tv PBS News Hour PBS May 3, 2022 6:00pm-7:00pm PDT
judy: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on the "newshour" tonight, reversing course. a leaked opinion shows the majority of the supreme court would overturn roe versus wade, a move that would trigger widespread restrictions on american women's reproductive rights. then, the potential impact. lawmakers in blue and red states respond to the supreme court's expected ruling on abortion and discuss what it means for their residents. and the invasion grinds on. fighting persists in eastern ukraine and on a visit to an alabama weapons factory, president biden reaffirms his commitment to ukrainian victory. this, as civilians continue to bear the heavy burdens of war. >> it scary, and i don't
understand why. what did we do? we had a normal life before the war. now, nobody knows what's going to happen tomorrow. or even tonight. judy: all that and more on tonight's "pbs newshour." >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by -- >> the landscape has changed, and not for the last time. the rules of business a being reinvented, for the more flexle workforce, by embracing innovation, by looking not only at current opportunities, but ahead to future ones. resilience is the ability to pivot again and again, for whatever happens next. >> people who know, know bdo. >> for 25 years, consumer
cellular has been offering plans designed to help people do more of what they like. to learn more, visit consumer cellular.tv. >> the john s and james l knight foundation. >> and with the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions. ♪ this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs statiofrom viewers like you.
thank you. judy: an early draft of a coming supreme court decision, leaked to the public late yesterday, suggests that by this summer, a majority of the justices will overturn roe versus wade, the landmark decision of 50 years ago that established a constitutional right to abortion. as john yang reports, the news sent shockwaves through the court and through both sides of the abortion rights debate. john demonstrators on both sides : of the abortion divide converged onhe supreme court today. >> abortion saves lives! abortion saves lives! abortion is violence! abortion is oppression! >> 80% of young people want to vote on abortion. they want it to go back to the states where they have a right to vote on it. let the people speak. supreme court let the people speak. >> we are! we're speaking. i would have died without this law.
just so you know. you're sacrificing the mother for the children. john this follows a politico : report that the justices are poised to overturn the right to abortion that the court established nearly a half-century ago. as president biden departed for a planned trip to alabama, he said that outcome could have wide-reaching implications beyond abortion. pres. biden: it would mean that every other decision related to the notion of privacy is thrown into question. if this decision holds, it's really quite a radical decision. it's a fundamental shift in american jurisprudence. john: in a statement, chief justice john roberts said the draft opinion in the politico report is authentic, but he cautioned, it does not represent a decision by the court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case. he ordered an investigation into the leak, which has no precedent in recent memory.
the document, marked first draft and dated february 10, was written by justice samuel alito, one of the court's most conservative members and frequent critic of roe v wade. he wrote: "roe was egregiously wrong from the start. its reasoning was exceptionally weak and the decision has had damaging consequences. we now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives." the politico report said that shortly after the court heard oral arguments in december about a mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks, five republican nominated justices voted to overturn roe. that would be a seismic shift, both legally and politically. 26 states are certain or likely to outlaw abortion, according to the guttmacher institute, which supports abortion rights. michigan is one of them, but today the states attorney general said she wouldn't enforce the law. >> what i see happening is just
basically not having any abortion providers at all in the state of michigan and my grave concern is that you are gonna have women who are going to die for a number of different reasons. john: in the capitol, senate majority leader chuck schumer vowed to hold a vote on a federal law protecting abortion rights. >> the republican appointed justices -- will go down as an abomination, one of the worst, most damaging decisions in modern history. john: republican senator lindsay graham of south carolina praised the news of the draft opinion. >> repealing roe v wade, in my opinion, is the right constitutional answer. i thought roe v wade was a constitutional overstep, so we'll be back into the business that we were before 1973 allowing each state to decide what to do. john: but republican senator lisa murkowski of alaska, an abortion rights supporter and key confirmation vote for recent conservative justices, lamented
the report. >> if it goes in the direction that this leaked copy has indicated, i will just tell you that it rocks my confidence in the court right now. john while overturning roe could : well be the last word on the constitutional question, the front lines in the abortion battle would shift to the state legislatures. for the pbs newshour, i'm john yang. judy: for more on the impact, both inside the court and around the country, i'm joined by marcia coyle, chief washington correspondent for the national law journal. and mary ziegler, a florida state university law professor and author of "abortion and the law in america." welcome back to the newshour to both of you. let me start with you, marsha. give us a sense of the status of this.
