Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett; Interview with Former Deputy Mayor of El Hatillo, Venezuela and CSIS Americas Program Senior Associate Alexandra Winkler; Interview with "Abortion and the Law in America" Author Mary Ziegler; Interview with State Senator Cassie Chambers Armstrong (D-KY), Author, "Hill Women". Aired 1-2p ET
Aired July 29, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN SENIOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): I can say that the State of Israel will not let this pass in silence. We will not
overlook this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: A vow of retaliation after a rocket attack killed 12 children in the Israeli occupied Golan Heights. Israel blames Hezbollah and Lebanon
braces. Is the region on the brink? I'll ask Israel's former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We have serious concerns that the result announced does not reflect the will or the votes for the Venezuelan
people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- Nicholas Maduro is claiming victory in Venezuela's presidential vote. In a highly disputed election, what now for the
struggling nation?
Plus, Iowa's six-week abortion ban takes effect today. We'll look at the implications with abortion law expert Mary Ziegler.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STATE SEN. CASSIE CHAMBERS ARMSTRONG (D-KY), AUTHOR, "HILL WOMEN": It bothers me that J. D. Vance has suggested that women should remain in
abusive marriages.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- Kentucky State Senator Cassie Chambers Armstrong tells Michel Martin why she believes Because hillbilly women will get no help
from J. D. Vance.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Well, it's been over nine months since the horrors of October 7th. Nine months of war in Gaza. Nine months of pain for thousands of families. And
now, more than ever, it's clear that children are paying the highest price.
In the Israeli occupied Golan Heights, 12 children were killed Saturday in a rocket attack that hit a soccer field where they were playing. And at the
same time in Gaza, children were killed in Israeli attacks that left at least 19 people dead. Israel has blamed Hezbollah for the rocket attack in
the Golan Heights and has vowed that the militant group will pay a price. Hezbollah has firmly denied that it was behind the strike.
The rocket hit the village of Majdal Shams with Prime Minister Netanyahu visiting the site this afternoon. He was met with jeers amid protesters
there and protests from residents. One sign reads, down to those who are killing kids.
Well, with fears of a full-blown war in the region once again at dangerous levels, foreign leaders are scrambling to de-escalate tensions. Several
European countries have called for their citizens to urgently leave Lebanon. And that's where we find our correspondent Ben Wedeman, who is
joining us from Beirut now.
So, Ben, just to recap, 12 children killed in the attack, 44 injured after approximately 30 projectiles crossed into the Golan Heights. As we noted,
Hezbollah has denied the attack. Israel says it is Hezbollah, has even identified the rocket made by Iran and publicized the name of the local
Hezbollah commander responsible for the strike. U.S. secretary of state said there's every indication the rocket was from Hezbollah. A lot has
happened over the last 24 hours, walk us through where things stand right now.
BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, right now, really, the region is on the brink, the brink of perhaps a regional war if
things get out of control.
Now, Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that Israel's response will be, in his words, severe. Hezbollah has said that it will meet escalation with
escalation. Now, the hope is that Israel's response will be limited, limited to targets related to Hezbollah. The worry is that, of course, if
it goes beyond that, you could get all sorts of other players involved.
The Iranians have made it clear that they will stand behind Lebanon, behind Hezbollah, if there is a major Israeli attack. And the worry is that other
allies of Iran, other allies of Hezbollah in Syria, in Iraq, in Yemen, will also stand behind the fray. And therefore, the situation is, at this point,
very worrying.
We know that, for instance, Germany and Italy have told their nationals to leave Lebanon as soon as possible. Other countries have reiterated long-
standing advisories for people to leave. Also, the U.S. government, in the form of the U.S. assistant secretary of state for Consular Affairs, a
message on X, or what was known as Twitter, telling Americans in Lebanon to leave before the crisis begins, are the words she used.
[13:05:00]
And she said that those Americans who decide to stay in Lebanon, regardless of the situation, they should be prepared to shelter in place for a very
long time. Other airlines, for instance, Air France and Lufthansa have suspended flights for the time being. Other airlines as well no longer
flying to Lebanon. So, the situation, certainly, we are really on the brink of what could be something very, very serious, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and the victims of this heinous attack, as we noted, are children. They're also Israeli Druze, which are part of a small but
significant portion not only Israel, but they have a community in Lebanon and Syria as well. You spoke with the Lebanese foreign minister about some
of the implications and concerns following this attack. Tell us exactly what he said to you.
WEDEMAN: Well, I spoke to him several times actually. Today, he told me that he had -- through diplomatic contacts, Lebanon had been told that the
Israeli response would be, in his words, limited. Limited, they can -- their interpretation of that is limited in terms of Hezbollah targets that
Beirut, the airport, will not be struck.
But beyond that, he was very concerned that Lebanon could be drawn in to a war that has danger of going much more broad, basically becoming a regional
war. This what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WEDEMAN: I'm going to ask you the same question everybody here in Beirut asks me, is there going to be war?
ABDALLAH BOU HABIB, LEBANESE FOREIGN MINISTER: We don't want war. We don't want what's going on now. We want peace. Really. We really are people of
peace and we'd like to have a ceasefire as soon as possible. And we're waiting for Gaza to have a ceasefire in Gaza. And therefore, automatically
here.
We don't think this -- Hezbollah did it. But I don't know. Because a war against Lebanon is a regional war. It's not going to be Hezbollah against
Israel. And Hezbollah is not Hamas also. It's more than Hamas.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WEDEMAN: And by that, of course, he means that Hezbollah possesses military capabilities far in excess of that of Hamas. What we have seen
since October is that they have used weaponry that no one was even aware they had. They've been very skillful at knocking out Israeli surveillance
equipment along the border. They have been able to shoot down state of the art Israeli drones. We've seen -- for instance, multiple times they've
published drone video shot by Hezbollah drones of very sensitive Israeli military and infrastructure positions.
