Return to Transcripts main page

One World with Zain Asher

Reproductive Rights On The Docket At The U.S. Supreme Court; Young People In China Reject The Idea Of Dressing For Success. Aired 12-1p ET

Aired April 24, 2024 - 12:00   ET



BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Hello, everyone, live from New York, I'm Bianna Golodryga.

ZAIN ASHER, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: And I'm Zain Asher. You are indeed watching "One World." It is one of the most explosive issues in this year's

already very contentious presidential election. And once again, reproductive rights are on the docket at the U.S. Supreme Court.

GOLODRYGA: That's right. But arguments have just concluded in a monumental abortion case that could reverberate nationwide. The justices are

considering whether the state of Idaho's near total abortion ban can be enforced in medical emergencies. The Justice Department argues that federal

law requires hospitals to stabilize patients who need emergency care, even if that means performing an abortion.


ASHER: Pro-choice activists and anti-abortion campaigners, meantime, faced off outside the Supreme Court earlier just before arguments were set to



ASHER: CNN's Jessica Schneider joins us live now from Washington. So, Jessica, oral arguments in terms of what we just heard over the past couple

of hours, they were at times quite contentious. Just walk us through what this all comes down to. It essentially comes down to how you define an

emergency and whether or not emergency care should include abortion.

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, this is really, you know, a technical case about the meaning of state and federal laws, whether

or not they conflict. But the arguments they just wrapped up and like you said, they were very passionate. They touched on all of the practical

implications that have been stemming from Idaho's law that's currently in effect, banning nearly all abortions and creating criminal penalties for

doctors who unlawfully perform those abortions.

In fact, it was really interesting that the solicitor general for the federal government stressed this twice. She said that Idaho doctors are in

such an uncertain place about what they can and can't do that they've actually resorted to airlifting women out of the state about once every

other week to nearby states where doctors can actually perform abortions without the real questions that they're facing in Idaho.

So, what the federal government was arguing here is that there's a federal law, it's called, EMTALA. It says emergency room doctors, they need in all

cases to step in and offer stabilizing treatment when a woman's health is in danger. And the question is, you know, should that federal law preempt

or kind of overtake, override the Idaho abortion ban?

They're saying the federal government that even if a woman has an injury that isn't life threatening, if she's not on death's door, they're saying

the federal law still demands that doctors do everything they can to help this woman avoid serious injury, even if that includes abortion.

Then on the other side, we heard Idaho's attorney and they're basically saying, look, this federal statute, it's only four pages long. It never

includes any mention of abortion. And in their view, Congress never intended for states to not be able to regulate abortion care.

So, Idaho's attorney is asking or saying that if, you know, if the federal government sort of preempted states being able to regulate, that might

allow doctors to run wild in emergency room when it comes to all kinds of care, whether it's for opioids or other things that they say the state can


So, we really saw a lot of passionate argument in particular from the liberal leaning justices, all three of whom are women. But we're really

looking closely, you know, in the weeks to come before an opinion comes out likely in June to the Chief Justice, John Roberts, also Justice Amy Coney

Barrett, because they asked -- act a lot about.

They asked a lot about the practical implications of Idaho's law, in particular, you know, how are these doctors being judged if they determine

that a woman's life might be in danger and they need to perform an abortion, who is making that decision? Are they sort of looking over their

shoulder, wondering, well, will a prosecutor indict me on a crime here?

So, there were a lot of practical questions about this, resulting in very passionate argument. In the end, though, this does come down to really a

technical argument about whether this federal law sort of preempts the state law in Idaho that is currently in effect that really does ban most

abortion. Guys.

ASHER: Jessica Schneider, live for us there, thank you so much.

GOLODRYGA: Misty Marris is a trial attorney, and she joins us now live from New York. Misty, I know that you had been listening closely to these

opening arguments. Jessica really laid out clearly what's at stake here and what both sides are arguing.


From what you gleaned from the questioning and what we've heard from the justices, what is your take on how you think they will ultimately come

down? And do you think, given that they overturned, this is the court that overturned Roe v. Wade, they are open to having to hear similar cases in a

state by state by state basis?

MISTY MARRIS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yeah, absolutely. Because after Dobbs, after Roe v. Wade is overturned, many, many states, including Idaho, are

plunged into legal uncertainty. So, here's the two sides. And I heard questioning on both fronts. I was listening very carefully for specific


First, in Idaho, the statute only contemplates emergency medical care, which could include an abortion, if the woman is facing death. So, it only

contemplates death. So, the argument is, what about if a woman would have infertility for the rest of her life if she doesn't have this abortion?