this is an opinion that was written, we think some time ago. it is subject to being changed before the court actually issues an opinion. help us understand what we have here. >> ok, judy. the first thing i looked at when i saw the draft opinion was that it was marked first draft. it also said on the first page of the opinion that it had been circulated to all of the justices on february 10, the court held oral arguments in this out of mississippi in december. so this is obviously as a first draft a very early opinion. it doesn't mean that it may not last until the final decision, but i will tell you this, during the supreme court's deliberative process, first drafts often go through multiple drafts, t unusual for 20 drafts or more,
and much can change during that drafting process, so we really won't know what the court is actually going to say until the final decision comes down. judy: let's just step back a moment, remind uhow many people get abortions in this country everyear. who are they, and how could that be affected if this is the decision the court hands down? >> the abortion rate has been declining, but estimates are about one in four people of reproductive age have abortions at some point in their lifetimes, which is a lot of people. the estimates are between 20-26 states will outlaw most or all abortions if the supreme court goes with this ruling. there are trigger laws that have some kind of provision that will make the law go into effect immediately and there are zombie
laws that are kept on the books that could spring back into life if roe is gone. this could affect people across large swaths of the south and west. we know that people color have abortions at disproportionately high rates and if criminal laws are enforced against patients, they will disproportionally be enforced against people of color. judy just continuing with that line of thought, you've done some work looking at what would happen right away on the first day after the supreme court were to hand down a decision like this. according to the pro-abortion rights group, they say they are 26 states that are poised to restrict abortion right away. what would that look like? >> if the final supreme court opinion resembs what we see in this draft, it wouldn't take a
genius to figure out that some states require the attorney general, for example, to certify there has been an overturning of the law that would go into effect. in other places the process would be messier. there is state constitution litigation michigan, for example , so there may be some back-and-forth for these criminal laws go into effect. but we imagine if the court is as direct as it seems to be in this draft that there were places where abortion would be criminal in short order. judy: this is a deeply divisive and political issue. i just want to cite the latest pbs newshour in p.r. poll from last week that shows that americans buy an 11 point margin think democrats do a better job handling the issue of abortion but we remind everyone that back in february, just 3% of people said that this should be the top issue. so can we project ahead what
differences would make in? elections? >> we have reason to believe that nork -- large numbers of independents and republicans -- they might not be comfortable with the morality of abortion. the question for democrats is whether they can translate that into votes or if the voters would make abortion a priority. in a world with no roe v. wade, whether it's high enough to translate for democrats in 2022 or 2024 remains to be seen. judy: marcia, i want to come back with you to the justices who sided with justice alito in his early draft of the opinion. they were all trump appointees. they voted with him, again it's
an early draft, to in effect overturn roe. let's go back and listen to what these three justices, justice amy coney barrett, justice kavanaugh and justice gorsuch said when they were going through their confirmation hearings. >> judges can just wake up one day and say i have an agenda, i like abortion, i hate abortion. >> one of the important things to keep in mind about roe v. wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past four or five years -- 45 years. >> it is the law of the land. judy: listening to that, how does that square with what you see here? >> i think every supreme court nominee who goes before the senate judiciary committee claims that roe and casey are settled law. i think it is time we all realize that that really is meaningless. yes, they are settled law, and
so are many other supreme court decisions, but it doesn't mean that they can't be overruled. they are constitutional based decisions which gives the court a lot more liberty in terms of overturning it then it does a statutory decision. settled law, to me, really means nothing. judy: last question for you, marcia, just the very fact, the astonishing fact of this leak, this is rare, it doesn't happen very often. what do you think it means, and what do you think it means for the court going forward? >> that's a good question, judy. i think there are two things that we could look at here. one is, what does it mean for the court going forward? i think the leak itself probably means that the court is going to be doing some internal rethinking about its processes in a way to ensure greater secrecy, and how that affects
