Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Supreme Court Lets Red States Target Planned Parenthood Funding; Democrats Debate What Mamdani's Rise Means For Party; RFK Jr.'s New Vaccine Group Votes On New Flu Shot Recommendations. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired June 26, 2025 - 12:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:33:00]

MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR: The Supreme Court says states can cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. The decision now allows red states to target the organization. It marks yet another loss for the plan for Planned Parenthood at the conservative court.

CNN's Chief Supreme Court Analyst, Joan Biskupic, is here to explain what this all means and give us an update on the consequential cases that we are still waiting for the court to decide. Joan, it's so great to see you. You are the perfect person to be here because you are in the court. You were in there this morning listening to this.

Let's first talk about the Planned Parenthood case --

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Sure.

RAJU: -- the significance of it, and what it means for Americans.

BISKUPIC: Sure. This was a 6-3 ruling controlled by the conservative majority that said that Planned Parenthood and any patients of Planned Parenthood do not have an individual right to sue South Carolina for cutting off Medicaid funding. South Carolina, which already, you know, bans abortion at about six weeks, did not want to have any of its Medicaid funding going to Planned Parenthood because it performs abortions.

And that -- they did that, and individuals in the state and Planned Parenthood said, we have a right, a civil rights right, to sue the state for this. The Supreme Court said no, that it's not actually written in law, so you can't have it, reversing where lower courts had been on this. This is something that, you know, other judges had thought that individuals would have a right to sue under provision that says that Medicaid funding should be available to any of the recipients for any qualified provider, and Planned Parenthood arguably is a qualified provider of physicians' services in the state.

So, major ruling, again, by a 6 to 3 vote. The liberals said that this not only will hurt women and others who use Planned Parenthood services in South Carolina, but it could prompt other states to then also try to withdraw funding. And this all comes, as you know, three years after the Supreme Court, again with the conservative majority, rolling back Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion.

RAJU: As you said, 6-3 decision --

BISKUPIC: Yes.

RAJU: -- the conservatives and the majority, of course, in this one.

[12:35:07]

But tomorrow is the day. We're all waiting for the last day --

BISKUPIC: Yes.

RAJU: -- of this term. This is just -- so viewers can see the cases that remain here. That includes birthright citizenship, LGBTQ books and school curriculum, age verification for porn sites, and also birthright citizenship. Such a huge case. What are you looking for tomorrow?

BISKUPIC: Well, just so our viewers know, we do not know when the last day is going to be until the chief justice announces it. And today, even with all those other decisions sitting out there, he said, we're only going to be here one more day. We're not going to spread this out.

And this is very unusual to have so many big cases. Obviously, one real critical one have -- that will involve the Trump administration is President Trump's desire to roll back birthright citizenship, which has been guaranteed for more than 150 years, which would mean anyone who is not a citizen, their children born here, would not automatically be born citizens. But that case specifically involves whether individual lower court judges can actually block a presidential policy nationwide. So that will have repercussions not just for the birthright citizenship issue, which is huge in and of itself, but for all of the president's other efforts.

Another one, Manu, just for our audience, there's a big voting rights case out of Louisiana, where Louisiana was found to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of black voters there. So the state had to draw a second black majority district out of its six districts. And a group of white citizens came in and said, they took too much account of race here.

And Louisiana is actually trying to defend this district, saying that it was trying to, first of all, protect incumbents in that state, very powerful state where the House Speaker is from, as a matter of fact.

RAJU: Less than a minute (ph).

BISKUPIC: Yes, that they were trying to, you know, navigate the rules of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution's equality guarantee. So we'll have to see what they do on that. But that will actually involve -- have repercussions for a lot of congressional districts.

And then there's one that's interesting that goes to the LGBTQ interests, where the question is, should parents be able to opt their elementary-aged children out of programs, instructional programs that involve gay rights and LGBT, other materials there? So that's an important religious one --

RAJU: Yes.

BISKUPIC: -- that lots of people are writing for the tension between the First Amendment and religion rights.

RAJU: What a blockbuster day, all of these, and the voting rights one, could have repercussions for the race for control of the House in the midterms next year, so we'll...

