The NPR Politics Podcast - Roundup: Abortion Could Soon Be Back Before Supreme Court

Episode Date: October 6, 2023

And U.S. officials are likely to show up empty-handed to a international meeting coordinating aid to Ukraine as House Republicans block additional funds. Some lawmakers say they want to understand an end game for the conflict before authorizing spending, as analysts say the conflict has evolved into a grinding war of attrition.We want to hear from you about the show: npr.org/politicssurveyThis episode: White House correspondent Asma Khalid, Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman, senior political editor and correspondent Ron Elving, and chief legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg.The podcast is produced by Casey Morell and Elena Moore. Our editor is Eric McDaniel. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Unlock access to this and other bonus content by supporting The NPR Politics Podcast+. Sign up via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Connect:Email the show at [e-mail] the NPR Politics Podcast Facebook Group.Subscribe to the NPR Politics Newsletter.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hi, this is Julia in Philly. Right now, I'm paying my electric bill, wishing I had turned the lights off more often in my apartment, saving me money and reducing my impact on the environment. This podcast was recorded at 11.39 a.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 6th of 2023. Things may have changed by the time you hear this, but I'll still be annoying my roommates by constantly turning off the lights and leaving them in the dark. Okay, here's the show. You know, I'm a big turn off the lights person, too. It actually really annoys me when my boys leave the lights on all the time. Well, hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Asma Khalid. I cover the White House. I'm Ron Elving, editor-correspondent. And I'm Nina Totenberg. I cover the Supreme Court. And today on the show, what to watch for in the Supreme Court's new term.

And Nina, since you are with us and since you are obviously our Supreme Court expert, I want to begin by asking you just a very basic question. What is the biggest case? Maybe you can't put a singular case number, but what is the single biggest case, if you had to choose one, that you are keeping your eyes on this term? Well, officially, the court hasn't said it's going to hear this case, but it will. And it's the case testing the accessibility of abortion pills in the United States, and even more broadly, how much courts can or should second guess the FDA, which for about, you know, as long as it's been in existence,

has earned quite a reputation for being the policeman of how pharmaceuticals are marketed, whether they can be approved, who gets them, etc. And what's at stake in that case? Is it the widespread accessibility and availability of abortion drugs such as mifepristone that many women use? Also, some of these medications for miscarriages as well. Is it the widespread use of it? What are they actually looking at? The availability at all, essentially, because the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision that limits the availability significantly. The Supreme Court granted a stay of that decision at the request of the Biden administration. So now it's going to see whether it should leave in place the FDA rules

that have made the abortion pill pretty broadly accessible for people certainly in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy and for other medical reasons. The Fifth Circuit made that very difficult, not just in the states where abortion is illegal, but where it is legal. So in addition to that abortion medication case that you say you are most likely watching, even though the Supreme Court has not officially taken it up, anything else that you are really laser focused on this term? Well, in November, there's a very big gun case. Since the court issued a broad ruling in 2022, which said basically that any gun regulation is illegal, unconstitutional, unless you could show an historical analog to a similar law

at the founding of the republic or potentially maybe after the Civil War when the 14th Amendment was enacted. Well, since then, the lower courts have been just swamped with gun cases and trying to figure out which state laws will withstand constitutional scrutiny and which ones won't. And this case involves a federal law that bans possession of guns for anyone who is the subject of a restraining order for violence against usually his spouse. So that is the question before the court. And obviously, there are not analogous laws, because at the founding, women didn't really much have any rights. And there weren't these kinds of restraining orders. So this is the beginning of trying to see what the court meant in 2022. How far is it willing to go? Well, Nina, is the Supreme Court taking seriously all of the talk that there's been in the larger body politic about their own ethics rules or lack of ethics rules and some of the things that have been discussed about perhaps restraining their activities or at least making

them disclose them? It's really interesting because I think Justice Kagan and Justice Kavanaugh have both said they think the court should write an ethics code for itself. The chief justice has indicated his support for that, and everybody says, we hope that we'll have something soon. But the soon has been going on for a very long time now, indicating that I don't think there's a critical mass of justices who are willing to support an ethics code, even for themselves. And you can speculate about why. Some of them may have ideological reasons. You know, they can't tell us what to do. We're the third branch of government. Or there may be more nefarious reasons. We don't want people to know what we're doing. But I think it's pretty clear that they would have come up with a code by now if they could come up with one that would withstand public

scrutiny. So you don't anticipate any action on the ethics front this term then? I would never say never. But right now, I think they have to have a critical mass. I don't know whether that means six justices or seven justices, but five isn't enough. It only means a little more than half the court is willing to sign on to this. So I don't know. And you can imagine if you're one of the two, let's say, or the three or the four that doesn't want to have an ethics code, you don't want to be isolated. So it's just, I'm sure that, I think I'm sure that five people want to write something. I just am not sure that they have the support of the other four. All right. Well, Nina, thanks so much for stopping

by. Before we let you go, though, I do want to plug this new bonus episode that you just recorded with our colleague Miles Parks. In that bonus episode, you share how you get ready for the start of a new term, what goes on behind the scenes. Folks, if you want to hear that, it will be out in the feed tomorrow for NPR Politics Plus supporters. You can sign up at plus.npr.org slash politics. And as a reminder, our daily episodes are and will always remain free. It's just a little bonus. Nina, thank you again so much for coming by.

