2020 presidential Democrats push for slavery reparations

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," February 26, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Now the only better thing would have been if you were vaping with the helmet and that would have been good. All right, Hannity. You be safe there. I will see you tomorrow.

I'm Laura Ingraham. This is “The Ingraham Angle” from Washington tonight, what a show we have for you. President Trump is going to be making his first public appearance in Vietnam later in the hour.

Participating in the arrival greeting at the presidential palace, we're going to have live reports for you throughout the show. And ahead of that, we want to hit on some key cultural issues and then sometimes members of the media don't want to touch these, but we will. And these are poised to become flash points in the 2020 election.

The Left's radical turn when it comes to life itself, plus the push to racialize every segment of our cultural, entertainment, political lives. Tonight we're going to be joined by one of the most influential voices in American politics and the culture, Shelby Steele of the Hoover Institution in a rare interview. What does he think of the 2020 Democrat calls for reparations, and his response to the repeated charges that Donald Trump is just a racist. Well, don't miss this.

But first, the Left's dark evangelism, that's the focus of tonight's “Angle.” With every passing day, the Democratic Party reveals what its true intentions are. Well, they claim to be the party of science and facts. Their advocacy and voting patterns show they're anything but.

Yesterday the Senate voted on a bill that would require a doctor to use all of his skills to preserve the life of a child born alive after an attempted abortion. The bill came in a reaction to grisly macabre efforts in New York, Virginia and elsewhere to essentially legalize infanticide.

Governor Ralph Northam of Virginia, specifically, verbally supported efforts to legalize it, so Trump called him out during the State of the Union.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: We had the case of the Governor of Virginia where he stated he would execute a baby after birth. To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children--


INGRAHAM: Well, there was essentially little to no response from the Democrats in the room. Stone-faced Nancy just sat there. Well, the Senate attempted yesterday to do something about this Democrat embrace of infanticide and hold doctors accountable.


SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, R-KY: So my colleagues across the aisle need to decide where they'll take their cues on these moral questions. On the one hand, there are a few extreme voices who decided some newborn lives are more disposable than others. On the other side is the entire rest of the country.

SEN. BENJAMIN SASSE, R-NEB.: I want to ask each and every one of my colleagues whether or not we're okay with infanticide. This language is blunt. I recognize that and it's too blunt for many people in this body. But, frankly, that is what we're talking about here today.


INGRAHAM: Now in the end, all but three Democrats voted against permitting the bill to proceed, shameless. Every one of the announced 2020 Democratic presidential candidates voted no. Senators Gillibrand, Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, Warren and Bernie Sanders voted to support the wanton extermination of children already born.

Along with Planned Parenthood, they claim that the Bill would limit reproductive rights. And in the words of Senator Patty Murray--


SEN. PATTY MURRAY, D-WASH.: "It's a vote on yet another attack from our Republican colleagues on women's health and their right to access safe legal abortion, this time in the form of an anti-doctor, anti-woman, anti-family piece of legislation--


INGRAHAM: Nice try, Patty, anti-doctor, anti-women, anti-family. A family usually requires a child and infanticide usually requires the taking of a child's life, doesn't it. And what Murray didn't mention is that she and her party's opposition to this common-sense bill is itself anti-science.

We have a viable child that has been born. In what way is it anti-woman or anti-family to protect the life of that child? It's craziness.

Now the President correctly summarized the vote in a pair of tweets yesterday. "The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don't mind executing babies after birth. This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress".

But my friends once a party embraces this nihilism, this this dark religion by treating abortion itself like a sacrament, all reason goes out the window. What happened to safe legal and rare. Their unwavering defense of abortion-on-demand, even if it leads to infanticide, or - well, let's say the embrace of other issues like gender fluidity. Even if that leads to rank unfairness, we're going to get that - get to that issue later on the show.

It akin to a secular Sharia law among the Left. You deviate from what the social justice warriors stipulate today and they'll decapitate you in the workplace and in school if they have their way. These people are fanatics, they're zealots, hell-bent on a complete up ending of the social order and upending of just about everything that embodies or even comes close to embodying tradition.

Leftist icon, feminist Gloria Steinem was on "The Today Show" promoting a book of old essays. One in particular written in the 1980s, suggested that the Republican Party and Hitler's views had a lot in common.


