Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Study Examines COVID-19 and Autism; Interview With Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD); Redistricting Wars. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired October 31, 2025 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:30:38]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: From California to Virginia, Republicans and Democrats are waging a battle to reshape Capitol Hill in a way that could impact every American.

President Trump is pushing some Republicans to redraw the congressional districts in their states to give the GOP an advantage. But Democrats are meeting those efforts with equal pressure. They're launching a counteroffensive aimed at keeping pace with the gerrymandering changes ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Our Tom Foreman is tracking all of this at the Magic Wall.

So, Tom, Texas and California are getting the most attention in the redistricting battle. But other states are considering similar moves. Which ones are most important to watch?

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, all of them, frankly, is the answer.

This could say redistricting trick or treat on this Halloween, because that's what's happening across the country right now. Yes, Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, that's settled. Everything else out here is in play. California has to be watched closely because that could deliver five votes to offset Texas into the Democratic column there.

But with so many in play here, it's very hard to tap one of them, because, remember, Pam, the Republicans have a very small majority in the House, and any one of these could be the one that tips them over, depending on how the vote goes, which typically would be expected to go strongly against Republicans, or at least reasonably against them, in the off-year for the president. That's kind of what happens.

BROWN: So tell us more about what the two parties ultimately gain if all of these go through.

FOREMAN: Yes, that's really what you have to look at in this. And I think it's good that you're staying on top of it just week after week. Let's do the offsets here. Let's say that it played out the way people

think. Republicans had all started in Texas, plus five, and let's put off the plus five over here for California. Let's say they get through with what they're doing. Then let's take plus one, plus one, plus one. We will offset with plus one, plus one, plus one, plus two or three. We will do it right there, plus two or three.

And, oh, look, now we have to be determined a couple over here for the Democrats to maybe pick up more over here for Republicans. So, currently, if this were to play out kind of this way, Republicans would still be in a position to offset any losses and maybe hold on to the majority by this redistricting effort.

BROWN: And the Supreme Court, we should note, is also expected to rule in a case that could gut the Voting Rights Act. How would that impact the political map here?

FOREMAN: Well, what this all comes down to is the notion of, do voters get to pick their candidates, or do the candidates get to pick their voters?

Remember, what happened with the Voting Rights Act is, that paved the way back in the 1960s for really very substantial gains in this country for minorities, particularly black voters, who had been shut out, systematically blocked in many places from being able to have their vote heard fairly and being able to elect people from their community.

The Supreme Court has been sort of whittling away at that. If they take the final step and basically just gut this Voting Rights Act, if that goes away, the Democrats could lose 19 seats out there. Guarantee that they will lose them? No, but that many more in jeopardy.

If this happens, along with everything else, it is easy to see that Republicans could not only win the House, but could be in a position to hold it for a long time. And that doesn't necessarily represent more people. It just represents more districts out there because there are more red states with fewer people in them, but they still get congressmembers.

BROWN: Tom Foreman, as always, thank you.

FOREMAN: You're welcome.

BROWN: We are just four days out from the first major electoral test of President Trump's second term.

On Tuesday, voters in two states will head to the polls to elect new governors. In Virginia, former Democratic Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger is facing off against the state's Republican lieutenant governor, Winsome Earle-Sears. And in New Jersey, Democratic Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill is locked in an increasingly tight race with Republican Jack Ciattarelli.

I want to discuss more now with CNN political commentator Michael Smerconish. He's the host of Saturday's "SMERCONISH" right here on CNN.

All right, Michael, the winner in either race could have big implications, not just for President Trump's agenda, but also the future hopes for Democrats. What are you watching for?

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: So, if you follow the polls, and I know that you do, and I listened closely to Tom's report as well, you would have to say that Democrats have the advantage not only in New Jersey, also in Virginia, relative to Prop 50 in California.

I mean, it's a good year to be out of the White House, is what I'm trying to say, much like you would find in an election next year in the midterm elections. So, there's a built-in advantage for the party that is opposing whomever is in the White House. And that's the Democratic Party.

[11:35:14]

I'm not going to read too much into this in terms of what does it say for President Trump. I think the Wednesday morning question, the Wednesday morning question, if Zohran Mamdani wins in New York City, is a question for, Democrats of can you sell it nationally? Can you sell AOC? Can you sell Bernie? Can you sell Democratic socialism?

And that's what I'm most interested in watching.

BROWN: Yes, you mentioned Zohran Mamdani. Do you think that he's going to win, given what we know with the polls right now? And how surprising has this race been to you?