other ability to deliberate and communicate with each other, i don't know. we will just have to wait and see. but it also is a question of how the leak and the ultimate decision affects the public's perception of the court's legitimacy. as you know, a number of the justices recently have been very concerned about the court's legitimacy in the eyes of the public and the court's approval rating has been declining. if it is a decision that overrules precedents, then a majority of americans say don't overrule. so that has to have some kind of impact. we will just have to wait and see what that means for the court itself. judy: on this day when we are digesting a big piece of information, we want to thank both of you. thank you. >> thanks for having us, judy. judy: now we take a look how a potential undoing of roe is viewed on capitol hill. to help us understand, i'm
joined by our congressional correspondent, lisaesjardins. this congress have the ability in any way to affect abortion across the country? lisa: absolutely itoes. congress could pass a law protecting whatdvocates call abortion rights, keeping abortion legal in this country. in fact, somdemocrats have been working on that. let me update you on where we are and what the problem is with democrats. if you look at what's been goin on, democrats in the house, which they control of course, did pass a law in september, the women's health protection act that would essentially what you call codify roe versus word -- roe v. wade, essentially saying that abortion is legal in this country. however, that now has to go to the senate, where need 60 votes. the senate to take a test vote on that concept in february, just 48 votes supported that bill.
notably among them, not every democrat expressed support for it. joe manchin, the senator from west virginia, was a no vote. wahing joe manchin now speaking about this today, he is someone who has said he supports women's rights and general women's health rights, but he felt that bill went too far. so there is some discussion on whether he and senator bob casey of pennsylvania, who also has some discomfort with that original bill, there is a bill that my get their support, senator susan collins and senator lisa murkowski who also support legal abortion, they have a bill they are floating and senator collins told me she thinks joe manchin will get on board. that's a lot of explanation to say that there is a bill that perhaps could get 52 votes in the senate to keep abortion legal inhis country in every state, but i don't see any way it could get 60 at this time.
you have to change the filibuster. joe manchin sd today he would not do that over abortion. judy: so even if you got senator manchin's boat you're saying you're still at not -- still not at 60. lisa: senator manchin is still not ready to break the filibuster. judy: with decisions on abortion potentially moving into the hands of state governments, amna nawaz talks with two leaders on opposite sides of the debate about what this means for their residents. amna: judy, this decision would mean states can determine who can get an abortion, when and under what circumstances for the first time in nearly fifty years. some states will effectively ban abortions. just today obama's governor signed a bill that bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. meanwhile other states are working to expand and codify access. we will get perspectives from both sides. i'm joined by the arkansas attorney general. arkansas is one of 13 states
with the so called trigger law that would immediately ban abortions if the supreme court overturns roe v. wade. thanks for making the time. i want to ask you about access in your state. it's already heavily restricted in arkansas. if roe is overturned, on that day, who would be able to get an abortion in arkansas? >> think is so much for having me on. this is a historic moment and we anxiously anticipate the final decision by the u.s. supreme court. in arkansas, we are prepared to say -- save the lives of unborn children. we put allowing place in 2019 that we are simply calling a trigger law which would go into effect in the event that the court does in fact overturn roe v. wade in the casey decision. the trigger law essentially says that in arkansas, as the attorney general for the state, i will certify that is what the supreme court of the united
states has done is overturn roe v. wade and casey, which would allow us to have a total ban on abortions in effect a total ban except to save the life of a mother in a medical emergency. quick so only in case of life endangerment, not in the case if a minor is raped and impregnated, that pson could not legally get an abortion, correct? >> correct. the total ban is for simply saving the life of the mother in a medical emergency. we were prepared in 2019 when we passed this law and arkansas in the event that the court did, like so many americans, we are hopeful and prayerful, because many of us thought in the last 50 years that we would never see this day. >> me ask about another type of abortion we've seen on the rise. we have seen medication abortions increasing. could women have medication for abortions mailed to them?