What if she would have kidney failure? What if she would have other issues that are serious medical issues?

And the answer is, well, the Idaho law does not speak to that. And that's why the solicitor general was arguing that this is plunging the whole

system into medical uncertainty. As was laid out, patients are having to leave the state.

Doctors are needing to leave the state because they don't know what they can do legally. So, that's one impact, which the state says the federal law

would supplement and would allow doctors to act and provide the care needed when there were serious medical issues.

Now, on the flip side, here was the big argument. This is what you were just speaking about, because we do have a court that overturned Roe v.

Wade. And the reason they overturned is they said these are issues for states to decide with respect to abortion. And that was a prime argument. A

lot of questions on that.

What does it mean for the federal government to get involved in hospitals and medical decisions and for hospitals to lose federal funding if they

don't comply with federal law? What's the spillover effect? Does that mean the federal government can say if you give gender affirming care to

somebody, you lose federal funding? What does that mean? Is it a snowball and provides the federal government too much power?

So those are the two sides. And to your point, wow, when we have a court that's really looking at state autonomy, I could see the court making a

determination that these are issues for the state to iron out. But I will say arguments were entertained on both sides. Very impassioned arguments.

ASHER: Yeah, I mean, there's just so many thorny issues here, just in terms of whether or not the Idaho law essentially means that there is a belief

that the fetus' life is more important than the pregnant woman's life. Also, this idea of doctors potentially leaving the state, flying patients

to a different state because they're not necessarily sure whether or not they are -- it is legal to perform some of the procedures that they want to


Just in terms of the level of chaos, I mean, if the Idaho law ends up standing, the level of chaos that would ensue. I mean, Amy Coney Barrett

just talked about this idea of who is sort of standing over the doctor's shoulders, essentially saying what you're doing is legal versus not legal.

MARRIS: Absolutely, and that is the chaos that these states -- this decision will directly impact Idaho and 20 other states who have very

similar laws. And you hit the nail on the head. This is part of the government's argument.

The federal government's argument is that not only do we have these issues where this statute is only talking about death, not other necessary medical

care, it's also having a destabilizing effect on the hospitals, on the medical field in Idaho.

The reason being patients need to leave. Doctors are fleeing because they have fear of losing their medical licenses and being prosecuted. And that

could be adverse to what they're talking about, their Hippocratic oath of providing the care necessary to a patient.

So, absolutely, this is all in the wake of Dobbs. These are all unanswered questions. And many of the state legislatures have not dealt with the

minutia of the fallout. And I'm calling it minutia from a legal perspective, but from a practical perspective, it's life altering for both

doctors and patients.

ASHER: Misty Marris, so many different issues to iron out there. Misty Morris, live for us there. Thank you so much.

GOLODRYGA: Thanks, Misty.

MARRIS: Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: Turning to another top story we're covering. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson says that he will call on Columbia University's

President to resign. This has pro-Palestinian protests rocking the campus stretched to an eighth day. Mike Johnson is set to meet with Jewish

students there today, addressing what he calls a troubling rise in anti- Semitism in U.S. colleges.

ASHER: The school had set a deadline of midnight Tuesday for students to dismantle tents set up on campus, but that has been pushed back by 48 hours

as negotiations continue between Columbia authorities and the protesters.


CNN's Omar Jimenez joins us live now outside Columbia University campus in New York. Omar, just walk us through the very latest there, because I

understand that negotiations are going on. There is a window. What's the latest in terms of the talks here?

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, yeah. So, the university president set a midnight deadline last night essentially to reach an agreement.

Otherwise, they would find alternative ways to clear the encampment that's been on campus now for eight days. Well, they -- that deadline came and

went. Hours went by.

And then university spokesperson said they have been making progress. So, that deadline has now been extended out 48 hours. And specifically, as far

as progress goes, they've said that they reached agreements on dismantling and removing a significant number of tents, ensuring those not affiliated

with Columbia will leave the encampment and taking steps to make the encampment welcome to all.

Now, the student protesters have said that they are not abandoning their encampment until their demands are met, namely, as I've spoken to some of

them, that they want Columbia University to divest from all corporations they say are supporting Israel.