So, they are in a position, should they become involved in a full-scale war with Israel, to inflict significant pain on Israel at the same time that
Israel, of course, will inflict significant pain on Lebanon. Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: And we all remember that significant pain from both sides in 2006. Hassan Nasrallah was said to have underestimated perhaps Israel's
response then. And of course, everyone is on pins and needles here concerned that things could quickly escalate now. Ben Wedeman in Beirut for
us, thank you so much.
Well, Israeli leaders across the political spectrum are vowing to retaliate forcefully to this attack. So, the question is, what will that look like?
Let's bring in former prime minister and leader of right-wing party, The New Right, Naftali Bennett. He joins us now from Israel.
Mr. Prime Minister, thank you so much. I don't know if you were able to hear the comments made to Ben Wedeman from the Lebanese foreign minister.
If you were, I'm curious your response.
NAFTALI BENNETT, FORMER ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Well, first, I'd like to point out two corrections. The first one is it's not Israel that's claiming
that Hezbollah shot this rocket and murdered the 12 children. That's a fact that's been confirmed also by the United States in an official memorandum,
confirming that this a Hezbollah rocket made in Iran, used by Hezbollah, and they, Hezbollah and Nasrallah, murdered the 12 boys and girls. And now,
like any coward, he's trying to hide that and deny it, but that's a fact.
Secondly, the Golan Heights is no longer an occupied territory. The United States of America recognized the Golan Heights as part and parcel of
Israel. So, it's an integral part of Israel. As to your question, what we've had here is a war that has no premise, no basis for it.
[13:10:00]
This not a two-sided war. Hezbollah began attacking Israel on October 8th, has shot hundreds of rockets on Israel -- Israeli kibbutzim and towns,
killed dozens of Israelis, and now, a couple of days ago, murdered 12 children. So, when one says the word escalation, we are already at full-
blown escalation that has been produced by Lebanon.
GOLODRYGA: It is clear that such a severe attack cannot pass without a harsh response from the Israeli Defense Forces. But a senior Israeli
defense official is quoted as saying, Israel wants to hurt Hezbollah, but does not want to drag the region into an all-out war.
In your view what should that response then be, if the ultimate goal is reestablishing deterrence, but not a full-scale regional conflict or war?
BENNETT: Well, I beg to differ. I think we are already at a full-scale regional war. What do you call it when Houthis from Yemen shoot rockets an
Israeli in Tel Aviv, when Iranian proxies in Gaza, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad kill hundreds of Israelis, when Hezbollah is shooting hundreds of Iraqis,
when Iraqi militias, and when Iran itself shoots hundreds of missiles from Iran onto Israel? So, we're already facing a regional war.
The key is to identify the source of the enemy. And the source of the enemy is Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran is at the basis of all of this. It's
sort of like the head of the octopus. And I've been advocating for a few years that we ultimately need to topple this regime for our sake, for the
sake of the region, for the sake of the Iranian people. I think now that's clear to everyone. They are at the basis of everything.
GOLODRYGA: Does that mean you're in favor of a full-scale war against not just Hezbollah? And when I say a war, obviously, I mean, of the scale that
we saw in 2006, not what we've been seeing in the north since October 8th. But you seem to be taking it one step further, saying Israel should go to
war with Iran now.
BENNETT: I'd say Israel is already at war with Iran. Iran has been shooting thousands of rockets through Gaza, through Lebanon, through Iraq,
from Iran itself, from Yemen on Israel, but they are not paying any price.
Now, I'm not suggesting a specific action. I'm not going to delineate precisely what we need to do. But we need to understand that the head of
the octopus of terror in the whole region, most of terror in the Middle East, its source is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Those mullahs who have a
very clear ideology, it's an incompetent and corrupt regime. It will topple at some point, but I think America and Israel and the west need to
accelerate that, especially economic sanctions, but not only.
GOLODRYGA: You said over the weekend on CNN, "What we saw happen on Saturday is the result of a feeble weak policy of many words and speeches
but not enough action. The only way to stop this and deter enemies is to fight back."
So, in a sense, aside from Hezbollah, are you also pointing the finger of blame at the current Israeli government?
BENNETT: Well, it's no secret. I think, you know, Israel has lost a lot of its deterrence due to poor leadership. That's -- I think that's clear to
everyone. When something is not working well, you ultimately look for the leadership. We're going to have to fix that as well.
But right now, we stand united on the goal of fighting and ultimately weakening and toppling the octopus of terror, the head of the octopus,
which is Iran. This not something that happens in hours or days, but it's something that needs to begin happening.
GOLODRYGA: But you acknowledge that is something Israel can't do unilaterally, and I'm not saying American boots on the ground, but I mean,
without U.S. support, whether it's providing more ammunitions, and it comes at a time where, as you know, there has been conflict between the two
countries in terms of the time frame that the United States has been providing certain weapons.
Do you think the U.S. right now, as we're approaching an election, has an appetite for opening yet another front in the region right now?
BENNETT: I think the way to prevent a full-blown war, let's call it a kinetic war, with Iran is precisely by using the softer measures of
economic sanctions and diplomatic sanctions and other elements and certainly not allowing billions of dollars to flow into this apparatus of
terror.