I appreciate it. Thanks, Asma. All right. Well, it's time for a quick break and we'll be back in a moment. And we're back and we're joined now by Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman. Tom, it is great to have you with us. Good to be with you. And you are here because we need to discuss what is going on with U.S. support for Ukraine funding.

And I should say, frankly, perhaps the lack of potential support for Ukraine at this moment from the United States. President Biden had asked Congress for an additional $24 billion for military, economic and humanitarian assistance. That money has been held up in Congress in major part because of a group of House Republicans who are refusing to support any additional aid money for Ukraine. And frankly, you know, I was talking to our colleague Sue Davis, longtime reporter covering Congress, who said it doesn't really look like this Biden White House has an easy out given the chaos that we're seeing in Congress right now to get that additional funding. The White House keeps insisting that this money is absolutely necessary to ensure that there is no lapse in support for Ukraine. But you heard President Biden himself acknowledge this week that he's worried. It does worry me. But I know there are a majority of members of the House and Senate in both parties who have said that they support funding Ukraine. So, Tom, contextualize this for us.

How critical is this money? It's very critical right now. Mike McCord, who's a Pentagon comptroller, wrote a letter to lawmakers just last week, quote, today, DOD has exhausted nearly all available security assistance funding for Ukraine. He went on to say, we have only 1.6 billion remaining of the 26 billion Congress has provided already. And he said, get this, without additional funding now, we would have to delay or curtail assistance to meet Ukraine's urgent requirement, like air defense, ammunition, and so forth. And he went on to say, listen, the Russians are going to plan a winter offensive. So that's also very key here. But you're right. This is military aid, but it's also humanitarian assistance

and other economic assistance, hundreds of millions of dollars for food aid, humanitarian assistance, because within Ukraine, there are 5 million displaced people, 6 million refugees in other countries in the region, principally Poland. So it really is critical to get the aid. Now, you're right, Congress, it doesn't seem like it's going to happen in Congress. As we know, they took the Ukraine funding out of the funding for the government. So now they're looking at other options. We're told that, well, Biden himself said there is another means to get that funding. We don't know what it's going to be, but I'm told right now that the government officials are

looking across all agencies to try to find a pot of money or pots of money to make this happen. So it really is critical right now. And part of what I think we're seeing from this White House is a sense of trying to bolster public opinion and put pressure on Congress. President Biden said that he'll be delivering remarks soon about Ukraine and the need to support Ukraine and why that is so important. But to what you were just saying, Tom, the White House has not articulated a clear backup plan if Congress does not come through with the money. And frankly, I would say it

increasingly seems like they need a backup plan given the disarray of Congress. No, again, this is why he says another means. I think we'll hear more about that when he makes a speech on Ukraine. Here's the other thing. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General C.Q. Brown, they're going to a contact group meeting. Those are all the countries that support Ukraine just next week. They're the lead on all this effort. So it's going to be hard for them to show up empty-handed asking other countries, hey, we need a few billion more or we need 10 billion more. So I think not only that, Ukraine needs this money right now for their fight. But also politically, those guys can't show up in Europe next week empty handed. They need that money. So that's why it's urgent for the

president and all these agencies to try to come up with a pot or pots of money. Yeah. I mean, it does really hurt also, I think, the credibility of what you've seen with President Biden trying to make the case that the United States is back on the world stage, that he has helped coordinate this international coalition if fundamentally the United States is not able to present the money needed for this continued public right? No, absolutely. Again, they're the lead country on this. Europe as a whole is probably giving more money, but the United States is driving this train, particularly Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who I'm told gets high marks in the White House for corralling all these countries and keeping that aid going. But it really is at a critical phase that counteroffensive is

ongoing. They're making slow progress. You probably have another month or so of the fighting season before the winter rains come. So again, for a lot of reasons, you need that money right now. And one other thing, you know, Republicans keep saying, oh, we're shoveling all this money to Ukraine. What defense officials say is, well, hang on a second. Hundreds of millions of dollars in this package is going to defense contractors to create more shells and missiles. And those are American jobs and they're expanding their plants as well. So the defense officials and others are basically saying, come on, this is helping Americans as well, not just Ukrainians. Well, it's not going to come from Congress anytime soon because there is no House of Representatives. I mean, right now you cannot pass a big appropriations bill through the Senate and House because there is no House.

