Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Senior Fellow and Carnegie Russia and Eurasia Program Senior Fellow Dara Massicot; Interview with Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Director Johan Rockstrom; Interview with "The A-Word" Filmmaker and The Independent Chief International Correspondent Bel Trew; Interview with Director, "Leonardo da Vinci" on PBS Ken Burns; Interview with Director, "Leonardo da Vinci" on PBS Sarah Burns. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired November 18, 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 ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: Missiles will speak for themselves.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Ukraine gets the green light. Long-range U.S. missiles can be used to strike inside Russia. But will it make a difference?
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We face an urgent question, do we secure sustainable prosperity for our countries or do we condemn our most vulnerable to
unimaginable climate disasters?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- the message from COP29. But is anyone listening? We'll have the latest from inside the summit and the fight against climate change.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, you saved my life. If I'm dying, will you help me?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was going to give birth to a child that wasn't going to live.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did I do something wrong? Like, what did I do to deserve this?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- "The A-Word." With the overturning of Roe vs. Wade impacting millions of women, Journalist Bel Trew joins me with dispatches from
America and the women affected by the shifting landscape.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEN BURNS, DIRECTOR, "LEONARDO DA VINCI" ON PBS: His great, you know, privilege, the responsibility was, you know, to interrogate the universe,
ask it every essential question about what is its nature.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- Walter Isaacson speaks to Ken and Sarah Burns about bringing Leonardo da Vinci to life.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Well, the stakes in Ukraine have again been laid bare. A Russian ballistic missile hit Odessa today, killing at least eight people, with children
among the seriously injured. So, the news that President Biden will allow the use of powerful long-range American weapons inside Russia may feel
timely. Russia says the decision will throw oil on the fire. So, President Biden just raised the stakes in this war.
But will these missiles make any real difference? First, let's ask our guest, Dara Massicot, who's a senior fellow at the Russia and Eurasia
Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She joins me from Washington, D.C.
Dara, always good to see you. So, first of all, your reaction to President Biden finally greenlighting the use of long-range ATACMS missiles. This has
been something that military experts have been pushing for the administration to do for months now. Obviously, it goes without saying, the
Ukrainians have been making the same ask. How significant is this development?
DARA MASSICOT, SENIOR FELLOW, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SENIOR FELLOW, CARNEGIE RUSSIA AND EURASIA PROGRAM: Well, I think it
is a significant shift, and I would agree with you that I think it's a bit overdue. They will make a difference. Every successful strike does. But I
think the maximum effectiveness of these type of systems has probably passed.
The Russians have already adapted with electronic warfare or jamming and air defense systems. But I do think that it's going to alleviate some of
the pressure and some of the most problematic parts of the front. It will just depend on how many missiles they are given.
GOLODRYGA: Well, I was going to ask you and how much does it depend on the quantity of missiles that are delivered? Is this more of a symbolic gesture
or change in policy or is it something where you could see real inroads made, specifically as it relates to Kursk where it appears that is where
the U.S., thus far, is limiting the use of these weapons? Russia has been gaining ground in the battle there. And since the last few weeks, we've now
know that the North Korean forces have joined Russian forces in Kursk.
Do you see this as potentially a game changer in giving Ukraine the ability to at least gain the upper hand in that battle?
MASSICOT: Well, I think we can talk about the benefits for Kursk. And Russia was really the first one to escalate that particular conflict there
by introducing combatants from another country. So, what ATACMS can do in that region is take some of the pressure off of what is an increasingly
difficult proposition for Ukrainian forces attack.
ATACMS can target artillery depots or rocket depots quite successfully. But unfortunately, the Russians have moved some of their more lucrative
targets, like fighter jets, well beyond the range of ATACMS. So, there is a limitation there.
I think what it will allow the Ukrainians to do is take some of that pressure off Russia's on the ground offensive or counteroffensive that they
are initiating right now. But ultimately, I don't know if the number supplied to the Ukrainians is enough to really give them full breathing
space up there in Kursk.
[13:05:00]
GOLODRYGA: We also should note that the U.S. has allowed for the use of HIMARS missiles to be used by Ukraine inside of Russia. Explain to us the
difference between the two weapons systems and why it was the ATACMS specifically that Ukraine was pressing for.
MASSICOT: Sure. So, the change in this is a change of range. So, previously they have been allowed to shoot the shorter range ATACMS into
Russia and other parts of the front line that has a range of about 50 kilometers or so. This new range actually extends it out to around 190
miles. So, that gives them the ability to look further into Russia and target things previously out of range.
And then the other benefit is, those HIMARS launchers, they can actually pull them further back from the frontline to help them survive. The
Russians are actually quite successful at this time in terms of targeting these very high value assets, and immediately trying to strike them. So,
there's two benefits here.
The flip side is, you know, this weapons family has been in Ukraine now for a year, and the Russians have been able to tweak their air defense systems
and their jamming systems and many of the Ukrainians that we had an opportunity to meet with recently have told us that that jamming is quite
effective. So, this is not a game changer per se, but think of it as alleviating a lot of -- alleviating some pressure.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Give us more insight into your visit to Ukraine. I know you were there at the end of October with some other military analysts and
experts and speaking with officials there in Ukraine. Tell us about some of their concerns. I mean, just in a sense, the fact that they are having to
fight this battle with one hand tied behind their back, essentially, with limited use of capable weaponry, given that their opponent doesn't have the
same restrictions, is in fact, as you noted, bringing in military from -- and soldiers from a third-party.