[13:15:00]
It's something that we're going to need to do, certainly with the current administration, with whichever next president is elected in the United
States. Because if we don't do it, the entire Middle East will go along the lines of radical Iran. And that ultimately will hit all of the world,
including the United States. If you don't cut the terrorist bud, you're going to meet it on the streets of New York and Washington.
You know, I was living in New York during 9/11. I remember that very day. I remember tens of thousands of people running away from those towers because
when you don't nip terror at its source, it will come and haunt you.
GOLODRYGA: Mr. Prime Minister, with all eyes on the north now, there are a lot of concerns about what this means of the status of a hostage deal and a
ceasefire. As of a few days ago, it appeared that one was perhaps imminent. Now, there are real concerns about the likelihood there.
And I've just been looking over the past few months, I don't know if you've ever publicly stated how you feel about this specific deal. Do you agree
with it? Is it something that the prime minister should have signed off on long before? Or do you support how many view his process of delaying it?
BENNETT: No, I -- neither. What I believe is that we're not reaching a deal because the pressure on Hamas is not strong enough. The war is being
prosecuted at a very low intensity. Let's call it 5, 10 percent intensity. And you don't win wars when you're fighting at 5 to 10 percent intensity.
We have, let's say, a boxing match and your rival just got hit in his head. You have to go box him and hit him until you get the knockout. But what
we're doing is keep on turning it on and off, on and off. And that's not how you achieve victory. You have to have the systematic consistency and
that's why we're not getting a deal, because we're not applying pressure on Yahya Sinwar. But I do believe a good deal is attainable by applying that
pressure.
GOLODRYGA: But this specific deal or you think they should start from scratch? Because I know that you have spent a lot of time with hostage
families. I would perhaps argue even more time than the current prime minister has, and you know how the majority of them feel, and that is that
they want their loved ones home now. Do you think whatever plan you're proposing would bring them home any sooner than the one that's already on
the table?
BENNETT: Well, I think what I would do in this sort of situation is simplify things for the military and for the whole issue. I would say to
Hamas, there's one deal, and the deal is that you raise a white flag, release all of the hostages and surrender. And in return, we won't kill
you, but rather we'll put you on a boat and ship you out of here like we did to the PLO in Beirut in '82. That is what I would do. And then turn to
the military, to IDF and say, you can go ahead, don't stop until we achieve this.
GOLODRYGA: But you know what the IDF --
BENNETT: When you're hovering between two --
GOLODRYGA: You know, finally -- and we're just pressed for time, I'm just curious because I haven't heard much from you on this specific angle. You
know what the IDF and the military brass has been saying with regards to this deal, and that they think that Hamas has been weakened enough that a
deal can be established, at least the first phase of it. And there's a real opportunity that the prime minister is not seizing on right now to bring
home at least some of the hostages who, you know, are suffering as you know.
BENNETT: Look, I'm not going to criticize the prime minister for -- or the military for any deal because it's so sensitive and there's so many
dimensions in such a deal that, you know, it's no -- it's not a smart thing to stand on the sidelines and give criticism. I'll back whatever the
government does. All I'm saying is that we need to press much harder in order to achieve the deal that is, you know, been sort of running away from
us for the past nine months.
GOLODRYGA: OK. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, thank you so much for the time. Hope you can come back and join us.
BENNETT: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, we turn to Venezuela now where Nicolas Maduro has been declared winner of the country's presidential election by the government
controlled electoral authority. Rivals and several governments around the world immediately challenged the results.
Maduro has led Venezuela into a crippling economic crisis and repressive state with no place for political opponents. Let's get straight into this.
Alexandra Winkler served as deputy mayor of El Hatillo, part of the capital of Caracas and is now at the Center for Strategic International Studies.
She joins us from Washington. Thank you, Alexandra, for joining us.
[13:20:00]
I wish we could say that this was a shock in terms of the results from the government right now and Maduro already claiming victory, saying, what a
beautiful day we've lived. Thanks for giving me this victory that the people so deserve. It's a triumph of the ideals of equality. The only
problem in that, of course, as we all know, is that the opposition was leading in all the polls that had been followed globally for 30 percent, if
not more. What do you make of what we've seen and what happens now?
ALEXANDRA WINKLER, FORMER DEPUTY MAYOR OF EL HATILLO, VENEZUELA AND SENIOR ASSOCIATE, CSIS AMERICAS PROGRAM: Yes. The most important thing about
yesterday is that Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia won by a landslide. And Maduro decided not to recognize his win, nor to respect the will of the people,
violating all types of electoral norms. Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia won 70 percent of the votes, Maduro won 30 percent of the votes, which means it's
the largest margin of presidential elections in history of modern Venezuela.
So, yesterday's election was epic. There was a massive turnout. Calculations are around 12 million people. And Edmundo just won across all
strata, all sectors, all 23 states, and even the capital city. So, we're excited about that.
GOLODRYGA: Can you give us -- what is your source on those figures that you just laid out? Because as you know, it's very difficult to get anything
out of out of this government.
WINKLER: Yes, I mean, yesterday, Maria Corina Machado and Edmundo Rosalor Rodel (ph) reported on these results. As you would imagine, in any
authoritarian regime or, you know, brutal dictatorship such as a Maduro regime, you have to have alternative information reporting mechanisms in
place in order to get quick counts, exit polls, and electoral results, and that was established yesterday.
At least five or six independent firms were hoping to track those results or were helping to track those results, being Edison Research, one of the
most popular ones, which yesterday, around 4:30 p.m., was already predicted that Edmundo Gonzalez had won with 64 percent of the votes.
GOLODRYGA: What do you --
WINKLER: So, all those mechanisms were in place.
