Transcripts For WHUT Moyers Company 20130127

York, celebrating 100 years of philanthropy, and committed to doing real and permanent good in the world. The kohlberg foundation. Independent production fund, with support from the partridge foundation, a john and polly guth charitable fund. The clements foundation. Park foundation, dedicated to heightening Public Awareness of critical issues. The herb alpert foundation, supporting organizations Whose Mission is to promote compassion and creativity in our society. The bernard and audre rapoport foundation. The john d. And catherine t. Macarthur foundation, committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. More information at macfound. Org. Anne gumowitz. The betsy and jesse fink foundation. The hkh foundation. Barbara g. Fleischman. And by our sole corporate sponsor, mutual of america, designing customized individual and Group Retirement products. Thats why were your retirement company. Welcome. Like just about everyone else, i enjoy a good show, and the inauguration of a president is one of those spectacles of democracy that can make us remember were part of Something Big and enduring. So for a few hours this past monday, the pomp and circumstance inspired us to think government of, by, and for the people really is just that, despite the predatory threats that stalk it. Unfortunately, the mood didnt last. So help me, every now and then, as the cameras panned upward to of that great dome towering above the ceremony, i was reminded of something the good feeling of the moment could not erase. Its the journalists curse to have a good time spoiled by the reality beyond the pageantry. In particular on this crisp january day, i thought about the latest revelation of the skullduggery that often goes on in the shadows below that dome. Just a couple of days before the inaugural festivities, the New York Times published some superb investigative reporting by the team of eric lipton and kevin sack, and their revelations kept running through my mind. The story told us of a pharmaceutical giant, amgen, and three senators so close to it they might be entries on its balance sheet. Republican minority leader mitch mcconnell, Senate Finance Committee Chair max baucus, a democrat and that powerful committees ranking republican, orrin hatch. A trio of perpetrators who treat the United States treasury as if it were a cashandcarry annex of corporate america. The times story described how amgen got a huge hidden gift from unnamed members of congress and their staffers. They slipped an Eleventh Hour loophole into the new years eve deal that kept the government from going over the fiscal cliff. And when the sun rose in the morning, there it was a richly embroidered loophole for amgen that will cost taxpayers thats you and me a cool half a billion dollars. Yes, half a billion dollars. Amgen is the Worlds Largest biotechnology firm, a drug manufacturer that sells a variety of medications. The little clause secretly sneaked into the fiscal cliff bill gives the company two more years of relief from medicare cost controls for certain drugs used by patients on kidney dialysis. The provision didnt mention amgen by name, but according to reporters lipton and sack, the news that it had been tucked into the fiscal cliff deal was so welcome that the companys chief executive quickly relayed it to investment analysts. Tipping them off, it would seem, to a jackpot in the making. Amgen has 74 lobbyists on its team in washington and lobbied hard for that loophole, currying favor with friends at the white house and on capitol hill. The times reporters traced its deep financial and political ties to baucus, mcconnell, and hatch, who held heavy sway over medicare payment policy. All three have received hefty Campaign Donations from the Company Whose bottom line mysteriously just got padded at taxpayer expense. Lo and behold, among those 74 lobbyists are the former chief of staff to senator baucus and the former chief of staff to senator mcconnell. You get the picture. Two guys nurtured at public expense, paid as public servants, disappear through the goldplated revolving door of congress and, presto, return as money changers in the temple of crony capitalism. Inside to welcome them is a current top aide to senator hatch, one who helped weave this lucrative loophole, who used to work for you guessed it amgen. The trail winds deeper into the sordid swamp beneath that great dome, a sinkhole where shame has all but disappeared. As reporters lipton and sack remind us, just two weeks before this backroom betrayal of the public trust by elected officials and the mercenaries they have mentored, amgen pleaded guilty to fraud. Fraud, look it up. Trickery, cheating, duplicity. Amgen agreed to pay 762 million in criminal and civil penalties. The company had been caught illegally marketing another one of its drugs. The fact that their puppet master had been the subject of fines and a massive federal investigation mattered not to its servile pawns in the senate, where pomp and circumstance are but masks for the brute power of money. With me now is congressman peter welch, democrat from vermont. He has just introduced Bipartisan Legislation to repeal that halfbilliondollar giveaway to amgen. We asked one of its cosponsors, republican Richard Hanna of new york, to join us, but a previous commitment made it impossible for him to do so. Congressman welch, welcome. Thank you. What is it youre actually trying to do . Well, theres two things. One, i want to get the taxpayers their money back. This is half a billion dollars, more than that, that is vintage crony capitalism at the Eleventh Hour, in a small room, unknown to 430 members of congress