>> no. the total ban would apply to any and all forms of abortion except to save the life of a mother in a medical emergency. this is important, other states are looking to us. there are 12 other states across the country who also have a trigger law in place. we want to be prepared on day one to begin saving lives of unborn, innocent children. amna: what about kids in arkansas, one in five right now live in poverty and the foster care system is already overwhelmed after the lt two years. what is the state's for those kids? >> we are going to love those kids and give them great educational opportunities. >> but how would you care for them? >> a woman told me she and her husband were able to adopt four children many years ago whose
families did not want them. had abortion been available, those children would not of been living and thriving. so we are going to take care of the children in the state of arkansas. amna: just from a resources standpoint, your system is overwhelmed. you had a 14% increase of kids in the foster care system, not enough families take them in. is there a plan in place? >> certainly there is, and that's why i am serving as attorney general and ready to be that next lieutenant governor of arkansas in supporting my dear friend sarah huckabee sanders us in the governor. we will make sure we have the reurces necessary to give them the education they need, to make sure we take care of those in foster care. i worked in the foster care system. what those children need our love. what they don't nd is someone putting a price tag on their life. what if their life worth to them?
absolutely everything. god intended for that life to begin at conception. he didn't intend for that live to have a nominal price tag on it by some liberal who says it cost too much for that human life. amna: you made it clear you believe roe was wrongfully decided. what about other cases that were similarly decided on this constitutional right to privacy? same-sex marriage, for example. you've made it clear you disagreed with that decision as well. would you in arkansas moved to outlaw same-sex marriage? >> our focus right now is on the decision whether it does in fact overturn roe v. wade. i immediately sent out a memo explaining that this was in fact the law of the land in the united states to ensure that state agencies and those
conducting or performing marriage ceremonies adhered to the law. i think that is important for kansans and americans to understand that we must respect and uphold and defend the law. what the supreme court did, rather what we are hoping the supreme court has done in this decision is to adhere to the constitution of the united states and return this power back to e states and to allow states to have public policy discussions and to make those decisions among the respective states rather than having those policy decisions made at the u.s. supreme court. amna: so you don't believe it would undermine privacy decisions for same-sex marriage? >> those are conversations that will be had at a later date. i'm not going to allow those who are wanting to undermine the impact of this decision to say, to use scare tactics in the public eye to say that those who disagree with all these other
decisions will simply use it as an avenue to undo the decision or other decisions. what we must focus on is saving the lives of innocent children, millions of which we have lost over the last 50 years from january 22, 1973. the supreme court got it wrong. it has been wrong every day since. which child, which innocent life was lost that perhaps had the cure for cancer? which child was lost that had the cure for alzheimer's? we will never know, because the supreme court got wrong 50 years ago. amna: what about what other states are doing? i understand how your state is prepared if this were to be overturn. other states are working to codify and welcome people who are seeking abortion care services into their states. would you go after arkansas
residents who go to other states to get those same kind of abortion services? >> we will have to look at whether or not those states allow those practices. i'm quite frankly appalled when i see nevada and new york and their attorneys general and state leaders saying abortions are going to be on-demand in our state. we are ready to take care of a pregnant person. as the mother of a three-year-old baby girl, there is no such thing as a pregnant person. only women get pregnant, and i am appalled that they are advertising they are going to be alive and well. that is a public policy discussion to be had in those respective states. that is what this decision is about, whether or not we will adhere to the constitution and put the power back to the respective states. amna: leslie rutledge joining us tonight. thank you so much for your time. amna: now for democratic point of view, i'm joined by
connecticut's governor, ned lamont. thank for your time. i want to begin by asking the same question i put to the attorney general about abortion access in your state if roe is overturned. what would be the impact in the state of connecticut? what would abortion access look like? >> first of all, the supreme court took us totally by surprise. we thought this was settled law. that said, about five years ago we did pass a statute that ss a woman's right to choose will not be a bridge in the state of connecticut. as you know, that can be changed by another legislature going forward. right now i think a lot of folks are nervous and cannot believe the politicians are getting back into this. amna: so you have pledged to sign into law a bill that expands abortion access by protecting providers and patients who travel to your state for those services from other states where it has been outlawed? our other states calling you
because they want to do something similar? >> we are getting some inquiries. you listen to what is going on in texas, it's going to be enforced by lawsuits like vigilante justice. if women want to come to connecticut to exercise the reproductive rights, i don't want texas judges going after them. we will protect folks providing the service, protect our clinics and protect our women. amna: the states around you have work to codify that access. have you seen people traveling from other states for that service? >> not so much, we are just ready. amna: but you do anticipate that could happen? >> i see a lot of women had to travel out of state from texas to get the reproductive rights. amna: your critics say you are protecting people who are essentially breaking the law in other states. would you do that for any other law? what would you say to that?