Now, what point they see that resolution that they can agree with, we do not know. And the other question is, previously last week when this

encampment first began, the university president called in the New York Police Department to come in and clear these protesters, a decision that

was criticized by many students and many faculty who made that known when they chose to walk out by over a hundred people earlier this week.

So, the question is, when you look at what alternative ways they have to clear these protesters, as was hinted in the university president's

statement, we do not know. But all we do know is that there is progress at this point and that the deadline is pushed out at least a little under 48

hours now.

GOLODRYGA: This, as classes have gone virtual and a real question asked across campuses throughout the country is, is what the rest of the semester

will look like? Will we in fact see commencement speeches? Will we in fact see classes in person? All of this still unfolding. Omar Jimenez, thank


ASHER: Thank you, Omar. All right, nearly $61 billion in U.S. foreign aid will soon be on its way to Ukraine. That is thanks to legislation just

signed into law by U.S. President Joe Biden. Republican infighting had stalled the measure for months.

GOLODRYGA: It's part of a package that includes $26 billion for Israel and another eight billion for the Indo-Pacific region, including Taiwan. Now,

it also includes a measure that could lead to a nationwide ban on TikTok. The President says it is in America's best interest to help Ukraine.


JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: And it's an investment in our own security, because when our allies are stronger and I want to make this current again

and again, when our allies are stronger, we are stronger.


ASHER: Moments after the president spoke, the Pentagon announced one billion dollars' worth of aid will soon be headed to Ukraine, and that

includes munitions, weapons and frontline equipment.

GOLODRYGA: In a rather shocking new development just into CNN, Hamas has released a video of a hostage who was taken from Israel on October 7th.

ASHER: Right. It is the first proof that Hersch Goldberg-Polin, an Israeli- American, survived, and he actually survived after being badly wounded that day when he was kidnapped from the Nova Music Festival. This we just showed

actually an image of the video right there. But CNN is actually not airing the full video. It does show an injury on his left arm that we didn't know


GOLODRYGA: Yeah. And back in January, I spoke with Hersch's mother. And here's part of our interview.


RACHEL GOLDBERG-POLIN, MOTHER OF HOSTAGE: Someone stuck a microphone in my face and said, do you feel it? Who's failing you? And I said, all of us. I

said, you're failing me. And she looked taken aback. I said, I'm failing all of us. Everyone is failing these human beings who are trapped there.


GOLODRYGA: And CNN's Jeremy Diamond joins us now live from Jerusalem. And Jeremy, sadly, Hersch's face and his mother, his family, have become,

really, the spokespeople for so many of these hostages as they have publicly given interview after interview about the need to prioritize the

release of these hostages.

A lot of people concerned about the severity of Hersch's injury that we saw on October 7th to his left arm. We're not showing, as Zane said, the full

video. And we don't know many details of this video. It is over a minute or two in length. Perhaps one would assume it was recorded in duress. But

what's notable is he mentions the 200 day anniversary that we are now sadly embarking upon now since October 7th. And some other details that make it a

sense of how recently this video was released.


JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, that's right. And just to bring it back to his family, who you -- who you just mentioned and who you know

well, I mean, they have relentlessly advocated for their son's release, both in Israel as well as in the United States, meeting with top White

House officials and here meeting with top Israeli government officials.

And this is the first time amid all of that advocacy, amid months of relentless advocacy, that they have actually gotten some sense that their

son actually survived October 7th, survived the injuries that he faced on October 7th, because there was a video of him that day with this very

serious injury to his left hand, but it wasn't clear whether or not he had actually survived. And now for the first time, they are seeing some kind of

proof of life here.

Now, in terms of dating that proof of life, there are some indicators. As you mentioned, he does talk about the fact that he has been in captivity

for nearly 200 days. We are now marking 200 days this week since October 7th, since this war began. And he also talks about the holidays. And we are

currently in the midst of the Jewish holiday of Passover. And that appeared to be a reference to that.

But we do not have anything that we can independently verify in terms of the timing, the specific timing of this video. But in it, he is alive. You

can see that his -- part of his left arm is indeed missing. It's not clear if it was just from the injuries that day, if it was subsequently amputated

further up his arm.

But he is a 23-year-old Israeli-American citizen who was taken hostage on October 7th while he was attending that Nova Music Festival. And in this

video, beyond the message to the Israeli government, which we should note is obviously under duress here while he is being held by his captors, he

also gives a message to his family, which I want to read to you, where he says more important than anything,

"Mom, Dad, Libby and Orly, I love you very much. I miss you very much. And I think of you every day that I'm here. I know that you guys are out up

there doing everything for me to come home as soon as possible." And clearly, he knows his parents and his family well, because that is exactly

what they have been doing over the course of the last six plus months.