and probably 98 or 97 senators. A small paragraph, innocent looking was inserted in the fiscal cliff bill a mustpass piece of legislation for all americans. And it benefits a single company, turns out to be amgen, maybe a few others, but this is an amgeninspired plan thats going to cost medicare and taxpayers half a billion dollars. Now, i want that money back. But theres a second reason thats even in many ways much more important. Congress is not trusted as an institution. And when there is no trust for that institution, and then we take actions like this, where for the benefit of a company thats very powerful and wellconnected, we charge taxpayers a half a billion dollars extra, that means that that institutional disrespect increases, and its going to make much more difficult the challenge we have to essentially make the tough decisions on all kinds of policies. You made a tough statement in washington in which you said actually congress is less popular than cockroaches and root canals because of actions like these. No, but thats true. I mean, that poll that came out, it actually says it all. People dont trust the institution. And you know what . Theyre right not to trust it when this kind of thing happens. When there is this back room dealing that comes at enormous expense to taxpayers and enormous benefit to a private, wellconnected, forprofit company, weve got to call it out. Those members of congress who are concerned about the institution, about our lack of credibility, about the necessity of us doing things that are in the public good as opposed to private gain, weve got to call it out. You voted for the fiscal cliff deal. When did you know that this language was in it . I never knew it. I didnt know until i read the story in the times and i was outraged. What happened here was a couple of things. One, this was a lame duck session negotiation. And it didnt even involve congress, the truth of the matter is. It involved the president and his staff. It involved the speaker. And it involved the senate leaders. And thats pretty much it. But it didnt go through any Committee Process. So there was no opportunity for members to get a heads up that this was something that was cooking. Because had this been made public that amgen was asking for this sweetheart deal, people would have Osama Bin Laden objected and they would have been so embarrassed. You mean other members of congress . Other members of congress would have been very concerned, republicans, too, by the way. I mean, this type of crony capitalism, they dont a lot of them really do not like. So we didnt have the process work in its normal way, where something that is going to cost taxpayers a half a billion dollars goes through a Committee Process and then people can raise questions, challenge the argument that is made by the special interests, and crack and bring it down. This was done just in the secrecy of a private negotiation. Describe how they get this in without almost no one else knowing its happening. They immediately get it in because when these negotiations are going on, it involves a very few people. And again, since this was a lame duck session and it was the fiscal cliff, no committees were involved. So it really was at that moment, at the very end of the fiscal cliff negotiations, when the finance Committee Leaders had some opportunity to fashion the final details and put a paragraph in or take a paragraph out, they were able to do it. Now why did they do it . They did it because amgen had longstanding ties built carefully and slowly and methodically over time. And obviously, thats a function of their campaign contributions. Its a function of their 74 lobbyists on the hill. Its their Constant Care and feeding of members of congress. And then at a certain point, when the lights are off and the press isnt metaphorically speaking. And congress doesnt know whats going on, members of congress, they can move, and they did. Some member of congress, some senator thats right. Had to say, okay. Thats correct. The only information i have on who that was or how that happened is from the New York Times article. But thats exactly right. Because the Committee Staff is doing a lot of the detailed work. And if a paragraph is going to be put in or taken out, they have to get the okay, usually from the chair or a Ranking Member or the two of them. So those are the people who have the authority to tell a staff, you know, do it. And obviously, staff play a role, because they will advocate to their boss, we ought to put this in for amgen. But members of congress have to act with some restraint. You know, if you have an enormous position of authority, just because you can do it doesnt mean you should do it. And thats important in the long run, you know . In the short run, this is good for amgen, really bad for the process, really bad for taxpayers. But what it does is it breaks down, brick by brick, the trust that we need in each other in an institution in order for it to function. And, you know, every day americans lose that little brick of trust in that institution, the power of the institution to do good things, even when it wants to, is diminished. I was struck that just at the time many members of congress were crying, weve got to cut spending. Weve got to reduce this deficit, some members in the senate were putting this in in a way that will add to spending and add to the deficit. And thats true. And its even worse than that. Because as you mentioned in your opening, two weeks before this, amgen paid an over 700 million criminal and civil penalty for illegally marketing another drug that they manufacture. So the effect of this is largely that taxpayers are picking up 500 million