MASSICOT: It's true. So, it was an extraordinary time to meet with them. We met with officials in Kyiv, and we went forward to parts of the
frontline to meet with different groups there. Some of the challenges that they articulated to us was a manpower challenge. There are many units that
are not built to their full capacity. There's some force employment issues, I think, it would be fair to say, at different parts of the front. The
Kupiansk area is under strain. Areas in the Donbass by Pokrovsk are also under strain from Russian attacks right now.
And there was a degree of uncertainty at that time about the future of western support. But what I found is that they are incredibly innovative,
incredibly resourceful, and I know that they're going to use this new expanded capability to the best of their capabilities. They'll just be
running up against Russian technical countermeasures to try to reduce the impact of these expanded ATACMS strikes. So, all in all experience, a great
experience.
GOLODRYGA: It's fair to say that momentum has not been on Ukraine side for the last six months or so, Russia has been making ground steadily over the
summer and Ukraine has been losing some of its positioning there in the east, in the Donbass. Give us a sense of the state of play in the east.
MASSICOT: So, over the past several months, the Russians have adapted their tactics a little bit. And instead of rushing head on at a city or an
objective, they try to encircle it, try to flank it from both sides. And what they're doing against the Ukrainian line is death by a thousand cuts,
multiple small attacks, sometimes interspersed with armor to really exhaust them and wear them down.
And this strategy is effective on parts of the frontline. The Russians are able to find the weak seams. And right now, they're pushing south of
Pokrovsk. The fear or concern that some of us have looking at that is if they are able to encircle that city, then it opens up the south part of
Donetsk and potentially into Zaporizhzhia as well. It's not there, but it's not trending particularly well in that sector. So, this is something that
the Ukrainian leadership is obviously tracking very closely.
GOLODRYGA: One thing that's worth noting is now that the U.S. has greenlit the use of ATACMS, can we see the same from other European allies, in
particular the Brits and the Germans? Will they also now allow for the use of their long-range weapon systems?
MASSICOT: Well, it certainly does pave the way. It certainly does open up those opportunities to say, look, the Americans are doing it, we're going
to be part of it as well. I think -- I'm not really sure what's going on with the Germans on that front, but I would anticipate that SCALP and Storm
Shadow might be another option.
[13:10:00]
And again, the more launchers and more missiles, then the more likely, at least, some of these are going to get through Russian jamming and Russian
air defense systems.
GOLODRYGA: The military officials, the Ukrainians that you've met with, obviously, they are not politicians, but I'm sure that they are absorbing
and having to think about what the battle looks like for them, the landscape going forward under a Trump administration. What were they able
to share with you about any concerns they have? But also, what we keep reporting, and perhaps this is just a way of having a better face publicly
from the Ukrainians, but there is some, at least, comfort in knowing that one way or the other, it looks like a resolution could come sooner in this
battle, in this war, in a Trump administration.
MASSICOT: Yes. So, we were there a few days before the election took place. But basically, what was conveyed to us is that they seek clarity,
whether that's a change to support, a diminishment, or a change in what that looks like to them, they just want clarity and have it voiced in clear
terms. And, of course, they want the best deal possible for themselves. They know very much the stakes of this. If Russia is given an opportunity
to reload and try again in three or four years.
Russia is also working very hard right now to make sure that it sets the terms as best as it can for itself right now. And I think that includes
trying to take the Kursk off the negotiating table completely by trying to push Ukrainian forces out before the 20th of January.
GOLODRYGA: Dara Massicot, always great to see you. Thank you so much for your insights. We appreciate it.
MASSICOT: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: No longer fit for purpose. Those are the words of a group of prominent global climate leaders, and they're talking about COP, the U.N.'s
annual climate conference that's meant to tackle this pressing issue. That language was eventually removed from an open letter as COP29 enters its
second week in Baku, Azerbaijan. There's certainly a cloud hanging over the summit, however.
So, what, if anything, has been achieved? Johan Rockstrom is director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, where he provides
scientific advice for policy decisionmakers, and he joins us from Potsdam in Germany. Johan, welcome to the program.
What are you hearing, first of all, about the mood of this year's COP, given all of the political ramifications globally, not just in the United
States, but specifically in the United States. from the number of elections that we've had.
JOHAN ROCKSTROM, DIRECTOR, POTSDAM INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE IMPACT RESEARCH: Yes, great to be with you, Bianna. So, even before the elections in the
U.S., our expectations on COP29 and in Baku were very limited. We Have not expected large outcomes. The whole discussion on finance has not been very
well prepared. And then, with the U.S. elections, and then, furthermore, with the instability and the German political landscape, and then also with
Argentina signaling questioning their engagement. Of course, this creates deep, deep concern on the ability of the COP this year to deliver on
necessary decisions on finance.
GOLODRYGA: And the focus of this year's COP is financing specifically some of the underdeveloped and poor nations as they are adjusting to climate
change as well. Where does that mission even stand at this point?
ROCKSTROM: Well, you know, since the signing of the legally binding global Paris Agreement that all countries in the world, including the U.S., signed
on. Two, we have now almost 10 years of lack of progress. Global emissions are increasing. We're in the midst of a climate crisis that is now hitting
hundreds of millions of people to levels facing unmanageable situations of heat, disease, floods, droughts, food insecurity, and all of this is
supposed to be compensated through loss and damage, which is a cost that is rising exponentially.
