Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

CNN TONIGHT: Doctors & Women Scramble With Sudden Changes In Abortion Laws; Anti-Abortion Group: Abortion Is Homicide And Should Be Treated As Such; Source: January 6 Committee Concerned About Security Of Witness Ahead Of Tuesday's Hearing. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired June 27, 2022 - 21:00   ET



ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: We'll bring you a special two-hour 360, co- anchored with Jake Tapper, from 8 to 10, tomorrow night.

The news continues, right now. Let's hand it over to Sara Sidner, and CNN TONIGHT.


SARA SIDNER, CNN HOST: Anderson, thank you, appreciate you.

I am Sara Sidner. And this is CNN TONIGHT.

Something, very unexpected is happening, in less than 24 hours. A surprise January 6 hearing, is now on the calendar, for tomorrow.

But the House Select Committee wasn't even supposed to meet this week. What changed? Few details are trickling out. But the panel does say, quote, "Recently obtained evidence" will be presented, and it will receive witness testimony.

A lot of intrigue there! Especially because, we know the committee has been closely poring over new documentary footage that surfaced, from a British filmmaker, who had close access, to former President Donald Trump, and his family, before and after January 6.

A lot more on that, ahead, along with the brand-new developments, tonight, on one of the central figures, of the election interference attempt, who pleaded the Fifth, to the committee, 100 times.

The Feds have seized the phone, of former Trump election attorney, John Eastman.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go ahead and turn this off (ph) for me?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But sir, turn it off (ph) for me.


SIDNER: There is the video there. He is being detained. What it could mean, for him, and potentially, former President Trump? That's coming up.

But first, to the fury, and fear, on one side, and jubilation on the other, still palpable in our nation, in this first week, since the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right, to an abortion. Its ruling means, it is now up to the states, to decide whether to allow abortions.

Protests, against the ruling, are growing. But so too, is the fight by those, who want to ban abortion, altogether. And to their delight, a cascade of new abortion bans, went into place, in the hours, after the ruling. As of tonight, 10 states effectively banned abortion. This is truly historic.

Tonight, we're about to illuminate the impact this 4-day-old decision will have on the future, for many. One by one, we are seeing more than half the states, in America, moving swiftly, to implement laws, to outlaw abortions, or restrict them greatly.

But as the battles play out, this state of play is changing, tonight. A federal judge, today, lifted a ban, on South Carolina's so-called heartbeat law, while Utah's trigger law is on hold, this evening, after a judge granted Planned Parenthood's request, for a temporary restraining order.

And simultaneously, we're seeing a coalition of nearly two dozen states attorneys general reaffirming their commitment, to keeping abortion legal, even expanding access, to abortion care.

So with a longtime precedent being overturned, it begs the question, does precedent actually mean anything anymore?


SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Precedent is important. But sometimes, the precedent is outdated or wrong.


SIDNER: And, of course, that's Republican Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, who helped reshape this court, which has so far rolled back decades of precedent.

Let's zoom in now on how the upending of Roe versus Wade has upended many lives already.

Andrea Gallegos is Executive Administrator, of two abortion clinics, in two states that have outlawed abortion. One in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and another in San Antonio, Texas. She joins us now.

Thank you for being here.


SIDNER: Can you describe to me, exactly what happened, when the news came down, and you found out about the Supreme Court's ruling? What happened in your clinic, when that decision came down?

GALLEGOS: So, I think it's important to remember that Oklahoma, and Texas, have been in a post-Roe country - state, since the very restrictive laws, have already gone into effect, in those states. But the morning of the decision, really solidified the future, for our states, and others.

In San Antonio, Texas, we had patients, in the clinic with us that we were then forced to tell that we could not provide their services that day. And it was really painful. It was painful for them. And it was painful, for us, to deliver that news as well.

SIDNER: I know because of HIPAA laws, you can't tell us who. But can you give us a sense, of where these patients were, in the process? Maybe an age of someone? Was there somebody who, for example, was in just before the procedure that was told to leave? What exactly happened to your patients?

GALLEGOS: Sure. We had called a patient back into a room, and had her get ready for her sonogram, and then had to ask her, to get dressed, and go back to the waiting room, to get ready, to hear the news, from the physician, who had to make the announcement that morning.


We had, you know, the decision came in just, shortly after 9. So, we had a group of maybe 10 or 12 patients that had arrived already, and were expecting to get services, expecting to receive their pill, expecting to have the surgical procedure, done. And we had to deliver that devastating news that it was not going to be possible that day.

SIDNER: Can I ask you how they reacted, when you told these patients that "Look, it is no longer viable for us to do this. It would be considered against the law. And you have to leave?"