GOLODRYGA: What are you hearing from people in terms of what they saw at the polling stations and booths? Do they have --
WINKLER: Massive turnout.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
WINKLER: Massive turnout. Massive turnout. People were excited. People were enthusiastic to be able to actually, you know, have their voices heard
at the ballot box. I think it's important to understand that this election in particular was different because it means the reunification of
Venezuelan families. It means you're going to the ballot box, you're voting for change because you want to bring your brothers, your sisters, your
parents, your children back to your country.
So, people were excited about that. But towards the end of the night, when people were closing at the polling stations, things got a little bit rough.
The regime started to bring out irregular groups, or what they call the colectivos, to create turmoil, to create violence. They weren't allowing
witnesses, and they weren't allowing monitors and citizens to actually monitor the final closeout of those polling stations.
According to different articles of the constitution, even Article 337, people have the right to see what that polling station ended up with its
final results. And the Maduro regime was already creating obstacles towards that nature.
GOLODRYGA: The opposition has said that they will soon announce how they plan to challenge these results. Let's hear from the opposition candidate
Edmundo Gonzalez and his response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EDMUNDO GONZALEZ, VENEZUELAN OPPOSITION PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (through translator): What happened during today's polling day was a violation of
all the rules to the point that the majority of electoral registers have still not been handed over. Our message of reconciliation and peaceful
change still stands. We are convinced most Venezuelans also want this. Our struggle continues and we won't rest until the will of the people of
Venezuela is respected.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: How do you expect the opposition to respond here? Because, obviously, while they want the voices to be heard, they also don't want to
see scenes that we've seen in the past, even if they're peaceful demonstrations on the streets, they clearly don't want to see people
injured or killed.
WINKLER: Yes. I mean, Venezuelans -- have went out yesterday to vote peacefully. And Venezuelans now want a peaceful and orderly transition. And
that's what the opposition, Maria Corina and Elmundo, are working towards.
Right now, the focus is on gathering all of the data, gathering all of the evidence, and gathering all the information that is needed in order to show
that effectively in Elmundo Gonzalez has won with 70 percent of the votes. That data exists. There's evidence to back it.
And now, we're also expecting the International Community to also step it up. Venezuelans yesterday said they want to change. A lot of international
organizations and different countries around the world, Argentina, Paraguay, Chile, Peru, Latin America, European Union, were saying that they
did not believe the results of the national electoral power.
So, now, it's the time for the International Community to also support Venezuelans in order to make sure that we'll start a peaceful transition
very soon.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Left and right leaning governments in Latin America, we should know spoke out in outrage to these "results" that we saw.
[13:25:00]
Notable that Javier Milei posted, get out, Maduro, calling him a dictator. Also notable is who congratulated Maduro, and that is the leader of China
and Russia. Is this not a knock on the United States itself, which had at least dangled the prospect of easing some sanctions if these had been free
and fair elections? Clearly, that wasn't enough to entice Maduro. So, what more can the U.S. government do now, especially given that we're on the
precipice of a presidential election here ourselves?
WINKLER: Yes. Yes. So, the good thing about the Venezuelan, you know, freedom and the search for Venezuelan freedom is that this a bipartisan
issue in the United States. And even though the Biden administration has taken more of a dialogue negotiation approach, we're hoping that they have
all their back channels in place with the Maduro government to actually allow for a peaceful and orderly transition. That's the most important
priority at the moment, to pressure the Maduro regime, to actually show their results and to show their prefabricated numbers, and make sure that
they create the incentives in order for Maduro and a lot of his cronies to leave the country as soon as possible.
So, we've seen Secretary of State Antony Blinken already saying that he was deeply concerned about these results. We saw, you know, Kamala Harris
obviously talking about the elections as well. But we're also expecting the administration and President Biden to also speak on behalf of the
Venezuelan people and to support Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, because I think today the narrative has to be to recognize him and to support him in order
for the transition to start as soon as possible.
GOLODRYGA: We should note the Carter Center of the U.S. and the U.N. are calling on Venezuela to -- for the commission to publicize their results.
I'm sure most people are waiting with bated breath that they will do so. But what, if anything, can be done to put more pressure on just that?
WINKLER: Yes, we'll have to see their results. I think you probably saw over the weekend how different international and political actors around
the world, ex-presidents from Bolivia, from Panama, from Mexico, from Colombia, they were all trying to travel to Venezuela to actually support
the observancy, the international observancy of the elections, and they were deported. Senators from Colombia, senators from Springfield were
deported from Venezuela, or they did not allow their planes to actually lift off from the -- to the air to go to Venezuela.
So, I think Maduro was doing everything in his power to not allow people to see that he was going to lose, and that's why he effectively rigged the
elections afterwards.
GOLODRYGA: One of the guests I spoke with in the last hour and also a guest we spoke with last week ahead of these elections says the consequence
of not -- of having a rigged election is that we would see even more Venezuelans try to flee the country and that would only exacerbate the
migrant crisis that the region is facing, and the United States, as you know, it is one of the most pertinent issues and top issues here for voters
going into this election. Talk about what we can expect to see in the next few weeks and months following this.
WINKLER: If Maduro stays in power, people will continue to flee. And we've seen this trend every time there's an election or a big important political
aspect within the country, and Maduro stays in power, people get their bags and start to leave the country.
And that will mean probably a much bigger influx on the southern border. We already have 8 million Venezuelans across the world. There's an 8 million
population of diaspora, which, by the way, yesterday was not allowed to vote. Of those eight million people, 4.5, almost 5 million people were able
-- would be able to vote, but the Maduro regime created so many obstacles in place to impede that as well, because those people who already fled,
they voted with their feet. So, he did not want those votes to come in at any time.
