nuclear weapon, which, which I should note two years ago, U.S. officials calculated Russia was quite, quite close to doing that when they were losing ground in southern, southern Ukraine.
LEIGHTON: Yeah, I think we have to take that into account. I think unfortunately because Russia fields and especially Putin himself and feels very pressed against the wall because of this particular incursion, although it's -- we have to be honest, it's a very small amount of territory.
There's 1,000 square kilometers are significant. But when you look at the vastness of Russia and its 11 time zones, it's a whole another matter. But --
SCIUTTO: True, although a few thousand square kilometers of, I don't know, Florida or something, that you can take that quite seriously.
LEIGHTON: We would, no doubt about it. But that's the -- I think the same kind of calculus if you have to look at, but when it comes to the Russian response, I think you cannot take a tactical nuke off the table, unfortunately, and when would have to look at the possibility of using that, and hopefully look at any indications and warning that would indicate that doing that and hopefully prevent that from happening.
SCIUTTO: So, Zelenskyy again today called for more long-range weapons, as you know, the West and particularly the U.S. has been reluctant to do so and the U.S. has put quite explicit restrictions on U.S. supplied weapons that do not -- should not be used to strike inside Russian territory. I noted in Fred's piece, there, you have U.S. supplied vehicles now rolling on the streets of Russian territory.
What is the U.S. risk here in this and can you imagine that U.S. officials are saying, hey guys, put the brakes on?
LEIGHTON: Well, so far, they haven't publicly said that, but what happens in private, of course its something well find out a little bit later.
I think that when it comes to these kinds of weapons, the ones that we've seen like the, you know, the up-armored vehicles that the armored personnel carriers. Those aren't as offensive a weapon as, say, ATACMS would.
SCIUTTO: Right. LEIGHTON: And if the Ukrainians started using ATACMS beyond the range of what it supposed to, then it would I think raised some questions. But in this particular case, I think were fairly comfortable letting the Ukrainians move their forces forward using transport that we've provided.
SCIUTTO: So, Kyiv's trying to achieve it seems multiple goals here, one at least is a morale-boosting. Basically, it was a frozen conflict on that eastern front. Enormous losses, certainly on the Russian side, but also so the Ukrainian side, they have successfully diverted Russian forces from elsewhere on the battlefield. That has to be objective.
But what is the larger objective do you think in this view? Is it just to strike a blow?
LEIGHTON: Oh, no. I think, Jim, what is really happening here is that the Ukrainians want some bargaining chips. So there are two possible immediate bargaining chips that you can see. First of all, it's the territory. In other words, exchanged the Russian territory that they've taken for Ukrainian territory that Russia currently holds.
SCIUTTO: Not a bad idea.
LEIGHTON: Not a bad idea at all. The other thing, of course, is the prisoners.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
LEIGHTON: You know, when you've got the 100 prisoners that they captured in the last day or so, plus the others that they captured for that, then have an exchange of Russian prisoners for Ukrainian prisoners, and that would be something that would help them in that.
SCIUTTO: I mean, the trouble is Russia has taken a fair percentage of Ukrainian territory recent estimates up to 20 percent.
LEIGHTON: About 18.
SCIUTTO: Eighteen percent. So I mean, 1,000 kilometers is not that.
LEIGHTON: No, definitely not.
SCIUTTO: Would the intention beat it to start to get up to something close to what Russia has taken?
LEIGHTON: Well, just 20 percent of Russian territory would be enormous.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
LEIGHTON: I don't think that would happen at all. Ukraine would --
SCIUTTO: Even if it was kilometer for kilometer.
LEIGHTON: Yeah, it's something where I think what you could see is perhaps it if they moved into another area, maybe a neighboring oblasts, in neighboring region of Russia, Belgorod, some of the others that are around Voronezh. Some of those other areas, that could really get the Kremlin's attention.
I mean, they've already got the Kremlin's attention, but that would make it very difficult for the Kremlin to look at this as a one-off kind of event. This is more than that, I think already. But the very fact that it's happening in this in this way and that Ukraine may be preparing other moves that could indicate that something more is afoot here.