SMERCONISH: So the polling data suggests that he will, but I have to tell you, in a prior life, I have had some involvement in these big city mayoral races and sometimes they are a surprise.

And when the dynamics are like those that are in this race, this is not a race necessarily that has race as an aspect, but there is a bit of tribalism in this contest for all the reasons that I think everybody is familiar. I don't believe -- I don't rely on the polls. I'm much more interested in what the turnout data says.

New York City has early voting. The early voting is really interesting because you can take a look at that map and see that the electorate that has come out thus far seems to be an older electorate than we would have anticipated. And I don't think that bodes well for Mamdani.

I think it probably bodes better for Cuomo. I'm not saying that Cuomo wins the race. He's an underdog. But I'm going to wait and see when all those ballots are counted.

BROWN: Would national Democrats be right to embrace part of Mamdani's platform if he does win?

SMERCONISH: It's really -- I tell you, I love that issue, because they're looking for direction, right? They're looking for a way to be the post-Trump party. I'm of the school of thought that says moderation usually works best.

"The New York Times" had a really deep dive, taking a look at all the congressional races from the last cycle, and they found, I think the number was 16 individuals where you had a Republican win a congressional race where the Democrat won at the top of the ticket, meaning Kamala Harris, or the reverse of that case.

And the 16 were all moderates. But the argument, the competing argument, is one of, look at this guy. Zohran Mamdani was able to pull an upset victory, bringing in new people, a lot of enthusiasm, younger voters. Some would say, I'm not in this category, but some would say that's the direction in which the party has to go.

That's why I say, if he wins, Wednesday morning, that will be the question Democrats will wrestle with.

BROWN: And let's talk about New Jersey, the Democratic New Jersey's gubernatorial race. Mikie Sherrill spoke to CNN this morning about her Republican opponent. Let's listen to what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKIE SHERRILL (D-NJ), GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: My opponent doesn't have a plan to drive down costs here in New Jersey. He's not running on his record because it's always been really bad for New Jerseyans, against Superstorm Sandy, against raising the minimum wage, against driving down taxes.

But he also will refuse -- is refusing to stand up to Trump in any way, shape or form.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So New Jersey became more red in last year's presidential election. What do you think? Can Republicans pull this off?

SMERCONISH: So Jack Ciattarelli really has embraced President Trump full on. I know that some say, well, Jersey, it's such a blue place. Can a Republican win? It wasn't that long ago that Chris Christie pulled off an upset victory and then was able to get himself reelected.

The data, the polling suggests that it's a Democrat race to lose. But we will have to see. The polling has been fluctuating in the last couple of days and remains relatively close.

BROWN: All right, before I let you go, Michael, President Trump is calling on Republicans to eliminate the filibuster to end the ongoing government shutdown. There's been a long history on both sides for changing filibuster rules. How do you see this?

SMERCONISH: Be careful what you wish for. Be careful. Republicans, before you go stepping in that direction, you're not going to control the White House, you're not going to control the Senate and the House forever. And I like the idea. I like the idea that it's built in that you have

really got to get as a practical matter 60 votes because, by definition, it causes people to compromise and have to make deals. And to throw that away and go the way the House of Representatives, believe me, when Democrats are in control of power, they will be doing things without having to get the 60 votes that Republicans will regret.

I think they will, I will make it simple, rue the day they do it, I'm not sure when, but at some point in the future. And I hope they don't.

BROWN: Yes. And we know, the framers of this country, they always wanted to protect constitutionally against the tyranny of the majority, right? And it goes back to that in our history. But it has been done before. We will see what happens in this case.

Michael Smerconish, thank you so much. You're going to have much more coverage on your show, "SMERCONISH," tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. Eastern right here on CNN.

[11:40:04]

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Happening now: The country is hurtling towards its longest ever government shutdown. That record is 35 days from President Trump's first term. We are 31 days in this time. And both chambers of Congress are out of town for the weekend, at least.

Joining us now is Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland. He is the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

[11:45:02]

Congressman, you represent a lot of federal workers, many furloughed, some working without pay during this shutdown. Some of your constituents who rely on SNAP benefits are about to lose access to that critical food assistance. The White House isn't budging on the emergency funding and says the way out of this is for Democrats to support that short-term funding bill.

Why won't you do that?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, that's why we're fighting on every single front, Pam, including we have got 23 Democratic attorney generals and several Democratic governors who've taken them to court over their ridiculous and cruel decision not to spend the emergency money that's available for SNAP benefits right now, so nobody misses a day of getting their nutritional benefits.