Now, in terms of the timing of this video's release, it is notable that Hamas is doing this at this moment at a very sensitive time in the

negotiations where we have seen these talks be at a standstill really over the course of the last several weeks, backsliding in some senses as Hamas

has entrenched itself in its demands, showing no signs of moving and even offering less than half the number of hostages that have been the basis of

negotiations for months now.

And so, at this uncertain moment, Hamas clearly trying to influence the state of these negotiations, clearly trying to level more pressure on the

Israeli government, on the American government as well, as Hersch Goldberg- Polin is one of just nine Americans being held hostage in Gaza, four of whom we know are dead.

He is one of five of those who we believe are alive being held hostage in Gaza. And so clearly, this is an influence to try and influence the course

of those negotiations, which is part of the reason why we are not showing the full video, but we are showing the still image of Hersch.

GOLODRYGA: Yeah, and no doubt, Hamas really just sending a message of psychological warfare and cruelty in releasing a video like this. But on

the other hand, you can't imagine that the relief his family must be feeling just seeing that video and the hope, hope, I dare say, for the

other families of hostages who remain in Gaza, that perhaps their loved ones, too, are still alive. Jeremy Diamond, thank you.

ASHER: All right, we are getting more details about a grim discovery at a Gaza hospital. We want to warn you that a lot of you might find the video

we're about to show you somewhat disturbing.

GOLODRYGA: Yeah, civil defense officials in Gaza say at least 344 bodies were found at the Nasser medical complex in Khan Younis. Israel, meantime,

says that the claim that the IDF buried the bodies is baseless and unfounded. It says its troops, while searching for Israeli hostages,

examined some bodies and returned them to where they had been found. The United Nations is calling for an independent and transparent investigation.


RAVINA SHAMDAANI, OFFICE OF THE U.N, HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: We are stressing the need for international investigations. There is a history

here of impunity for gross violations, and so many of them have gone undetected and unreported on. So we feel the need to raise the alarm, to

raise the alarm, because clearly, there have been multiple bodies discovered. We don't know how many.

There are reports that some of them had their hands tied, which, of course, indicates serious violations of International Human Rights Law and

International Human Humanitarian Law. And these need to be subjected to further investigations. They can't just be, you know, more reports in this

horrific war that just pass under the radar.

ASHER: In April, Gaza health workers said they found more than 380 bodies from mass graves around the Al Shifa Hospital in northern Gaza after a two

week Israeli siege of the complex.


All right, so to come here, new video raises fresh questions about a deadly 2021 attack at Kabul's airport amid the chaos of America's withdrawal from

Afghanistan. We'll have an exclusive for you, coming up.


GOLODRYGA: Well, now to an exclusive CNN report on Afghanistan as the Taliban's rapid takeover of the country in 2021 was in its final days and

U.S. forces were scrambling to get out. A suicide attack ripped through crowds of Afghans seeking evacuation at Kabul's airport.

One hundred and seventy Afghans and 13 U.S. service members perished. The Pentagon has insisted that they were all killed in that blast. But now,

there's new video and eyewitness evidence obtained by CNN that are raising questions about that account. CNN's Chief International Security

Correspondent, Nick Payton-Walsh, has more on the investigation.


UNKNOWN: Are you guys in the right state of mind? Let's go.

NICK PATON-WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): These are fragments of a video not fully seen in public before that revealed brutal facts long denied by the U.S. military. Let's go back to

the horrific dusk of August 26th, 2021.

An ISIS bomb outside Kabul airport tears through a packed crowd. A hundred and seventy Afghans and 13 American military are killed in the largest

casualty event there in a decade. A moment of acute savagery at the end of America's longest war.

But it's been marred in dispute ever since. Two Pentagon investigations have insisted everyone was killed by the bomb and dismissed dozens of

Afghans accounts to CNN two years ago that Afghan civilians were shot in the chaotic aftermath.

KENNETH F. MCKENZIE, GENERAL, COMMANDER U.S. CENTCOM: No definitive proof that anyone was ever hit or killed by gunfire.