GLORIA STEINEM, FEMININE ICON: On a more serious note, to put it mildly, is why Hitler was actually elected, and he was elected and he campaigned against abortion. I mean, that was - he padlocked the family planning clinics. Okay, so that is still relevant in the terms of the right wing


INGRAHAM: Well, I'm afraid Gloria is getting a bit dotty in her old age. But she essentially is arguing that in order to save humanity you have to kill off more humans. And notice how Steinem practices the art of self- protection, Hitler just like Planned Parenthood practiced and defended mass extermination, all in the name of racial purity, which is exactly what the founder of Planned Parenthood believed.

Margaret Sanger believed deeply in eugenics. Check out this article from 1926 about Sanger's advocacy for birth control clinics. She said, "We want a world freer, happier, cleaner. We want a race of thoroughbreds". It shouldn't surprise you that Sanger established her first full-service clinic in Harlem in 1930.

Well, why Harlem? Well as The Washington Times, explains that's where a lot of the black people, she often referred to as human weeds, lived. Sanger described it as an experimental clinic established for the benefit of Colored People. Well, for her, the word benefit really just meant elimination.

And in her infamous letter to Clarence Gamble of Procter & Gamble, it was about the need to use the cover of ministers to set up these clinics. She wrote to him, "The most successful educational approach to the population it's through a religious appeal.

We don't want the word to get out that we might - want we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it should occur to they're more rebellious members". Can't believe that was written.

The left then and the left today has this insatiable appetite for this death culture, which by the way, reminds me of another baby story.


ROSEMARY WOODHOUSE: What have you done to it? What have you don't to its eyes?

ROMAN CASTEVET: He has his father's eyes.

ROSEMARY WOODHOUSE: What have you done to him? You are maniacs.

ROMAN CASTEVET: Satan is his father, not Guy.


INGRAHAM: The Left's dogmatic adherence to their dark gospel, means they'll never disavow this undeniable racist or purge her from their history. New York even named a street after Sanger, yes, it's called Margaret Sanger Way.

And it's not just the old warhorses of the Left preaching this deadly creed, the young upstarts have joined the congregation, even when cooking alone in an empty apartment.


REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: There's scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult and it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, should - is it OK to still have children?


INGRAHAM: Wait a second, the lives of children are going to be very difficult? Sure are, they're not born. What? Scientific consensus, it's called the eventual human extinction, professor.

And for people who claim to be concerned about being on the right side of history they seem to be running in the opposite direction. NBC reported on Millennials who just say no to babies. They did it last month.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think I just had a lot of other aspirations in mind. I wasn't - I mean, babies are a lot of work, and I wasn't really willing to take on half that work--


INGRAHAM: Well, and no repercussions for that type of thinking, right?


JOHN TORRES, NBC NEWS MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Some say it puts our country in jeopardy of not having a strong enough workforce in the years to come. Another possible impact, though, we risk having fewer people to help care for the nation's growing elderly population.


INGRAHAM: But who cares about them. I'm not sure Margaret Sanger would care much about them. They're disposable as well. Those old people have robots to feed them by then, right? Oh, come on, please.

But there is some sunshine and the forecast my friends. A new Marist Poll finds that after a 17 point gap last month, Americans are now just as likely to identify as Pro-Life, as Pro-Choice and Democrats are where the movement is happening.

Last month 20 percent of Democrats claimed to be Pro-Life. This month that number is up to 34 percent, massive increase. And Americans are overwhelmingly believing that third trimester abortions should be outlawed - 71 to 25 percent. The poor people in the 25 percent, but we'll pray for them.

Now the Left blinded by their dogmatic attachment to abortion, can't see that Americans don't want what they're selling. If AOC really wanted to be edgy, she'd couple her love of creation and all things green with a love of life and defending the most defenseless. And that's THE ANGLE.

Here in our Dinesh D'Souza, Conservative Author and Filmmaker, and Kelly Hyman a social justice attorney. Dinesh, let's start with you. There's something strange here going on with today's Democrats. Because one of their radical members proposes something, which most people think, it's absolutely insane.

And yet then they all rush in to get behind it and just state it as their actually - their actual opinions. So what's going on here?

DINESH D'SOUZA, CONSERVATIVE AUTHOR & FILMMAKER: Well, this may seem like a radical turn in the Democratic Party, but it's actually anchored in the deep history of progressivism and the early 20th century Democrats.

Of course, in the early 20th Century, it wasn't abortion. But the two issues that progressives were very fascinated by, one, was forced sterilization and the other was forced euthanasia, basically killing. And Margaret Sanger, for example, was a champion of the sterilization side - forced sterilization, and she was an admirer of the Nazi sterilization program of 1933.

