Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Supreme Court Allows Abortion Pill To Remain On Market; Source: Trump Warned GOP About Going "Too Far" On Abortion; Trump On Capitol Hill For First Time Since Insurrection; G7 Leaders Agree To Loan Ukraine $50 Billion. Aired 11-11:30p ET

Aired June 13, 2024 - 11:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:56]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: You are in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington, and we begin this hour with major breaking news. The United States Supreme Court has issued a very important ruling on reproductive rights. The justice has unanimously rejected a challenge to the medical abortion pill mifepristone, allowing the drug to remain on the market. The ruling comes two years after the court took away women's constitutional right to an abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade.

I want to bring in our panel to assess what's going on, dramatic developments indeed. I want to start with our Senior Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic. Walk us through this ruling, Joan. Tell us what it means.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Sure. It was really high drama in the courtroom this morning. This ruling actually came a little bit earlier than we were expected in this month of June, but I think there was a clear reason why. They were unanimous in striking this down.

And let me just set the scene. You know, the justices all take the bench, all nine of them, and I noticed right away that Ashley Kavanaugh, the wife of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who announced this decision, had come in and taken a seat in one of the special guest sections. And the chief justice turned to him right at the start and said, Brett Kavanaugh has our first opinion of the day and to have announced a case that was argued on March 26.

So that's a pretty narrow time frame. But what it shows is how emphatically this court nine to zip reversed what the Fifth Circuit had done that would have dramatically limited access to a medication that is the main way that women and their pregnancies today.

Here's how the case got up there. A group of anti-abortion physicians had claimed they had actually been injured by the Food and Drug Administration's approval of this drug and its expansion of access to the drug. In 2016 and 2020-21, the FDA had said that this drug could be available at 10 weeks of pregnancy, not just only at 7, and had also given more access for women to obtain the drug by mail. And these anti-abortion physicians who do not perform abortions, they do not handle abortions in any way, they said that nonetheless, they were injured by this policy because, first of all, they might, in emergency room settings, have to conduct abortions.

Brett Kavanaugh went through all of the reasons for why they should be able to sue, rejected them all out of hand during a 10-minute dramatic rendition of his excerpts, you know, saying, look, you say that your consciences would be injured to have to perform abortions. He said, federal law already has a conscience clause that says that no physician who doesn't want to perform abortion has to do it. Then said that, you know, insurance costs, money costs, advocacy.

And bottom line, he said the federal courts are available to people who have real injuries. There's no reason for people who want any kind of policy change, policy or political. Those people should turn to the executive branch of the legislative branch to get their way. As I said, all nine justices signed on.

So for now, access to this drug that has become the major way that women and a pregnancy will be available as the FDA had said was safe and effective.

BLITZER: Because it's interesting. This was a unanimous 9 to 0 decision by all nine justices, right?

BISKUPIC: Right. Which is a very unusual for any abortion case. Remember, it was 5 to 4 -- you just referred to the Dobbs ruling from 2022.

BLITZER: Roe v. Wade when it was overturned.

BISKUPIC: Yes. Just about every abortion case that I've ever seen over the past three decades has been narrowly split, you know, 5-4, some if they're lucky at 6-3. But when they go 9-zip, you can tell that this truly is a question of what we call procedural standing, legal standing, who gets into federal court. And this actually is important for any kind of a legal issue.

BLITZER: Paula Reid, this is a very, very significant moment right now.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it is. This is one of the big cases that we've been watching. This is the biggest challenge to abortion rights since the court overturned Roe v. Wade and all eyes were on this decision because of the possible impact on women on the FDA, on the pharmaceutical industry and potentially on the 2024 election.

[11:05:01]

Because we know Republicans have galvanized supporters for decades now around the abortion issue, but now in the wake of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, things are changing. And we're curious whether this decision could potentially help Democrats, but clearly they've cut the status quo though other challenges could be coming. Now we're watching for that other abortion case. This is one of the biggest challenges since Roe v. Wade, but there's another case that's still outstanding that has to do with potential conflicts between restrictive state laws and federal law when it comes to abortion. So now I think that's really one of the ones at the top of our list.

BLITZER: It was interesting, Steve Vladeck, you're a law professor, but you're a legal analyst now as well, that in the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, they ruled against abortion rights for women. In this particular case, this prescription drug mifepristone, they ruled in favor of abortion rights for women. Very different decisions.