of the 700 million fine. And you know what amgens getting about twothirds of the fine it paid back from the taxpayer. Thats right. And this is what you know that if this were put on the floor for an up or down vote, people would have to put a mask on to vote for it. It would never pass. So, you know, theres some chance we may get this reversed. Because you cant defend what amgen did. You cannot how are you going to get it reversed, congressman . Because too many of your colleagues want the same process to work for them at some point in their own strategy. Well, thats the obstacle. And the obstacle, too, is that to get weve got a simple repeal provision. Its like a one paragraph bill that says, repeal this giveaway, in effect. And the challenge for us will be to get that on the floor. The republicans are the majority. They have the authority to say yes or no as to whether this will get on the floor. So the challenge for us will be to advocate this and essentially correct a mistake. One of the other complaints people have been making about congress a lot is that when we have a big bill like the fiscal cliff, that certain provisions get snuck in. And theyre right about that. And thats where the process has to act with more restraint. If the bill is about the fiscal cliff, urgent issue for this country and its wellbeing, lets not use that as a Freight Train for certain members on behalf of certain special interests to get sweetheart deals part of this. There are a lot of Tea Party Members in the house, elected in 2010, when the republicans surged back. But many of them were elected opposing Government Spending and corporate giveaways like this. Do you think youll get some support from the tea party in the house . I do. I actually do. You know, a lot of the Tea Party Folks are ferociously concerned about spending. And they especially hate the crony capitalism type of spending. In these giveaways to private companies for private gain. I mean, the amgen ceo in 2010 made 21 million. Its a 17 billion company in sales. It has a 64 billion market capitalization. In the news, even though this is, you know, small potatoes for them in some ways, as you mentioned in your opening, the head of amgen gave the good news to the wall street analysts to give a little bit of a boost to the amgen stock price. So i mean, you cant it doesnt get worse than this. And it confirms peoples expectations or their views that this institution is not on the level. And you know what . Those of us in congress from the tea party to progressive members of the congress have a responsibility to do everything we can to build trust in that institution so that when it does make tough decisions on taxes, on spending, on energy policy, that america has some credibility that we got it more right than wrong. Tell me about the lobbyists. Who are these people . Well, the problem with lobbyists, a lot of them come off the hill, a lot of them come out of congress. Many members of Congress Leave the capital and go to k street. And its a real reflection of how money has overtaken politics. And the real problem with that system is not the individual lobbyists. A lot of times theyll have legitimate points to present to members of congress. The problem is the amount of money that lobbyists represent. And what tends to happen in congress is that the concerns of those lobbyists, the concerns of amgen, become much more of the topic of discussion, debate, and resolution than the concerns of middle america, the concerns of the farmers. You know, in congress, we didnt even vote in the house on a farm bill. This is the first time in the history of this country where a house agriculture committee, on which i sat, but in a bipartisan vote, we worked together, passed the farm bill, and the house didnt even take it up for a vote. But amgen was able to have their provision, 500 million, put into the bill with no problem. I brought with me the Justice Department press release that came out in december about amgens crime. Quote, earlier today, at the federal courthouse in brooklyn, new york, u. S. District judge sterling johnson, jr. Accepted a guilty plea by american biotechnology giant amgen inc. For illegally introducing a misbranded drug into interstate commerce. The plea is part of a global settlement with the United States in which amgen agreed to pay 762 million to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from its sale and promotion of certain drugs. The settlement represents the single largest criminal and civil false claims act settlement involving a Biotechnology Company in u. S. History. How does a company that just pleaded guilty to criminal charges in federal court and is slapped with three quarters of a billion dollars in fines even allowed a place in the negotiations in the senate . Yeah, you would think they would be shunned. And you would think that they would have absolutely no opportunity to come in and get the fine paid by the taxpayer. But the way it works is that theyve established relationships with those 74 lobbyists. Theyve established relationships with the very substantial political contributions theyve made to all kinds of people on the hill. And they have established relationships in part because they have facilities in many districts that members of congress represent. And they were able, in effect, to be in the room when most of us in congress, lets say in the house, 435 members were not in the room. We were not in the discussion. We didnt know it was happening. So if youre that wellconnected to the people who will be at that table, at that mome, when the final draft is being put together, and no one has a chance to get a heads up to review it, to ask a question, then