And it looks like we're going to win. The federal district judge in Boston just signaled that she was on our side. The interesting thing to see is whether the administration will actually appeal that, whether they will go to appeals court to continue to fight for their right to cut off people's food aid.

So, the bottom line is, my constituents have been dealing with this nightmare since January. I have had thousands of federal workers, whether they're air traffic controllers at FAA, cancer researchers at NIH, climate scientists at NOAA, dealing with this onslaught.

And our people want us to be fighting back on every front against this nightmare. And we're going to turn it around. We're going to reopen the government with Medicaid benefits for people, extending the ACA tax credits, and we're going to try to get people their jobs back.

And I know the Republicans don't want to do any of that stuff. They're not even coming to work, but we are here waiting for them to return to negotiate and reopen the government.

BROWN: Well, Republicans say, look, if you want this all to happen, the government to reopen, the SNAP benefits, just vote in favor of the C.R. keep the government funding going.

I know how strongly you and other Democrats feel about those enhanced health care subsidies, but at what point does the human suffering of this country become so untenable that it's time to set aside the health care debate, get the government open, negotiate, so that people don't go hungry?

RASKIN: Yes, well, we're ready to negotiate. And I hope there's some Republican colleagues of mine brave enough to come on your show, so you can pose that question to them, because we're here ready to work.

And we have been here since the beginning of the shutdown. They dealt themselves a monthlong paid vacation. They're not coming to D.C. They're not coming to Congress. And, in their districts, they're not having town hall meetings because they can't face their own constituents over this.

Look, everybody understands what Jim Jordan said about the Democrats several years ago. You guys control the White House. They control the Senate. They control the House. They have got all three of the relevant actors. They totally forfeited in terms of producing any of the 12 appropriations bills that need to be done.

And then they get to the end, and they want to ram through all this terrible stuff, revoking health care for millions of Americans. And we're not going to play that. We're going to stand strong for Americans across the board on health care, on nutrition, on reopening the government, and, yes, on releasing the Epstein file, where we have a huge bipartisan majority that wants to see that happen.

BROWN: I know Democrats have their messaging, Republicans have their messaging. We have been speaking to people impacted by the shutdown on this program almost every day, from government workers and SNAP recipients to people who rely on the Affordable Care Act subsidies Democrats want expanded.

I have asked every one of them what their message is to politicians here in Washington as this partisan standoff continues. Let's listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NAJEE KINARD, SNAP BENEFITS RECIPIENT: Well, you guys should both come to whatever consensus that needs to be done in order to put the American people first.

SHARI JABIONOWSKI, SNAP BENEFITS RECIPIENT: You really didn't think this through very well. You really didn't. You all get paid. We don't. We're counting on that. And you took it away.

LASHANDA PALMER, SENIOR TRANSPORTATION SECURITY OFFICER: I want everyone to do their job. Do what they have us doing, our job, unpaid, because at least they're receiving a paycheck. And their families aren't affected by this. Ours are.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: What do you say to them and also the argument members of Congress are getting paid during the shutdown, while they're not getting paid?

RASKIN: Well, I agree entirely with all of it. We need consensus and we need negotiation, which is why we are telling our Republican colleagues who've defected on a monthlong vacation, come back to Washington and let's spend the Halloween weekend negotiating the end of this nightmare, so we can reopen the government and restore people's health care and to ensure the safety of the SNAP benefits.

Now, we're fighting them in court to make sure it's going to happen. It looks like we're going to win on that front. But I agree with these people. I'm not taking my salary until we get through this. And I'm donating. This weekend and next week, we're doing a whole bunch of events at food pantries and soup kitchens and so on to invest in that.

[11:50:02]

I'm not seeing any of my Republican colleagues out there because they're afraid to face people, because they understand they're on the party of bulldozing the White House and building a Marie Antoinette ballroom for the CEOs and the billionaires.

And we're out here fighting for the health care benefits and the food benefits of the people. So my federal workers in my district have been saying from the beginning, you have got to stand strong against this authoritarian steamroller. And that's where we are. We're going to stand strong and we're going to pull everybody through.

Solidarity is the watchword at this point. We're going to show solidarity to everybody in the country. We're not going to accept a Republican game of pitting this group against that group.

BROWN: All right, Congressman Jamie Raskin, thanks so much.

RASKIN: You bet.