SCIUTTO: And greater perhaps Ukrainian military capability than a lot of folks gave them credit for after this tough year, year-and-a-half of what that quite setbacks, but certainly frozen -- frozen progress.
Cedric Leighton, thanks so much.
LEIGHTON: You bet, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Now to the Middle East where mediators are attempting to revive stalled negotiations for a Gaza ceasefire and hostage deal. A source tells CNN Hamas will not participate in Thursday's meeting but is willing to speak to mediators afterwards to see if Israel delivered a serious response, their words, to a U.S.-backed ceasefire plan which is already on the table.
CNN international diplomatic editor, Nic Robertson, he is in Tel Aviv.
Nic, I wonder Hamas won't be present I guess they're going to keep an ear to the wall to these negotiations here. And you clearly have some Israeli leaders who aren't particularly interested in these talks either, and have said so quite publicly.
So where does that leave the hopes for these talks?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yeah. Look, I think the way that these talks have always happened, right? That you have because their proximity talks and they're sequential so you have the mediators and the U.S. in the room with the Israeli team, which is the head of Mossad, the head of Shin Bet, and the general who's in charge of intelligence around the hostages. They're all in a room together and then it's after that previous talks where the mediators will then go with the output of that meeting and then go take it to Hamas.
We're kind of in that position at the moment. My understanding is that Hamas will certainly have the availability to engage with the mediators and that they're putting a position forward, which is that's going to be done only on the basis as you said there, that they believe that Netanyahu -- Netanyahu is serious.
So I think we're positioned here for a similar outcome to what we've had so many talks before. So the question comes down to Israel's in the room first, what did they hear from the mediators coming forward on the table? What do they hear from Bill Burns, the head of the CIA, who will be there. And what is the mandate? The critical part, what is the precise mandate their Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has given them?
He's under a huge amount of pressure, right? So is he going to concede to a little bit of that pressure internationally from the United States and others? Or is he going to hew a position that's much closer to his hardliners who just very clear, you cannot compromise on a ceasefire in Gaza. You cannot give up the border with Egypt. You cannot give up the crossing to Egypt, those points.
So, you know, there's potential for some diplomatic movement here. And then there's a potential for that to go into a room with Hamas at some point. But the question is, is that going to be enough for Iran? Is it going to be enough for Hezbollah? That -- that's the key thing.
SCIUTTO: Israel has been on high alert for days now for a potential Iranian attack, perhaps Hezbollah as well. Is the feeling where you are now that alert is at least I don't say off for now, but -- but pushed off for now while these talks continue. In other words, is the feeling that there will be no attack until that meeting takes place on Thursday?
ROBERTSON: I don't think anyone would dare to go quite that far? But, you know, go out on the streets here and people are relaxed. But it's, it's kind of a false picture because people are very tense, they are concerned. They know that these strikes could come at anytime.
You had, for example, the Houthis getting a missile into Tel Aviv just in the past few weeks. I don't think anyone's under any illusion in a way, the heat on Israel over the last few, few months, if you will, as far as a potential for attacks -- major attacks on Israeli territory by Iran, by Hezbollah.
It's been creeping up the temperature on that is up. So while two- thirds of the population, roughly according to latest polls here want to see Netanyahu's team do a deal, get the hostages out, I don't think anyone's relaxing.
But you're right, tonight into tomorrow should feel a little easier. And then after tomorrow, question mark, over the weekend, question mark, what's going to be enough to save Iran's desire for retaliation? It's not clear.
SCIUTTO: Yeah. I mean, the question mark has been hanging over the region for -- well, as long as we can remember. Nic Robertson, thanks so much.
Still ahead, back here in the U.S., inflation slowed to the lowest levels in more than three years. What this means for you and for interest rate cuts that could come during the Fed's next meeting in September.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:17:13]
SCIUTTO: Some welcome inflation news today. The United States consumer price index rose a modest 0.2 percent in July in line with expectations on an annual basis, inflation slowed to 2.9 percent. That's the first time since March of 2021 it has been below 3 percent.
To explain what this means for you and the broader economy, let's bring in CNN's Matt Egan.