The only thing we have in the Paris Agreement is the Green Climate Fund with $100 billion per year as promised funding that has barely been filled.
This is, you know, many magnitudes lower than what is required, both to help developing countries to phase out oil, coal, and gas, the most
important challenge, but secondly, also to adapt and to compensate for damage.
So, we're in a really dire situation with regards to funding. But remember, Bianna, that the number one issue is that for every year that we fail to
reduce emissions, the costs will increase.
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: You have signed an open letter, as we noted in the introduction, with prominent global leaders that says the U.N. climate
process needs a fundamental overhaul. And let me quote from this letter, "COPs have delivered us with a policy framework to achieve this. However,
its current structure simply cannot deliver the change at exponential speed and scale, which is essential to ensure a safe climate landing for
humanity. This is what compels our call for a fundamental overhaul of the COP."
What do you think this overhaul should look like?
ROCKSTROM: Well, to begin with, the urgency is well recognized. You know, the world gathered already in 2009 in Copenhagen to solve this problem. Six
years later, the world gathered again, 2015, in Paris, and finally, we got the Paris Agreement, and that was the moment when we were supposed to
solve, once and for all, the global climate crisis that we caused from our fossil fuel burning and degradation of nature.
Ten years later, now, when we meet in Baku, we've still not made progress. So, of course, the urgency is right here. We have to reduce global
emissions by 7.5 percent per year. Next year, we have to remove 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the global economy. This is exponential, it's
transformative, and we're facing an unmanageable challenge.
We cannot go on in negotiating promises and commitments that we're not held accountable to. So, what we are suggesting is to shift gear, to recognize
it's time to celebrate. We have all the legal components we need to really deliver and solve the problem. It's not perfect, but we have what we need.
To hold 1.5 degree Celsius as the limit. We have finance in place. We have adaptation platform. We have even the Article 6 on carbon trading. All of
this is even supported by the Dubai statement of transitioning away from oil, coal, and gas, follow science and update national plans.
Now, we need to shift gear and have more frequent meetings all-inclusive with all stakeholders on board, including indigenous communities and low-
lying island states that are the most vulnerable nations in the world to be part of accountability or reporting on progress to deliver against what we
have agreed upon.
GOLODRYGA: Let's talk about the U.S. commitment, specifically under President Biden and his legacy on this front. Obviously, a history was made
with his Inflation Reduction Act, investing billions -- hundreds of billions of dollars in climate -- clean climate policy. He spoke about his
climate legacy at the Amazon from the Amazon over the weekend. Let's play some sound.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: It's no secret that I'm leaving office in January. I will have my -- I will leave my successor and my country in a
strong foundation to build on if they choose to do so. It's true, some may seek to deny or delay the clean energy revolution that's underway in
America, but nobody, nobody can reverse it, nobody.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Is he right? I mean, did his legacy put in place irreversible climate change legislation that even if another administration who doesn't
share the same policy views attempts, it can't walk back?
ROCKSTROM: Well, to begin with, Bianna, you know, it's not up to U.S. to decide. The world has already started that transition. We are in the
beginning of the end of the fossil fuel driven world economy. We're moving from what has powered the global economy for 150 years, coal, oil, and gas,
into a new, more modern, more secure, healthier and more competitive green renewable energy future. That is well understood. It's technology
advancements, it's competitiveness, it's technologically more advanced, it's the jobs of tomorrow.
President Biden, the first day in office, rejoined the U.S. in the Paris Climate Agreement and the whole climate negotiations. That was a real
accomplishment. And the Inflation Reduction Act, which is actually interestingly benefiting predominantly or to a largest extent Republican
states in the U.S. is the world's largest investment program for green technology.
So, of course, there is some, you know, support for President Biden's leadership. But I would also like to say that President Biden appointed a
climate envoy, the first time in the U.S. history, John Kerry, who has been a tremendous diplomat, climate diplomat, in the relationship between the
U.S. and China on pushing the whole climate agenda. We would not have had the Dubai Agreement last year of starting the transitioning away from oil,
coal, and gas if it hadn't been for the U.S.-China diplomacy on climate.
[13:20:00]
GOLODRYGA: So, when you hear the incoming president, one of the two largest carbon emitters in the world, President-Elect Donald Trump, to say
that his term will all be about drill, baby, drill, in terms of energy policy, your reaction is what?
ROCKSTROM: Well, I would say it's a disaster and it violates completely, not only what science says, but also what billions of people are suffering
from and what we've agreed upon in the Paris Climate Agreement.
But what also worries me is what does this mean for the U.S. economy? What does it mean for U.S. competitiveness? What does it mean for U.S. business?
Because this means that U.S. will go backwards into the future rather than move along the technological path with that larger parts of Southeast Asia.
The European Union is now accelerating along. And so, therefore, it's also, I think, a double mistake from the U.S. leadership.
GOLODRYGA: Are you preparing for Trump to take the U.S. out again of the Paris Climate Accords?
ROCKSTROM: Unfortunately, I think that's what we have to be prepared for. And not only that, Trump's lack of climate leadership leads to spillover
effects, which may affect other more populist governments in the world. Just see what happened with Milei in Argentina already. So, this is a real
worry. The only way to solve the global climate crisis is collective action where we trust each other and work together as one global community.