PATON-WALSH (voice-over): But this new video, which begins outside the airport's Abbey Gate entrance, reveals much more shooting after the blast

than the Pentagon said. Combined with new accounts to CNN of Marines opening fire and gunshot injuries in Afghan civilians, it challenges the

rigor and reliability of the two Pentagon investigations that declared no Afghan civilians were shot dead in the chaotic aftermath. The bomb

detonates. The footage then stops and picks up three seconds later.


UNKNOWN: You're good. You're good. Right here. All right. Hey. I got on. They're breaking through. Is that right, guys? Hey, get out of here.

PATON-WALSH (voice-over): Many Marines here were young, some on their first deployment. The gunfire starts. They run for cover. This long burst is

about 17 shots, bringing us a total of 20. We're tallying shots fired and episodes of fire based on two forensic analyses on screen. You cannot see

who is still firing here and we never see Marines or anyone firing in this video.

Short, controlled bursts in isolation. Gas canister has exploded in the blast. It's gas choking this Marine. And in a moment, the total episodes of

gunfire you've heard will start being more than the three the Pentagon has said happened.

UNKNOWN: Oh. Hey, you're good here.

PATON-WALSH (voice-over): The gunfire continues. We leap forward 27 seconds. As Afghans, arms raised, run into the airport.

UNKNOWN: No, it is smoke and dirt, bro.

PATON-WALSH (voice-over): One burst, now, another.

UNKNOWN: Is that the T.B. (ph), bro?

PATON-WALSH (voice-over): They wonder if the Taliban, the T.B. (ph) is shooting. Two Marines told us they saw the Taliban just after the blast,

looking as shocked as they were.

UNKNOWN: Come here, come here, come here. I'm fine. Hey, where's I need to come? We're pushing them back there for sure. Any casualties, will push --

PATON-WALSH (voice-over): More shots.

UNKNOWN: Let's get down. Are you good?

PATON-WALSH (voice-over): Multiple Marines we spoke to who were there said they felt they were under fire. But the Pentagon has insisted for two

years, no militant gunmen opened fire here. They've said the only shots fired here were two bursts by U.S. Marines and one from U.K. troops. Once

in a big burst from a nearby tower, all bursts near simultaneous.

So, according to their investigations, we must be hearing Marines, all the British firing here. More controlled shots jump forwards, another thirty

nine seconds and more shots.


PATON-WALSH (voice-over): They're still absorbing what happened.

UNKNOWN: There's an IED, bro.

PATON-WALSH: Fifteen seconds later, more shooting.

UNKNOWN: Mother (BEEP). Hey, you guys good? Hey, hey, look at me. Look at me. Are you guys in the right state of mind? Let's go.

PATON-WALSH: They head out into the chaos to help. You've just seen and heard at least 43 shots fired in at least 11 episodes of shooting. It

matters as it is just short of four minutes of sporadic fire, most of which the Pentagon has said for two years did not happen. And that shows their

narrative of this horrific and disputed event is wrong.

This is how terrifying it was for Afghans outside minutes after the blast. So, who was shooting and who were they firing at? For the first time, a

Marine eyewitness has come forward and told CNN the first big burst of gunfire at the start of the GoPro video you just saw came from where U.S.

Marines were standing near the blast site. We're using a different voice to hide his identity as he fears reprisals for describing the gunfire.

UNKNOWN: It was it was multiple. There's no doubt about that. It wasn't onesies and twosies. It was it was a mass volume of gunfire.

PATON-WALSH: Down towards the Abbey gate sniper tower from roughly an area not too far away from where the blast had gone off. That's where you heard

the shooting emanate from.

UNKNOWN: It would have been around that area. Yes.

PATON-WALSH: And there were U.S. Marines.


PATON-WALSH: This was likely emanating from Marines on the ground.


PATON-WALSH: You think they fired into the crowd?

UNKNOWN: I couldn't tell you for certain.

PATON-WALSH: But they wouldn't have fired into the air, right?

UNKNOWN: No, they would not have fired into the air.

PATON-WALSH: Because you had a specific, no warning shots order, right?


UNKNOWN: It wasn't a direct order, but it was a common understanding. No warning shots. These are kids. They're young and they've only been taught

what they've been taught. Some of these kids have been with the unit for quite literally two, three months prior to deployment.

PATON-WALSH: And when you see the investigations, plural, the conclusions they've made that say anybody who talks about gunfire, people being shot or

being shot are just the product of traumatic brain injury, misremembering. How do you feel about that?