So, Matt, I mean, the question here, there are a lot of questions here. One has the Fed won the war with inflation? Is that what the data over time is showing? And then related question is, does that mean we could expect a big cutting interest rates next month -- next month?
MATT EGAN, CNN REPORTER: Well, Jim, I think it shows that the Fed is winning the war on inflation, but we're not going to hear any sort of mission accomplished declared from the Fed.
SCIUTTO: Right.
EGAN: At least not just yet.
But, look, this is a major milestone for the American economy. The inflation rate, the biggest problem for the longest time, it's finally below 3 percent. As you mentioned, we haven't seen that in almost 3- 1/2 years.
And it's easy to forget, but two years ago, we had 9 percent inflation in America. You could see it on that chart. That spike to 9 percent was driven in large part by the skyrocketing price of gasoline and a whole bunch of other items, and thankfully, we are miles away from that.
Now I do want to stress, this does not mean that life is suddenly cheap. It's not, it doesn't mean that we're back to pre-COVID prices. We're not and we're not going to be, but this does show that prices, they're going up at a more gradual pace. And that is good news.
Economist Justin Wolfers, a few moments ago, he told CNN that he thinks it's now safe to say that the inflation crisis is now behind us.
Now, when you look at some of the categories here, it's clear that some things are still getting more expensive uncomfortably so, right? Like electricity or the cost to rent or car insurance. All of those have gone up rapidly, but there's other things that are getting cheaper like new cars, used cars, appliances, and one that I know, Jim, you'll be happy to hear, men's suits, getting a lot cheaper.
So, all of that is encouraging, and yes, it does cement the idea that the Fed is going to be able to finally cut interest rates at the next meeting in September, which, of course, is the last time they meet before the election and the question is, how big of an interest rate cut do they do? And how many more interest rate cuts do they end up announcing after that?
SCIUTTO: Yeah, yeah. And the market is pricing in one, you might say, looking at those yields, bond yields.
Matt Egan, thanks so much. EGAN: Thanks, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Well, the economy is repeatedly ranked as a top issue for voters in this presidential race. Next hour, former President Donald Trump will deliver a speech, his team says, will be focused on his economic record. This in Asheville, North Carolina, ahead of Vice President Kamala Harris's rollout of her own economic policy plan in that same battleground state.
[15:20:07]
CNN's Kristen Holmes is there.
Kristen, Trump did have a strong economy until COVID-19, when unemployment jumped, prices. Well, they fell out of the bottom because things were looking pretty bad, right? As you remember, there are deep worries about a recession.
As he sells his economic record today. I mean, one question is, will it be fact based? And two, is he going to lean in -- I imagine he's going to lean into tax cuts, right? Because it is primary legislative achievement was a tax cut in -- during his term, but one that has often been criticized for benefiting the wealthy more than working class Americans?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, that's right. So, look, he has said before that he had a great thriving economy until COVID-19. So he has knowledge that.
But the reason that he's so focused on the economy is because of the inflation rates today versus before COVID, and this is something he has said over and over again, because if you talk to voters, they do believe that the economy is getting better. But when it comes to inflation, they still believe they can't afford the things that they need in terms of groceries, in terms of gas.
Donald Trump, he used to ask the same question, were you better off when I was in office? Obviously referring to those pre-COVID times.
Now, whether or not it is fact-based, Donald Trump is here to deliver these remarks on the economy. But the big question, of course, is whether or not this speech is actually going to turn out to be as speech about the economy.
Jim, when I talked to his senior advisers, when I talked to the people who are close to him, they believe that he can win this race, despite the enthusiasm that we've seen around Kamala Harris, despite the fact that we have seen a polling boost for Kamala Harris, they do believe at the end of the day, Donald Trump could take back the White House in November, but in order to do so, he needs to stop talking about what he's talking about and focus on things like the economy.
When we looked at that polling back when Joe Biden was in the race, he constantly, pulled ahead of Joe Biden in terms of handling the economy. They want him to go back to that. They want him to talk about the economy and talk about crime, to talk about immigration, the things that people believe, and this is according to polling, he did better at when he was in office.