BROWN: Coming up here in THE SITUATION ROOM: women's health watch, the new study, including COVID, pregnancy and the risk of autism.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:55:21]

BROWN: Time now for our women's health watch.

A new study suggests that children whose moms had COVID-19 while they were pregnant may be more likely to be diagnosed with a disorder, a neurodevelopmental disorder like autism.

Researchers from Massachusetts General Hospital looked at more than 18,000 births between March 2020 and May 2021, and they found that children born to women who had COVID during their pregnancy were far more likely to be diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder than those born to mothers who did not have an infection while pregnant, more than 16 percent versus less than 10 percent, or a 1.3 times higher risk after adjusting for other risk factors.

So, as always, it's important to really understand what these studies mean.

So, to bring in -- we're bringing in the expert, fertility doctor Natalie Crawford.

Thank you so much for coming on. I know you have already had a very busy day, Dr. Crawford. But I reached out to you because this study really caught my attention. I had COVID in pregnancy, and I think a lot of women look at this and wonder, wait, seriously? What's going on here? What is your reaction to this study?

DR. NATALIE CRAWFORD, FERTILITY PHYSICIAN: Well, thank you so much for having me on to talk about this, because I really hope it helps pregnant women when they're trying to make a difficult decision, which is, should they get the COVID vaccine in pregnancy?

I think a few important points we have to bring out is that this is an observational study, but it is done before the COVID vaccine was available. So we're talking about a group of pregnant women who were infected with COVID-19. There was no vaccine available, and then looking up to 3 years of age to see if those kids were at higher risk of having neurodevelopmental issues like autism.

BROWN: And just remind our audience the association versus causal link. That's an important distinction here.

CRAWFORD: That's an important distinction.

And what that means is, when you do an observational study, you are looking at things that can be associated together. So, women who had COVID had a higher likelihood of having a child to develop autism, but that doesn't mean that COVID caused autism directly.

There are so many other factors that are in play that you cannot rule out completely. So that's one of the weaknesses of this study design, because is it a fever? We know that fever puts people at risk for neurodevelopmental outcome. Is it COVID itself, which we know causes huge inflammatory situations?

But when we look at this, we also know that women who were infected in their third trimester were at highest risk, and especially if they had a male fetus. The male brain was more susceptible, it seems like. And this is not the first study to show that third-trimester exposure is really critical to brain development.

And I think this is important, because if you -- I was going to say, I think it's important because, if you're trying to decide to get the vaccine or not, this is telling us that getting the COVID vaccine, supporting standard of care, the recommendation from ACOG is to get the vaccine in pregnancy.

And we really want to mitigate that risk of getting a COVID infection. So, prevention, wearing a mask in public spaces, avoiding sick contacts, but also helping women understand that, if they did in fact have a COVID infection, we can't roll back the clock, but hopefully that can help them get access to care and evaluation of their child if there is something they're concerned about.

BROWN: Yes, is there anything that women can do once they, if they are pregnant, they contract COVID to cut down perhaps on the inflammation? As you pointed out, that could be a factor here.

I know I was doing Google searches when I was -- had the virus and was pregnant.

CRAWFORD: Yes, we really recommend symptomatic relief. Of course, really high fever can be detrimental. So, we still say that, if you do have a high fever, taking Tylenol, there's no definitive evidence that Tylenol can cause autism.

And this is an important place to help us distinguish when it might be important to treat high fever, treat those viral symptoms, and try to help your body resolve from an infection as fast as possible.

BROWN: You mentioned the Tylenol in pregnancy. That's obviously been a hot topic. And it's been a part of the political discourse, because, earlier this year, the Trump administration linked autism to Tylenol use during pregnancy.

Just quickly, what has it been like for you and your patients since that announcement?

CRAWFORD: Oh, it's been so hard for patients, because, of course, if you're pregnant, you want to do everything you can to protect your baby. Yet, when should you take Tylenol? Is it safe? There's so much misinformation out there.

And yet, even this week, we saw the administration roll back and say, there's no evidence to say Tylenol actually causes autism, which is a great clarifying statement, but I really hate that it's caused at least a month, if not more of a high stress level for a lot of my patients and a lot of pregnant women.

BROWN: Sorry to hear that. Dr. Natalie Crawford, thank you so much. Great to see you.

And thank you all for joining us this morning. You can keep up with us on social media @WolfBlitzer and @PamelaBrownCNN. We will see you back here Monday morning and every weekday morning at 10:00 Eastern.

"INSIDE POLITICS" with our friend and colleague Dana Bash starts now.