Now the Nazi euthanasia program of 1935 was also directly lifted from blueprints supplied by American progressive. So this is the actual deep dark history of the Democratic Party. It's been kind of papered over by progressive historiography, but it's all coming back in a nightmarish fashion.

INGRAHAM: Well, again, we're looking at the results of this most recent poll. It's without doubt then influenced by this infanticide debate, I think. And as a social justice attorney how do you view this change even among Democrats on that issue of abortion?

KELLY HYMAN, SOCIAL JUSTICE ATTORNEY: Well, first off, Laura, thank you so much for having me on your show. It's great to be here. And I think we really need to focus on what the issue is, and we must look at it from the standpoint of unwanted pregnancies and how we prevent that, the best way to avoid that and what we need to do to help people and advise them of the problems that they have.

And so I think it's really important to think about education and also--

INGRAHAM: I get that, Kelly. But keep us focused on - we want to keep focused very specifically on what we're talking about here. We're not talking about counseling people on birth control. We're talking about infants who are actually born. And the U.S. Congress can't get itself together to protect an infant that is born alive.

Now people think it's unfair, because Mitch McConnell brought that to fore. Well, this is a person and the person is living. And now the Democrat Party has gotten so - it's just - they're just in totally smothered by this abortion deal, that they can't even see the lack of basic humanity in that moment.

Now how did we get there and how do we get past this? Because this is - forget whether it's bad for the Democrats. I frankly, don't care whether it's bad for the Democrats. These are people, including girls - little girls, who have very few people to speak for them, that's my concern here. It's not the - teen pregnancies are going down.

This is a problem when a country embraces infanticide, Kelly, and I can't imagine that you do. I just have a feeling you don't even buy this. Do you? You buy into this?

HYMAN: Well, I understand in regards to the legislation that was proposed that they're already books on the law that handle this situation, and my understanding is that there hasn't been a situation that occurred like this.

And I go back to the point--

INGRAHAM: There have been actually - yes, there have been situations like this where people have been born alive after botched abortions and we're going to talk to Abby Johnson, as a former Planned Parenthood Clinic Director, who's going to talk about that in just a moment.

But, again, we're talking about right now - we're not talking about first trimester abortions, whatever you think about that or even second trimester, which most people are against. We're talking about a child born alive and I get why you know Planned Parenthood who wants to keep the money coming in.

But, Dinesh, this is this is not what it was supposed to be. But Hilary nodded her head during that debate when Donald Trump said you want to rip the baby up after the baby is viable. And she didn't said - she basically said no, no, no, no, no. Well, yes, yes, yes, apparently.

D'SOUZA: Going back the 1960s--

HYMAN: I think, I go back--

D'SOUZA: --I think, there was a - it was a feminist Shulamith Firestone, who said "The fetus is an uninvited guest". I think this is the heart of the debate, because as long as the fetus has considered an extension of the woman's body, the argument is, the woman should have every right to dispose of it as she sees fit.

But the important thing is that even in Roe V. Wade and the early abortion decisions the Supreme Court acknowledged that this issue of viability, the argument shifts the moment that the fetus can live outside a womb.

Of course, the fetus is still dependent on the mother, but a two-year-old is also dependent on the mother. So viability was a critical reasoning pivot of the early abortion decisions and it seems like that's gone out the window.

And the basic idea now is that even if the fetus is viable outside the womb, if we feel like killing it, we should be able to do that.

INGRAHAM: Kelly, final words.

HYMAN: I think that we need to come with our resolution and I think it's important the way to think about is - when we think about a resolution is what's the way to deal with this. And the best way to deal with this is to deal with it about the unwanted pregnancies and how to resolve that and what we need to do to fix that.

INGRAHAM: Well, I understand what you're saying. But there are a lot of people who are desperate to adopt children - and I'm speaking as adoptive mother. There are just so many people out there who would just love to take these babies and raise the children.

And I understand that lot of people are - this is a tough issue for a lot of people, but just on the infanticide question, we have to be better than this. But I'm really glad both of you came on. Dinesh and Kelly thanks so much.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There's still part of me that isn't sure.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know but the one thing that all experts agree on, is that at this stage, the fetus can't feel anything.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sorry to bother you, but they need an extra person in the backroom. Are you free?


INGRAHAM: Well, that was a scene from "Unplanned", a soon-to-be released film about former Planned Parenthood clinic Director Turned Pro-Life Activist, Abby Johnson. We're pleased to be joined now by Abby herself.