GALLEGOS: Hysteria, confusion, anger, despair, those were all the emotions in the room. And we all felt it. There were tears, from patients. There were tears from staff. It was incredibly difficult.

It's something that I don't think the folks behind these laws, understand what it means, for someone, facing this already incredible difficult decision, and now asking them to flee their home state, in order to access health care.

SIDNER: Is that what many of them - did they tell you what they were going to do next? Was there anyone that, for example, said, "You know what? I'm going to change my mind. Because now that this is against the law, here, I'm going to go ahead and have this child?"

GALLEGOS: There was a little of both. But mostly, because the idea of having to travel, the idea of finding the means, to be able to do that, just seems so unrealistic, for so many patients. And so, the reality of, "Does this mean that I'm going to have a forced pregnancy?"

And then you had others that said, despite all odds, they would have to make it out of state that they had no other choice, they had to get this done. And they would find a way.

And, I think, we're going to see a lot of both of those scenarios. These bans do not stop abortion. Women will still seek access. We're just making it incredibly difficult, for women, to make important health care decisions.

SIDNER: How do you respond, to those, who are very happy, and been fighting for decades, to stop abortions, from happening, in this country, and who truly believe that they are saving lives?

GALLEGOS: I would ask them to think of the lives of pregnant women, think of the woman with a fetal anomaly that finds out at 18 weeks, 19 weeks, 20 weeks, and can't get an abortion, in her home state. Think about the minor, who was raped, and can't get an abortion, in her home state.

These are lives too. These are lives that are going to be greatly impacted, by these bans. And we have to remember, abortion is health care. It's safe, it's easy, and it should be accessible to everyone, despite their geographical location.

SIDNER: Can you give me a sense? Are most people accessing pills that cause abortions, are coming in to the clinic, to have you do it in a different way? What is happening, when it comes to those two options?

GALLEGOS: So, in Texas, 299 days ago, September 1, 2021, when S.B.8 first went into law, which basically restricted abortion, past six weeks, the majority of patients began choosing pills, medication abortion, which is so simple.

It's easy and safe. The first pill is taken in the clinic. And the next set of pills are taken safely, at home. And the abortion continues at home, and in the privacy of their own home. And this is a very reliable option.

And then, other patients would choose the surgical procedure.

So, a little bit of both, but we definitely saw an increase, since after S.B.8 passed.

SIDNER: Do you worry about what's going to happen, going forward? There are a lot of folks, who would like to see this criminalized, who would like to see, providers, like you, criminalized, for performing abortions.

Will you stop performing abortions? I know you're not doing it in the state, right now. What will you do?

GALLEGOS: So, we are hoping that we can have some legal resolution, of what's happening, right now, in Texas. We were supposed to have 30 days, from when Roe was decided.


With the trigger ban, that the Attorney General stepped in, and said that pre-Roe law could be enforced, immediately, causing criminal penalty, which is why we stopped, immediately. We should have been able to continue, under our Texas trigger ban.

And so, we're hoping, to have some relief, and maybe be able to get back to providing abortions, for a short period. Of course, that's not the long-term because, eventually we will not be able to, in Texas.

So providers, I think, around all of these restrictive states, are considering what's next. Do we move to a friendly state, and help provide access, to more women seeking?

SIDNER: All right, thank you so much, Andrea Gallegos.

When we return, the next front, in the post-Roe battle. You'll hear from an activist, on the other side of this fight, trying to ban abortion rights, completely.

Plus, a physician, who provides abortion, on her biggest concerns, for women, who won't be able to get access, to safe abortions, after this ruling. That's ahead.



SIDNER: The debate, over abortion, has been inflamed, once again. A new battle is brewing, after the Supreme Court decision, on Friday, overturning Roe v. Wade. Protesters, on both sides of the debate, are re-energizing, and promising, to go to the polls, this year.

So, we talked to people, very much involved in this new battle.

One, a physician, who performs abortions, and other reproductive care.

The other, one of the young new activists, working to ban abortions, outright.





SIDNER (voice-over): All over America, the signs are clear.


SIDNER (voice-over): After 49 years, the battle, over abortion rights, has been re-energized. Because the Supreme Court ruled, there is no longer a constitutional right to abortion.

DR. MEERA SHAH, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD HUDSON PECONIC: We know that banning abortion doesn't take away the need for abortion. So, people are still going to do, whatever it takes, to get that care.

SIDNER (voice-over): Meera Shah, is a physician, and activist, who provides abortions, and other health care, at a Planned Parenthood clinic.

