SUMMARY: The leaked Supreme Court draft opinion shows justices appear poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, which would result in the biggest change to abortion rights since the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed the right to an abortion with restrictions. Former Pennsylvania Attorney General Ernest Preate, who argued that case and asked the court to overturn Roe, joins John Yang to discuss.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including a forthcoming rule from the Trump administration on family planning, the opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem and the deadly protests along the Israel-Gaza border, plus what we know about the Russia investigation, one year on.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): Now back to political developments, both here in the United States and beyond, with the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Welcome, gentlemen. We haven’t all three been together in a little while. It’s great to see you.
Let’s start, Mark, with the story we led off as a segment earlier, and that is the administration moving to close down, essentially, or close funding for clinics that either provide abortion services or refer women to clinics that do.
It’s the early phases of this, but it’s something the Trump administration seems determined to do.
MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist: Determined, Judy, to make a political issue out of.
I think that Donald Trump, if I’m not recalling — recalling correctly, as a candidate, made the issuing of executive orders by Barack Obama something noxious, pernicious and to be avoided.
That was when Obama did issue executive orders, obviously. We had Republicans controlling both houses of Congress. Donald Trump has both houses of Congress in his party. He tried and Republicans did unsuccessfully in their attempts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, to defund completely Planned Parenthood, and to achieve these objectives.
Now he’s moving — all of these occurrences, I hate to sound cynical, happened to occur in an election year, not simply with President Obama, but it did with President Clinton, with President Obama, with President Trump. It did with President Bush. And it began with President Reagan.
The one person who had clean political hands in this was Richard Nixon, who in 1971, invoked Title X, and to provide health care and to provide family planning advice to poor women who couldn’t afford it.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So it’s become a political football. Is that what we’re talking about here?
DAVID BROOKS, New York Times: Yes, I’m not sure I totally agree with that.
It has an election year — it has obvious political benefits for each party’s base, but for Ronald Reagan, I’m pretty sure it was probably a sincere belief that taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for abortions. For Bill Clinton, it was probably a completely sincere belief that this is a program should be longstanding.
I’m not sure where Donald Trump actually stands in his heart of hearts on this issue. I do know he has made a deal with social conservatives that you’re going to have put up with a lot of lies and payoffs to adult film actresses, but I’m going to give you — on policy, you will get — and he’s been very consistent on giving social conservatives policy victories.
This is something they have wanted for a long time. And Donald Trump is handing it to them. And so a lot of social conservatives who are willing to swallow his personal failures are going to feel vindicated that this was a deal worth making.
I don’t particularly agree with that, but I think social conservatives will say, yes, if we’re going to get wins like this, which are for, in their case, for the good of the country and for the good of humanity, they’re willing to swallow a lot from Donald Trump.
MARK SHIELDS: I’m not questioning the sincerity of all involved.
I do — their motives — but I think there is a strong political element to it. And it has to be noted of Planned Parenthood, while it provides cancer screening, all sorts of health care, it does provide also 330,000 abortions a year. So it’s a major element in the — in abortion-providing.
DAVID BROOKS: Yes. The tradeoff here is that Planned Parenthood, which does a lot of all sorts of health stuff, also does the abortions.
JUDY WOODRUFF: An array of services.
DAVID BROOKS: And so you get — say you’re a social conservative.
You get what you want on the abortion. It’s going to be harder to get an abortion and some of them will get less funding. But in places where they have done this — and we have now seen what happens when you do this — when you take people away from Planned Parenthood, you also — you do see a sharp rise in pregnancies, because contraception isn’t prescribed as much.
You see some health — deleterious health benefits down the side. So, on the plus side, people who really find abortion morally abhorrent don’t have to pay for it. On the minus side, there are negative health effects. ----- JUDY WOODRUFF: An anniversary this week. We have only got a couple of minutes left.
But, David, Robert Mueller started his Russia investigation a year ago this week. Where are we after a year of that? Of course, it’s all been behind closed doors. We have seen indictments. We have seen some pleas. Where does it stand?
DAVID BROOKS: Well, we have had a year of speculation about what is about to happen.
What we have learned is that it’s a pretty broad-ranging investigation. There’s a lot of dirty businesses, a lot of guilty pleas already, a lot of people brought under indictment. So it’s a real investigation, investigating what looks like real crimes.
As for the collusion charge, we know there were many more meetings between the Trump people and the Russians than we thought before. There was a meeting in Trump Tower. And so there’s clearly more smoke there than we knew before a year ago.
What we don’t have is actual evidence of real collusion, and particularly by an awareness of the President himself. That may be still out there, but that part, we still don’t have.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And we know he may be pursuing other charges as well.
DAVID BROOKS: Right.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark, how do you see it?
MARK SHIELDS:What we do know, Judy, is that the Senate Intelligence Committee is composed of grownups and led by Senator Burr and Senator Warner, and they deserve credit.
The House Intelligence Committee is led by just outrageous adolescents who are about as deep as a birdbath.
At the same time, I think what we learned is that the defense of Donald Trump, led by himself and Rudy Giuliani, is to savage and torment, denigrate, vilify and libel Bob Mueller.
Bob Mueller happens to be an American who turned down an eight-figure income to be a major corporate lawyer, instead became a public servant. He’s a man who volunteered and carries the wounds of battle from having been a Marine platoon leader in Vietnam. He is a public servant.