Abby now when you worked at Planned Parenthood, did you ever think that Pro-Choice advocates would eventually line up behind infanticide?

ABBY JOHNSON, FORMER PLANNED PARENTHOOD CLINIC DIRECTOR: You know, honestly, I have to say that I didn't. There were a few people that I worked with. My supervisor was one of those people who believed that late term abortion was perfectly acceptable, elective late term abortion was acceptable.

She believed that it was perfectly acceptable to allow the baby to suffocate or deliberately suffocate the baby after the baby was born - after the baby was born alive. But most people who say that they are Pro- Choice do have some sort of line in the sand, where they say, OK that's too far, that's too much.

For most people who are Pro-Choice that line is viability--

INGRAHAM: Right. But Dinesh has said that, but that's out the window. That is out the window. After this vote on the Hill, and after what we saw with Northam and now Vermont and Rhode Island, New York, Virginia - everyone's trying to jump on the bandwagon. Whether the effort is successful right now or whether it will be a year from now. We've reached the precipice. And New York jumped over the precipice.

JOHNSON: Look, we are at a time in our society - you know back 20, 30, 40 years ago, people were ignorant, but it was also innocent to believe that we were just dealing with a clump of cells here, a massive tissue.

But now we have medical science advancements. We have DNA testing. We have ultrasound technology that shows us that this is a human being. This is a child that is alive in the womb. And we have really - we've really reached a new low level of depravity in our country when people are willing to say, "I know it's a human being, I know it's alive, I know it has a beating heart, I know it feels pain and I'm still willing to kill it".

INGRAHAM: Well mother Teresa warned us against these decades ago and now with technology and everything else we know it's just - it's breathtaking. It is breathtaking that's where we are.

And by the way "Unplanned", movie about you, was given an R-Rating by the Motion Picture Association of America. But girls who are under the age of 17 can get abortions without the consent of their parents, so you think about that for a moment. Abby, thank you so much for sharing your story tonight. We really appreciate it. "Unplanned" will be out shortly.

And the 2020 Democrats have done their best to stoke the flames of racial animus over the past month. But their latest gambit might take the cake, race-based reparations for slavery and they were coming to it.

Now what does one of the most prominent African-American scholars in the country think of that? Shelby Steele is here, a rare television appearance. I'm really excited that he's on. Stay there.


INGRAHAM: As I mentioned in the previous segment, there is an interesting phenomenon among Democrats ahead of the 2020 election. One of their fringe members proposes something really radical and then they all rush in to support it in an effort to boost their own radical bona fides. From the Green New Deal, Medicare-for-All, and now we're on to reparations.


SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF.: People aren't starting out on the same base in terms of their ability to succeed and so we have got to recognize that and give people the lift up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you all for some type of--

HARRIS: Yes, I am.

JULIAN CASTRO, FORMER UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: I have long believed that this country should resolve its original sin of slavery and that one of the ways we should consider doing that is through reparations for people who are the descendants of slaves.


INGRAHAM: We're pleased to be joined tonight by Conservative Author, Documentary Filmmaker and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Best- Selling Author, Shelby Steele. Shelby we have so much to get into tonight.

But I want to start with this reparations push. I mean, we just got through infanticide with the nets D'Souza and former Planned Parenthood clinic worker and that's where the Democrats are on that issue.

And now it looks like one after the other they're going to come out for some type of reparations to "Resolve the issue of slavery". What's going on here?

SHELBY STEELE, CONSERVATIVE AUTHOR & FILMMAKER, SR FELLOW, THE HOOVER INSTITUTION: Well, I liked the word resolve. It's kind of unimaginable to me that you would have the hubris to think you could resolve slavery.

And I think reparations generally is - that's the problem with this. This holding on to an idea of justice, there's absolutely impossible. Not only is it impossible, but it's self-defeating, because you have to continue to see yourself as a victim, waiting around in life to be resurrected by the beneficence of the larger society - by white guilt.

And once again, you put your fate in the hands of other people, rather than yourself. I would like very much to think that I have the self-esteem, the dignity to reject, even the most lavish reparations. I have too much racial pride to consider such a thing. Keep your reparations.

I will fight like every other man and in the world every other person in the world to get ahead, to make progress. But to cling to this idea is shameful.

INGRAHAM: Let's talk about why and everything from the Oscars to college campuses that we've arrived at this place. And this is fifty years after the Civil Rights Act, all sorts of progress made. We have black CEOs, multimillionaires, top at universities, every aspect of life we've seen great progress.