SHAH: I have cared for the protesters. And I treat them the exact same way that I would treat any patient.

SIDNER (on camera): Are you saying that a protester has had an abortion?

SHAH: Absolutely. I have seen that in my career that I have provided abortion care, to a protester, outside of one of our health centers.


SIDNER (voice-over): Lila Rose, is fighting to ban abortion rights, completely. Her group, Live Action, is at the forefront, of a new generation of women, who believe abortion is not only wrong, but criminal.

LILA ROSE, LIVE ACTION, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT: We were thrilled, learning that the Roe v. Wade had been overturned. It's not complete justice.

SIDNER (on camera): You think abortion should be criminalized. In other words, doctors and people who help women have abortions, and women themselves, should be arrested, or fined?

ROSE: Abortion is homicide, and it should be treated as such.

SIDNER (on camera): So, what you're saying, is that women, in your estimation, should not have a choice about abortion, and that should be the law of the land?

ROSE: Homicide should not be something that is permitted, celebrated, tax-funded, in our communities. Period.

SIDNER (voice-over): Dr. Shah fears, that is where the next round of this fight may be headed.

At least 10 states have effectively banned abortion, since Friday's ruling. Although two bans are already being challenged, in court. Another five states are expected, to enact trigger laws, limiting abortions, in the coming days and weeks. Soon, abortion could be illegal, or extremely limited, in more than half of America.

At least nine states, looking to ban abortion, have no exception, for rape or incest.

SIDNER (on camera): If a woman is raped, or she is impregnated, by a relative, why should that woman, have to go through with the pregnancy, and bring that baby, into this world?

ROSE: Rape is horrific. But the solution, to sexual violence, if there's a pregnancy that has resulted? Abortion is not going to take away the trauma that that woman or girl endured. Another act of violence is not going to stop the circle of violence.

SIDNER (voice-over): Texas has already passed a law that criminalizes abortion providers.

SHAH: After S.B.8 was passed, in Texas, in September 2021, we saw patients, from Texas, come to us, for abortion care. And we anticipate that influx of patients is going to increase.

SHAH: She is seven weeks?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Seven weeks, four days.

SHAH: OK. Any medical problems?


SIDNER (voice-over): Dr. Shah argues, all bans do is traumatize women, especially the poor and medically underserved, as these clinics can be their only access, to any health care, at all.

Shah, and Rose do agree on one thing.

ROSE: I mean, our country has devastatingly poor maternal mortality - bad maternal mortality rates, especially among Black women.

SHAH: I'm sure you're aware that there's a really high rate of maternal mortality, and morbidity, among people of color.

SIDNER (voice-over): Shah says abortion is only one of the many options she gives.

SHAH: As a physician, I know that abortion care is health care.

SIDNER (voice-over): Rose bristles (ph) at that.

ROSE: So, abortion is not health care, and helping women lower maternal mortality rates.

SIDNER (on camera): Why should a woman not have agency over her body?

ROSE: Well, of course, a woman should have agency, over her own body. What we're contesting, and what we're acknowledging is that in a pregnancy, there's two bodies.


SIDNER (voice-over): And so enters yet another dispute. Is a fetus a person, who should enjoy the same human rights?

Here are the words of one of the five justices, who overturned Roe versus Wade, during his confirmation hearings. JUDGE NEIL GORSUCH, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE NOMINEE: A fetus is not a person.

SIDNER (voice-over): No matter what science says, Dr. Shah says history has shown, legal or not, women will get abortions. The question is, will they be safe, or potentially deadly.

SHAH: So, people are still going to do whatever it takes to get that care, whether that means that they're going to travel to other states, or seek pills online.




SIDNER: There are so many looming questions, on both sides of the debate.

I'm going to bring in a team of great minds, to explore the possibilities, and look at why Democrats didn't make Roe, the law of the land, when they had the opportunity. Coming up next.


SIDNER: The warning, from some physicians, and abortion providers, is this. Banning abortions does not eliminate the need for one. It only eliminates safe abortions, and the ability to seek them, without fear of criminal prosecution.


Consider just how many women have had an abortion, in the United States. And this number, by the way, surprised me. According to the latest data, from 2020, Guttmacher Institute estimates more than 930,000 women, legally got the procedure. That number, on the rise, again, after a long-term decline. In the 1980s, it fell about half.

Joining me now, to discuss, Van Jones, Jennifer Rodgers, and Carrie Sheffield.

Thank you all for joining me again tonight. Let's talk about this. We've just heard from two people. We've heard from a provider of abortions, and other health care.