So, I think it's important to understand that if Maduro stays in power, migration will continue without a doubt.
GOLODRYGA: We'll continue to follow this story closely. It's an important one. Alexander Winkler, thank you for joining us.
WINKLER: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, back to the States. Two years after the Supreme Court overturned Roe versus Wade, the fallout over abortion rights continues.
Today, a new law banning most abortions after six weeks went into effect in Iowa, likely pushing many to seek out of state care.
It's a top issue in this election, Democrats are seizing the moment to blame Donald Trump's Supreme Court appointments for dismantling protections
for women. And Kamala Harris just put out this video.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT AND U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: Hey, everybody. So, today, Iowa put in place a Trump abortion
ban, which makes Iowa the 22nd state in our country to have a Trump abortion ban. And this ban is going to take effect before many women even
know they're pregnant. And what this means is that one in three women of reproductive age in America lives in a state with a Trump abortion ban.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: But Trump maintains that abortion laws should be left to the states. And now, Iowa has made its decision clear. To help make sense of
the implications nationwide, I'm joined by Mary Ziegler, a leading abortion law expert. She joins us from California. Mary, welcome back to the
program.
[13:30:00]
We've had many conversations as to how consequential these laws are and the impact it can have nationally given other states following suit. Here we
have Iowa and its ban after six weeks, exceptions for rape, incest, as long as they've been reported, plus, the life of the mother are included. Put
this law into context relative to the other strict abortion laws in other states.
MARY ZIEGLER, AUTHOR, "ABORTION AND THE LAW IN AMERICA": This this law is kind of a piece of what we're seeing in a lot of states. So, in most states
with bans, there are either prohibitions in place from fertilization. So, in other words, throughout pregnancy, or six weeks, which is not so
dissimilar. If you have irregular periods, you may not know you're pregnant at six weeks. Even if you do, you have to then get together the money,
time, and even make a decision that might be a difficult decision very quickly and then find a clinic in a state where there are very few.
So, for some people in Iowa, this will feel like an absolute prohibition. So, this among the more extreme measures we're seeing. Although, in the 22
states that Vice President Harris mentioned, we're seeing quite similar prohibitions on the books throughout.
GOLODRYGA: And we know that abortion has been a main issue on the campaign trail. Since overturning Roe v. Wade, though, this will be the first time
we've seen it in a presidential election. Obviously, we saw the impact that it had in the midterms two years ago. But what do you make of the fact that
this the first time we're actually seeing the consequences of this law being overturned and voters really having an opportunity to say their piece
about this issue if it's an important one for them?
ZIEGLER: Absolutely. And I think the other thing that's new about this presidential election is that who is in the White House can make an
unprecedented difference to what happens next. So, not just in the sense that the next president will nominate judges who could, for example,
revisit the decision to reverse Roe v. Wade or entrench it, but also, because conservatives part -- as part of Project 2025 have argued that
federal law might already prohibit abortion. In other words, that states that want to permit abortion may not be able to do so, regardless of what
Congress does, because of the Comstock Act, a 19th century law that Project 2025 features prominently.
So, we're at a point not only where voters can register that they were unhappy with what happened when Roe v. Wade was overturned, but where
voters will also have a say in what happens next. It's not just a question of whether we're going to stay with the status quo with this -- the nation
divided between states that permit and do not permit abortion, we're going to see abortion opponents push even further to try to get something at the
federal level, likely through executive action rather than through Congress.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and we have people, candidates, like former -- you know, Candidate Biden, current President Biden and now, Kamala Harris saying that
they will codify abortion rights if elected nationwide. Just -- I'm curious, the likelihood, in your view, even if they do win of that
happening.
ZIEGLER: Well, I think a great first step and maybe a more realistic first step, given how close this election is going to be and how narrow a
Democratic majority would be possible if there is any Democratic majority possible at all, I think we'd be more likely to see something like getting
rid of bad old zombie laws like the Comstock Act.
I think passing strong protections for abortion rights will be hard given that Congress will likely be very, very divided, if Democrats are able to
gain majorities at all. At the same time, I think it's really important for Vice President Harris to lay out what the goal is, like, what's -- what are
we aspiring to if you're a Democrat or an abortion rights supporter.
In other words, you know, sometimes you have to be hopeful about the future, even if the future is going to be a little bit far away from the
standpoint of people who support abortion rights.
GOLODRYGA: It's interesting that Donald Trump seems very uncomfortable with this subject. On the one hand, he takes credit and boasts about
putting the Supreme Court justices on the bench that ultimately overturned. Roe v. Wade, but then, he seems to think of this as a case closed. The
perfect solution is just leaving it up to the states.
As we know, that's only led to more confusion. And not only that, the person he's put on the ticket as his running mate, at least at one point,
was advocating for a national ban, and we know a significant portion of the Republican Party advocates for that as well. Case in point, listen to the
former president, Donald Trump, speaking at a conservative Christian event on this issue over the weekend.
[13:35:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Like Ronald Reagan, I strongly believe in exceptions for life of the
mother, rape, and incest. I think it's very important. Don't forget, we have to -- you have to go with your heart, but you also have to win
elections.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: How do you read his position on this and what we could see in a second Trump term?
ZIEGLER: Well, I think the most important thing that the former president said is you have to win elections. I think we really don't know what he
would do. So, on the one hand, he said he thinks that abortion should be left to the states. On the other hand, you have J. D. Vance saying that
there either needs to be a new national ban or, again, that this zombie law, the Comstock Act already is a national ban.