So yet we're at a point where it's almost like there was no progress, there is no progress and now white privilege, Shelby, is the rubric of the of the moment. We've had this privilege issue percolating, but now it really taken root. What do both white people and black people do when they're stuck in this conversation? It doesn't seem to go anywhere positive.

STEELE: Well that's right. It's cyclical, it doesn't - there's no way out of it. Let's look at the term I've dealt with a lot and that's white guilt. And white guilt is not the feeling of guilt. White guilt is acting guiltily because you are terrorized by being seen as a racist. To be seen as a racist in American life is a terrible thing. It's ruinous to your career, to your life.

And so whites then are hungry for a way to prove that they are innocent of racism, that they're not racist. And this is where the trouble begins. We've had 60 years now of the federal government and institutions across society bending over backwards, supposedly dealing with the problem of race and inequality and so forth. And again, whites taking the position, liberalism itself really is a response to our history of evil racism. Liberalism is going to sort of redeem us from that.

But the problem with that is that you steal the thunder of the people you are trying to help, you cut them off from the human part of themselves that wants to aspire, that wants to make a life no matter what, the part that is fearless, that wants to engage the world. So to satisfy this guilt, this larger in society, we end up facilitating weakness in the very people we are trying to help. They'll be weaker and weaker.

INGRAHAM: And it takes away that drive, that initiative that I think we all innately have to improve ourselves regardless of where we are in life or even where we came from. But Shelby, I also want to get your response to this tired trope we have seen during Trump presidency, and it has reared its head again, two separate occasions just in the past 24 hours. Watch.


SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, look, when you talk about his statement on that, when you talk about him calling African countries s-whole countries, when you talk about him referring to immigrants and rapists and murderers, I don't think you can reach any other conclusion.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you definitely would agree that he's a racist?

HARRIS: I do, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't really think that the president sees black people as fully human. I don't think he sees us as having agency, intelligence, as noted by his comment about Spike. He wishes he could read. There's always some subtle suggestions that black people need to catch up.


INGRAHAM: Your reaction to that, Shelby?

STEELE: I think this is part of the politics of the left. Liberalism has to have a menace to fight against to justify its claims on power. One of the things that they've -- obviously they don't have many real problems to work with today. We don't have the racism that we used to have, for example. What came along is a kind of gift to them was Donald Trump, who could be built up into a huge menace. He is an enemy of civilization itself, and we have to rally against him. We have to demand power in order to fight him. So Trump in that sense is the new racism. He justifies -- without Trump, what do they have to fight against? Racism has been pretty much nullified. And so it's part of the liberal --

INGRAHAM: They don't believe that. Shelby, they don't believe that. You listen to the Spike Lee at the Oscars, and --

STEELE: They might believe that when they walk around the world up and down the streets and go into this place -- I grew up in segregation. I know what that's really like. That's not a problem today. You can do and go anywhere you want, you can be anything you want to be. And when you say that Trump is a racist, you are simply going -- you're regressing. That's retrograde. That's yesterday. That's not today. And you are not helping anybody.

The problem is that we have as a people who were oppressed for three and a half centuries, we don't yet know how to deal with freedom. Freedom is far more of a problem in minority communities today than racism. Racism is -- we are calling back this old problem of racism to hide from our new problem of freedom. That's what -- we don't have a history of that. We had to deal with everything, but not that.

INGRAHAM: That's really interesting. Shelby, I could just talk to you for an hour. I literally could just talk to you for an hour about all these issues. I hope everyone in the country is listening to this right now. We've talked a lot on this show about solutions, how people can try to get ahead in their lives, inspirational stories, dead ends. We've all found them in our own lives. But you are giving us some common sense ideas about how to think about the challenges in front of us.

And Jussie Smollett, this case -- this could have resulted in blocks being burned down in Chicago if this thing kept going. And then it's found out to be a hoax, and at UCLA, Shelby, not too far down the coast from you, UCLA, students were actually saying we still believe Jussie. That's how bad things have gotten.

STEELE: That's denial.

INGRAHAM: Shelby Steele -- it's total denial. Shelby, thank you so much for joining us. You don't do TV often and we really hope you'll come back. Just fascinating. Thank you so much.

And you're looking live at Hanoi, Vietnam, where President Trump is set to make his first appearance ahead of his second summit with Kim Jong-un. Any moment we're going to take you there as soon as the president emerges.


INGRAHAM: At any moment President Trump will make his first official appearance in Vietnam ahead of his historic second summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Kristin Fisher is live in Hanoi, Vietnam, tonight with a quick preview. Kristin?