you can sneak something in and get away with it. And thats essentially what happened. Yeah, what youre saying is that amgens friends in the senate recouped some twothirds of the fine they just paid for fraud . Thats right. Thats exactly right. Well, a lot of the worst things that happen in eroding trust and really hurting the economy are legal. This is legal. What amgen did now is legal. Should it be . Is it ethical . Is it the right thing for the country . Absolutely not. But they literally accomplished in the back room, with their access to important people, what they could never have accomplished on the floor of the house or on the floor of the senate. Congressman, people out there youre right, people out there are disgusted. But theyre also despairing. Theyve seen this time and again. We report on it. They see it. They get angry. And then nothing happens. Well, thats right. And thats why im so glad that congressman hanna, weve got a bipartisan bill here. Republican. A republican, a very good member from new york. And theres a lot of us who really take seriously that weve got two jobs. One is to try to make good decisions on policy that are going to get america going again, but the other, and each of us with a vote has this job, is to try to restore trust in the institution. And that means that when there is this kind of egregious rip off, weve got to stand up and do everything we can to help expose it and to help reverse it. So i want the money back for the taxpayers. I mean, im a frugal vermonter. So that matters. And lets get it. Dont you fear retaliation . Youre up against a powerful corporation, a whole system that works, as youve just described it, and mighty members of the senate . Well, i dont. Vermonts a great state to represent. And people there are practical and theyre fair. They wont like this. And theyre going to have the final say about whether i pay some price because im standing up to this amgen deal. But secondly, whats the point . I mean, ive got a job to do. This is clearly wrong. And every day if i can get up and try to fight the battle that is nowhere near as tough as what it is for middle class families raising kids, trying to figure out how to pay the tuition, trying to figure out how to pay the heating bill in a cold winter, how to make it by the end of the month. I mean, thats the people that have the tough job. So everything that i can do to just display some fairness and awareness of what theyre doing, lets do it. Congressman peter welch, thanks for coming by. And good luck to you. Thank you. This week marked 40 years since the Supreme Court decision in roe v. Wade overturned many federal and state restrictions on a womans right to an abortion. You have to be of a certain age to remember how, before abortion became legal, a woman could be tormented by an unwanted pregnancy that she was forced to carry to term by the Police Powers of the state. In that dark age leading up to the courts decision, americas most trusted news man Walter Cronkite of cbs tried to make sense of the debate and the danger. The illegal termination of pregnancy has reached epidemic proportions in this country. The laws which govern abortion are broken an estimated 1 million times a year, 3,000 times a day, for various medical, social, and economic reasons the laws do not recognize as valid. The conflict between the law and reality has resulted in a national dilemma. Only recently have our abortion laws been openly questioned, as a dialogue begun among doctors, lawyers, and clergymen. The laws against you, your colleagues are against you, and it makes a very unhappy feeling. You hate to be a doctor under these conditions. This is simply puritanical punishment, thats all were doing. Were not thinking this thing through. Were punishing. An abortion is a shock, its an abnormal procedure. In my opinion, its murder. In my opinion, it is a very cowardly form of murder because its the murder of an innocent little embryo that has not harmed anyone, that cannot defend itself in any way. I believe im about nine weeks pregnant now. I have had dreams for the past two weeks about abortions, of horrible things happening to me. I cant sleep, and i need help from someone, but i just dont know who to go to. This married couple felt that they would be unable to adequately raise another child. The wife was criminally aborted in a motel on the west coast. The operation was performed in the kitchen of the motel using some of the kitchen equipment, using a telephone book, chairs, and so forth. About halfway through he turned to my husband and said, how can you expect me to take dangers like this myself for such a low fee . Dont you have some savings that you could utilize and pay me more money . He said he wanted twice as much. That is, another 200. It wasnt clear that he would go ahead and finish the operation if i didnt pay him the extra money, but i didnt at that money, but i didnt at that time want to argue or even, of course, delay the procedure. Roe v. Wade only intensified the debate. And 40 years later, the forces opposed to abortion, still driven largely by conservative religious beliefs and activists, have never given up. They seem more determined than ever. State by state, they have been winning their fight for new restrictions. According to the guttmacher institute, a prochoice Research Center on Reproductive Health care, more than half of all u. S. Women of reproductive age now live in a state that is hostile to abortion rights, whereas fewer than onethird did a decade ago. Even so, a new wall street journal nbc news poll shows that seven in ten americans think the roe v. Wade decision should stand. And for the first time ever, a majority believes abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Ive asked two champions of a womans freedom to make her own healthcare decisions to come talk about their resolve in the face of fierce opposition from the right. Jessica gonzalezrojas is executive director of the National Latina institute for Reproductive Health. She is an adjunct professor of latino and latin american studies at the City University of new york and has taught courses on reproductive rights, gender, and sexuality. Lynn paltrow is founder and executive director of National Advocates for pregnant women. She has served as a senior staff attorney at the aclus reproductive freedom project and recently published this study in the american journal of Public Health, roe v. Wade and the new jane crow. Jishs welcome to you both. Thank you. Thank you. Before we get to what youre up against 40 years after roe versus wade, i want to ask you a question from your own experience, long experience in both cases of working with women. What does compulsory childbearing mean to a woman . What are the effects of knowing that you are not free to decide for yourselves whether to become a mother or not . Well, we know that when abortion is criminalized before 1973 in the u. S. When abortion providers arent available, many women will do what they have to do to take control of and responsibility for their reproductive lives. And if that means ending a pregnancy in any way they know how. That might be taking a poison, it might be using a knitting needle, it might be leaving the country, it might be asking somebody to beat them up. It might be attempting suicide. For women whats true throughout history is that they will do what they need to do. And if you have a legal system that says the state may prevent you from making key decisions about your health, your life, and your family, then you are really in some other status of personhood. And so for some women, historically, their ability to be full and equal participants in society really depended on whether they could end a pregnancy. And that was the thing that would keep them from finishing college, having access to all of the things that they might have access to, participation in society. For other women, because of race discrimination or economic disability, they might be able to get an abortion and still not be able to have the children they want, to educate the children they had and keep them safe. So it really has to do with, how do we define women in our society . Are they full and equal participants . And the best way, the seemingly sort of neutral way of undermining their personhood, is to focus on the issue of abortion. For us, our slogan is health, dignity, and justice. And when you think about compulsory pregnancies, its taking away health, dignity, and justice from a woman. Many of the women, the latinas that we work with that have experienced abortion are in their 20s, have a child already, and are and why do they want an abortion . Because theyre not in an Economic Situation they they cant afford a second child . They perhaps cant afford a second child, they want to go to school, they might be at a point in their career. The reasons range, quite frankly. Its really important that women that we work with, mostly latina, immigrant, women of color, those at the margins, low income, are able to access their rights in a way without barriers and further bureaucratic obstacles to get the care that they need. And this union between religion and the state that we know has, you know, for a long time, church and state combined to the keep to make contraceptives obscene. How do you explain this religious determinism on the part of so many opponents of abortion . Well, theres sort of two ways of looking at it. I mean, many people dont know that abortion became criminalized in the United States not as a result of really a religious movement, but as part of the effort of white male doctors to professionalize, to gain control over medicine from midwives and herbalists. And also, in response to a very similar moment in history that were in now. It was a point in which there was a great deal of immigration, where native white birth rates were falling, and there was the first beginning of the suffrage and feminist movement, arguing that women shouldnt have to, that women should have a say in whether they have intercourse with their husbands. And the people who were asking the legislature to criminalize abortion were arguing that that had to be done to keep women in their place, to ensure that native white birth rates continued to grow, and to maintain control over women. And its as if were in that moment again, where americans, an america in which it is no longer going to be a white majority, in which it feels like white birth rates are falling, and you see people turn to religion and you see people turn to very old notions about how society should be. For us in the latino community, we know that many of us are catholic or religious. And we find that its so out of step with the realities of womens lives today, and many latinas, in fact, 90 of married catholic latinas use a form of Birth Control thats banned by the vatican, and its just been a battle weve been dealing with for quite a number of years. And its just been stepping up over the years. You both are so much younger that i wonder if you can imagine the feeling of relief among so many women when the Supreme Court struck down the power of men, or anyone, to insist that you bear a child before youre ready. Has anybody ever talked to you about that sense of liberation that came . Well, i had the privilege, earlier on in my career, there was a campaign by naral to collect letters from people, men