When asked himself, Donald Trump's kind of punted, right? So, in a "Time" magazine interview, Trump would not answer whether he would veto a national
ban, whether he would enforce the Comstock Act as a ban, he's just never answered the question. So, we really have no idea what we would get from a
second Trump administration.
What we do know is that certain things are possible in a second Trump administration that would never have been possible before. So, I think
voters need to take into account the fact that they may not have any certainty about what a second Trump administration would mean, but they do
know what it could mean, and that would be prohibitions that would have effects not just in states that already prohibit abortion, but in places
that have passed ballot initiatives in states that are progressive, in states that are battlegrounds, all of that is possible. Whether it's a
guarantee, we have no idea because the former president has been sending contradictory messages.
GOLODRYGA: It's safe to say, though, that we could see a lot of this once again mired in courtrooms across the country, ultimately headed back --
ZIEGLER: Yes, 100 percent.
GOLODRYGA: -- once again to the Supreme Court. Mary Ziegler, as always, great to have you on. Thank you.
ZIEGLER: Thanks for having me.
GOLODRYGA: Well, now, as we've heard, restrictive abortion policies are hurting women across the country, particularly those in rural Appalachian
communities that are subject to Kentucky's statewide abortion ban. In her recent "Atlantic" piece, "'Hillbilly' Women Will Get No Help from J. D.
Vance," Cassie Chambers Armstrong highlights that despite the Republican vice-presidential candidate claiming his family's Appalachian values, his
stance on women shows failure to recognize the challenges they actually face. And the state senator joins Michel Martin to share how rural women
can be better supported.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Cassie Chambers Armstrong, thank you so much for speaking with us.
STATE SEN. CASSIE CHAMBERS ARMSTRONG (D-KY), AUTHOR, "HILL WOMEN": Thanks for having me.
MARTIN: So, you know, you wear a number of hats. You are a lawyer. You are a state senator. You're an author. But I wanted to talk to you about a
piece that you wrote for "The Atlantic" titled, "'Hillbilly' Women Will Get No Help from J. D. Vance."
You wrote a book called "Hill Women," and you identify as one or at least members of your family do. Would you just tell us a little bit about your
story?
ARMSTRONG: Sure. In many ways, the arc of my life looks similar to that of J. D. Vance's. I was born into extreme poverty in Eastern Kentucky. I
eventually had the opportunity to go and earn Ivy League degrees. So, that looks like J. D. Vance's story. But the things I took away from the story
are very different than things he took away, whereas he's sort of told this bootstraps narrative focused on himself and focused on overcoming
Appalachia, my story, when I think about it, I think about the women, and I try to center the women in Appalachia that created the opportunities for
me.
So, my family is from Owsley County, Kentucky. It is one of the poorest counties in America by household income, and it really took three
generations of women in my family working really hard to create those opportunities for me. That doesn't fit as nicely into a movie or into sort
of that uplifting narrative.
I don't think I really knew that I had a story worth telling, honestly, until I read "Hillbilly Elegy." At first, I was really excited to read the
book. It was written based in a county, one county over from where I grew up. I never thought that I would write a book. And then, I had some women
say, you know, if you disagree with what he's saying about Appalachia and women like those that raised you, you should respond. And so, a couple of
years later, "Hill Women" came out.
MARTIN: Tell me about what are the things that you think that people who think about Appalachia get right, and what are some of the things you think
that they get wrong, at least from your experience?
ARMSTRONG: It's always hard for me to know what parts of Appalachia to talk about to the outside world, because there are certainly very severe
problems. There's a lot of poverty, there are problems like access to medical care, transportation challenges. It is a place that struggles. But
I don't like just stopping there, just saying it is a place that has challenges, because it also has so much possibility and potential.
And so, I'd like to tell the stories primarily of women who have always had this quiet leadership role in Appalachia. Women, like my granny, who had an
elementary education, but pushed her children to be able to get an education. My Aunt Ruth who was the hardest farm worker and the best farm
worker in Owsley County, Kentucky, even though she was a woman and she saved up her money working on farms to be able to help her little sister go
to college.
[13:40:00]
People like Eula, who started a health care system, just because she decided someone needed to do it. And that health care system grew to serve
200,000 people in the Appalachian Mountains. And so, there's so much leadership there. There's so much potential there. We don't need outsiders
to come in and save Appalachia. We need folks to give us the resources to be able to solve our problems ourselves.
MARTIN: Well, you know, a lot of people thought that that's what J. D. Vance was going to do. I mean, he -- when he kind of first burst on the
scene, you know, a lot of people felt that it was almost like he was speaking to give people dignity and to kind of round out the picture of
Appalachia. But I -- what I'm hearing you say is you think he's kind of flattened it out.
ARMSTRONG: I'll be honest, I always had a problem with J. D. Vance speaking for Appalachia. I always thought it was a little tenuous to take
the connection that he had to Eastern Kentucky and claim to speak for the people there. But I was a little hopeful that maybe he would use it to
elevate issues and things that I care about, maybe he would use it to solve the very real challenges in Eastern Kentucky.
Whenever he ran for U.S. Senate, and all of a sudden, all of this hillbilly rhetoric, you know, he went from saying, I'm a hillbilly at heart, making a
lot of money from selling that story to launching a campaign page that there was no mention of Appalachia, Eastern Kentucky, anything hillbilly,
anywhere on that page. And so, what you saw was he just abandoned that identity when it no longer served him. It rubbed me the wrong way, and
quite frankly, I think it rubbed a lot of people in Eastern Kentucky the wrong way.