STEVE VLADECK, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. Although I think Joan's right to stress that this was a procedural ruling and by saying that these doctors didn't have standing, the court did not actually affirm the FDA's approvals of mifepristone.

BLITZER: Practically they didn't.

VLADECK: Practically for now. But you know, Wolf, even in this very case, there are already a couple of red states who have intervened in the district court who presumably now can say, well, wait a second, now it's our turn to try to challenge mifepristone.

So, you know, I think folks should take this ruling in the moment as a pretty powerful repudiation, not of the legal arguments against mifepristone, but of the fact that the lower courts let these plaintiffs bring them. With regard to the future of mifepristone, that's still undecided. And I think it's still undecided because there could be other plaintiffs.

It's still undecided because there could be other challenges. You could have a future Republican president who actually takes a different approach to an old federal law called the Comstock Act, which, you know, I don't think could fairly be interpreted, but which Republicans argue could be interpreted to ban mail-in mifepristone.

So, you know, Wolf, I think this is a very much a sort of short term victory, but there's still quite a lot to play for when it comes to access to mifepristone in states that allow it.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, Kavanaugh wrote in the decision that --

BLITZER: In today's decision.

BORGER: In today's decision that if somebody else has standing, go ahead. I mean, you know, the decision was about standing. It wasn't about the use of mifepristone, whether it's safe, whether the FDA has been too loose, et cetera, et cetera. And Kavanaugh made it clear, I think, and you guys are the legal experts, that while these folks did not have standing, that doesn't mean that somebody else couldn't bring a case that did have standing. And, you know, that has yet to be decided.

VLADECK: And I think this is going to be a theme we're going to see, Wolf, over these last three weeks of the current Supreme Court term, that there are a series of cases where one lower court in particular, the Fifth Circuit, the Federal Appeals Court, sits in New Orleans, covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, has let unusual plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs who don't usually get in the federal court. Bring challenges to federal policies, whether it's mifepristone, whether it's the Biden administration's communications with social media companies about COVID vaccine disinformation. I think we're going to see a handful of ruling for the court says, hey, Fifth Circuit, chill out.

BORGER: Yes.

VLADECK: You've gone way too far. We are not ready for this, Wolf, not because this court is all of a sudden turning toward the middle on the substance of these questions, but because the court has a narrower view of the role of the courts in these kinds of social policy, culture war fights, than at least this one appeals court in the southwest.

BORGER: But doesn't the court have to expect it in a way after the Dobbs decision?

BISKUPIC: No, but one of the things to remember is that this puts a lot more in the hands of the Food and Drug Administration. And if we have a new administration --

BORGER: Yes.

BISKUPIC: -- overall, depending on who becomes president, the FDA could completely change its policy. So that's the other thing that's hanging over this. It's not just when a court case would come, but the next potential FDA move.

BLITZER: Let me get Meg Tirrell into this conversation. Meg's our medical correspondent. Meg, do you consider the future of this abortion pill, mifepristone, still undecided?

MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: I think from everything we've been hearing from your folks there, and also from legal experts following this, yes, I think that people expect that this question will continue to come up. And just as Joan was talking about there, I have heard from folks who watch the FDA very closely that this makes the FDA commissioner position a very political one in the next election because an FDA commissioner could come in and direct the agency then to sort of peel back some of the things that they have allowed in terms of access to mifepristone.

This is one of two pills used in medication abortion. Medication abortion is the most common way that people access abortion in the United States, accounted for 63 percent of abortions in 2023. There were a million abortions that year, according to Guttmacher Institute data. So that's more than 600,000 people who are accessing this pill.

Now, if mifepristone access were rolled back, it wouldn't disappear from the market completely if the Supreme Court had ruled in the opposite way today, but it would have made it very difficult to get through telemedicine, something that has become an increasing way that people access medication abortion in the United States.

[11:10:00]

But as we've heard from all of your experts, it does not sound like this challenge is done. Either it could come back through the courts with different plaintiffs who may have a better argument over standing, or it may come back through the FDA, or it may come back, as Steve was talking about, through the Comstock Act, which is something that folks who follow this are watching very closely. That's a very old law but could potentially be dredged up.

BLITZER: And very quickly, Meg, I want to just get your analysis. If a woman is pregnant and wants to have an abortion, what does she have to do to get a prescription for mifepristone right now?

TIRRELL: Well, right now, if you're in a state where abortion is legal, you can go online. There are different services, direct to consumer services, where you can access that. You could go to your doctor, you could go to an abortion clinic. There are multiple ways where you can access mifepristone and misoprostol, which is the other drug that's part of this regimen.