>> we are exercising or enacting the rights and we have right here. i don't have to sit around enforcing 24 other states, each of which has probably a very different reproductive law going forward. i don't know what they are going to do about rape and insist. i know what we're going to do in connecticut, which is to protect women's rights. amna: roe was decided on the basis of a conitutional right to product -- to privacy. do you have that concern? >> i wouldn't know that. amna: if these kinds of steps were not taken by you and your state legislature, we know other states are making similar moves, what do you worry would happen in the state of connecticut and the surrounding region? >> we had a couple thousand antichoice protesters outside the capital just a few weeks ago. there is a pact that wants to
outlaw woman's right to choose. we have to be vigilant, i think the majority of the state -- states are going to take away woman's right to choose, and were not going to let that happen in connecticut. amna: i wonder if you can step back and offer a big picture tech. many are worried if roe is overturned, what will essentially end up as a patchwork of abortion rights access, depending on where you live. what role do you see connecticut playing, if that is to be the future of this country? >> to stay a leader when it comes to reproductive rights and keep the politicians out. hope to god the supreme court or that congress can get it right and pass legislation that does not interfere with a woman's right to choose. amna: that is governor ned lamont, democrat from connecticut, joining us tonight. governor, thank you so much. judy: back now to the national
perspective on this issue, let's turn to the highest ranking female democrat in the senate, patty murray from washington state. she is chair of the senate health education, labor, and pensions committee. senator murray, thank you so much for joining us. you said earlier today if the supreme court comes forward with the decision anything like what we've seen, it's a five-alarm fire. what did you mean by that? >> judy, in all of my adult life since i was in child -- in college, i have lived in a land where roe v. wade was the law if the land. it ensured people's privacy. that if you made a decision about whether or not to have a child, it was your decision, along with your spouse or your partner. determined on your own fate, determine what your dog or was telling you what was right for you, your economic and health decision. all of a sudden we see that right being ripped away. now we're going to have
potentially a generation of women who will not have that right. even in the case of rape and insist. that is going to change economic and health dynamic for millions of women in this country and i just am appalled. judy: we just heard governor lamont say he could look to washington for some remedy here, but we know it was just two months ago the senate failed to pass the democratic geordie failed to pass a law that would codify women's rights to an abortion. if he couldn't pass it then, how could you pass it now? >> obviously what we're going to do next week is have a vote on this so everyone in the country kns where there senator sns. who is your voice and what are they saying? so that this fall when we have elections, people will have an opportunity to know where their elected officials stans. and i'm calling f our country to wake up and say if you want
to make surehat this is your decision, not a politician's decision, that when it is your health ce at state, is your decision. when it is your economic family and values at state, it is your decision. you need to lookt who your voting for in the coming fall elections so that we can have a pro-choice majority, republican or democrat, that we can have a pro-choice house, so that we can put in place a codification of roe v. wade so that it is the law of the land and the supreme court cannot take it away from us. judy: it sounds like you're saying right now what this would mean is that so that voters with no where there senators stand. you may not get it passed this year. >> we may not get it passed, but people need to know where there senators are right now, and i think this has all of a sudden
become an issue of real to people. it wasn't a few weeks ago or a year ago. i think a lot of people thought, this will never happen. well, it is happening. and it is your body, your decision, and it is not to be taken away from you, and you need to make your voice heard. judy: do you believe that you and other democrats might be able to go along with a modified version of the legislation that was at before the senate a couple of moments ago? my colleague lisa was reporting that senator collins and senator murkowski are looking at alternative versions. >> that's two additional senators, that's great. but as everybody knows, right now we need 60 senators. we're going to allow everybody to put their voice on the line. do you support a woman's right to make her own health care choices, or do you want politicians to make that choice? that vote will be in front of the senate next week. judy: we often hear it said that even though american people show
