Senate rejects bill to protect infants who survive abortions

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

MARTHA MACCALLUM, HOST: Good evening, everybody. Good to see, Brett, and it is evening here in New York City. Welcome to “The Story,” everybody. I'm Martha MacCallum.

So, tonight, president is preparing, of course, for the high-stakes meeting about nuclear weapons with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. We are going to take you there live. But we start tonight with the emerging storyline in the 2020 presidential race. Where the issue of race is becoming a central test. Here is Kamala Harris today.


TERRELL JERMAINE STARR, SENIOR REPORTER, THE ROOT: So, you definitely will go -- will agree that he's a racist.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF.: I do. Yes, yes, yes.


MACCALLUM: And here is the next test question on whether the candidate will commit to finding a way to paying reparations for slavery. Watch.


STARR: Should black people get reparations?

HARRIS: I think there has to be some form of reparations and we could discuss what that is. But look, we're looking at more than 200 years of slavery. We're looking at almost 100 years of Jim Crow. We're looking at legalized segregation.

And, in fact, segregation on so many levels that exist today based on race. And there has not been any kind of intervention done.


MACCALLUM: Julian Castro and Elizabeth Warren also support the idea of some form of reparations for slavery if they are elected.


JULIAN CASTRO, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, 2020 ELECTION: We compensate people if we take their property. Shouldn't we compensate people if they were property sanctioned by the state?

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS.: We need to confront it, head on, and we need to talk about the right way to address it and make a change.


MACCALLUM: This is a far cry from the way that President Obama talked about this issue. In 2016, he said this. "It is hard to think of any society in human history in which a majority population has said that as a consequence of historic wrongs, we are now going to take back a big chunk of the nation's resources over a long period of time to make that right."

Ben Shapiro, joins me in moments. But first, Fox News political analyst and co-host of "THE FIVE", Juan Williams. Juan, good to have you here tonight.

JUAN WILLIAMS, POLITICAL ANALYST: Nice to be with you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: But, why do you think this conversation is coming back into the discussion? Why are all these candidates being asked if they are in favor of reparations for slavery?

WILLIAMS: Well, I think, it's part of a larger conversation about race in American society that is coming to the forefront at a time when the Democratic candidates understand there is a larger and active black -- of not only black, but Latino voters concerned with these issues.

You look at the map, Martha. South Carolina is going to be a telling early test in the Democratic primary process, and the majority of voters there are black.

MACCALLUM: Understood, but are they serious about seeking -- you know, you listen to these candidates, they are -- they serious about saying that there should be reparations for slavery.

WILLIAMS: Well, as you -- as you pointed out, in many cases, they'll say some form. So, they're not exactly talking about a check going out explicitly in that form. But what they're talking about is some compensation. Some way in that which you make up.

I'm an opponent of reparations. Why? Because I -- in fact, I used to have these arguments with Charles Krauthammer. It was people who were saying, "Yes, OK, let reparations happen." And that's the end of every effort such as affirmative action. Such as programs to help make up for problems in our public schools in this country.

It was going to be like a one-time deal and then you're on your own. And I think that we have a broader obligation to deal with the implications of slavery and legal segregation, what Harris was talking about a moment ago.

MACCALLUM: So, you're saying that it would left people off the hook.

WILLIAMS: I think it would definitely be. And it would be a one-time deal. And you know what?


MACCALLUM: I mean like, we -- you know, when we called him paid off its done, and then you think people would what? What would they resort to? I mean --

WILLIAMS: I don't know what people would resort to, but I'm saying, in terms of our obligation as Americans and as an American government, that would be done. It's as if you ran into somebody who won the lottery and the person then, two years later is broke.


MACCALLUM: But is it good? I get what you want. I understand, but is it good to -- you know, is this a good way to make society better? To pay people more money? To give an entitlement to right or wrong? What does that solve and how does that work to make things better?

WILLIAMS: Well, you loaded that question in such an intriguing way. I don't even know if you're aware of it when you said entitled, there would be so many arguments about.

For example, is Martha MacCallum, black? Oh, but she has a black ancestor. But she doesn't appear to be black, so that is she qualified that someone who came here from the Caribbean as an immigrant two generations ago but doesn't have slave ancestors?