And the U.S. is a leading nation, the leading nation in these terms. So, we need a strong climate leadership from the U.S. to have a chance of really
getting on with the business of accelerating the phase out of fossil fuels.
GOLODRYGA: Johan Rockstrom, appreciate you for taking the time to join us today. Thank you.
Well, now, many believe that reproductive rights would be the defining issue in this year's U.S. election, but that proved not to be the case.
While most voters do support abortion rights, the issue that was top for voters was the economy. And the stark realities of post-Roe America are now
being felt.
In Texas, the biggest of the red states, an investigation found a dramatic rise in pregnant women dying after the state's abortion ban went to -- went
into effect. And across the U.S., infant mortality increased in the months following the Dobbs decision.
Well, now a new documentary takes an unflinching look at the lives impacted. Here's a preview.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is one of the most significant historic decisions in modern times.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It meant the death of the whole architecture and edifice of women's healthcare.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: America doesn't want more abortion. America wants less abortion.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They had no idea what they were doing. People wouldn't have passed these laws.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The mother, the father, the grandfather, whoever, we want them charged with murder.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The only thing worse than war is holy war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: "The A-Word" is produced by Bel Trew, chief international correspondent for the Independent Newspaper in the U.K., and she joins me
from Washington. Bel, welcome to the program. It's a really powerful documentary and one that was filmed in its entirety prior to the U.S.
election.
First, tell us what led you ultimately to make this film. And now that we have seen the results of the U.S. election, maybe just your thoughts as a
journalist on this particular issue.
BEL TREW, FILMMAKER, "THE A-WORD" AND CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, THE INDEPENDENT: Well, absolutely. As you said, ahead of the elections, we
really thought this is going to be one of the defining voter issues that it might actually flip certain states. And as I was looking into this, I
looked at many different subjects to explore, but the abortion bans was one that had just happened comparatively recently. And as I was doing some
digging, I realized just how much it was impacting everything across the board.
I think I started the journey with a certain level of naivety. I sort of thought about it in a particular iteration of abortion. What I learned
along the way is that it's integral to maternal health care, that it was impacting healthcare deserts in America, that women -- pregnant women were
dying, the early infant mortality rates were rising, and ultimately, this had become a hugely divisive and important issue as we were leading up to
the elections.
For me, really, it was an incredible journey to learn what was really happening. And I spoke to those women who were living this every single
day, who nearly died from these abortions, the OB/GYNs who were treating them facing nearly, you know, possibly 15 years in jail. And we also
explored the anti-abortion movement, what they wanted.
So, for me, it was just like a learning curve and an incredible experience to be allowed into the lives of these people.
[13:25:00]
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And I think for many people and even as journalists, as we covered the midterms in 2022, and you saw what a major role this issue had
in turnout, it's no surprise that many would have expected the same in the presidential elections in 2024.
But let's talk about the film itself, because you start at an abortion clinic in Bristol, Virginia, which is really at the border with Tennessee,
where abortions -- there's a near complete ban on abortions in Tennessee. Not the case in Virginia. And outside, you see, as protesters there are
basically hounding any women that are making an attempt to come into the parking lot. Let's play a clip for viewers, just so they can get a sense of
what they encountered.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Where else in medical field do you not know that you're safe coming to the doctor?
Good morning, Bristol Women's Health. This is Terry. May I help you?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Demand is so great that they are now opening on evenings and weekends, which has only made them more of a target for the
anti-abortion movement.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You give birth to that child, and if that child dies in your arms, then that child has died in the arms of a loving mother, not
ripped to pieces and thrown away like common garbage.
We are begging you not to murder your child.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Have you threatened anyone with murder charges over this?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If anybody is involved with the murder of this child, if it's the mother, the father, the grandfather, whoever, we want them
charged with murder.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: It was quite stunning to watch that. And you can understand how any women coming in for care would be intimidated by the number of those
protesters who, we should note, dressed quite similarly to the employees at the facility themselves who describe themselves as trying to be as
welcoming as possible as Walmart freeters, I believe, one of them described themselves. Talk about your views and what you encountered there.
TREW: Well, actually, as soon as I drove up myself to this clinic, the protesters assumed that I was coming to get an abortion. So, someone
actually threw themselves on my car and I was quite worried I was going to, you know, injure someone.
The first thing they did was try and talk to me about something called an abortion reversal pill, which is largely unproven and has been condemned by
many medical associations in the U.S. But as you said, they also dress very similarly to the clinic volunteers who basically man the parking lot who
help women, pregnant people get from their cars to the front door of the clinic. And that literally means it's a 30-meter walk, if that, but yes, to
keep them shielded from the eyes of the protesters. As I said, the protesters are wearing similar clothing, and that's actually apparently
deliberate to try and intercept people before they get into the clinic.
In fact, it's got to the point where the clinic volunteers actually have special copyrighted vests with a design specific to themselves so that no
one can directly copy what they're wearing, just so that they can at least be identified by the people coming in. But it is intimidating. People are
shouting, people, as I said, threw themselves on my car.
I spoke to one OB/GYN who was an abortion provider inside the clinic and he was carrying a firearm and he was carrying a firearm with him as he was
performing abortions. It was tucked into his scrubs. So, that was pretty eye-opening for me. I mean, I knew that there was -- you know, this was a
contentious issue, but I didn't realize that the abortion providers themselves were seriously worried about their own lives.