And a young woman, who is sort of (ph) at the forefront, of the push, to stop abortions, completely, in this country. And one of the things that she said that I thought was stark was, look, in her estimation, this is homicide, and eventually, people should be charged with homicide.

Going forward, states are talking about keeping women, from being able to, for example, go to another state, because that could be criminalized.

What's the future look like? We'll start with you, legally.


Because you have 50 states, about half of which are going to restrict abortions, significantly, or ban it altogether. They're going to do it in different ways. Some will have an absolute ban. No exceptions for life of the mother. No exceptions for health of the mother. No exceptions for rape. No exceptions for incest.

They'll want to reach out beyond the borders, of their own state, to get women, who travel away, to get a procedure, in another state. They'll want to criminalize even the Uber driver, who takes you to a clinic.

There are really no bounds, to what states are going to try to do. The question is what will the courts do, when these are inevitably brought into litigation?

And while all that is happening, over the next months and years, people don't know what they're allowed to do, what they're not allowed to do. I mean, it's going to be a complete, complete chaos, as a legal matter, for sure.

SIDNER: And I can tell you, having talked to some of the providers, and some of the doctors, they have said this very thing that there is a lot of confusion, out there.

Carrie, I do want to ask you. We heard from Lila Rose, who is very pointed, and has really made her point. A lot of people have followed along, and backed her that abortion is homicide, and homicide should be prosecuted like everything else.

Do you follow that same thought process? Should women be criminalized, for having an abortion?

CARRIE SHEFFIELD, FELLOW, STEAMBOAT INSTITUTE, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: I love Lila Rose. I think what she's done with her work, and just saving the lives of millions of unborn, I bless her, first of all.

And then, secondly, in terms of punishment, I think that the punishment should be geared toward the providers.

I do think though, that that number that you pointed out, 930,000 abortions? That is not safe, legal, and rare, the key word. Democrats failed. They failed. They failed. That's why this is such a shock to the system, is because Democrats failed, to make abortion rare.

And that is the truth. And that is why we have so many lies. And that is why people like myself, and Lila Rose, see this as a human rights crisis issue. Because, as she rightfully said, this is two bodies at stake.

Yes, a woman has the right to autonomy of her body. But what, immediately in conception, there is the exact DNA, for a completely separate human being, completely separate body. And so, that is the issue here at stake that that person is imbued with human rights. And that is really what we need to be protecting. And the fact that we are going to have - yes, there will be different laws on the books.

I think it's, you know, we talked about whether a federal law, on either side. I know, earlier on this network that, Kamala Harris and others, were talking about getting, Democrats, to pass a federal ban on abortion. I'm not sure that it's actually would be legal on either side, because of the Constitution.

I think what we would have to have, is an actual amendment to the Constitution. And I don't think we have the votes, as the Vice President said.

SIDNER: Do you think though that women should be criminalized? I think your answer was "No." The providers, you said, "Yes." But women seeking abortions? No. Correct?

SHEFFIELD: I think that the providers should face the strictest penalties.

I think that women and men should be held accountable. And that's the other piece of the equation, is the men, the men who aid, and abet, and are not responsible. Because let's not forget that it was seven men, who decided Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade allows for the sexual recklessness, of men. It allows for them to not be held responsible. And in the same way that we require child support, for a child, who has been born out of the womb, I think that we should allow, require men, actually, to be responsible, for when they impregnate a woman.

And if you look at the reasons, why women say that they get abortion? Many of them say, because they feel abandoned by their men.

And so, I think, this is an important cultural moment, where we're going to reset the conversation, and we're going to say, "Men, you need to be part of this. You need to be responsible. And we're not going to allow seven men, in robes, to dictate something that is a lowercase-d democrat process."

And that is, I think, the beauty of what's happened here, with this ruling, is that instead of firebombing, and Molotov-cocktailing, these pro-life centers, let's have an honest conversation, about life, and whether abortion, is legal, safe, and rare, in this country. Because, right now, it's not.

SIDNER: The firebombing and things have happened on both sides of this argument. We know that abortion clinics have also been attacked, over the years.

I do want to bring something up that you said. You said that this is not rare. But the numbers have gone down, according to the CDC, by half, since 1980. So, there are fewer abortions than there were in the 1980s. [21:30:00]

I do want to talk to you Van, about something that Carrie said. She said that Democrats basically haven't done their due diligence. And there is a question.

Democrats have had 49 years, to codify this, and put it into law. Why didn't they do it, when they had the chance, when they were in power? And I'm not just talking about now. I'm talking about, in the years, leading up, to this decision.

VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I mean, because it was a constitutional right, recognized by the Supreme Court.