MACCALLUM: But those are -- those are two different things. You're talking about who would be entitled to reparation

WILLIAMS: Right. That's what I'm saying. So, it's not -- it's like a title --

MACCALLUM: What I'm talking about is that -- what Kamala Harris is talked about is let's give everybody who makes under $100,000, a tax credit for reparations.

WILLIAMS: Oh, I didn't --

MACCALLUM: That's something.

WILLIAMS: No, I didn't get that.

MACCALLUM: So, I'm saying that it would essentially when people say some form of reparations, what I'm hearing is that there would be some form of money. Probably, you know, a tax credit, something like that to say we did that.

WILLIAMS: No, I think it's reparations for slavery. And for people who have ancestor that was a slave.


MACCALLUM: Understood. But what form? How do -- what form does it take?

WILLIAMS: Yes, so --

MACCALLUM: And she's saying it would be to better education, it would go to tax credit.

WILLIAMS: Correct. So, she is doing a form of it. But the actual argument -- the reparations argument. And remember these things have been introduced in the Congress going back to the 80s, John Conyers and others, never gone anywhere.

The American public overwhelmingly opposes this concept. So, it's not something that's realistic and pragmatic.


MACCALLUM: And let me ask you this because Thomas Sowell, the economist, talked about the fact that he feels that slavery which obviously was a grave -- a grave wrong, was not as bad for the African-American community as what happened in the 1960s with the development of the welfare system.


MACCALLUM: So, he is saying that essentially -- you know, the first 100 years after slavery were a -- were a more positive time for African- Americans in the United States than post-1960 and the Great Society.

He feels like the damage done was greater by the ways that were effort it to fix the problems -- the economic problems of the African-American community.

WILLIAMS: Well, I think that's an overstatement because I don't think you can go back on slavery and the degradation of your humanity. The idea that you're to -- you know, was a three-fifths human in the Constitution is pretty insulting and obviously has done tremendous damage not only to black people but to the whole concept of America. And we are all created equal and have an equal opportunity to succeed.

But, I think that what Thom Sowell is saying, it reminds me of what Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that in so many ways when we start to look at the black family especially in that post-civil rights era -- late 60s. You start to see a breakdown because so many of these policies, in fact, had negative repercussions in terms of separating. And we've seen obviously, a tremendous breakdown in terms of family formation in black America.

I think now, 70 percent of black children born out of wedlock to me, this is a horrific -- just a horrendous social consequence. But, I don't think that you would want to say that's as bad as slavery.

MACCALLUM: Juan, thank you. Always good to have you here. It's been over time.

WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you very much, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief of The Daily Wire, joins me now. Ben, good to see you. Thanks for being here tonight. You know, it almost feels in some of these interviews that are being done with 2020 candidates that this question is kind of a litmus test. And the answer has a lot weighing on it.

BEN SHAPIRO, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF FOR THE DAILY WIRE: I think there's no question that's true. This is why Bernie Sanders is being called to account by a lot of members of the intersectional Democratic Party, who are deeply concerned and upset with the idea that he would not endorse slavery reparations. Now, it's hilarious is that what Bernie has said is he said all sorts of bad things have happened to black folks in America, and the best way to get beyond that is with my socialist redistributionist schemes.

And Kamala Harris basically agrees with that. But because she calls it slavery reparations and Bernie doesn't, this means that Bernie is insufficiently -- he's insufficiently committed to the idea of race reparations in the country at large.

It just goes to show you that race is the central issue for a huge swath of a Democratic Party and the big dividing line is going to be, which is more important, intersectionality or socialist redistributionist policies?

MACCALLUM: Yes, I mean, it's clear that these questions and are going to be very central to the debate in the 2020 election. But one of the biggest questions, you know, everyone they're asked this question is how? Right? How exactly are you going to repay the debt of slavery, and who is going to repay the debt of slavery, exactly?

SHAPIRO: This exactly right, and Bernie Sanders said this last night on CNN. I mean, I'm sounding like a Bernie supporter here. But the fact is that Sanders is clearer on this than Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren. And when Kamala Harris is asked how, she immediately begins citing all sorts of kind of normal democratic government programs that you'd like to see pushed anyway. Which is not slavery reparations, that's just we would call the democratic political agenda.