MARTIN: It's not just the way he talks about his upbringing that kind of sticks in your craw, you really feel that the policies that he is now
espousing are really harmful to the people that he says that he cares about and wants to uplift. So, could you just be more specific and say what is it
about, at least, the policies that he now embraces that you feel are so -- that are so disturbing?
ARMSTRONG: After I graduated from law school, I started practicing in Rural Kentucky, providing free legal services to domestic violence
survivors that live there. And so, being connected to that community, I can see the way that the policies that J. D. Vance champions really are going
to impact that community.
It bothers me that J. D. Vance has suggested that women should remain in abusive marriages. I've seen firsthand in my clients the impact that
staying in a violent marriage can have and the way that it hurts people, it hurts their kids. I know that there is some survivor of violence out there
that when they hear J. D. Vance say, well, what's wrong with American culture is that people are too quick to leave abusive and violent
marriages. There's someone who was about to leave an abusive marriage who's going to say, well, maybe I should stay a little bit longer, maybe I should
wait it out.
MARTIN: Let me hold on just one second. Let me just hold, because I think some people might argue that he's being, you know, misinterpreted, you
know, the full quote is, this one of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace, which is the idea that,
like, well, OK, these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy. And so, getting rid of
them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear, that's going to make people happier in the long-term. And
maybe it worked out for the moms and dads, though I'm skeptical, but it really didn't work out for the kids of those marriages.
So, you really think that he's saying you should stay in an abusive marriage or do you think that it's the idea that he even surfaces this idea
kind of leads to that conclusion?
ARMSTRONG: I think what matters is that people who are impacted, people who are in those abusive marriages hear it as a critique of them for trying
to leave those marriages. And I know that from conversations that I've had with survivors of violence who, when they hear those words, to them, it
sounds like you're saying that you're hurting your kids by leaving a violent and abusive marriage.
And based on my experience representing women throughout Rural Kentucky, the opposite is true. Leaving an abusive relationship is one of the best
things you can do to keep yourself safe and to keep your children safe.
MARTIN: Are there specific challenges that maybe -- in rural environments that maybe people who live in cities don't really know about?
ARMSTRONG: There are, and I saw this firsthand when I was practicing as a legal aid attorney, and now, I actually study these challenges. I look at
domestic violence protective orders and how much more difficult it is for people in rural areas, like Appalachia, to access court systems to be able
to get relief. So, if you are someone who is in a domestic violence situation in Appalachia, you are less likely to be able to get an attorney.
You are likely to live further away from a legal aid organization where you could get that type of help. You're less likely to have access to other
sorts of supportive services and information about them. You're more likely to have your case heard in an open courtroom with everyone else in town
sitting there instead of in sort of a private proceeding with just you and the judge. And from what I've seen, all of those things impact people's
likelihood of being able to see through the legal process.
[13:45:00]
MARTIN: The other thing that Vance has criticized is subsidized daycare. You know, he says that he feels like this kind of a sop to elites, you
know, because for -- to sort of support their lifestyle choices. What about that? What do you have to say about that?
ARMSTRONG: Yes, I think it's really out of touch with the issues that are impacting working families throughout America, particularly in Rural
Kentucky, particularly in Appalachia. I was sworn into elected office when my youngest child was six weeks old. As you can imagine, I've thought a lot
about daycare policy, in part, because when I called and said, could I get a daycare spot. They said, sure. The waiting list is only two years, and I
know a lot of families are in that situation.
I'm lucky that I now live in a more urban area where there are good, high quality, affordable child care centers. A lot of our rural areas, those
just don't exist. And what I'm proud of in Kentucky is we've built a bipartisan coalition to do this kind of work. We actually passed a law this
past legislative session that was championed by a rural Republican around making sure that local governments had more tools to bring child care
centers in.
When we look at the impact of women in particular, but also families, the economic impact of not having access to quality and affordable child care,
it's a huge hit for those families economically, it's a huge hit for communities. It's one of the most important investments that we could be
making right now.
MARTIN: You also have done research that suggests that people in rural areas are 55 percent more likely to face eviction judgments compared to
their urban counterparts. Why is that? And what effect do you think that this has on women in particular?
ARMSTRONG: Yes. So, I really try to put numbers to the things that I saw as a legal aid attorney. That's why I now look into rural courts. And
honestly, not a lot of people are researching rural court systems because they are further away from academic institutions, they don't have as many
nonprofits, and the -- every time I look into it I find that the numbers support my experience that there are disparities.
And so, with eviction, if we hold all other things equal, people in rural areas are 55 percent more likely to have their eviction case proceed to
judgment. And so, we don't exactly know why, I have some theories. People in rural areas are less likely to have attorneys. We have a lot of legal
deserts. There are fewer nonprofits to sort of swoop in and be able to help support people. Court systems have fewer nonprofits coming in to set up
these early interventions.
But at the end of the day, it means that we have a lot of folks in rural communities experiencing housing instability and we don't see it. It's one
of those things that we don't talk about enough. And so, I think my hope is that people see these numbers and they realize there are problems. Housing
instability does exist in rural areas, and we need to do something about it.
MARTIN: J. D. Vance, as a senator, has espoused highly restrictive abortion policies. But I'm just interested to ask you how you think these
restrictions affect rural women in particular.
ARMSTRONG: So, I now serve in the legislature of a state that has one of the most extreme abortion bans in the entire country. And I see every
single day the impact that that has on rural people in rural communities, particularly, we know women in rural communities struggle to access health
care in general, and abortion care is another piece of that. It is harder for them to be able to travel out of state if they have a non-viable
pregnancy, if they wish to receive abortion care.