They have to have a speaker before they can do business. I mean, Ron, doesn't this speak to the real consequences of congressional dysfunction? Because what you're saying is, sure, they don't have a House speaker, but there are tangible pieces of legislation that need to be passed, not just this Ukraine funding, but frankly, additional government funding. That was a stopgap measure that Congress passed just last week. That government funding needs to be passed. It's only going to last till mid-November. That's right. It's a 40-day period. That's all that's left of the 45 days. And after that, we're right back where we were last weekend on the brink of a government shutdown. You have to have the funding flow. Now, the Congress can turn on the speaker temporarily again. That's what we probably would expect them to do. But they can't even do that until they have a speaker. And they can't begin to negotiate with the Senate until they have a speaker. And so this is a desperate kind of, you know, open heart surgery kind of situation in the House right now. And a lot of it is redounding to this particular issue of foreign policy. And that I think is not a coincidence because they took out the vote on

Ukraine in order to get this package through so as not to offend a certain number of Republican members. And those Republican members are the ones who have been digging in their heels and saying enough already for Ukraine. It's not the 51st state. I don't want to be spending my taxpayers money on some, you know, forever war far away from my constituents homes. Well, all right, we understand that. It's been a part of our politics for a very long time. And before World War II, it was called America First. That's what the movement was called.

And it was isolationist, and it said we don't need Europe. We don't need to worry about their conflict. We don't need to worry about what might be going on over there. And the next thing you know, we're attacked at Pearl Harbor. We're into World War II on both continents, both halves of the globe. And when we emerged from that, we had learned a lesson and we had internationalism. It's striking what you're describing, Ron, because there certainly has been politically, I would say in the last decade or so, quite a push within certain segments of the political climate, I would say, for a return of isolationism. And you see it

a bit even on the far left as well, that there's a desire not to be engaged in conflicts in other countries. And when I look at public opinion support for Ukraine funding, you'll notice that it has been eroding since the conflict began. I mean, polls showed different results, but the consensus is that the broad support has been eroding over time. on in Ukraine. And of course, their party leader, Donald Trump, has never really been on board for the United States support of Ukraine, certainly not when, you know, it's interpreted by the Biden administration. So you have that influence, and that influence is very strong in the party right now. After all, he loves the phrase America first. Before we let you go, Tom, I wanted to ask you about something that I have routinely heard from some members of the Republican Party in the House, and that is that they need to hear this White House articulate a clear goal on Ukraine. What

is the end goal? And their criticism is that they haven't heard that from the White House. I am curious what you make of that criticism. Do you think a goal has been articulated? And do you think a goal needs to be articulated? It's hard to come up with a goal because this could be, I wouldn't say forever war, but I was talking with a senior general just this week. He said, we're in a war of attrition right now. The outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley said,

neither side can win. The Ukrainians can't push all the Russians out and the Russians can't take the whole country. So here we are kind of stuck in a way, heading into the second year of this conflict with no end in sight. I think what some people would like to see is negotiation. President Zelensky has no interest in negotiating.

Putin has no interest in negotiating. So we are kind of stuck at this point. So I'm not sure what they can say to convince Republicans and American people that there's a way out. Right now, there is no way out of this. All right. Well, Tom Bowman, thank you very much. You're welcome.

And it is time for a quick break. When we get back, it's time for Can't Let It Go. And we're back. And it's time to end the show like we do every week with Can't Let It Go. That's the part of the show where we talk about the things that we just cannot stop thinking about, politics or otherwise. We've got a crowded room in here in the studio. It seems like everyone wants to be a part of Can't Let It Go this week.

Let's kick it off with you, Tom. Well, just a week ago, I was at General Mark Milley's retirement ceremony. He stepped down after four years as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And some of our listeners may remember he had a couple of controversial things to say. He said, we don't support, we swear an oath to the Constitution, we don't support a wannabe dictator. And he also said, we defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And everyone thought, of course, that was a clear reference to the former president, Trump. And I saw him after the ceremony and he walks up to me and says, you think that was subtle?