UNKNOWN: It's a pathetic excuse to say that every Marine, every soldier, every Navy corpsman on the deck has a traumatic brain injury and cannot

remember gunfire is lunacy. It's -- it's outright disrespectful and especially for it to come from somebody who wasn't there.

PATON-WALSH (voice-over): So, what did the other Marines who were there have to say? Ten other Marines who didn't go on camera told us they heard

gunfire. A couple even said they saw a gunman, but two others stand out who we were unable to reach ourselves. Romel Finley was injured. And in an

interview with a former Marine turned barber said he didn't see shooting. And his recollections are fuzzy by one moment. He remembers vividly.

ROMEL FINLEY, BLAST SURVIVOR As my squad leaders pulling me out, I remember as we're walking past, as he's like buddy carrying me walking

past, he, I see my platoon Sergeant walk past us saying, get back on that wall and shoot back at those mother (BEEP). So, I'm like, oh, we're in a

gunfight, too.

PATON-WALSH: Another survivor Christian Sanchez carried out here injured in his left arm. Also told the barber, he shot someone who he thought was

shooting at him.

CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, BLAST SURVIVOR: Like all I hear is ringing, the (BEEP) flashes going on. And then I started hearing snaps and I started realizing

that's a (BEEP) dude shooting at me. I just started shooting at the dude. And while I was shooting, I remember like looking at the guy that he's

like, he's just there. And then he just, it literally looks like he ate (BEEP). Like I'm looking at him, like around him, I could see impact.

PATON-WALSH (voice-over): So, what if the Afghans themselves, 170 of whom died? The Pentagon has insisted all injuries and deaths were from the bomb

and its ball bearings. But CNN has wide-ranging evidence pointing to many Afghans being shot.

Two years ago, we heard 19 eyewitness accounts from Afghan survivors who saw people shot or were shot themselves supported by 13 medical reports of

bullet wounds. Afghan medical staff also told us they counted dozens of dead from gunfire. Key was Sayed Ahmadi, head doctor at the Kabul hospital

treating most of the wounded whose team assessed the injuries of the dead as they lay out in the parking lot that night.

PATON-WALSH: You still think back about that night or sometimes?

UNKNOWN: Of course.

PATON-WALSH (voice-over): Back then he was afraid to speak openly, but he now is safe with asylum in Finland and wanted to say on camera how he

pulled bullets out of patients, how his team counted over 50 dead from gunfire and how his many years treating combat injuries meant he can

diagnose a bullet wound.

AHMADI: Explosive injuries come with severe injuries. You know, there's lots of holes in the bodies, but the people who were shot at, there had

just one or two hole exact in the chest or in the head. One hundred seventy people were killed totally, but the register what we had maybe 145. And by

your estimation, about half? More than half were killed by gunshot.

PATON-WALSH: Yet the night would get darker, still. Ahmadi started getting phone calls in the local language diary, threatening him and his staff to

stop looking into who had been shot.

AHMADI: He told me, what are you doing, doctor? And do you love your life? Do you love your families? This is not a good when you're collecting that

data, it would make danger situation for you. And you should stop that as soon as possible.

PATON-WALSH: So, when you hear the American investigation say that you're just wrong, you don't know what you're talking about.

AHMADI: I hope one day they ask me or they call me what you saw. Like you come here and ask me, you came to Kabul and ask me about the situation.

They never asked me.

PATON-WALSH (voice-over): Even though we described the video and our findings in great detail to the Pentagon, they said they would need to

examine any new unseen video before they could assess it. They said their first investigation had thoroughly looked at allegations of outgoing fire

from U.S. and coalition forces following the blast.


They said their review released earlier this month focused not on gunfire, but the bomber and events leading up to the blast, but found no new

evidence of a complex attack and uncovered no new assertions of outgoing fire, having no materialistic impact on the original investigation.

Investigators have also not interviewed any Afghans for their reports, the Pentagon said, leaving the question of how hungry for the truth are they?

Nick Paton-Walsh, CNN, London.



ASHER: All right. Welcome back to "One World". I'm Zain Asher.

GOLODRYGA: And I'm Bianna Golodryga. The Arizona State House is meeting today to weigh a repeal of an abortion ban that dates back to the civil war


ASHER: That's right. The Arizona Supreme court made headlines when it reinstated the law, which bans all abortions except to save the life of the

mother. For weeks, Democrats have been trying to repeal the ban before it takes effect in June, but conservatives have blocked that effort.