He has not said a word. He has not given an interview. He has not leaked to anybody. And he stands vilified by Trump and Giuliani and their cohorts and their outriders.
It is indefensible. And they are trying to exact the same damage upon the Justice Department of the country, the FBI and this country that Joe McCarthy did on the State Department, which has never fully recovered from his libelous attacks.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Twenty seconds.
DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I don’t disagree with that.
I would just say, I observe politically, I do think if Trump fired Mueller tomorrow, the Republican Party would back him.
MARK SHIELDS: Do you really?
DAVID BROOKS:Because I think FOX News has created a predicate. They have done thousands of surveys and investigations about Mueller as a political operative.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including reactions to the Iran nuclear agreement, recent controversy over Planned Parenthood, the entrance of Gov. Scott Walker into the 2016 presidential campaign and more.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): Next, to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Welcome to you, gentlemen. A lot to talk about this Friday.
Let’s start with Iran.
Mark, we just heard the secretary of state, John Kerry, what he had to say about this nuclear deal. What do you make of it?
MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist: I think the president summarized it very well. He said don’t let the unattainable perfect be the enemy of the obtainable good.
And I think this is obtainable good, the object being a nuclear — a non-nuclear Iran. And I think this guarantees at least for 10 years that there will be a non-nuclear Iran. It doesn’t change Iran’s — as the secretary pointed out, its conduct and what it does. And we hope that that does change. But this is about dealing with nuclear arms in a very troubled area.
And I think, in this sense, it’s a step, very — a positive step, and one that I think the President is at the top of his game, quite frankly, from Charleston to the press conference this week. I thought he was compelling in both cases.
JUDY WOODRUFF: David, what’s your take?
DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:I’m extremely skeptical.
I start much more than Secretary Kerry, I think, with the belief that this is a theocratic, fascistic regime that wants to, A, be a big power in the Middle East, the dominant power in the region and spread a radically — radical version of sort of religious ideology. And so I think to give that regime first the $150 billion to up their funding for Hezbollah and other terrorist armies around the region is dangerous.
To legitimize their nuclear enrichment program is dangerous. To lift eventually the ban on conventional weapons, the embargo on the conventional weapons is dangerous. And to have a regime that — you know, the inspection regime, people are getting lost in the details. It is not a bad regime. I suspect it probably will delay the nuclear program, but it’s their country.
And if they’re ideologically motivated to build this weapon, and they have every incentive to want to do so, I assume they are going to find a way to keep these centrifuges going in some form, and get a breakout after the sanctions are lifted. So, for all those reasons, I think I’m quite skeptical of what has happened.
JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour): And to the fallout over a decision made by one of the country's best known breast cancer charities.
On Tuesday, the Susan G. Komen Foundation revealed that it would stop providing grant money to Planned Parenthood clinics for breast screening. The foundation said it would no longer give money to any group under investigation by any branch of the government. Planned Parenthood is the subject of an investigation led by Republican Congressman Cliff Stearns.
The move sparked a political firestorm, and at least one official from within the Komen organization has resigned.
For more on all this, we turn to Shari Roan, who is covering the story for The Los Angeles Times.
Another excerpt
JUDY WOODRUFF: But, just finally, Shari Roan, in a broad sense, again, what does this represent, this battle now out in the open between these two significant organizations, both of which support women's health?
SHARI ROAN, The Los Angeles Times: Right.
I think this is what's astonishing to most people, is that these two iconic women's health organizations are now -- now appear to be on opposite sides of the fence. And many people who support one organization have often supported the other.
Certainly, on a local level, Planned Parenthood affiliates work very closely with their local Komen affiliates. They support each other's fundraisers and events. And this is causing a lot of people to be very uncomfortable and to really feel like they have to choose sides.
So it's a really unfortunate development. And I think it's going to linger on for some time, as people try to decide where to put their support in the future.
So, the Komen Foundation gives in to the Gestapo tactics of Republican's and anti-abortionists.
HARI SREENIVASAN (Newshour): The about-face came after two days of anger from many women and supporters, and after the breast cancer charity offered two different explanations for its decision.
First, Komen leaders said they would cut grants to Planned Parenthood because of a new policy barring money to organizations being investigated by the government. Then yesterday, Komen officials cited concerns over how Planned Parenthood provided mammograms and other follow-up services.
This morning, Komen's founder, Nancy Brinker, apologized in a statement saying: "We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons, or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not."
I am Retired U.S. Navy (22yrs) and a Vietnam Veteran. After my Navy retirement I was in the computer related industry, now retired. In 2000 I was a registered Republican and voted for George W. Bush. Six months of having Bush in the Whitehouse forced me to re-evaluate my political stance. I had always thought of myself as a Moderate Republican, but was a Republican by "default" NOT because of close examination of the GOP. Due to what has happened in America since 2000, I now consider myself a progressive, and registered as a Non-Affiliated voter.
*Anti-First Amendment policies that attempt to turn America into a theocracy by enshrining ANY religious belief as law.
* Any attempt to suppress human or Constitutional rights.
* Any law or policy that supports discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, race/color, gender, sexual orientation, or any law that does NOT support Equal Treatment under the law.
*Any law or policy that attempts to suppress Freedom of the Press or Free Speech.
LINK DISCLAIMER:
There is no guarantee that any link provided in this blog will always work, especially for older links. The validity of any link is governed by the source-site policies. Some sites will archive articles and require subscription to access. Very small sites, such as a local town newspaper, may not archive at all.