that a majority are in favor of roe v. wade, we have seen polling just in the last weeks and months that show that, still, it seems to be the antiabortion rights groups that are organized, that seem to get their people out. they seem to have a greater impact on the passage of legislation state by state, getting people elected who agree with them. what is your sense of why democrats haven't been able, frankly politically, to transform that public support into something that can bolster your view legislatively? >> i think part of is that people really felt that it wasn't a threat. this is something they've grown up, lived with, expected, knowing it has been thrown around by politicians, but never expected to be taken away. and that is now a reality for millions of women in this
country. judy: i hear you saying that you help people t it now, but how do you plan to transform it, if right now, you don't have the votes, how do you plan to change it? >> because, judy, what we do know is there is an election this fall. and people will be able to go to the ballot box and decide who is going to be their voice and their vote on critical decisions like this and many other decisions. and i believe very strongly that a lot of young people never expected this to be on the line for them. they just simply assumed that they would be able to get access to an abortion in case of rape or insist or for personal or health care decision of their own. i don't think they expected this to be taken away. i think we all are now aware that this is just the first step. we have people here in the senate and across the country seeing laws already being put in place in states across our country that also take away a
woman's right to even have her own health care choices in terms of family planning. we are seeing people's right to be able to make health care choices when they are a victim of rape or incensed. this is an incredible intrusion into people's lives. and i do think people are waking up. they realize it, and it will make a difference when they go to the polls. something real is at stake right now and that is your right to make your own health care decisions. judy: senator patty murray of washington state, thank you very much. judy: tonight, russian forces are besieging the steel plant that is the final holdout of ukrainian soldiers and civilians in the city of mariupol.
and ukraine's top prosecutor unveiled her investigation in a key city where nick schifrin is tonight. nick: outside kyiv, there were so much death, only now are they planning for its permanence. he has a fenced in headstone to replace his brother demetri's temporary grave. >> i don't want this grave to be disturbed. all of these graves have fences. and there will also be a table it's a tradition. and bench so we can commemorate the dead. sit down, talk to them, maybe plant some flowers, say our goodbyes >> the oldest victim of russian occupation on this rope, 93. the youngest, 23. the family who buried their son so quickly his name was written
in pen. just one row of victims in one city and a country that is fighting a war with no end in sight. down the road, ukraine's top prosecutor today concluded her and her team's initial war crimes investigation in neighboring irpin. he said russian forces executed seven civilians, fired on civilians as they fled, and starved other civilians to death. >> someone killed them. >> we spoke about one month ago. how much progress has been made? >> we started to prosecute individuals from the russian army. now more than 9000. unfortunately, it is not the
end. >> last week she accused 10 soldiers of committing atrocities in bucci. just a week before, they received awards for heroism encourage from russian president vladimir putin. >> putin is responsible for these atrocities. >> across the street, some families are returning. he first fled downstairs to the basement and then to his family down south. a calendar still stuck on the last month they lived here. he and his wife are determined to stay, despite the cold coming through the broken window. >> we get on the bed, we cover ourselves, and that's how we live. where else should we go? we have nowhere to go. >> it's better to be here than on the street. even though it's cold both here
and outside. it's like we are on the street. >> just down the road, what do you think the russians did? >> it's scary, and i don't understand why. what did we do? we had a normal life befo the war. now, no -- nobody knows what's going to happen tomorrow or even tonight. everything is shattered. nick: perhaps russia's single worst war crime here be, -- behind st. andrew's church, a mass grave of more than 100 people. today inside that church, array grim for the dead. -- a requiem for the dead, surrounded by the images of atrocities and the memories this community can never forget. the russian strikes that produce shrapnel big enough to pierce this fence, many of them built next to children's playgrounds.