Right now, there's a right for marriage equality. The Supreme Court could take that away, from tomorrow. And you could say, "Well, why didn't we put that into law?" Well, right now, it is the law. It's really hard to pass a law, to give people a right, they already have. And so, I think that's part of the problem.

The other thing is, look, you're going to get what you are asking for, and you may not like it, in that, a year from now, there are going to be rapists, who have women, who have been forced, to have their children. Those rapists are then going to say, "I have a right to see that child."

SIDNER: That's happened, already.

JONES: That's already happened. There are child molesters, who are going to have - who are going to be saying, "I have a right to see the child, created by my molestation."

You're going to get what you want. But I don't think you're going to like it as much as you think. And you're going to have people now, this is no longer going to be theoretical. This is going to be a living nightmare, for millions of American families.

There are people, right now, young women, who are packing their bags, to get ready to go to college, right now, who we know statistically are going to be raped. And your answer to them is, "Enjoy your pregnancy!" That is despicable. It is wrong. And is not going to stand in this country.

You're going to get what you want to get. I don't think you're going to like it very much.

SHEFFIELD: Excuse me, Van? But--

SIDNER: Is he - is he correct?

SHEFFIELD: --please show me.

SIDNER: Let me ask you, Carrie.

SHEFFIELD: Give me a judge-- SIDNER: Let me ask you a question.

SHEFFIELD: Give me the name of a judge, who would allow visitation custody, in this situation?

JONES: Well, you're--

SHEFFIELD: I can't think of a single judge, who would say--

JONES: --you just made the case. You just made the case--

SHEFFIELD: No, no, no, no. There's a difference between allowing a child--

JONES: --that you want men to be responsible.

SHEFFIELD: I'm saying - I'm talking about--

JONES: So, so--

SHEFFIELD: --preventing an abortion. That's what I'm talking about.

JONES: OK. Well hold on a second.

SHEFFIELD: That's all I'm talking about.

JONES: You got to eat the whole hamburger.

SHEFFIELD: Did I say anything about visitation? No, I did not.

JONES: You have to eat the whole hamburger here.

SHEFFIELD: No. No, sir.

SIDNER: Carrie, let me ask you about what Van just said.


SIDNER: He talked about rape and incest. Lila Rose, who we just talked to, said that there should not be an exception. And there are several states, I think there are nine states that do not allow an exception, for abortion, for rape and incest.

Do you agree with that?

SHEFFIELD: I agree with that. Because it's a human life.


SHEFFIELD: Whether a human life is conceived in violence or in love, it is still an act of violence, to commit murder of that innocent child.

And so, I do not agree with a rapist getting visitation rights. And I don't think any judge, in their right mind, would agree with that, Van. And so, it's quite - quite - just you're using a talking point, to talk about getting--

JONES: It's not a talking point.


JONES: I'm listening to you. I'm listening to you.

SHEFFIELD: I'm sorry. But having--

JONES: I'm taking your talking points to the logical conclusion.


JONES: So, you're--

SHEFFIELD: I'm saying - I'm saying - I'm saying a rapist should--

JONES: Let's say a couple more things.

SHEFFIELD: --should - any male, who impregnates a woman should not--

JONES: That's already the law, by the way.

SHEFFIELD: --aid and abet the abortion of women.

JONES: Hold on a second.

SHEFFIELD: That's my point.

JONES: It's already the law - I don't mean to be rude here. It's already the law, that if I impregnate a woman, and she has the child, that I'm responsible for that child. And you have a lot of dads, right now, who are considered deadbeat dads, because they're not doing that? The law is on the side of the women in that situation.

So, don't position yourself, as somebody, who's somehow fixing a problem, here. Men, who impregnate women, are responsible. But this is something very, very different.

And, by the way, we're now talking about the loss of legitimacy, for the Supreme Court.

Because you have a Chief Justice, who probably agrees with you more than me, who said, "Can we at least move in an orderly manner that respects precedent, and does the minimum that we can do, to uphold the law?" And you now have five judges, who went the other way. What does this mean?

It used to be we could at least believe that we had referees, on this fight. Now, you've got Red robes, and Blue robes. So, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, is now in danger. You're going to wind up in a situation, honestly, where once you get what you want, and you have these catastrophes, happening, we have no place to go.

The Supreme Court is no longer respected. You would agree with me that Congress is no longer respected. The presidency, people say, he's not duly-elected. Where is legitimacy now, for us to resolve something like this? A bomb has been thrown, in the middle of this country, and you're not going to like the outcome.

SIDNER: Hold on, before you respond, Carrie.