If you're in a state where abortion is illegal, it is illegal to access medication abortion through the mail. It's illegal to access any form of abortion in those states with strict abortion bans. There are ways that people can still do it. There are providers outside the United States, Aid Access, for example, that provide abortion pills through the mail, even in places where it is illegal. So people still do access these pills, but it is not legal in states with abortion bans.

BLITZER: Interesting.

I want to bring in Dr. Chris Pernell, the director of the NAACP Center for Health Equity. Dr. Pernell, what's your reaction to this morning's U.S. Supreme Court ruling?

DR. CHRIS PERNELL, DIRECTOR, NAACP CENTER FOR HEALTH EQUITY: Thank you, Wolf. First and foremost, I want people to understand we must remain vigilant because we continue to live in perilous times as it relates to public health and health equity. What the Supreme Court ruled this morning, I understand it's about standing. It's about a procedural issue, but we see a victory for reproductive justice.

Reproductive justice is important because those who are disproportionately impacted by the burdens of oppressive health care systems and regimes don't have access to care. With this ruling, we're allowed to have physicians prescribed, nurse practitioners prescribed, position assistance prescribed and even midwives and it's able to be available through telehealth and telemedicine.

So we know that when we -- when access is restricted, certain communities are disproportionately harmed. So the ability to continue to practice reproductive justice is of the utmost importance. BLITZER: All right, everyone, thank you very, very much.

An important historic day here in the nation's capital. There's other important news we're following as well, and indeed happening right now up on Capitol Hill. Donald Trump back here in Washington. He's meeting with some key Republicans for the first time since the deadly January 6th riot.

Also right now, President Biden in a major summit in Italy. A big topic, of course, Ukraine. President Biden and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will sit down shortly. The two nations expected to sign a long-term security agreement.

Lots of news going on. Stay with us. You're live right here in the CNN Newsroom.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:17:37]

BLITZER: There's more breaking news we're following. Only moments ago, former President Donald Trump wrapped up his meeting with congressional Republicans up on Capitol Hill. It marked his first visit since telling his supporters to, quote, "fight like hell" just ahead of the deadly January 6th riot.

Here's how the current House Speaker, Mike Johnson, characterized this meeting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: President Trump brought an extraordinary amount of energy and excitement and enthusiasm this morning. That is what we're seeing in the party throughout the country. There is something happening in the country. That's the phrase I used to introduce the president this morning, and he repeated the phrase a number of times in his own remarks.

People recognize right now in this country that this will be the most consequential election, certainly of our lifetimes and probably maybe in the last century or more in America. Everything is at stake.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Let's bring in our National Correspondent, Kristen Holmes. She's joining us live from Capitol Hill right now. Kristen, what are other Republican lawmakers saying, and what are you hearing from the former president himself behind closed doors?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Wolf, I will remind you that this was set up as sort of an introduction to Donald Trump or reintroduction. This is the first time he's meeting with these large groups of lawmakers. First, it was Hill Republicans. Later today, it will be with Senate Republicans behind me.

Since he became the presumptive nominee and since he became a convicted felon, the way it was explained to us was that Donald Trump was going to spend the time talking about how he's going to be Joe Biden in the fall, as well as talk about a 2025 agenda.

Now, according to our sources in the room, that's not entirely what happened. He did talk about one policy issue in particular. He talked about abortion, something we know that has weighed heavily on the former president. He has tried to walk a fine line between both taking credit for overturning Roe v. Wade, while also not wanting to talk about it at all because he doesn't believe it is a political quote, unquote "winner."

But other than that, Donald Trump really spent a lot of the time branting (ph). He talked about different races. He talked about various Republicans who had voted to impeach him, taking credit for the fact that so many of those Republicans are no longer in office.

At one point, he even talked about Nancy Pelosi's daughter, saying that her daughter had told him in a different lifetime she, Nancy Pelosi, and Donald Trump would have had a great romance. It sounded like a real Donald Trump kind of back and forth ping ponging type of speech. Johnson, obviously, saying that that was energetic and excited.

[11:20:00]

I will tell you that we've spoken to a number of lawmakers who said that they were hoping that this would bring some unity to the party, which has obviously been very fractured, particularly in the House around Speaker Johnson, First Speaker McCarthy. It does sound like, at least from what Speaker Johnson said, there is some of that rah rah rallying around Donald Trump party unity that happened today at that meeting.