GOLODRYGA: Oh, yes. Yes. I mean, it was shocking to see the doctor carrying a pistol. One of the providers were saying that she drives a car
that doesn't really stand out for this very reason. She takes different paths home. She makes sure she's not followed. If she goes to a restaurant,
she wants to make sure that nobody there recognizes her. It is quite stunning the links that they have to go to. And also notable is that the
majority, almost 95 percent of the women who visit this clinic in Bristol are not from Virginia. Some drive as far as 10 hours just to get here for
treatment.
The consequences of some of these really draconian laws, full abortion ban after six weeks, as we know, most women don't even know they're pregnant at
six weeks. But the impact that it has on women who are carrying unviable fetuses, situations where not only is their fetus at risk but they -- their
lives themselves are too. And you've countered, you spoke with some of these women, Nicole Blackwell (ph) is one of them. Let's play some sound
from what she told you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NICOLE BLACKWELL (PH): I was going to give birth to a child that wasn't going to live. I did ask the nurse to put a sheet in between me and her, so
when I did give labor, I wouldn't see the dead baby coming out.
How do you prepare yourself? There was no way of trying to prepare myself. And I was in labor for 32 hours. That's how complicated the situation was.
TREW: And you still could have died in any of those hours?
[13:30:00]
BLACKWELL (PH): Any of those hours, knowing that you're going to give birth to a child that's not going to live. How can anyone just be OK with
that?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: That was so difficult to watch, Bel, and especially knowing that Nicole had already faced another tragedy in her life, having lost her
young son due to gun violence just in 2023, 2024 in America, of all places in the world where a woman is forced to deliver a stillborn fetus that is
known to not be viable. What was that like for you to be sitting there with these women as they were telling you these heartbreaking stories?
TREW: I mean, I honestly was speechless. Nicole had been through hell. I mean, she -- her 14-year-old son was shot dead because he was just a random
bypass -- bystander to a drive by shooting. She got pregnant, and she called it her miracle child. Then she was told that the pregnancy was non-
viable, the baby wouldn't make it, outside of the womb. And also, that the pregnancy was life-threatening and she wasn't allowed to have an abortion,
and she didn't have the money to travel out of state and she was too ill.
And she -- the only piece of control, the only agency she had was being able to put a sheet between her and the bits of the baby that she was
forced to give birth to. She is so frightened now of getting pregnant again because she nearly died, that she's actually gone undergone a
sterilization. And that is actually -- we're seeing a rise in people undergoing vasectomies and tubal ligations across the states. There was a
University of Pittsburgh -- a report that came out recently that said that, because people are scared. No one should be too frightened to be pregnant,
and no one should feel that they cannot be treated.
And Nicole's not the only one. I spoke to other people as well. Those who desperately wanted children, I think that's what I really realized, was
that most of the people I spoke to were mothers, or they were people who wanted to be mothers desperately.
You know, abortion is -- DNC is an essential part of maternal health care, and that's what I think I really realized during the whole process of this
film.
GOLODRYGA: And as these bills were even being debated and legislated before they were passed, some of these questions had been raised, we
covered them as journalists, about how draconian they were, about what would impact the life of a mother, rape, incest, an unviable fetus, all of
these scenarios, real-life scenarios that medical experts said do exist and will exist if these laws are passed.
These lawmakers, many of them said that that's hyperbole, you're over exaggerating, it's fear mongering that's not the case, but you actually
spoke with a lawmaker in Tennessee where you spent a great deal of time who voted for this law, a doctor himself, we should note, only to regret it,
after the fact. What was that conversation like?
TREW: It was a really frank conversation. He's a Republican state senator. He voted for the trigger ban back in 2019 before Roe v. Wade was
overturned. And he was honest. He said, I didn't think that Roe v. Wade would be overturned. I didn't want there to be a vacuum. And also, he
admitted there was a lot of pressure from the anti-abortion movements. And so, he signed the trigger ban, had no idea that Roe was going to fall. When
it did fall, that came into place. And it was a total ban at the beginning.
And, you know, even ectopic pregnancies, which obviously, you know, incredibly life-threatening when included, that's changed since then. He
said he regrets it so much that he's actually been working on legislation to include medical exceptions, to allow people to have abortions in life-
threatening situations, which is happening, you know, almost every single day.
And he said that even though there are people who agree with him, they're still not going to vote for his new legislations because the anti-abortion
movement is so strong and people have -- you know, state senators are really worried about losing the ability to be voted in again. So, there's
an immense amount of pressure, and in the middle, there are pregnant people, there are women who are suffering. And you know, this is the daily
reality now in the U.S.
GOLODRYGA: On the ballot this year was also the question of enshrining abortion rights into a number of state constitutions that, in fact, did
happen for several states, but one notably did not get the super majority that was required, and that was Florida, and that was one of the largest,
it had always been one of the largest destinations for those seeking abortions among the south and the United States.
The impacts are already being felt. We spent a great deal of time talking about the ramifications of the six-week abortion law there. You spent time
in the state what did you see there?
TREW: Absolutely. I mean, that particular amendment for in Florida, it was 57 percent. They were just 3 percent short of it passing. But when I was in
Florida, you know, I was meeting women who were terrified because the ban is at six weeks. Most women don't know they're pregnant at six weeks.