They also want to link her, Kamala Harris, to the policies of President Joe Biden. Of course, she's part of that administration. But right now, Donald Trump has been completely off message. He has been posting fringe theories from the Internet. He has been attacking some of his allies, including Governor Brian Kemp in Georgia during a rally there, a state that is critical.
So, right now, what you're seeing is Donald Trump's team around him trying to cultivate an energy, particularly in this venue which we'll go over in a second, where he will stay on message.
So what they've done here, this is a smaller venue. It is -- people are seated. They're not standing at a rally atmosphere. And it's being billed as a speech on the economy and nothing else. They are planning on doing this around the country to try to get these kind of policy issues out there.
But, Jim, the question is whether or not he's actually going to be on board with this plan. They can do whatever they want in terms of telling him what to say, writing speeches for him, making smaller venues. But the end of the day, it's him and we know for certain right now, Kamala Harris is underneath his skin and when he gets back into a corner like that, he tends to not focus on the issues, but instead on the personal attacks.
SCIUTTO: We've seen a lot of evidence of that. Kristen Holmes, thanks so much.
Well, on those new economic numbers, the Harris campaign praised the inflation news today and slammed Donald Trump's economic agenda, saying in a statement, quote, we already know who Trump's Project 2025 economic agenda is designed to benefit: Donald Trump and his wealthy friends.
Let's bring in Ron Brownstein of "The Atlantic", Molly Ball of "The Wall Street Journal".
Good to have you both here.
So we know the economy is top of mind for voters in this election cycle. Some indicators are looking better and inflation is slowing. A new poll out from AP shows Trump though still leads on the economy by seven points over Harris, 45 percent of voters trust him on the economy, 38 percent support Harris, though there was some swing-state polling that seem to show she had a tighter race with him on the economic issue, certainly than Biden had.
I just wondered, Ron, big picture, has the economic voting issue improved at all for Harris since Biden left the race, or is it about the same?
RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think it clearly has improved, but in an interesting way. And one that is, I think indicative of a much broader dynamic in the election. As you know, there have been a number of polls showing Trump's advantage on the economy, narrowing versus Harris relative to what it was in Biden. The most extreme example of that was the financial times University of Michigan poll that came out on Sunday that actually showed her more people trusting her than Trump on the economy.
[15:25:02]
But what's really notable about these polls is that while Harris is gaining -- improve -- assessments of the economy itself are not really improving. I mean, you had in that people -- African American saying they were worse off under Biden.
And what that says to me is that Harris is gaining not so much because people are becoming more optimistic about the economy, or even because they have a very clear sense of her agenda on the economy, it's because of a broader faith in her ability to provide more energetic and less divisive a leadership, than Trump. And that is a kind of dynamic that I think affects really all issues across the board, as well as the important personal comparisons between the two of them.
I mean, you can't overstate that something like 70 percent of Americans have been saying all year they wanted door number three, they want an option other then Biden or Trump and when they have it, they are at least initially responding positively.
SCIUTTO: Molly Ball, what is Trump's actual economic plan? I mean, he will say, I will solve the inflation problem has really not, not detailed how he would magically do that. We do know that he plans to extend his tax cuts from his first term, but also he's now touting the idea of tax cuts on things are no longer taxing tips, no longer taxing Social Security.
One, can he actually do that? And two, wouldn't that be inflationary?
MOLLY BALL, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: And the other important plank of his economic agenda, of course, is tariffs, which most random is also believed would only contribute to further inflation, particularly the very large tariffs that he has been talking about and proposing.
So I think there is an issue there of how does he propose to bring back inflation but what he's really selling to people is mostly this nostalgia that you and Ron have described, this feeling that when he was president, things were better and so beyond any particular policy agenda the that he might have, and I think he's always had a pretty loose relationship to any particular policy agenda except tariffs, right?
He's been very consistent --
SCIUTTO: Right.