and women, describing why they had had an abortion or somebody they knew had an abortion. And i had the privilege of reading hundreds of letters. And what was so amazing about them is that they wrote that they had abortions not because, i had a right to choose, or i was exercising my right to bodily you know, my body, my right. They were all talking about the most fundamental aspects of liberty. You know, i needed to finish my education. I had a child with a disability. I wanted to be able to be home and take care of that child and my husband was going to vietnam, my fatherinlaw was sick. They were talking about basic, you kn and responsibility. And the thing about roe thats so interesting is that, or, if i may make the comparison, when brown v. Board of education was decided, i think it was understood as an incredible affirmation of the humanity and civil rights of african americans. Desegregating the public schools. Desegregating the public schools, rejecting separate and unequal. But the truth was, it really didnt desegregate the schools even until today. Roe v. Wade, which was won, the whole idea of womens equality under the constitution was in its infancy. There had been almost no decisions in 1973 recognizing discrimination against women as prohibited by the constitution. Roe v. Wade comes down, and its not understood as an affirmation of womens personhood, that we dont lose our human rights when we become pregnant. But almost overnight the Public Health situation dramatically improved, not only because women had access to legal abortion, but they didnt have to carry to term pregnancies when they werent healthy. And so it was a dramatic change in the practicality. But what were still very much fighting is an understanding and a respect for the fact that women, whatever their decisions are during pregnancy, remain full persons under the law. Time magazine recently looked at roe versus wade and concluded, getting an abortion in america is in some places, harder today than at any point since it became a constitutionallyprotected right 40 years ago. Does that jive with your experience . Absolutely. Weve seen these type of restrictions that are being put in place, and to very clearly and blatantly be an effort to prevent abortions from happening. And whats happening is that Womens Healthcare is suffering. Their decisionmaking is being threatened. Theyre losing dignity and selfdetermination. So this creates many barriers for our women to be healthy and make choices that they want for their families. And your experience is it is harder today than it was 20 years ago, 30 years ago . I think Something Like more than 930 of all counties don have abortion providers. I want to point out that most probably that many counties also dont have birthing centers, where women can go and have an alternative to an overmedicalized birth. So when youre targeting clinics that provide abortion care, those clinics are also providing prenatal care, theyre providing Cervical Cancer screenings, theyre providing breast screenings, and Sexuality Education. So when youre targeting those clinics and those clinics have to shut down, youre also depriving a whole community from basic, basic Health Services that are critical. I wanted to ask you, you talked about Economic Issues involved in these decisions. How much of this is an issue of class . I ask because the late congressman henry hyde from illinois, who sponsored the Hyde Amendment way back in 1976 that prevents medicaid from funding abortion care, he said this, quote, i certainly would like to prevent, if i could legally, anybody having an abortion. A rich woman, a middleclass woman, or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the medicaid bill. Which means that poor women have been affected by the crusade against abortion. How do you see this playing out in your work . I think of rosa jimenez, who was a 27yearold college student. She had a 5yearold daughter. She was getting a nursing degree. She really wanted to, you know, succeed in this country. And she faced an unintended pregnancy. And because she was low income, because she was a recipient of medicaid, she was denied access to an abortion because of henry hk9 holocaust, are the women theyre entrusting to raise their children, to raise our children, the next generation of taxpayers, and with very little support, with little healthcare, with little economic security. And theyre talking about them in a way that ultimately leads down the road to where women are actually being arrested for and miscarriages. Where they are actually starting to arrest women who have abortions. And we saw when people were asked to vote on the reality of these laws, when theyre exposed through socalled personhood measures, that they were votes on this in colorado and mississippi where they come out and they say, what were really trying to do is create complete separation of eggs, embryos, and fetuses from the pregnant women, authorize the state to use that as an excuse to control pregnant women, people say, no way. But in alabama, the state Supreme Court in alabama has interpreted the term child to apply to fertilized eggs and embryos. Which means, doesnt it, that women can be prosecuted for endangering the fetuses . And that is what it does mean. And thats not what that was, and its very interesting that you should raise that, that was judicial activism. And what they did was they judicially enacted a personhood measure. Had they put it to a vote to the citizens, we trust that, like in mississippi, people in alabama wouldve voted it down. This is rank, judicial abuse of power. Weve seen devastating cuts in state budgets on Womens Health issues across the country. Most