GOLODRYGA: Yeah, source there may now be enough Republican votes to finally turn the tide.

ASHER: All right, joining us live now for some more perspective on what's happening both in Arizona and the U.S. Supreme court is Tara Setmayer.

She's a resident scholar at the UVA Center for Politics. Tara, great to have you on the show.


ASHER: So, just in terms of from a political perspective, we know and Democrats know, Republicans know that this is not necessarily a winning



This issue of abortion is not a winning issue for Republicans. Democrats are, of course, trying to capitalize on this as much as they can from your

perspective. And this is just speaking about politics purely here. From your perspective, are Democrats capitalizing on this moment in the right

way? Could they be doing more?

Well, excuse me, this moment is a political tectonic shift in politics in this country. The idea that an actual right, a constitutional right was

taken away from women in this country after the Dobbs decision in 2022 has really shifted the dynamic, particularly for Republicans, because you've

seen repeatedly when the issue of abortion and women's rights to choose has been on the ballot, even in red states, Democrats have benefited from that.

So, we fast forward to what's happening now in this election year. And even in Arizona, the idea that the Arizona state legislature would not repeal a

law from 1864, I mean, this antiquated repressive law initially is something that has changed even the political calculation in the state of

Arizona. We saw in a Bloomberg poll released today that 25 percent of suburban women feel more comfortable with President Biden on this issue,

that he would handle this issue in a way that they like versus Republicans versus Trump.

That is a huge number in a state as close as Arizona was in 2020, which will be close again in 2024 and also has a consequential Senate race going

on. And political prognosticators have moved that Senate race now more in favor of Ruben Gallego, who is the Democrat because of the abortion issue.

So, this is political kryptonite for Republicans and they know it, which would tell me why some Republicans in the state legislature are now

reconsidering repealing that ban and being in favor of that since they weren't before about two weeks ago.

GOLODRYGA: And Arizona, of course, being a critical swing state where we, because of this ban and because of this antiquated law could see the tide

turn for Biden in this state. We see him visiting Florida as well, really trying to gain on the momentum this issue is having with voters, both

Republicans and Democrats who Tara, as you noted, regardless of where they stand politically, feel uncomfortable about the government telling them

what they can and can't do with their body and taking a right away.

I mean, for years, Tara, this has been something that Democrats have been warning about, had been campaigning about. I believe this is the first

presidential election where you can't categorize it though, as hyperbole about what could happen because in the past four years we have seen Roe

versus Wade overturned. We've seen the consequences of that play out in multiple states.

This is an issue where Biden has been leading over Trump. The others, probably I would imagine the economy and immigration for now, at least

judging by polls, Republicans have the upper hand slightly. Do you think this can take Biden and Democrats across the finish line though, given that

we're going to be hearing some of these major decisions throughout this campaign season?

SETMAYER: Yeah. I think that in, unlike years past, where the -- a woman's right to choose was always something that was hypothetical, Democrats

would, would warn about this as you said, but as long as Roe v. Wade was still in place, it was kind of a -- it was a hypothetical until Dobbs and

now it is no longer hypothetical, it's real.

And we are seeing this play out in multiple states from Texas to Idaho is what's going on in the Supreme court today. Those arguments, um, the horror

stories of the cruelty of what women have to go through just for being pregnant.

And I think as the president has and his campaign is recognized that telling these human stories, the real consequences of these draconian laws,

they have real world consequences and there's no DRR next to these women who are bleeding out in emergency rooms because doctors are too afraid of

performing care on them to save their lives or to save their ability to have children in the future.

That is what's happening right now. That is the argument going on in the Supreme Court today with this Iowa law. One in four OPGYNs have left the

state of Idaho. Five and nine out of nine specialists to specialize in high pregnancies, high risk pregnancies have left the state of Idaho for fear of

the criminalization of their care.

This is outrageous and it's happening in all the -- all around the country in states where they've implemented these draconian and regressive abortion

laws against women. And the idea of the freedom of a woman and her doctor to make those decisions versus prosecutors or bureaucrats or elected

officials, I think that point will be driven home more and more as voters realize what choice is on the ballot.


Like women's lives are literally on the ballot in November if these types of laws are allowed to go forward. And that -- and Republicans understand

that this is something that affects them, their families, their mothers, their sisters, their daughters. And the idea that daughters today have less

rights than their grandmothers did, I think is something that is a really powerful issue for Democrats to lean to. And President Biden and the Vice

President have done so already and will continue to through the fall.