KRISTIN FISHER, CORRESPONDENT: Hi Laura. We are now under eight hours away from the first big meeting of President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un here in Hanoi. The two are going to be having dinner tonight at around 6:30 a.m. eastern time at a very nice hotel not too far. They're going to have about 20 minutes of one on one time, then they're going to open it up to two guests each, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and at the acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney. That dinner is expected to last for about 90 minutes. So the two sides are really going to have some good time to try to break the ice ahead of those more formal meetings tomorrow.

Even though the White House press corps is staying at the same hotel as Kim Jong-un, several members of the White House press corps, I should say, including myself, we don't have any visibility into what his schedule is like today except for that dinner with President Trump tonight. We do now that yesterday he spent the afternoon visiting the North Korean embassy here in Hanoi, but that's about it.

As for President Trump, we should see him very soon for the first time. in about 30 minutes he'll be arriving at the presidential palace where he will meet with the president of Vietnam and sign a commercial trade agreement. In a tweet about an hour ago President Trump said "Vietnam is thriving like few places on earth. North Korea would be the same and very quickly if it would denuclearize. The potential is awesome, a great opportunity, like almost none other in history for my friend Kim Jong-un." So that is the president's pitch to Kim Jong-un in a nutshell, if you commit to denuclearization, then your country could enjoy the same kind of economic prosperity and growth as another former enemy of the United States, the host country here, Vietnam. Laura?

INGRAHAM: Wow, thank you, Kristin, very much.

And we are expecting the president to arrive at the Vietnamese presidential palace any moment. We are going to take you back to Vietnam and Ed Henry with some exclusive photos as soon as he does.

And also tonight, an update to a story we brought you last month about two transgender girls competing in high school track in Connecticut. On February 16th, Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood took first and second place in the state open indoor woman's track championships even though they are biological males. They today identify, they say, as girls.

Now, one of the girls participating in that race, Selina Soule, finished in eighth place, missing out on a chance to compete in front of college coaches by just two spots. She said this is about competing versus Miller and Yearwood. And she said "We all know the outcome of the race before it even starts. It's demoralizing."

Well, here now herself, Selina Soule. Selina, you go to Glastonbury High School where I went to high school and was a decent athlete myself in the day. But you say you are happy for the competitors who beat you out, but that shouldn't be done in sports because of just the basic unfairness of all of this. Tell us about it.

SELINA SOULE, LOST AGAINST TRANSGENDER ATHLETES: So I am very happy for these athletes and I fully support them for being true to themselves and having the courage to do what they believe in. But in athletics, it's an entirely different situation. It's scientifically proven that males are built to be physically stronger than females. It's unfair to put someone who is biologically male who has not undergone anything in terms of of hormone therapy against cisgender girls who --

INGRAHAM: I'm going to jump in here, because I think you are being, Selina, you are being very politically correct, and that's fine, you're being very nice, which is great. You are a high school student, you should be. But you're an athlete. And I was -- I played field hockey, softball, and basketball in Glastonbury High School, and I know how hard it is to compete at that level because they are a really very strong conference.

What happens -- forget about people identifying -- what happens to every sport? What happens to field hockey when the soccer players start to play? What happens with girls' basketball? What happens with girls' volleyball? What happens with tennis? Martina Navratilova said basically it's going to completely change competition in an unfair way to girls, and I don't think you can get anyone who is more pro-equality for people identifying as different things, and she is. She's now being trashed for just saying that. So what are other members of your team saying for this?

SOULE: My teammates and my fellow competitors, we are happy for these athletes, of course, but we do think it is unfair. And for us it is upsetting when we work hard all season and put in a lot of effort only to turn up at the state meets and get beat by someone who is biologically a male and lose state championships over this.

INGRAHAM: What was the difference in the time between the top two transgender athletes and the biological girl athletes, number three, third- place? What was the difference in time?

SOULE: So first place I believe was 695, second place was 701, and third- place, which is the first biological female, was I believe 723.

INGRAHAM: So it's a decent difference. Here's some of the issue, male and female biological traits differing, so people will -- in case you don't know, here it is. Females are on average nine percent shorter than males. Male bones are bigger in both size and density. Females have shorter arms and legs relative to body size. Females are around 30 to 35 percent muscle by weight, while males are 40 to 50 percent muscles. Females ligaments are thinner and softer than males. The internal organs of men tend to be bigger, broader, more capable of taking in oxygen, shoulder size -- no matter if you are taking hormones or not taking hormones, the structure of the anatomy is different, period. And you are not going to see a lot of girls winning first, second or third if this continues. However people want to identify, that's fine if they want to do that. But what about next year's female athletes on the track team, Selina? When they want to go for college scholarships, what happens to them?