dramatically in my home state of texas, which is governed, as you probably know, by Tea Party Republicans and the religious right. What are the consequences, the real, live consequences of those cuts . We work with a group of women in the rio grande valley, which borders mexico. And those women are really, truly facing the repercussions of those cuts. Already the clinics were really far away, they had a lot of challenges for transportation to their clinics. Well, i was there a couple months ago when they said they drove 45 minutes to a local clinic to get Birth Control, and they were turned away because the cuts dissipated those programs. And were hearing story after story, and we recently did a human rights report in texas where we heard one woman swim back to mexico, cross the rio grande valley, risk separation from her family because she was not getting basic healthcare. So the repercussions are very real in our community. Ive actually read, and one of the reasons i was eager to have both of you here, ive read that the profreedom movement, prochoice movement is fragmenting somewhat among generational lines. That your generation, jessica, sees reproductive issues from the roe versus wade generation. Is the movement sort of stuck in the past when choice was the optimal virtue and an end in itself . Or do you think thats just a News Analysis . Well, i think, yeah, i think, i know the young people today are so supportive of reproductive rights and justice. And i say reproductive justice because it broadens the yeah, thats a term i havent heard very often. Yeah. Reproductive justice really broadens the movement to incorporate things like socioeconomic status, immigration status, sexual orientation, gender identity. Its really inclusive and much more holistic than looking to protect just the narrow, legal right to abortion. But really looks at the full range of Reproductive Health care and bringing womens full identities into their work. So its really centered in a social justice framework. And that really resonates with young people. So we work with many young people who are tremendous advocates that are writing about this. In texas in particular, were seeing women again, theyre in many different ages, women who are older and have young children, want to protect that right for their children, you know, standing up and saying that whats happening in texas is wrong and we need to fight back. And theyre showing up at their legislators office. These are women who dont speak english, live in the rio grande valley, many of them dont have Running Water in their homes. I mean, theyre very, very marginalized from society in a way. But theyre stepping up, theyre letting their voice be heard, and theyre saying that this is wrong. Theres a big difference, something that might look to one person like fragmentation might be broadening and really engaging a younger generation. And it wont look exactly the same, but it might be much bigger and much more effective. Theres been a sort of sense of the middle of the country is too fundamentalist, too conservative, too red. But were working on the third take root reproductive justice in the red state conference in oklahoma, thats coming up in february. The first year 100 students came, the second year 200. We expect more this year. And they are everywhere, because you can have all sorts of rhetoric, but you cant deny the Actual Experience of women. And that is that they have to deal with their reproductive lives as part of their whole lives and their personhood. And theyre seeing that these attempts for any of these, many antiabortion laws, that theyre understanding that theyre really not just about abortion. If you pass a law that says, a pregnant woman seeking an abortion has to have a transvaginal ultrasound. Well, thats a precedent for saying, as a pregnant woman, you lose your right to consent to what medical tests youre going to be subjected to. Not just in the abortion context, but in every context. And so theres, i think, a rising up and an understanding that this is about their personhood. Its connected to their right to vote and their right to citizenship. So lets move beyond that a moment and let me ask both of you, what do you think over the last 40 years has been the impact of abortion on issues like dating, marriage, Family Structure . You say that its not just about the pregnancy, that its about some larger phenomenon. So how has abortion changed us culturally and behaviorally . Well, i was going to say that, you know, reproductive justice is being able to make the decision if, when, and how you create a family. So abortion is an important piece of that decision or within the spectrum of the decision. So, you know, when i think about my son, what i want for him is to be able to get full, medicallyaccurate, culturallycompetent Sexuality Education as a young person. I want him to be able to access contraception if he needs it. I want him to be able to talk to the medical providers, parents, family, friends, in a way thats nonjudgmental. You know, these are the kind of things i want to create that foundation. And then, you know, again, when creating a family, to be able to access the full range of care when making that decision. So you know, its a life spectrum that youre dealing with and at many different stages. And i always remember, you know, a woman spends about 30 years trying not to get pregnant, and then about five years, for those who want to have a family, trying to get pregnant. And thats a big chunk of someones life. So ensuring that they have access to the care that they need at every stage is so critical. So legal abortion has dramatically improved the lives and health of women and families for the reasons i talked about a little bit earlier. That before roe, women were dying from illegal abortions, they were hurt as a result of them. But i think the question ultimately is that, or the issue, ultimately, is that roe in some ways was this huge step forward in acknowledging the humanity and personhood of women. 