BALL: -- when it comes to tariffs, and that is a policy that probably would make inflation worse. It will be interesting to hear, as you've been talking about what he lays out today, whether there are more specifics about things he might do and whether those things would actually have a positive effect on inflation. And then, you know, whether he's able to drive a consistent message on
that. So I think for both of these candidates, right? And certainly for Kamala Harris, too, there's a lot of questions about specifically what they might do and that whether -- whether and how they would actually be able to put that into practice.
SCIUTTO: So, Ron, what did -- there's a lot of reporting now that Harris intends to put some daylight between herself and Joe Biden's economic plan. How exactly? And would that be substantive change or just rhetorical change?
BROWNSTEIN: Yeah. By the way, just to, just to button up the last point, I wrote a piece couple of months ago. Mark Zandi of Moody's Economics, they have forecast that not only because of tariffs, but also because of mass deportation, what that would do to the labor, as well as threats to the independence of the Fed, that inflation would be significantly higher under his agenda going forward, than Biden's going forward, even though obviously, Biden has suffered through a significant rise in prices.
I don't know if Harris is going to repudiate anything Biden has done. I think what she's more likely to do is lean into the elements of her story that can be brought to bear here. I think she's probably going to talk a lot about her work as attorney general California prosecuting companies that were seen as ripping off consumers in various ways and, look, and look at various options for taking a more aggressive stance in that way, nationally.
You know, it is interesting. I mean, you know, people are talking a lot about whether she has laid out a lot enough of her policies and if you listen to her stump speech on any given day, certainly in Nevada on Sunday, there was more than enough there to finish did it to keep them occupied for the first two years of a of a Harris presidency.
There are details that we don't have and we may never get before November, but there is really no confusion about what the top priorities of a -- domestic priorities of Harris presidency, are things that were passed in the House during Biden's first two years and blocked by Manchin and Sinema in the Senate.
SCIUTTO: Molly, there's been a lot of good polling in the last two, three weeks for Harris and it just seems to keep coming and including in a battleground states, national numbers, but also the battleground states the ones that actually matter. Harris has faced a lot of criticism for not making herself more available to the press for questions. Set aside just for another moment, whether she should do so.
I'm a journalist. I think she showed make herself available for more questions.
Does her campaign calculate she needs to do more or are they happy with the news cycle where it is?
BALL: I think it's a little bit of both. I think as you say, you know, when you are gaining in the polls, when the momentum is clearly on your side, there's not a lot of incentive to mix it up. And change the way you're doing things. And that hasn't always been her best venue. She hasn't always been the best messenger in unscripted situations, in interviews, and so forth.
Although most Democrats believe that she's improved over the course of her term as vice president. I think, you know, they do feel like they're going to have to do this at some point. But there isn't necessarily a need to mess up the trajectory that they are on right now. And I think that's why you see Trump and his campaign are working more and more aggressively to make the point that she needs to do that and to create this impression with voters because it is mostly us in the commentary and self interest to journalist class who've been talking about this at this point.
But if it does start to percolate with voters, that they see Trump doing all these unscripted appearances as disastrous as they can sometimes be for him and say, well, wait a minute, when is she going to go off script, that's when I think they're going to really feel the pressure to do more of that.
SCIUTTO: Yeah. I mean, listen, if someone made according to meet today, Harris is very active on TikTok, which reaches a lot of folks that -- well, for instance, we're not reaching right now. I mean, they're so you have some of that as well.
Ron Brownstein, Molly Ball, thanks so much.
Coming up, abortion access is now going to be on the ballot in the state of Missouri this November. What could this mean for a state that currently has a near-complete ban on the procedure and how does it fit into a broader strategy here?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:35:03]
SCIUTTO: Two more states, Missouri and Arizona, will now let voters decide whether to enshrine access to abortion on November's ballot, as part of -- as of announcements, announcements this week. That makes eight states total where reproductive rights will be directly in the hands of voters in ballot initiatives this fall from Missouri, its particularly significant step. The Dobbs decision triggered a 2019 state law that bans all abortions except in cases of medical emergencies all but halting all abortions in that state.
This is the first time there will be an abortion ballot initiative in a state with that degree of restrictions, giving voters a chance to essentially repeal a ban on abortions.