SHEFFIELD: Well the Casey decision, in the 90s--

SIDNER: I do want to talk to you about this idea of legitimacy, and this idea of people are saying, "Can we stop now, saying that this is a completely apolitical body?" Are they correct in saying that?

RODGERS: Yes, I'm afraid they are. I mean, it used to be that by going with the notions of judicial restraint, stare decisis, following their precedent, taking incremental steps, really only deciding the matter that was exactly in front of the court? That's how they had integrity. That's how they had credibility.


People knew that they were only deciding what was in the four corners of the case before them. They didn't give overly broad pronouncements about what else should be the law. And that's how the court had credibility, for so many years. They have now completely jumped the rails.

I mean, in the Dobbs case, this is the point of Justice Roberts' concurrence, which you mentioned, he says, "We didn't have to go this far. No one had to overrule Roe versus Wade. Mississippi proposed a 15-week ban. We should say, OK. That's OK. That's constitutional. We don't need to overturn Roe versus Wade." I mean, that's how they lose credibility.

There's a Occam's razor, right? It's whatever is, the simplest and most obvious explanation, it's probably the right explanation.

When you look at Dobbs? When you look at the gun case? And you start to see that they're legally indefensible? They're grasping at straws. They're selectively using history. They're not using judicial restraint. They're not following their own precedent. What's the most logical conclusion, the simplest explanation? That this is a results- driven ideological decision.

And that's how they got to where they are. They have the numbers now. They're going to do what they want to do. And we're seeing it in abortion, guns, religion, First Amendment. We're about to see it in administrative law, next week, or maybe tomorrow. And it's just off the rails.

SIDNER: Carrie, I'll give you the last word, but quickly.

SHEFFIELD: Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation, is there a right to an abortion in the Constitution? No. Therefore, the Court recognized that.

The Casey case, in the 90s, tried to do exactly what you're saying. It waffled. It said, "Let's have this be kind of the final word, and let the states kind of work it out, gradually." And it never happened. We never got clarity. And so, what this happened was, it ripped the band aid off, and said, "We finally have some clarity, because this is clarity. This is clean. There is no constitutional right."

Not to mention there were 26 states, I want to point out that signed on and asked Dobbs to be overturned - or the abortion so-called right to be overturned. That's 26 states, who already agreed--

SIDNER: OK. And I will just point this out--

SHEFFIELD: --with this decision.

SIDNER: --that for 49 years, each of these justices, have reaffirmed, and reaffirmed, and reaffirmed. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed this. So, that is one of the issues that a lot of people are concerned about, this reaffirmation, and now that is all changed in 2022.

All right, everybody stick around. We're just learning about security concerns, tonight, about a witness, at tomorrow's last-minute January 6 committee hearing. That discussion, is coming up next.



SIDNER: So, this just happened, minutes ago. I'm learning about it with you.

We learned why the January 6 Select Committee is being so secretive about tomorrow's witness list. A source familiar, with the plan, tells CNN, the committee is concerned about the security of a potential witness, and is taking new precautions.

That news is coming, as John Eastman, Trump's former election attorney, says the FBI seized his phone. This is video of that moment.


SIDNER: We are back with our panel, Van Jones, Jennifer Rodgers, and Carrie Sheffield.

Thank you for sticking around with me.

Van, I'm going to turn to you first. We hear from the committee - this is all of a sudden. They weren't supposed to do this, for a while. People are off. They had left.

JONES: Right.

SIDNER: That they are now going to do this new hearing, tomorrow. And that they've got, assuming they've got something big, I mean, would they make this announcement now, if they didn't?

JONES: It's got to be something very, very big. And it's got to be a name of somebody, who's either a big name, or somebody, who is really in fear of their life. This is a very, very big deal. People - Eastman is saying that they shouldn't have grabbed his phone. What Eastman has to understand is, he's an attorney, which means you can help your client, if they commit a crime. You can't help your client commit a crime.

SIDNER: Right.

JONES: And that's the danger that I think he finds himself in. I think the FBI thinks he was trying to help his client, commit a crime. And so, that's a big part of this.

SIDNER: That's a big difference. We have heard from Eastman, who went on Fox, and said, they didn't give him all the information. This was illegally done. When the FBI goes about doing something like this, could he be right?

RODGERS: I mean, anything's possible. But listen, the FBI gets a search warrant, from a judge. They have to show probable cause to believe that that phone contains evidence, of a federal crime, and it still contains evidence, of a federal crime. Not that it did back in 2001, late 2000, or 2021 or late 2020. But that it does today.