[13:35:00]
There are people there who are on six weeks, and there's also a 24-hour waiting period. So, you have to go to, for example, a Planned Parenthood,
and then you have to be within the six-week period and 24 days -- 24 hours, sorry. So, there were women who had literally on the exact cutoff point who
were getting abortions.
One woman I interviewed said to me she might have kept the baby if she'd had more time to plan. She wasn't -- you know, wasn't sure she'd have the
support, the financial support to be able to look after this child and so she was panicking.
When I was speaking to OB/GYNs there, they were telling me that this was having a direct impact on health care in the state and other abortion ban
states because a lot of OB/GYNs want to leave. Some of them want to retire early. There's also a concern about medical students not wanting to, you
know, practice this kind of form of medicine, or they don't want to practice in abortion banned states that's already been proven in reports.
And the question is what happens when physicians leave states? That means health care deserts, and that's already a problem in the U.S. There's
already maternal health care deserts across places like Florida, and that's going to mean hospitals are going to close. So, it has an impact not just
on people who are pregnant or want to be pregnant or don't want to be pregnant, it has an impact on everyone, because fewer doctors means fewer
hospitals, which means less health care.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, the ripple effects surely are so consequential. And I just commend you for taking the time to make this film and for the brave women
who spoke with you. Bel Trew, appreciate it. Thank you for joining us.
TREW: Thank you for having me on the program.
GOLODRYGA: Well up next, a deep dive into the life work of prominent Renaissance genius, Leonardo da Vinci. Many will know him as the painter
behind the famous Mona Lisa, but he was also influential, an inventor, scientist, and philosopher of his time.
Well now, da Vinci is the subject of this new documentary, directed by the father daughter duo, Ken and Sarah Burns.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the story of the most curious man in history. He was always interested. He never took no for an answer.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There are certain supreme figures in the life of our civilization who fascinate us because they seem to belong to two worlds at
once.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: It is a fascinating exploration of da Vinci's impressive achievements through volumes of personal notebooks and a series of
interviews. And the pair sat down with, who else, but Walter Isaacson to talk about the making of this film.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And Ken Burns, Sarah Burns, welcome to the show.
KEN BURNS, DIRECTOR, "LEONARDO DA VINCI" ON PBS: Thank you, Walter.
SARAH BURNS, "LEONARDO DA VINCI" ON PBS: Thank you for having us.
ISAACSON: Ken, over the years, you've made almost 40 films, all set in America. Now, you're doing Leonardo da Vinci. Why?
K. BURNS: Well, it's all your fault, Walter. We were working together on a film about Benjamin Franklin, and you'd given us a good interview for that
film, and we were having dinner in Washington, D.C., and all evening long, you were pushing me to consider Leonardo da Vinci as another great artist
and scientist. You thought that maybe the 18th century, certainly in America, the greatest a scientist was Benjamin Franklin, if not the world,
and certainly, he was a great artist of the word and of political artistry. The compromises that created the United States are his. But I kept saying,
Walter, I don't do non-American topics.
But I came out of that dinner and was talking to Sarah Burns, my oldest daughter, and David McMahon, her husband, who we had collaborated for many
years on films like "The Central Park Five" and "Jackie Robinson" and most recently "Muhammad Ali." And they said, we love the idea of Leonardo.
So, Sarah and Dave picked up family, my two oldest grandchildren moved to Italy for a year and did all the basic research, wrote the script, did most
of the interviews and brought back all this raw material, which we then had the luxury, because it's PBS, to digest over many, many months, well more
than a year and create this portrait.
And I'm so glad I did. Many of the themes we go for are universal in the American story. And I think here you have, you know, the guy who is
speaking to the universality of the human experience in every molecule.
ISAACSON: Speaking of Benjamin Franklin, Sarah, the common theme of both of these is that they are people connect the arts to the sciences, people
who connect engineering to the humanities. Tell me about developing that theme.
S. BURNS: I think it's entirely central to who Leonardo was, that he had these interests across such a wide spectrum, and he didn't see those things
as being separate. To him, all of these things were related. And part of his larger effort to just understand the universe and everything he could
about the human experience, the human body and how all of these things are connected.
[13:40:00]
And so, we were inspired by Leonardo's interest in all of those things, to find ways to tell this story in a way that showed that interconnectedness
between nature, between art, between science, engineering, all of these things that fascinated Leonardo. How can we show them all as related and
connected?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The ancients described man as the world in miniature. Because in as much as man is composed of earth, water, air, and fire, his
body resembles that of the planet. And as man has in him bones, the supports and framework of his flesh, the world has its rocks, the supports
of the Earth. As man has in him a pool of blood in which the lungs rise and fall in breathing, so the body of the earth as its ocean tide, which
likewise rises and falls every six hours as if the world breathed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ISAACSON: Another thing that connects Leonardo da Vinci to Benjamin Franklin is that they're the two people and two of the people in history
who most tried to learn everything you could know about every subject knowable. How does that help them figure out the patterns of nature, Ken?
K. BURNS: Well, this is the key to the whole thing. I mean, what's so interesting with regard to Leonardo is that he's born out of wedlock. And
so, he's not going to be able to take a kind of traditional trajectory that his father, a well-known notary in Florence would have permitted him to do,
go to university. You know, he ends up at the end of his life knowing more than any scholar in any particular discipline. And as Sarah is saying, he
doesn't see the borders between the disciplines.