SOULE: So the juniors right now who are applying for colleges, it can provide a major issue because in Connecticut you don't have to write on the meet results that one athlete is transgender. They're just all in the boys category or all in the girls category. So if a college coach looks at the results in the state meets, they see the wide margins between first and/or second place, and the rest of the places they will see that there is a wide margin of time. And they will say, why are the rest of these girls running as fast as these two?

INGRAHAM: Yes. Well, they actually commented on television, Selina, on television briefly, they were asked about, wouldn't they think this was unfair if the table was reversed? Let's watch.


TERRY MILLER, TRANSGENDER ATHLETE: I'm not going to discourage you or try to say, oh, it's not fair, and it would just push me to run faster.

ANDRAYA YEARWOOD, TRANSGENDER ATHLETE: I'd be happy for them because they get to do what they want. They're happy, so that should in turn make me happy.


INGRAHAM: Any final thoughts, real quick?

SOULE: It's very frustrating, because I know I have put in and some of my friends and fellow competitors have put in so much effort to take down our times and compete ourselves better, but we are not physically able to be competitive against someone who is biologically a male.

INGRAHAM: No, you are not. And get your parents involved. You are in Glastonbury is a kind of liberal town, I guess, but you have great athletics, great athletics, great school. Get involved, it's about fairness, not demonization, but fairness, basic fairness. Selina, thank you for having the courage to come on tonight, and we hope other teammates also have the courage to speak out. It's really important.

And we're just moments away from President Trump's arrival at a welcoming ceremony in Vietnam. We're going to take you there live as soon as it happens. Plus, Dems are pushing for a gun control vote on the House floor tomorrow, so why are they trying to block amendments from an actual victim of fun violence. Congressman Steve Scalise is here next to tell us.



REP. KATHERINE CLARK, D-MASS.: It is common sense to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. One is comprehensive background checks, the other is closing the Charleston loophole which allowed the shooter in that tragic case to be able to get a gun he was not entitled to.


INGRAHAM: Tomorrow, House Dems will bring two gun-control bills to the floor, but will these background checks actually protect law-abiding citizens or would it just make it harder for them to obtain firearms? Congressman Steve Scalise knows a lot about these issues and these two bills. Just a few weeks ago Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee blocked him from testifying at a hearing on gun violence. He is here to react. Steve, what do you make of these two bills, and will they make us safer?

REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-LA, HOUSE MINORITY WHIP: Laura, first of all what these bills will do is they will make criminals out of law-abiding citizens.


SCALISE: If you look at the bills, first of all, they hide behind background checks. The background check system is already in place. What this bill will say, for example, if you have a gun and you want to loan it to a friend because maybe she was beaten up by her boyfriend, she's got a TRO against her boyfriend and she's afraid he's going to come back and hurt her tonight, and she comes to you and says, can I borrow your gun tonight because I fear for my life? If you give her your gun, once she goes back to her house you are now a felon. You could go to jail for a year and have $100,000 fine.


SCALISE: It's in the bill. We tried to take that out, by the way, and the Democrats blocked that amendment. So that's what this is about.

And by the way, we tried to bring an amendment to say if an illegal alien tries to buy a gun and goes through the background check system, which, by the way, would then red flag it, saying this person is here illegally, we said, OK, now he's tried to illegally buy a gun in violation of federal law, notify ICE so that he can be deported, the Democrats blocked that amendment. So a law-abiding citizen will go to jail and be a felon, an illegal person can't be turned over to ICE under the Democratic bill.

INGRAHAM: Do they think that this time it's going to work, that the gun issue for them is going to work? Because they take a step forward and a step back on this, because usually, except in places like Massachusetts where that Congresswoman is from, it doesn't really work. Even with these horrific tragedies, people kind of move on, which I guess could be a bad thing. But people generally think, be tough on crime, be tough on criminals, make it hard for a truly mentally unstable individual from getting a firearm. You're in favor of that, correct?