I said, no. I love that he's asking you for your feedback, Tom. All right. So since we're so popular today in the Can't Let It Go segment, Miles Parks, you've hopped into the studio to join us, too. I have indeed. Yeah, I just could not let go of. Did you see this photo that popped up via a FOIA request, a Freedom of Information request from the Washington Post that uncovered this old photo of former President Barack Obama looking at a photo of himself. It's

like a meme. This is sometime in the time after Osama bin Laden has been killed. And so he's looking at this meme of himself laughing. And the meme says, sorry, it took so long to get you a copy of my birth certificate. I was too busy killing Osama bin Laden. And he's laughing about this meme. And I just as somebody who is like focused so much of my reporting as voting reporters, also focus on the Internet. This like broke my brain from like a meta misinformation. Like memes have just invaded all aspects of our culture. And I feel like seeing a president laughing at a meme

of himself that is simultaneously, like you look at it and you're like, oh, presidents are just like us. They scroll Instagram, they laugh at memes, you know? And then also it's like the bleakest possible thing that you've ever seen is like a president of the United States laughing about killing somebody. Even if that person is, I think we can all agree, a horrible person. But I think, I just think it had so many layers to it that it kind of broke my brain. Have you guys seen it? Yes. You've seen it?

I've not seen it. I want to see it now, though. We should show you. That's the reason they had to get it under the Freedom of Information Act. Yes, exactly. Exactly. All right, Ron, what about you? You're next up.

A lot of people have seen Antony Blinken, Secretary of State, talking and they have heard him and they have seen his very serious face and so forth. I wonder how many of them have asked themselves, okay, he does okay talking about international affairs, but I wonder how he would do with Muddy Waters' Hoochie Coochie Man. And that, of course, is perhaps the most basic tune of Chicago blues that there is. And, well, he's a left-handed player, but he's pretty good. And here's a little bit of it. He's good. You can't see, my eyes are over here lip syncing.

I hired that man for a party. It sounds a little bit more like Elvis at times, but okay. And he doesn't have, you know, little Walter Jacobs playing the harp behind him, but it's a pretty good little performer. He's got a second career. It is so upsetting to me whenever a high-functioning person can also sing. I have no idea what it is about this that just bothers me, but it's like you really, I feel like he probably has a great college degree from a great school,

and he can also just croon like that. I'm with you, Miles. I think it's because I was very not musically talented as a child. I still am not very musically talented and can't hold a tune, and I'm always envious of people who have the ability to sing. I can sing really well. Oh, Dina, I didn't know that. I can sing good and I'm always envious of people who have the ability to sing. I can sing really well. Nina, I didn't know that. Nina can sing very well.

I'm busted out for it. Nina's going to do that at, like, the next holiday party. Pull out her... Nina, that's not fair. You're a semi-pro. Okay, I'm going to go next. Mine, I will confess, has nothing to do with politics, but I have been waiting for days to unpack this story.

I don't know if you are familiar with Hasan Minhaj's comedy. He's this comedian, was on The Daily Show. Long story short, some reporting came out about a bunch of his bits, and it turns out that they're fabricated. He shared this story about an FBI informant infiltrating his family's mosque. He says that they are, quote, emotional truths. And so it doesn't really matter if they're fact, per se, which I have struggled with a lot. And I just want to give a shout out to one of our sister podcasts, cousin podcasts, whatever you call it. It's been a minute. Because Brittany Luce, the host on that show, had this amazing episode that aired the other day, and I just recommend you all check it out, that unpacked this in a way that I thought, got it, what has been bugging me?

And it's about the limits of representation. That when you see somebody who is of your, you know, background, Hasan is a Muslim, brown comedian, as am I, Muslim and brown. And he sort of rose to these really, really, you know, prestigious places. But he did it in a really kind of icky, I don't know how I feel about this way. And then people raise these questions like, do you expect comedians to tell the truth? I can't stop thinking about it either, just because like now I'm rethinking about

every time I've enjoyed comedy and trying to think about, do I expect the thing that I'm being told and laughing out to be true? And I guess at the core, I kind of do. It becomes less, at least vaguely. I guess I want it to be vaguely true. So Nina, yeah, what about you?

So I can let it go, or at least the Supreme Court can. They heard arguments in a case this week and they knew that the case had settled, but they still wanted to hear it because they thought maybe they could decide this issue that's going to return. Instead, Justice Alito said this case is deader than a doornail. And Justice Elena Kagan said this case is dead, dead, dead, dead. What is this case? What is this? Is it a case that tests whether you can, testers can sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act when they go online and they see that a hotel has not disclosed anything about whether their facilities are accessible? You don't really want to know all of that. No, all we want to know is dead, dead, dead, dead.

All right. That is a wrap for today's show. Our executive producer is Muthoni Mutturi. Our editor is Eric McDaniel. Our producers are Elena Moore and Casey Murrell. Thanks to Krishna Dev Kalimer and Lexi Shapiro. I'm Asma Khalid. I cover the White House.

I'm Miles Parks. I cover voting. I'm Nina Totenberg. I cover the Supreme Court. I'm Tom Bowman. I cover the Pentagon. And I'm Ron Elving, editor-correspondent. So musical.

And thank you all for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast. I feel like I should have done, I'm Miles Parkside, I do can't let it go.