That can be evaluated. I mean, he has motions he can make. This will all be in court in front of a judge.

They won't start looking, until they first establish a taint team, meaning that whoever first looks at the information, on the phone, will make sure there's no attorney-client privilege information in there.

And apparently, they're doing a two-step process, where they did a seizure warrant, to get the phone, and then they're going to do a separate warrant, to search the phone.

So, there will be lots of due process here. Lots of opportunities, for him, to challenge this warrant, and make sure that it's all on the up and up. I'm sure, he will avail himself, of all of his possible motions. He's already started filing them. So, the courts will sort it out.

But it's very, very hard, to overcome this determination of probable cause. I mean, a judge can review it. But doesn't take a lot to show probable cause. So, the likelihood is he will not get his phone back. We may get a privilege review that pulls some of that--

SIDNER: Right.

RODGERS: --information back, like we saw in the Michael Cohen search warrant. But, I think, they're going to be able to go through that phone, and see what is not legitimately privileged, and then use that in the investigation.

SIDNER: We're looking at - we're talking about texts. We're talking about emails. We're talking about voicemails. We're talking about all of the things that might be in that phone. Carrie, what do you make of the hearings, so far? And given that this new information has come forward, who this might be, as each segment, of this goes forward, it's closer and closer to Donald Trump.

SHEFFIELD: Yes. I mean, I know, I speak for many people. We did want to actually get to the bottom of what happened, with January 6. We wanted a thorough, bipartisan fair process that allowed for cross- examination, of the witnesses. We have not gotten that.

And your colleague, Dana Bash, has been very good about asking, why aren't there other witnesses, here, providing the other perspective, or allowing for cross-examination? It's a very fair question that she asked.

And so, unfortunately, what this process has become is a one-sided carnival barking, to try to come after Donald Trump. That's all this is about. Unfortunately, it's not about getting to the truth, of what happened. For example, we don't know--

SIDNER: But we - let me - let me challenge you on that.

SHEFFIELD: --what happened with Nancy Pelosi, and whether she--


SIDNER: We heard from Republicans, who stood up, from their states, Secretaries of State, who stood up, and said, "I was pressured. I was coerced, or tried - President Trump, tried to push me, to a certain decision, to find 11,000 votes."

There are Republicans that have spoken. And there are Republicans on this committee. So, how could this be anything, but an honest look at what happened, on January 6?

I mean, do you believe that there was an insurrection, on January 6, that there was an attack on the Capitol?

SHEFFIELD: Absolutely, it was an attack on the Capitol. And people, who committed this crime needs to be prosecuted, and punished, to the full extent of the law. Absolutely. No doubt about that. But I think that the security lapse, and the security failure.

So that, in 2020, I was a reporter, covering the White House, when President Trump was in office. And there were times, when there were rioters, BLM rioters, and others, who were there. I felt physically unsafe going there.

There is video of Senator Rand Paul, who was there. He felt physically unsafe. And what did - what--

SIDNER: But that's - but that's--

SHEFFIELD: No, no, but--

SIDNER: Wait a minute. That's very different from--

SHEFFIELD: No, no, it's not.

SIDNER: --than a whole thousands of people--

SHEFFIELD: Can I finish?

SIDNER: --breaking into the Capitol itself.

SHEFFIELD: No, no, no, but the - the difference was the way that it was - the response was that President Trump called in the National Guard, to protect the grounds. And he approved thousands of troops for - to protect the grounds of the Capitol.

And we still don't know why Nancy Pelosi and Mayor Bowser refused the protection of those troops. And that answer has--

SIDNER: But that does not excuse those--

SHEFFIELD: No one has ever--

SIDNER: --who went in, and who pushed this forward, correct?

SHEFFIELD: Absolutely, it doesn't. But I'm talking about the destruction of the Capitol, the destruction of federal property, the disruption of the process of the votes.

SIDNER: I have got to wrap this up.

SHEFFIELD: That is horrific.

SIDNER: I got to wrap this up. We are coming back.

Van Jones, Jennifer Rodgers, and Carrie Sheffield, I thank you all for being here.

Tense moments, at some of the protests, after the Roe ruling. Is violence becoming the default in political discourse? We just talked about some of it. That's coming up next.



SIDNER: Roe's reversal, fueling passions, anger over the Supreme Court's decision, showing no signs of cooling.

In Arizona, Friday's protests, outside the State Capitol, ended in a cloud of tear gas. Police made the call, after the protesters, started pounding, on the glass doors, of the State Senate building. Nobody got into that building. But there was damage done, to public memorials, across the street.