And so, what his first teacher is nature, and he's beginning, as the filmmaker, Guillermo del Toro, says in our film at the opening, that his
great, you know, privilege, the responsibility was to, you know, interrogate the universe, ask it every essential question about what is its
nature. And so, he's studying water dynamics. He's studying botany. He's studying atmosphere. He's studying rocks and geology and fossil
distribution. He's inventing, he's looking at flight and gravity before Galileo. And he doesn't have a telescope and he doesn't have a microscope,
but he understands a kind of fundamental thing that the solar system and the atom share a similar and one could say profound architecture.
And so, I think there's something incredibly compelling that he's able to escape the specific gravity, no pun intended, of his upbringing to become a
person who knows almost everything. So, the Mona Lisa is a great work of science and it's -- and his anatomies are great works of arts. And I can
hear him talking in my ear saying, don't make the distinction. I have to -- in order to paint the Mona Lisa, I have to understand not only the bone
structure and the musculature and how hair is and how things drape and what the background and the atmospheres in that background are doing, but I have
to know the circulatory system. I have to know how the heart works.
And all of that is so amazing that it is absolutely why this is the most famous painting on Earth. We may have encrusted it with pop symbolism, but
it is -- that smile is -- in her smile, is the whole human experience there, and he's able to take and not only make a three-dimensional portrait
of somebody that's different and better than anybody else had ever done, but he knows, as he said, the intentions of their mind. He wants to know
what they're thinking, what they're feeling, what their suffering is, what their joy is.
And his life is this joyous inquisitive interrogation of everything there is to know. And Franklin is in that realm, but he's trailing way behind who
I -- the guy who I think is the man of the last millennium.
ISAACSON: Sarah, your father's talking about the interconnection for Leonardo of art and science and how he didn't make a distinction. I
remember going to see the Deluge drawings that he made at the end of his life at Windsor Castle, and I asked the curator, do you think he made these
spirals as works of art or works of science? And the curator looked at me with a sort of haughty air and said, I don't think Leonardo would have made
that distinction.
So, how did you see the way his experimentalism, his love of science, affects his art, and vice versa?
S. BURNS: Yes, I think that curator's absolutely right that these things are not different for Leonardo. It's all part of the same process of
experimentation, of exploration and process. I mean, I think he's interested in understanding all of these things and in how do we get there,
how do you study them, how do you experiment with them, and where do we go?
[13:45:00]
And so, I think all of that, you know, he is making these connections and he's seeing patterns, he's looking for patterns across nature, and he's
tying all of these things together. But for him, as I was saying, this is about putting this all together.
So, the paintings are a reflection of all of what he's learned in studying atmosphere, the circulatory system, every aspect of the human body, and he
wants to combine it all into this sort of pieces of knowledge, and all of his writing reflects that. I mean, those notebooks, you know, there are
more than 4,000 pages that are left behind by him. You know, very few paintings, many of them unfinished, but the notebooks are this incredible
window into this mind, I think a very unique mind for that curiosity and that ability to see the interconnectedness of absolutely everything.
ISAACSON: Ken, you usually use still photographs and call it the Ken Burns effect, the Civil War, jazz, regal (ph). How do you do something in a
period in which there's no still photographs and video?
K. BURNS: I think what was so great about what Sarah and Dave were able to sort of suggest is that because, as Sarah says, of Leonardo's lateral
thinking, this ability to encompass all this stuff, it suggested that we could split the screen, which is really risky for us, because my whole
project is to say that a painting is alive, that it's three dimensional, that you can go into it and do a close up for a photograph as well, of
course, and that the landscapes are themselves the painting.
So, we've reversed it, and to do a split screen, not just two frames, maybe four, maybe six, maybe not, whatever it might be was -- and to include
modern footage in it and photographs and all across the 20th century was to encompass his -- the capaciousness of his mind and his curiosity. And so,
we risked returning those images to their plasticity, that is to say their two dimensionality, but at the same time we were honoring the sheer
magnitude of his work.
ISAACSON: Sarah, this idea of split screens, you use it to connect the past to the very present sometimes. Tell me about that.
S. BURNS: Yes. I mean, I think, again, it's about Leonardo's lateral thinking. We want to be in his brain. Think about what he's thinking and
what he's seeing and how he's processing all of this information. And we're also thinking about his imagination. He is both this incredible scientist
and thinker and also has this extraordinary imagination and creativity.
And so, there are all these things, inventions, things he draws, ideas he has that are, as you said, incredibly modern and that, in many ways, are
sort of throwing us into the future, into the present so that no, he doesn't invent the helicopter, but he imagines the fact that we could
someday fly, that we could create these machines that would allow us to fly. And so, all of that gives us this permission, this opportunity to use
material from across the centuries to reflect that modernity and to reflect his imagination, these things that we will eventually achieve that he
prophesized in some way.
And so, we can see a rocket ship taking off, and we can see bicycles, and we can see cars, and we can think about the way that his ideas are, whether
they're planting a seed for these things, or just imagining the possibility of them, it gives us license to really expand what we can think about and
what we can show. And so, for us, that was really exciting because it was very different and it created this creative opportunity for us and for our
editors to pull in all kinds of materials that we would never normally consider. Experimental films. I mean, all kinds of stuff.
ISAACSON: I mean, in some ways, what you do is you have him as the inventor of modernity.