in total, 75% of all residential buildings were either damaged or destroyed. ukrainian forces prevented russian forces from going down the road only about 15 miles to central kyiv, in large part thanks to american weapons. today president biden highlighted those weapons, 5500 miles away. a javelin missile factory in troy, alabama. ukrainians have used stealth and deception and thousands of javelins to destroy their enemy's armor. it hasn't been enough to save the port city mariupol. two women were killed today who thought they werabout to escape. more than 100 civilians were allowed to leave and finally reached ukrainian held territory. >> every night we went to eep and thought about whether we would survive and wake up.
it was possible that we wouldn't wake up at all. >> the red cross helped oversee the evacuation. >> we were informed that much more people would be able to get out of hell. >> it seems eternal for so many of these victims. judy: our coverage of the war in ukraine is supported in partnership with -- in the days other news, the biden administration has formally declared that russia is wrongfully retaining pro basketball star brittney griner. she has been held in moscow since february on a drug possession charge. the court today said the u.s. state department wl negotiate aggressively for her release.
this was primary day in ohio and indiana. in ohio, jade events had former president trump's backing in a republican fight to succeed retiring senator rob portman. incumbent republican governor mike dewine set to fend off three r right defenders. meanwhile, top republicans in the indiana state house also faced conservative opponents. across india, rolling blackouts are cutting electrical power to swaths of the country, which is under extreme heat that's sent temperatures to 120 degrees. the outages are a result of power plants running low on cold. business owners in new delhi and elsewhere say they're feeling the effects firsthand. >> before, the power would go for maybe about one hour in a whole week, but now it's regular. it's gone for at least one hour. and how will there be any business? if there is no light, who will come and sit here in the heat? judy: march in india was the
hottt month since 11. and, in april, average temperatures in some areas were the highest in 122 yea. back in this country former , president trump's inaugural committee and business will pay $750,000 to settle allegations involving his washington d.c. hotel. the city had accused the committee of overpaying for hotel events to enrich the trump family. if a judge agrees, the payments will benefit 3 non-profit organizations. democratic lawmakers in 16 states called today for offering legal refuge to transgender youths and their families. it's a response to efforts to ban gender-affirming care in some republican-run states. the democrats will introduce refuge bills, similar to measures in california, new york and minnesota. and on wall street today the dow , jones industrial average gained 67 points to close at 33,128.
the nasdaq rose 27 points. the s&p 500 added 20. >> in the west, from the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. judy: even before it was published today, a new book has been making waves in washington with its revelations about the fallout from the january 6th insurrection, lingering tensions -- and the first year of the biden administration. the authors are new york times reporters jonathan martin and alexander burns and their book is "this will not pass: trump, biden and thbattle for america's future." i want to start with the news
that has come out today, this extraordinary leaked opinion from the supreme court. both of you have done so much political reporting over your careers. let me start with you john, assuming this is where the court ends up, what do you see as the political fallout from this, especially for the midterm elections? >> is going to galvanize democratic activists who allow people -- who here to forward not terribly excited about the midterm election. president biden's approval ratings were obviously dismal, there has not been enthusiasm for the younger voters and from some people of color for democratic candidates this year, and obviously because potential decision offers democrats the chance to turn that narrative around. judy: we will see where that goes. i want to ask you there so much to ask about the book. john martin, a document how much power former president trump
wields over the republican party. the question is how he does that, there's already been a lot of reporting, what you found out about kevin mccarthy and what he said in the immediate aftermath of january 6 and what he did. so few republicans are, as we see, able to stand up to former president trump. why is that? >> this is one of the central themes that we chronicle, and that is the grip, the iron grip that president trump has had on the republican party ever since he first arrived on the political scene in 2015. we get into depth with a lot of inside stories that you have not seen before about how he controls the party, even in his exile, in the weeks and months after january 6. that period where for a few days , it was unclear if he was still
going to be the dominating force in the party. why and how he was going to be able to retain the control he has to day in the gop and people like kevin mccarthy came back to his embrace. i think the short answer is that he simply has great popularity among rank-and-fileoters. being a political leader, you try to lead your voters and steer them in a direction you think is best for the country, for your party, or basically you can bow to their preferences, real or perceived. that's what a lot of gop leaders have done with trump. judy: picking up on what john just said, this relationship that trump has to the republican leadership and senate -- leader