BLITZER: Kristen Holmes up on Capitol Hill, thank you very much.

I want to bring in CNN Congressional Correspondent Lauren Fox right now. Lauren, how are Republican lawmakers responding to Trump's remarks today?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, a lot of the Republicans who are in the House who were in this meeting this morning. They were already huge Donald Trump fans. Just to give you a sense of the fanfare, when Donald Trump walked into the room, House Republicans actually sang him happy birthday, because his birthday is just right around the corner.

Now, it's also clear that there has been some of that tension that Kristen was talking about. The fact that a couple of weeks ago, Marjorie Taylor Greene tried to oust the sitting speaker, Mike Johnson. According to Marjorie Taylor Greene, who I spoke to just a few minutes ago, Donald Trump addressed that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R), GEORGIA: I really found his speech to be one of my favorite speeches. He came in, talked to the conference, was very honest. He was funny. He was joking around constantly with everyone. He was really sweet to me. He said to Speaker Johnson, he goes, OK, you got one more seat. You need to be tougher.

He saw me -- I was sitting back a little ways. He saw me in there and he was like, hello, Marjorie. He's always so sweet and recognizes me. And he said, are you being nice? He was joking. Are you being nice to Speaker Johnson? And I said, yes. And he said, OK, be nice to him. And I'm nodding my head. And then --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOX: So, obviously, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Wolf, there trying to make light of a situation that really embattled Republicans for several weeks just last month. It's also clear, though, that Donald Trump laid out a couple of policy proposals, not in necessarily a serious way, but Marjorie Taylor Greene telling me that at one point, Donald Trump seemed to entertain the idea of no income taxes for Americans.

That is something she said she -- he was just sort of throwing out there as a potential idea. Just really bringing you back to the fact that Donald Trump in these forums likes to have a discussion, likes to feed off the audience, doesn't want this just to be him delivering a message to the conference.

Despite the fact that I will tell you a lot of Senate Republicans I've been talking to, that's what they are hoping to get from Donald Trump in just a short time when he speaks to them over at the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Wolf?

BLITZER: I thought it's interesting you say the National Republican Senatorial Committee, that they have a building off of the U.S. Congress. These meetings are not taking place inside the Congress. They're up on Capitol Hill, which is the neighborhood around the U.S. Congress. Explain why it's taking place off campus, shall we say.

FOX: Yes. Traditionally, when you want to talk about politics in Washington, D.C., you don't do that inside the Capitol building, sort of a piece of respect and also sort of going with how the rules work up here on Capitol Hill. So they often -- and this isn't just when presidential nominee is coming to speak to them, but if they, as a party, want to talk about polling, if they want to talk about fundraising, that is typically the avenue and the place that they do it, Wolf.

BLITZER: And that's why the political branches of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, for that matter, as well, they have separate buildings off of the Capitol building, indeed, but they're up on Capitol Hill.

All right, Lauren, thank you very, very much.

Also, right now, President Biden is in Italy for a very high stakes summit with key allies on their agenda, Ukraine and Gaza and other critically important issues. Stay with us. You're in the CNN Newsroom.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [11:28:29]

BLITZER: Happening now, President Biden is meeting with world leaders at the G7 summit in Puglia, Italy. One of their top priorities, getting long term aid for Ukraine as its war with Russia drags on and on. Just a short time ago, the G7 announced it will loan Kyiv $50 billion.

CNN International Diplomatic Editor Nic Robertson is joining us. He's in Italy covering the summit for us right now. Nic, what more have you learned about this loan?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes, they're structuring it in a unique way, and it's something that's never been tried before. They're using $300 billion worth of frozen Russian assets. And the profits from that, the annual profits from that, to fund this $50 billion loan. There are about $3 billion of profits predicted over the coming 10 years from this.

And the loan is something that Ukraine will be expected to pay back in the coming 10 years. But I think perhaps one of the key points for Ukraine and for the other leaders here as well is that they really want to get this completely finalized by the end of this year, so that the loan can actually be given to Ukraine by the end of the year. So it will have the $50 billion.

So even if there is a change of presidency in the United States, and if there -- and if it were to be President Trump in the future, who would perhaps take a decision not to support Ukraine in the war against Russia, as is indicated, or even to cut ties with NATO, as is previously talked about, this would ring fence at least $50 billion of support for reconstruction for Ukraine.