Joining me now to discuss is Emily Wales. She's the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood in the Great Plains Votes, overseeing the organizations reproductive care in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.
Good to have you on, Emily. Thanks so much for joining. EMILY WALES, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD IN THE GREAT PLAINS VOTES, OVERSEEING THE ORGANIZATIONS REPRODUCTIVE CARE IN ARKANSAS, KANSAS, MISSOURI, AND OKLAHOMA: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: So in the three states that you covered, three out of four currently have near total abortion bans. Only Kansas has access. And that's in part due to its own abortion rights initiative going back to 2022.
First, can you describe the debate -- that the state of abortion rights in Missouri today? Are any abortions able to take place?
WALES: Functionally, no abortions are happening. It's something we know as providers of this care is that exceptions don't work. And so even though you sometimes hear (INAUDIBLE) or medical emergency exceptions, such rare instances actually qualify for care in that case.
And in Kansas, where we also operate health centers, we are providing care now to significantly more out-of-state patients than in-state patients. Missourians have been living under a near total ban for the last years. But really since 2018, when facilities closed in central Missouri and Western Missouri because of state restrictions, Missourians have lived in what is functionally a post-abortion, post Roe world for much longer than other parts of the state, for the country.
SCIUTTO: Susan B. Anthony List, which is the leading anti-abortion advocacy group, it describes the initiative in Missouri this way -- Missouri would become as radical as California and allowing horrific late-term abortions and forcing the taxpayer to fund them.
This is a frequent talking point. We heard Donald Trump say the same thing, whenever abortion comes up, he says that they're killing babies the moment after birth, which is just not factually true.
So I just wonder how you respond to that. And is that a -- is that how many Missouri voters see this initiative?
WALES: I have every confidence that Missourians are going to do what we've seen in Kansas, Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and actually read the amendment, listened to the arguments and understand what's at stake.
It is not hypothetical. It's not a situation they have imagined, they know family and friends and loved ones who were trying to figure out how to access care. And so, they know what it means to live under a total ban.
And they know that this amendment is not about extremes of the other side is using to win political races. This is about restoring access for patients and letting individuals make private medical decisions without the government telling and then what they can or cannot do.
SCIUTTO: This initiative would also act to protect contraceptives. And I wonder, I think folks aren't aware that for some in the anti- abortion camp contraceptives are the next target. And we've seen some measures come up in states.
Do you see access to contraceptives as potentially at risk in Missouri? And you see that as part of a potential national problem?
WALES: We've already dealt with that in the state of Missouri. Already, the legislature has attempted in previous years to limit, restrict certain types of contraception from being covered by the Medicaid program.
Again, it is not something that could happen. It's something that will happen if we don't stand up and clarify exactly what our rights are. Our patients across the four states we served were really confused about what was illegal, what wasn't.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
WALES: Whether they could get emergency contraception. And much of that confusion is coming from politicians who don't know a lot about anatomy, don't know a lot about health care and are trying to legislate for political reasons, not for ones that are in the best interest of their constituents.
SCIUTTO: Emily Wales, thanks so much for joining us today.
WALES: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Coming up, heat records are constantly being broken, but the U.S. agency that tracks these things, NOAA could be eliminated if Donald Trump were to follow through on the Project 2025 guidebook, that and his comments about how global warming could be -- well, he says, good for real estate. What it all means. That's just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:42:45]
SCIUTTO: Firefighters in Greece are still working to tamp down the remnants of a deadly wildfire near Athens. Conditions have improved since the flames broke out over the weekend but flare-ups remain a threat.
CNN's Eleni Giokos is there just outside of Athens.
And, Eleni, I wonder -- do we have a sense now of exactly how contain the fire is and is the worst over?
ELENI GIOKOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. Well, the worst seems to be over, but, you know, the risk is still there, and I'll tell you why.
Right now, it's -- as you can see, there's no wind. But what we saw today and we went to ground zero where the fire started and it's incredible to see the scale and how fast the fire moved over 50 kilometer radius. And we saw a plethora of planes as well as helicopters still dousing down the land, right? So this is the big risk. But while, you know, you've got no real acts of flames right now, no,
no live flames, you still have the risk of the wood that would -- that is still currently burning. They could spread very quickly if the wind picks up.