SCALISE: Absolutely. And what's really sad about this, Laura, is that they hide behind some of these tragedies, like Parkland, like, take the baseball shooting. Their bill would not have done anything to stop these tragedies. Las Vegas, their bill wouldn't have done anything. What it would do is make criminals out of law-abiding citizens. If you go hunting with a friend and your friend wants to borrow your rifle, by the way, you better bring your attorney with you, because depending on what you do with that gun, you may be a felon if you loan it to him. And let's say he wants to go scope it at the range before he goes and shoots deer, that act could make you a felon subject to a year in prison and $100,000 fine.

INGRAHAM: So they want a federal database, do they not?

SCALISE: Ultimately they want gun registration of all guns.

INGRAHAM: A federal, but even if you --

SCALISE: And then confiscation is the next step.

INGRAHAM: If it's in a sale from a friend to a friend --

SCALISE: They want to make that subject to going through a dealer. In D.C. right here, in Washington, D.C., there is only one licensed dealer. Talk about a monopoly. How much will they charge for that transaction?

INGRAHAM: How does that stand? There have been legal challenges to this. And for the most part people --

SCALISE: Look at California. Their utopian state is California for all of these crazy ideas they have. They have universal background checks in California. When they did it, it didn't reduce crime. What it did is made criminals out of a lot of law-abiding citizens.

INGRAHAM: I've got to tell you, when Congress did not do that reciprocity --

SCALISE: I was a co-sponsor. Richard Hudson's bill --

INGRAHAM: That was an outrage, congressman. When you have a gun and a gun license in Virginia, it should be automatic reciprocity in Minnesota, and in Colorado, period.

SCALISE: If you want to go through all those extra steps to know how to handle a gun safely. By the way, the population of people who have those concealed carry permits are much safer population, they actually prevent crimes from happening.

INGRAHAM: Steve Scalise, it's great to see you, thanks so much.

SCALISE: Always good to be with you, Laura.

INGRAHAM: And a happy Mardi Gras.

SCALISE: Happy Mardi Gras.

INGRAHAM: Any minute now President Trump will arrive at the presidential palace in Hanoi to meet with his Vietnamese counterpart ahead of tomorrow morning's reunion with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un "ride a train" un. FOX Chief national correspondent Ed Henry is live in Vietnam tonight with a look at what's at stake at this second summit. Ed, are you on a scooter? No, you are sitting and not moving. I love it.


ED HENRY, CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Laura, good to see you. You can see the picture screen left where it appears the beginning of President Trump's motorcade is arriving at that presidential palace here in Hanoi. The key is that President Trump will be meeting with President Trong, his counterpart, to sign a trade deal between the U.S. and Vietnam, maybe showing Kim Jong-un the fact that the economy here in Vietnam is very strong, and they have communism mixed with some market reforms, it may be a taste of what he can get if he signs a nuclear pact with President Trump.

But later at the main event, this will happen about 7:00 p.m. local time, here, 7:00 a.m. back home where you are. So when you are having breakfast, President Trump will be having dinner with Kim Jong-un at the Metropole hotel. It's a very famous hotel, French Colonial style. Look at that picture on the right. I got this exclusively from a source who is inside the hotel. It appears to be where the leaders will be having dinner. You can see it's very close and intimate, just a few seats, as Kristin Fisher said, and reported earlier, the president, secretary of state, chief of staff, Kim Jong-un and his counterparts. We've got some other photos from inside the hotel, we will be showing them as well, 1:00 a.m. eastern. I'll be reporting all night live. You see the flags being set up at the Metropole hotel. So we have sources inside the summit. They are giving us an inside look. You mentioned the stakes, they are enormous. The president walking into the presidential palace right now as we speak, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Right now, sorry to interrupt, but he is walking in, and we are watching him now. Again, this is the first time he has walked in formally at the presidential palace. Ed, there are lots of doubters out there about this second summit, saying we didn't get much out of the first summit. There was a lot of hope, but as far as substantial process on denuclearization, other than stopping tests, not much. But these pictures are something. Close it out for us.

HENRY: They are. And a lot of naysayers, you're right, think about the A.P. story a few days ago saying a nightmare scenario they said would be the president signing a bad deal. You know what, actually a nightmare scenario would be a nuclear conflict. That's the nightmare scenario. So far because of the president's diplomacy we have avoided that, Laura.

INGRAHAM: De-escalation of a very difficult situation. We certainly hope for the best. Thanks for that photo of the taste tester, the food tester there, Ed, testing that food for Kim Jong-un.

That's all the time we have tonight. New podcasts of course, a new episode launched tonight and tomorrow, it's brand-new. So check it out at PodcastOne.

Shannon Bream and the whole team, up next, take it from here.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.