84 of all women, by the time theyre 40, have gotten pregnant and given birth. This is 84 of the political base. And their experiences arent just about having an abortion. Theyre about having a baby. And having a good kind of birth and a bad kind of birth. And having a pregnancy loss that was supported or a pregnancy loss that wasnt. About struggling to get pregnant, about struggling not to get pregnant. This is what it means to have, you know, ovaries and a uterus. And we can at least say those things, even vagina on television now. And that makes it more possible to imagine a country where men and women and families are all treated with respect and have access to all the health care they need, not divided up by Reproductive Health or anything else, but because youre a person. I think if we, if the way the country thought of women would change, i think wed see a radically different country. And we wouldnt see things like legitimate rape or women in binders. I mean, these kinds of comments really speak to how people think about women. And its so problematic. And i think this election told us a story that were not going to put up with that, right . Were going to reject this type of language. Were going to reject these types of policies. Particularly in florida, was looking to pass an amendment that would further restrict abortion access. And floridas a state that has a lot of communities of color, large latino population. And that measure was defeated, which we wanted it to be, by 54 , which was huge. So i think, you know, as we see these policies come down, i think women are seeing whats underneath them, right . And how theyre treated, their dignity, and starting to rise up and reject them. How do you explain the sexual ignorance revealed by so many candidates in that campaign . Do you find some men dont get it . One thing many people dont know about roe v. Wade is that it wasnt just jane roe, norma mccorvey. But there was a married couple that wanted to challenge the texas law that criminalized abortion, and they appeared as john and mary dough. And they said, look, mary doe has a Health Condition that if she becomes pregnant and it continues forward, she might die. And this is very bad for her. Theres no 100 safe contraceptive. So if we dont have the possibility of legal abortion, it not only risks her health, but it interferes in, i think they called it, their marital happiness. And interestingly enough, the Supreme Court threw them out of the case. They said, you dont have standing. Your interest in marital happiness is too distant from what were talking about here. And which, i think means that in 1973, the Supreme Court hadnt accepted heterosexuality. But what they really did, too, which i think is a shame, is they really had i wonder if they had kept that couple in, whether mens role in pregnancy and the outcomes of the intercourse wouldve played a much healthier and more honest role. Every pregnancy has had a man involved. We live in a country where women are blamed for everything, for having abortions, for having too many children. But theres a man involved in every one of those situations. And very often we then move to, well, then he should have a right to control her or decide for her. But no, just they have to be in the conversation. And im very sad that the Supreme Court in roe v. Wade pushed them aside. Your report on jane crow sounds fascinating. Where can my viewers find out more about it . Www. Advocatesforpregnantwomen. Org. And where can people go to find out about your work . Latinainstitute. Org. And we have a campaign called soy poderosa, which means i am powerful in spanish. And this is where were telling the stories of activists throughout the country, women and men and families, about how they support womens decision making. Lynn paltrow and jessica gonzalezrojas, thank you very much for being with me. Thank you. Thank you for having us. Thats it for this week. At our website billmoyers. Com you can review Reproductive Health laws state by state, and you can continue the conversation and debate at our facebook and twitter pages. Ill see you there and ill see you here, next time. Captions by vitac www. Vitac. Com dont wait a week to get more moyers. Visit billmoyers. Com for exclusive blogs, essays and video features. This episode of Moyers Company is available on dvd for 19. 95. To order call 18003361917 or write to the address on your screen. Fund something provided by Carnegie Corporation of new york, celebrating 100 years of philanthropy, and committed to doing real and permanent good in the world. The kohlberg foundation. Independent production fund, with support from the partridge foundation, a john and polly guth charitable fund. The clements foundation. Park foundation, dedicated to heightening Public Awareness of critical issues. The herb alpert foundation, supporting organizations Whose Mission is to promote compassion and creativity in our society. The bernard and audre rapoport foundation. The john d. And catherine t. Macarthur foundation, committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. More information at macfound. Org. Anne gumowitz. The betsy and jesse fink foundation. The hkh foundation. Barbara g. Fleischman. And by our sole corporate sponsor, mutual of america, designing customized individual and Group Retirement products. Thats why were your retirement company