There's actually been a Kentucky woman who has been leading nationally at the forefront of this, Hadley Duvall, and she has shared her story of
becoming pregnant after her stepfather raped her when she was 12 years old. And she's spoken really powerfully about what it meant for her in that
moment to have options. And now, under Kentucky law, she has no options. And J. D. Vance wants to take away options from women and girls all across
America. That's wrong. And I think a majority of Americans agree that's wrong.
MARTIN: I want to go back to what we started -- how we started our conversation, which is that you -- in a way, you've kind of been in
dialogue with J. D. Vance for a while now. Like once his story kind of burst onto the scene, it kind of helped you reflect on your own story. And
I'm just wondering why you think it is that you and he have come to such different conclusions about what the problems are and what should be done
about those problems.
ARMSTRONG: I think it's a great question, and I really believe that a lot of it is the way that we talk about what we often call progress, this sort
of poverty to prosperity story. I take issue with the idea that leaving a rural community or leaving an impoverished community is always just
progress. I think you lose things when you lose -- leave the community that you're from.
But I think the way that Vance talks about that narrative is very focused on him. And it's very focused on this idea that Appalachia is a place that
you have to overcome. It is a place that in his view is hopeless, that is broken. And he needs it to be that. He needs it to be that because he wants
us to be invested in him escaping it and in him overcoming it. And I think that that's a really reductionist view. This bootstraps narrative that we
tell so often is very easy, but it doesn't get at the complexity.
[13:50:00]
MARTIN: But how do you also account for the fact that, you know, some of Donald Trump's strongest supporters in recent years, in his public life,
have been white evangelicals, people in rural areas? Why is that?
ARMSTRONG: So, Kentucky is a really interesting place to be because in -- up until 2016, our state house was actually under Democratic control, our
House of Representatives. And that surprises a lot of people. But Kentucky, like a lot of communities in Appalachia, is deeply rooted in the labor
movement and in workers' rights, and in a lot of kitchen table issues.
It's interesting Kentucky has a Democratic governor. In Appalachia, we still elect a lot of Democratic local officials. And so, I still believe
that the Democratic Party can connect in Appalachia and does connect in Appalachia. It's based a lot on this idea that people need to know that you
understand where they're from. You understand their problems.
And so, I like to try to complicate the picture of Appalachia. It's not sort of this monolith where everybody believes the same thing or believes
the same thing for the same reasons. It's actually a really complicated political landscape right now.
MARTIN: OK. But you still aren't answering my question, which is, why is it that some of his strongest supporters are people who share some of the
life experiences of the people in Appalachia?
ARMSTRONG: I look at people in Eastern Kentucky and they understand that their community is marginalized, and that it's not getting the sorts of
investments that it needs. And I think there's a little distrust of outsiders of the federal government in general, because people of both
political parties for a long time have come and promised to make things better. And people are still living in poverty, and I think it frustrates a
lot of people.
And so, I think what was appealing about Donald Trump initially was this idea that he was saying that he was going to basically remake government,
that he was going to get rid of the institutions and fight the institutions that were really posing challenges for people in their day to day lives.
And that was appealing, this idea that, well, this a system that people of both parties have said for a long time is going to help me and it isn't,
let's just get rid of it and start over. And so, I think that was the message that initially broke through to folks.
MARTIN: So, before we let you go, do you think that people are listening to you? I mean, to your recollection of Appalachia, the people you grew up
with, the way you see them? I mean, "Hillbilly Elegy" was a big bestseller. A movie was made out of it by, you know, one of the country's most popular
directors, you know, Ron Howard. You've got a different story to tell. And I just wonder if you think people are listening to you.
ARMSTRONG: I don't think it's just about me. I have been really heartened to see a lot of different people Raising their voices and telling their
Appalachian story, about what their journey is like, and what their experience is like. And none of us individually might have the platform
that Vance does, but I do believe the more that you put those voices out there and complicate people's understanding of Appalachia and push back,
that's really how change begins to happen.
One of the things that I was most proud of is when "Hill Women" launched, I did it in a Central Kentucky bookstore, wasn't really expecting -- it was a
rainy week night. Wasn't really expecting a lot of people to be there. When I showed up, there was a line of women waiting to get in. And I was talking
to them, and a lot of them were women from Appalachia who had driven there, some of them with their daughters, because they wanted to meet me and they
wanted their daughters to meet me, and they wanted to tell me that this was a book that reflected more of their experience and that they were proud to
read this and that made them feel proud of where they were from.
And to me, that's a win. If there is anyone out there that feels like this has made them feel proud to be an Appalachian, that it's pushing back on a
narrative that they thought was harmful, that's why I wrote it.
MARTIN: Cassie Chambers Armstrong, State Senator, the author of "Hill Women," thank you so much for speaking with us.
ARMSTRONG: Thanks for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, as the world watches China and Great Britain rack up diving medals in Paris, Bosnia and Herzegovina hosted a diving spectacle
of its own. Thousands braved the heat to cheer divers from around the country and abroad as they plunged into the river below in the historic
City of Mostar.
But the 458-year-old tradition wasn't always possible. The old bridge, as it is known, was destroyed in the Bosnian War in 1993. Yesterday's event
marked the 20th anniversary of this reconstructed bridge, celebrating its journey from wartime ruin to a UNESCO World Heritage Site and a symbol of
reconciliation, leaving the show with a bit of hope and cheers.
[13:55:00]
Well, that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can always find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you
can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