While there were zero arrests there, the nature of political protests, in this country, seems to have shifted. And this is not isolated to any one party.

My next guests see that reality, in Arizona. Talk show host, Mike Broomhead. And Clint Hickman, Vice Chair of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, who stood up, to pressure, from former President Trump, to interfere with the 2020 election.

All right, gentlemen, thank you so much, for being here.



SIDNER: All right, let's talk about, this issue of things going off the rails, if you will. What do you think has changed?

BROOMHEAD: Here we are, my party, angry people, on my side of the aisle, and should be furious, as we all should be that there are protests, and violent protests, and threats, against Supreme Court justices.

But go back, six months, or a year, whenever it was, there were over 100 people, from my side of the aisle, out in front of his house, where he had to have Sheriff's deputies, making threats of arrests, and scaring his wife, and his children, and his neighbors.

So, if both sides don't agree that there is extremism, on both sides, and we don't all shout it down, I think this is going to happen, for a long time, until both sides say, "It has to stop, whether it's our side of the aisle, or the other side of the aisle."

SIDNER: Mike, I want to address that. We were looking at some of the video, outside of Clint's house, where people did show up.

And we're seeing this more and more, where protesters, whether you are on the Left, or you are on the Right, are showing up, at people's homes, whether it is a Supreme Court justice, as happened, recently, or it is a politician that you disagree with.

But, in this case, weren't they people, who were Republican that showed up, at your house, Mike?

HICKMAN: Yes, I'll take that one, Mike.

Yes, they were - it was on a Sunday night. Some people were upset, with the Board, certifying the vote, in 2020. They showed up.

And the good thing is, I had a little bit of a drop on it. Some people called me, and gave me a couple hours to prepare. And because of that, I was able to have a couple Sheriff's deputies there, to greet them, as they came down my street, and also had a little - a little time, to warn my neighbors.

And this is the part that I'm really concerned with, especially with the Supreme Court justices. You have people, coming into residential areas. Those Supreme Court justices were appointed, to a position. I ran for this position. But the neighbors, my neighbors, their neighbors never would have considered people walking down the street, and screaming horrible things. They're there to live, and grow their families. So, it has to stop.

SIDNER: Mike, when you speak to your listeners, and I know they are very passionate, what do they tell you--


SIDNER: --fuels their anger, and what might push them to cross that line?

BROOMHEAD: And I don't get - to be honest, I haven't talked to many people that are talking about that anger, other than they feel like the election was stolen, and that the only way to get their point across is to be violent.

There was a protester. I was watching TV, before I came here. And there was a protester. They were talking about not being able to get into our State Capitol, because fencing is now erected, around it, and someone was upset about it.

And this protester, said, "If this is the only way we can get our point across, this is what we're going to do." And that's a horrible way to think, and none of us should condone it.

SIDNER: Clint, you have felt that pressure, from the most powerful man on the planet. You refused to take former President Trump's calls, because he was trying to have an influence, on the 2020 election.

What was that like? And how have people responded to you?

HICKMAN: I didn't take the call. I'm still incredibly happy, I didn't take the call. Because if I would have taken the call, who knows where that would have gone?

I know for a fact it would have gone one place. I would have probably been on Washington D.C., testifying right alongside Speaker of the House, Rusty Bowers, because we were dealing with some of the same pressures, from the same people. And I couldn't - his testimony would have been my testimony, at that time.


SIDNER: Can I ask you one last question? Do you both agree that if leadership, politicians, in the view of all people, who are supposed to be leaders, are using language, like "Enemy," like "Evil," when they're talking about specific people, or talking about a group of people that that is helping to fuel this push, towards very high anger and potential violence?

BROOMHEAD: I agree 100 percent. And I would extend that also to people like you and I that are in the media business, at any capacity. Whether they're journalists, or talk radio, opinion, people, I agree with you, anybody that's got a loud voice like that, if they're doing that? They're perpetuating that kind of anger.

HICKMAN: And I would like to say, I don't like the use of militaristic terms, or threats of violence, and calling people straight-out evil.

I've always been brought up, to the point, where the Republicans are a team, and the Democrats are a team, and our teams are going to contest, and hopefully win their elections, and push this country forward.

I do not like the use of any types of pejoratives that say other people are evil, for trying to get their point across. It's just not - it's just not right.

SIDNER: Gentlemen, thank you for coming on. Clint Hickman, and Mike Broomhead, I really appreciate your time.

And we will be right back.


HICKMAN: Thank you.


SIDNER: Thanks for sticking with me. I'll be back, Wednesday night.

"DON LEMON TONIGHT" starts right now.

Hey, Don?