ASHER: Yeah. One of the main strategies that Democrats are employing here is just to squarely point the finger of blame at Donald Trump because he

was responsible for stacking the Supreme Court with the conservative justices and Donald Trump though, for his part coming out and sort of

effectively staying on the sidelines saying this should be left up to the states. My guess is that he's going to be forced to make a clearer stance

on this issue as we head into November.

SETMAYER: Yeah, tough for him to do that when he's bragged about overturning Roe v. Right. Bragged about it. We've got it all on tape. We've

said it before that he's actually moderated on this issue.

ASHER: Tara, very good to have you on the show. I think it's the first time we've had her on.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. Please come back.

ASHER: So good to have you on.

SETMAYER: Thank you.

ASHER: We love your voice, Tara, thank you so much. Look forward to seeing you the next time. We'll have much more news after this quick break.


GOLODRYGA: Zambia's technology scene has been growing in recent years, providing a boost to the country's economy.

ASHER: Yeah, tech and innovation hub BongoHive has been supporting start- ups there for more than 10 years. Take a listen.


JOSHUA MURIMA, BRITER BRIDGES: Zambia has actually enjoyed a rather stable political economy. The regulations there are predictable, which is good for

having investor and stakeholder confidence. Briter actually counts close to 200 start-ups that operated Zambia. And in 2033, we've seen more than $800

million being deployed to such startups.

LUKONGA LINDUNDA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CO-FOUNDER BONGOHIVE: We see ourselves as an enabler for the ecosystems. We were the first innovation

hub in Lusaka and in Zambia. We support the start-up ecosystem in a couple of ways.

First and foremost, we run programs that address the different stages of the businesses. Some that are at idea stage or growth stage, those that are

looking for investment. We host quite a number of events that bring stakeholders together to learn, explore opportunities to collaborate.


This workshop's topic is beyond chat, how A.I. is transforming businesses. And the goal is to make sure that we can have conversations around the use

of these tools in driving businesses forward. We opened BongoHive in 2011, inspired in many ways by the growth of technology hubs across the

continent. And we adopted a lot of those models and adapted them to the conditions in Zambia.

We had a few people that used to work for us. Now, we have a staff compliment of just around 30. We've supported over 2500 businesses through

our programs. We see technology as an enabler for different kinds of businesses. So, our perspectives have changed from people simply starting

or building apps, right, to building disruptive businesses that leverage on technology.



ASHER: All right. Young people in China are rejecting the idea of dressing for success. In fact, they're heading to work in pajama bottoms, sweatpants

or baggy clothes.

GOLODRYGA: You're saying there's something wrong with that? It's all part of a rebellion against everything from bad bosses and poor work conditions

to low pay and long hours. CNN's Marc Stewart reports from Beijing.

MARC STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: For some young people here in China, what I'm wearing right now may be considered too dressed up, too formal for the

workplace. Part of a bigger online movement reflecting concerns of this current generation.

We've been scouring social media and essentially young people are wearing what's being called gross work outfits. We saw a young man wearing a

flannel shirt and sweatpants, a young woman in pajamas and a bulky sweater. Business suits and high heels are out.

Puffy jackets and slippers are in. These videos that are circulating are going viral. It's a reflection of protest and bad bosses, low pay and long

hours in the workplace, an extension of sorts of the lie flat movement, rejecting consumerism and the office rat race. It's a statement about the

rough economy here in China. In fact, if you look at government data, the jobless rate for young people was nearly 15 percent in December, 2023.


Many young people don't feel optimistic. Some of the postings online have messages such as, "My ugly outfit matches my salary," and "How gross my

work is, how gross will my outfit be?"

We've seen generations express themselves through art, music and writing. And for the current moment here in China - fashion. Marc Stewart, CNN,


ASHER: See, you can't actually tell because of where the camera comes, but I'm actually wearing pajama bottoms and slippers underneath here. I do to

work everywhere, every day.

GOLODRYGA: And you still look like a million bucks. There's a difference between dressing casually and ugly. And Zain never dresses ugly. Let's just

leave it at that. It's not possible.

ASHER: Well, that does it for this hour of "One World." I'm Zain Asher.

GOLODRYGA: And I'm Bianna Golodryga. It's good to be back together. Thanks for watching. Amanpour is next.