S. BURNS: Yes.
K. BURNS: That's exactly right. Yes.
S. BURNS: Yes. Right. He didn't have to invent the helicopter exactly to be the inventor of modernity.
K. BURNS: Right. He's inventing an attitude and a relationship to life, to creation, to all of history, to possibility. And in so doing, it keeps his
moment and his viewpoint utterly alive for us. And it's within his space, within his purview, that all of this stuff has taken place. And I think
that's really wonderful. It's not saying that there's a direct line between, you know, Leonardo and Sikorsky, whoever invented the helicopter,
but there is, and there is in the spirit of the time, the opening up the spaces.
[13:50:00]
And I think there's a couple of things, not having that classical education, the formal university education is great, being liberated from
that, but I think it's also that he's -- he doesn't leave us much personal, you know, tabloid information about what he's feeling. We don't have
diaries. These 4,000 plus pages, as Sarah said, are basically his philosophy.
So, we get inside his head. We try to figure out his relationship. You know, when he's finally imported by the king of France to be his Aristotle,
you go to the presumption that the king of France is Alexander. Aristotle is a great philosopher and thinker and writer. But so's -- you know, so's
Leonardo, he's just not published in his day, and so it accretes out. And also, he's the botanist, and the anatomist, and the greatest artist, and,
you know, the painter of the most famous painting in the world.
So, I think that --
ISAACSON: Two most famous paintings. Mona Lisa and The Last Supper.
K. BURNS: And The Last Supper. And for me who grew up knowing -- you know, we had a Last Supper in our house. We had a -- you know, the Mona Lisa, of
course, is in everyone's imagination, to be able to sort of reset, to take off the layers of kind of popular consideration and rebuild a Mona Lisa or
a Virgin and the Rocks or a Lady with an Ermine or, you know, The Last Supper and to do it in a way that just adds value in a way that I think he
would have appreciated, that after a while, these views of things, we make jokes about her smile, Marcel Duchamp paints a mustache, that we can go
back to a time when this is a stunning revelation of all of humanity embodied in the 24-year-old wife of a well to do silk merchant from
Florence.
ISAACSON: Sarah, he paints only maybe 14 or 15 totally finished paintings. He leaves most of his art unfinished. Likewise, he designs helicopters that
don't fly, weapons of war that are never built. As you look at his unfinished work, what do you learn? And I know you probably stood in front
of the Adoration of the Magi, my favorite unfinished painting of all time.
K. BURNS: Of all time. Yes.
S. BURNS: Yes. We -- you know, I think for him, I think a lot of people look at the fact that he left all this work unfinished and see that as a
failure of some kind, and I don't see it that way at all. I think that he was interested in process, and he saw those works as experiments,
scientific experiments, even if you want to think about it that way.
And so, I think for him, it was about what he could learn from that process and how all of what he's learned could be depicted in this way. And I think
we're actually very lucky sometimes, as with the Adoration that he didn't finish it because it is still spectacularly beautiful, even in its
partially finished state. And it gives us this sense of what his process was, how he layered these works, and these, you know, under drawings and
under paintings, and also how he saw the work, the painting itself, as an experiment, and that he was making changes on the panel as he went,
rearranging where this thing was, moving something around, trying to figure out exactly the way he wanted to tell the story.
Because ultimately, that -- the paintings, and that one in particular, are telling a story and they're reflecting all of these different expressions
and ideas and thinking about how all these people would have reacted in that scene and it's incredibly ambitious, maybe too ambitious to finish,
but it also --
ISAACSON: It's a narrative. Just like the Last Supper, is a narrative, emotional movement.
S. BURNS: Yes, it's extraordinary.
ISAACSON: It unfolds.
S. BURNS: It unfolds over time. It's extraordinary. And so, it's -- the fact that it's unfinished is this wonderful opportunity to see everything
that he put into a painting. And that's sort of unique.
ISAACSON: Ken, what would it be like, since you call him the inventor of modernity, if he came back today?
K. BURNS: You know, we talk about this, Sarah, Dave, and I talk about this a lot. I think of all the people, over the last 50 or so years that I've
touched, you know, tried to wake up, he'd be the person least sort of perturbed by arriving in the present moment. I think he'd go, oh, yes, you
did this. Fantastic. You got that done. Oh, you got to the moon? Tell me what -- how did you handle the gravity thing? You know. And I think he'd be
there. I don't think he'd be a filmmaker and put us all out of business. You know what I mean? I think he'd just do it better than anybody else.
And so, I sort of feel he'd do it. And because he's rooted clearly in this time, he's looking back to the ancients and he seems to be prophesizing, as
Sarah said, really accurately what we're going to become, there's a kind of automatic modernity and a meaningfulness that he will always have.
ISAACSON: Sarah Burns, Ken Burns, thank you for joining us.
S. BURNS: Thanks for having us, Walter.
K. BURNS: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
GOLODRYGA: And finally, seeds of hope on a warming planet. In Chile, farmers are growing -- farm growers are growing seeds known as the Seed
Guardians, are on a mission to protect lost varieties of fruits and vegetables, especially those traditional to the indigenous Mapuche people.
The multicolored seeds are collected, traded, and planted, preserving the ancestral knowledge and diversity threatened by changing environments. And
their work is having an impact. Most markets typically do not sell more than five types of tomatoes. But this year, there will be 26 on display at
markets across the country, leaving you with just a bit of good news.
Well, that does it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