Now it is expected to pick up tomorrow. Fire alerts remain very high and there's major concern with the wind. And, of course, the extended heatwave that we could see more trouble.
But in the meantime, the people here in Penteli have -- trying to pick up their lives and they're looking at all the destruction.
I want you to take a look at one man that we met that lost his livelihood.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GIOKOS (voice-over): Emotions just too strong to hold this local Greek sculptor who lost everything in the fires.
VANGELIS ILIAS, SCULPTOR (through translator): I've lost part of myself, part of my state of mind is here.
GIOKOS: This is what's left of his pieces, carefully carved by hand using an ancient Greek technique. Years of work, reduced to rubble.
So Vangelis has also stored some of his most prized possession, some of the work he does for fun in this container, there's a secret lock inside. You can't open it. The metal has completely melted. And if you look inside completely dark and the smell of smoke, evidence.
He just doesn't know the status of his work right now and he needs to bring someone in to cut this open.
Many like Vangelis were not insured. They now depend fully on the government assistance plan.
[15:45:01]
Residents can get up to 10,000 euros in aid. Vangelis estimates 60,000 euros worth of damage, but that's not really what hurts.
ILIAS: When I work on my artworks, I don't do it with money in mind. I work with creativity, aesthetics, and my spiritual state as the guiding principles.
GIOKOS: But the fire won't win, says Vangelis. He has vowed to rebuild his life's work stone by stone.
ILIAS: I believe this won't ruin me because I will put in personal work. I believe not. I believe not. And I will fight for it. A flower must bloom from the ashes.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GIOKOS (on camera): It's really sad to see Vangelis and looking at his workshop. Jim, I have to say that was just so many of these stories and these people are telling us the economic cost, but also the emotional and personal one that is going to continue for a very long time.
This -- these fires have a long-term effect on people and the community and the forests.
SCIUTTO: No question. And we've seen it take place in so many parts of the globe.
Eleni Giokos, thanks so much.
Well, from Europe to America, all the way to Antarctica, extreme heat is breaking climate records, putting 2024 on track to become the warmest year on record. July alone produced the hottest day on record, and an extended -- and extended a streak of record-breaking monthly high temperatures around the world, just seems to be setting new records every day.
So, here to figure out what is happening here is Jeff Goodell. He's author of "The Heat Will Kill You First".
Jeff, thanks so much for coming on.
JEFF GOODELL, AUTHOR, "THE HEAT WILL KILL YOU FIRST": Thanks for having me.
SCIUTTO: Seven cities in the U.S. have recorded more than ten extremely hot days above average. Antarctica, which by the way is in the middle of its winter, as you know, experienced a record-breaking heat wave. Last year, the hottest year on record, it looks like 2024 is going to break those records again.
So, what is happening here? I mean, is this -- I hate to use the phrase -- snowballing, right? When were talking about heat. But is it just getting worse and worse?
GOODELL: Yeah. I mean, what's happening here is really not very -- not very complicated. We've known what's happening here for 50 years. That is that as we continue to burn fossil fuels and dump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, that has a warming effect and we're seeing that manifestation of that now, you know, despite the progress in green energy and things that we've seen, we're still seeing record amounts of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere and that is what's warming the planet.
And until we stop doing that, we're going to continue to see more and more heat waves, more and more extreme climate events.
SCIUTTO: Is the climate nearing a tipping point for average global temperatures? I mean, as you keep -- I mean, all this talk right of keeping the warming to certain limits, right? But I just wonder are we nearing a point where the interventions can't prevent the world from reaching those tipping points.
GOODELL: No, there is no kind of global tipping point. There are targets, and I think that's what you're referring to there of the U.N. setting a target of 1.5 Celsius of warming or two degrees Celsius of warming, which are kind of aspirational to try to limit the worst of the changes.
But the notion that there's some global tipping point when all of a sudden, you know, we go from a livable planet to an uninhabitable planet is simply not true. There are very important tipping points in particular ecosystems.