mcconnell, you have them basically doing what trump wanted but then having a very frosty relationship with him, right after january 6 he was upset too and then ended up voting not to impeach him. how do you explain the trump-mcconnell dynamic? >> in terms of the antipathy between those two republican leaders, they still have not spoken since mcconnell publicly recognized joe biden as the winner of the election. the two men have not spoken since then. as you said, mcconnell has not waged all-out war on trump. despite in that brief -- brief window after january 6 when he sounded like he was prepared to purge donald trump from the political system and the republican party, that has not happened at all. the reason is pure electoral politics. mitch mcconnell acknowledges two people in private that he sees
donald trump as being a more enduring figure than he expected him to be. he acknowledged to his senate colleagues months later that things had not turned out as he expected they would. for mitch mcconnell, the paramount political goal is retaking control of the senate in 2022. he has decided to subordinate his genuine moral apprehension about the way trump behaved on or around january 6 two the short-term political imperative to not have conflict judy: judy: in the senate. you had a lot of fresh reporting around president biden, the ups and downs of his first year, including what turned out to be someone who ran as a centrist when he ran for president, but then appeared to be catering to the progressives in the democratic party.
how did that happen, how much debate was there inside the biden circle? >> i think joe biden, in his inner circle after he got elected, saw coming into the presidency at a time of crisis. they saw a reckoning taking place on matters of race, they saw the public health crisis going on and they still to this day, there is a climate crisis, and they wanted to use that opening to try to do big things and to create an enduring legacy. there was always the tension, bidens imperative of running us not trump. a lot of americans voted for him because he was not trump. biden wanted to do big, sweeping, progressive things as president, and oiously those two goals have come now into conflict. i understand there something
else and play that we talk about in the book. that is bidens possibility as a one term president. he's going to be 80 years old later this year. he wants to have a big legacy. he sought this job for 40 years and he finally is it. he wants to create a moment for himself as a consequentia american president and one who could be more consequential than the president he served with, barack obama. judy: i want to come to part of -- so much about what you reported about president biden is what happened with the pullout from afghanistan. this is seen as one of the moments in the biden presidency that has hurt him politically. your repting is that the president was blaming it on bad information from the people around him. explain that. >> that's right. joe biden went out early in the summer and said this isn't going
to be like vietnam. it's not like our allies in afghanistan are going to be overrun immediately, and of course that is what happened just a few weeks later. for all the americans who watched that unfold and went, gosh, that's not what i was told was going to unfold, the president has not gone out in public and blamed his advisors. the people around him, his political advisers and his allies on capitol hill look back at that moment last summer as a turning point politically for his presidency. he came into office saying that he was going to be putting adults back in the white house. the experts were going to be back in charge. all that amateur, corrupt government under trump was going to be gone. after the afghanistan pullout, it's clear that a whole swath of the american people started to
question the basic competence of the administration. when he tried to pivot out of afghanistan and go back to selling his agenda, he has never been able to recapture his footing. judy: the book is this ll not pass. thank you both, we appreciate it. judy: that is the newshour for tonight. am judy woodruff. join us online and again here tomorrow eveng. thank you, please stay safe, and we will see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by -- architect, beekeeper, mentor. your raymond james financial divisor tailors advice to help you build -- help you live your life. life, well-planned. ♪
>> carnegie corporation of new york, supporting innovations in education, and the advancement of international peace and security, at carnegie.org. the target foundation, committed to advancing racial equity in creating the change required to shift systems and help accelerate economic opportunity. and with the ongoing support of these institutions. this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. [captioning pe
(upbeat music) - [danielle] on a fishing boat off of the coast of half moon bay, at of fourth generation produce farm north of san diego, at the oregon home of america's oldest tofu shop, and at a james beard-nominated restaurant founded by a former cia operative, we found incredible examples of immigrant hope and perseverance that paved the way for a new generation of asian-american chefs, restaurateurs, and culinary entrepreneurs. join us as we hear their stories on this episode of lucky chow. (upbeat introductory music)