BISKUPIC: That's right.

RAJU: That's going to -- yes. And we know Joan Biskupic will be in the Supreme Court as those rulings are handed down.

All right, coming up, a way out of the wilderness or a one-off? That's what Democrats are now debating about Zohran Mamdani's unlikely surge in New York City.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:42:31]

RAJU: A blueprint for Democrats everywhere or just one Democratic primary election in one Democratic city? Well, that's what the party is debating after Democratic socialist, Zohran Mamdani, stormed a victory in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D), NEW YORK MAYORAL CANDIDATE: I think it is part of a larger referendum on where our party goes, and I think one of the hopes that we had from the very beginning of this campaign was to move our political instinct from lecturing to listening. Ultimately, this is a campaign about inequality, and you don't have to live in the most expensive city in the country to have experienced that inequality because it's a national issue. And what Americans coast to coast are looking for are people who will fight for them.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

RAJU: So my excellent panel is back. So, Margaret, what was this a referendum on? Was it a referendum on socialist policies or generational change?

MARGARET TALEV, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.

RAJU: Or both?

TALEV: There might have been a few other factors.

RAJU: Yes. TALEV: I mean, it was certainly also a referendum on Governor Cuomo's background, a referendum on Eric Adams in a way even though he wasn't on that ballot, an age break, a generational referendum. And the democratic version of the populist wave that is sweeping the nation that then empowers President Trump and empowers his messaging. So it was a lot of different things.

And one of the big questions is, is this what's going to happen, you know, in Virginia or in, you know, which will be the next bellwether state that we can really measure? Is this what Democrats are going to want around the country? And I think it is a combination of policy, age, charisma of candidate, who the candidate is running against, and what state you're in. It's all of those things.

And I think it would be kind of dumb to generalize and say --

RAJU (?): Yes.

TALEV: -- that this proves anything. It will certainly be a stalking horse, a lightning rod for Republicans to go after, but it's not really a blue -- there is no such thing as a blueprint --

RAJU: Yes. So --

TALEV: -- and then -- and a country looks so different.

RAJU: You know, candidates do matter. It's a cliche, but it's also true. But there's also unease within the party over him and then division. This is just a few some of the reactions. One person said, I'm not sure as a mayor from Scranton, Pennsylvania, I'm not sure all those ideas are actionable.

Congressman George Latimer of New York, the Democrat, he told me yesterday it's going to be tough for frontliners because they're in districts that have a lot of Republicans in that would look at a Democrat and want to hear the narrative, oh, this guy's radical. And I was asking him specifically, are you worried that he could make it harder for New York Democrats like yourself in the midterms next year?

[12:45:08]

MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Yes, I mean, we saw Laura Gillen, who just flipped a Republican seat in New York, come out with a very, very strong statement yesterday saying that he does not represent New York. It's definitely something that you hear from these moderate Democrats, especially those frontliners who are trying to protect swing districts, and I think it is going to put Democratic leadership in an interesting position because there's nothing that Hakeem Jeffries wants more than to be speaker and have a House Democratic majority.

To get to that majority, you need to flip swing districts across the country. And so you -- as much as they're not saying it publicly, there are some Democrats who are pointing it out there, but there is very much this feeling of, OK, the takeaways can be, you need the authentic candidate, you should be on social media or try and reach voters where they are, but you can't apply one outcome in a primary race in an extremely liberal city to the rest of the country. That's just not how you're going to win in those swing districts.

RAJU: Yes. And speaking of the New York Democrats, Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader is not coming on endorsing him yet, which is also very notable. Schumer is very cautious, and they put out some tweets, but they would not go very far in talking about it.

But let's just break down a little bit more about the mayoral results and what it may tell us about the way the base may be thinking about this, the way the base may be thinking about this candidacy and the race at large. This is what -- how the New York Times has looked at precincts by racial majority here.

And it showed that Mamdani won significantly with the Asian community, with Hispanics, he had an edge there with white voters. He lost significantly with black voters to Cuomo by 18 points in those precincts, and also by income, higher income and middle income voters, by and large, voted overwhelmingly for Mamdani. Lower income voters voted for Cuomo by a 13-point margin.

ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It's fascinating, especially -- I mean, the black vote in New York City has often been the base, really, for a Democrat candidate. I mean, in this case, it's -- this was effectively a primary, right? You had somebody who was a governor and had established also a strong base over the years when he was governor, so that provides -- makes it a little bit odd here.

But this -- the thing I've been hearing from Democrats is that Mamdani's coalition here almost provides a roadmap for the way forward for Democrats looking to run, at least in New York City, this broad, diverse coalition that includes people in places like the Upper West Side, but also, you know, throughout the city, right? A range, really, of class as well as race, which, again, is quite different when it comes to a winning candidate in this case.

But you do have it a little bit odd since he was going against somebody who was an incumbent here. I think another just lesson is also just you had somebody that appeared to be listening to voters who were calling for change here, right? And that stretches beyond. That goes across demographics.

You know, voters since particularly the last presidential election, Democrats really across the spectrum have been calling for somebody that is a break from the establishment and a break from the system that they're getting tired with. And then you have Mamdani going up against somebody who was a governor, who represents establishment, who represents that, has that legacy name in New York circles as well, and then who was forced from office and now is coming back, right?

It doesn't get more sort of status quo then.

RAJU: Yes.

KANNO-YOUNGS: So that seems to be something that universally people can get behind, as well as a message on affordability as well, right?

RAJU: Yes.

KANNO-YOUNGS: That seems to be the roadmap here. But again, can this work in other races? I think it also depends not just on the candidate, the winning candidate, but who you're going up against, right?

RAJU: Yes. No question about it. And authenticity matters also.

All right, great discussion here. But next for us, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s new vaccine advisory board votes on his first recommendation, the close review of several childhood vaccines happening at the CDC today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:53:32]

RAJU: Right now, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy's newly appointed vaccine advisory group is meeting for the second day. The seven-member committee has faced intense scrutiny for its stance on vaccines. Now CDC scientists who rely on the advisers' guidance are being put in an unusual position, defending vaccines which have already been deemed safe and effective.

CNN's Meg Tirrell is there in Atlanta at the CDC. So, Meg, the group just voted on a flu shot recommendation. Tell us the latest.

MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Manu, this was probably the most closely watched and controversial item of the entire two-day meeting. And it just wrapped up with a vote where these advisers voted that Americans should not receive flu shots with a preservative in them called thimerosal.

Now, this is a preservative that was largely taken out of vaccines about 25 years ago. It's designed to prevent microbial growth in vaccines. And right now it's really only used in multi-dose vials of flu shots and only in about 4 percent of influenza vaccines given in the last season.

So this is a small issue, but it's become a big symbolic issue because it has been a focal point of people who think that there is a link between this preservative in vaccines and autism or other neurodevelopmental issues. That is a link that has never shown any evidence of there actually being that kind of risk over decades and multiple studies. But there was a lot of tension here at the meeting focused on that today.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. even published a book about thimerosal in 2014 focusing on those perceived risks that, again, experts point out, including a published presentation from the CDC that HHS actually took down before the meeting, showing no link between these things.

[12:55:13] But there was even tension on the committee, Manu, about this. Here's Dr. Cody Meissner. He's a pediatrician and the best respected member of this panel when it comes to vaccine expertise. Take a listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

DR. CODY MEISSNER, MEMBER, ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR IMMUNIZATION PRACTICES: The risk from influenza is so much greater than the non- existent, as far as we know, risk from thimerosal. So I would hate for a person not to receive the influenza vaccine because the only available preparation contains thimerosal. I find that very hard to justify.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

TIRRELL: He was the only member to vote no on this recommendation, Manu, and we should also note that groups like the American Academy of Pediatricians worry that this kind of thing is brought up in order to sow doubt on well-established safety of vaccines. Manu?

RAJU: All right, Meg Tirrell, live from the CDC headquarters in Atlanta. Thank you so much.

And thank you for joining Inside Politics. CNN News Central starts after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)