For example, you mentioned that already were getting the heat wave. I had been to Antarctica, the ice sheets there are reaching a tipping point, and once they begin to melt and continue to melt, it's going to be tens of thousands of years before they come back. They're a real tipping point. The Amazon rainforest is a real tipping point.
But there's no global tipping point. And so, what that means is that every step we take to reduce CO2 emissions to limit the temperature rise is meaningful. There is no, you know, moment where we give up hope.
SCIUTTO: And that's important, right? Because if you give up hope than folks kind of throw their hands up in the air and say everything is useless. There are a lot of things on the ballot in this country's election in November, but I think we should also note that climate policies he has very much on the ballot as well.
On Monday, the former President Donald Trump spoke to Elon Musk on X. I want to play some of what he said about the climate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT & 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You know, the biggest threat is not global warming, where the oceans going to rise one-eighth of an inch over the next 400 years. The big -- and you'll have more -- you'll have more oceanfront property, right? The biggest threat is not that -- the biggest threat is nuclear warming because we have five countries now, they have significant nuclear power.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: The nuclear point is real, nuclear proliferation is real, but it is not true as you know, better than me, one-eight of a degree over 400 years.
[15:50:04]
And, of course, it's preposterous to claim that rising ocean levels that flood cities and homes, creates more oceanfront property. I mean, I just don't understand the logic there. How much is climate on the ballot in this country would affect, does it have, right? Because the U.S. of course remains, I think it remains the world's biggest polluter and nothing really happens on this planet less than U.S. gets its act together.
GOODELL: Yeah. I mean the choices here on climate between Vice President Harris and Donald Trump could not be starker and more, more consequential. I mean, Donald Trump basically believes that climate change is a hoax, is first thing out of his mouth when he talks about what he's going to do after saying being a dictator on day one is "drill, baby, drill", more oil and gas, he's -- voices animosity towards the wind and renewable power over and over again.
And the consequences of this are not just in this sort of more heat waves, more mega fires, things that we've been talking about, but also economically. I mean, you know, I live in Texas. I'm talking to you from Austin, Texas. It's, you know, the fossil fuel capital of America and 60 percent of the power coming into my house today is from renewable power.
This renewable energy is booming in America and the cost the economic costs in the job costs of going back to this world where -- this fantasy world where fossil fuels are the sort of engine of prosperity is just like many of Donald Trump's policies, just completely dislocated from reality.
SCIUTTO: Well, it's notable, of course, he did it in a conversation with Elon Musk, who, of course, through Tesla, made electric vehicles kind of a mainstream product in this country. But there you go.
Jeff Goodell, thanks so much for joining.
GOODELL: Thanks for having me.
SCIUTTO: After the break, more people may be turning away from even the occasional drink. We've got the details on new data showing why alcohol -- many could be losing its appeal.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Younger people in the U.S. seemed to be drinking a lot less. A new Gallup poll shows more of Americans believe even drinking in moderation is bad for your health. More Americans do.
CNN medical correspondent Meg Tirrell is here to explain the new data.
[15:55:02]
So, first of all, what does this tell us about changing attitudes among young people, but also are they right to be changing their attitudes?
MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Jim.
So, Gallup's been doing this survey going back to 2001 and across the board, across age groups, 45 percent of Americans think drinking one to two drinks per day is bad for your health. That is the highest they've measured since they started doing this in 2001. It's up six points from last year and 17 points from 2018.
And this really is being led by younger people, among people 18 to 34, 65 percent of adults in that age group say that alcohol is bad for your health, compared with 37 percent and 39 percent for people 35 to 54 and over the age of 55.
But people in that younger age group are still at least occasionally drinking, but they have been seeing the biggest declines in drinking, about 59 percent of people under 34 report at least occasionally drinking compared with almost 70 percent of people, 35 to 54 and 58 percent of people over 55.
Unfortunately, the data do suggest the less alcohol you drink, the better, and that's unfortunate if you like drinking, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Meg Tirrell, important to know. Thanks so much.
And thanks so much for joining me today. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.
"QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next.