SHAPIRO: The reality is that slavery reparations per se are completely unworkable. Even big advocates of it like (INAUDIBLE), have failed to come up with any actual metric for how exactly we'd go about doing that.

What do you do with, for example, Barack Obama whose father was black and not from the United States, and therefore, not having a history of slavery? And a mother who was white, would his family receive slavery reparations?

How about Kamala Harris, whose father is Jamaican and mother is Indian? Does she receive slavery reparations? From whom? Does she receive slavery reparations from me? My great-grandparents got herein 1907, long after slavery was over and lived their entire lives in the North where Jim Crow was not in effect.

It's almost impossible. I think, not almost, it is impossible to come up with a fair metric for recompensing slavery, 10 generations after slavery has end. If you want to say that recompense should be had for people who benefited from Jim Crow, again, for people who were harmed by Jim Crow, I think that's an easier case. But again, it's going to be hard to determine who pays, who should get how much, and who receives.

MACCALLUM: Yes, and it amounts in the explanation that Kamala Harris gave, she talked about the LIFT Act which basically would be a tax credit for any families who make under $100,000. And she said that it would -- you know, obviously, include many families, but that it would include a lot of black families in her opinion.

So, it is, as that as you say, another entitlement essentially. And when you look at -- you know, the amount of money in America that is going to entitlements, you go back to 2008, $430 billion. In 2020, the projected is almost double, $807 billion.

So, it begs the question, if you continue to throw more money at the problem, what exactly does it -- does it solve necessarily?

SHAPIRO: This exactly right. I mean, that the war on poverty which was launched in part to rectify a lot of the racial imbalances and evils that hit -- that had been happening in the country but manifest in America.

We've spent tens of trillions of dollars in the war on poverty, and there's been no actual real receipt from that as far as the number of black people who have been raised from poverty by the war on poverty.

Again, if you -- if you look go back to the war on poverty, at that time, 20 percent of all black children were born into single mother families. Now, it's upward of 70 percent. The black poverty rate is essentially the same now as it was back in 1970.

That does not suggest that throwing money at the problem is a cure for whatever historic ailments have been exhibited on the black community. And not just that. The reality is that we now live in a time where legalized discrimination is not only illegal. But it is for good reason. Look down upon sneered at by virtually all Americans.

And that means that the vast majority of decisions are in the hands of individuals. If we actually want people to rise in a society of any race, what we need to be doing now is focusing on making sure the incentives are aligned so that people make the right decisions to bring themselves up out of poverty.

Throwing money at the problem is not slavery reparations. In many cases, it is a way of ensuring that people have an incentive not to make the right decisions.

MACCALLUM: You mentioned Bernie Sanders and his feelings about the reparations issue. But his way of sort of making up for that is doubling down on how bad the president is. Here he is in the CNN town hall. Watch this. This.


SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT: This president is the first president in the modern history of our country who is trying to divide our people up based on the color of their skin, the country they were born in, their sexual orientation, their gender, their religion, and that is an outrage.


MACCALLUM: You think that's true, is there evidence to back up those statements?

SHAPIRO: I mean, it's surely nonsensical on a purely objective level. The fact is that Barack Obama in 2012 had African-Americans for Obama, and Jews, for Obama, and gays for Obama. The President Obama in 2012, basically decided that he was going to create an agglomeration of various groups associated by race, associate by sexual orientation. Women for Obama by sex, and then, he was going to stick all those groups together and hope that it was a majority.

So, the notion that dividing people along racial lines is anything new in American policies is simply not true. The notion that Trump is specifically doing that or openly doing that right now, I'm not seeing the evidence of it.

MACCALLUM: You know, I guess the big question is what works in the next election? Because there's a lot of investment in this identity politics kind of avenue for these 2020 candidates. And where is the United States of America right now do you think? Will this be something that is appealing to people?

SHAPIRO: I don't think it's appealing to people. I think that's why Bernie Sanders has outsized popularity inside the Democratic Party. Kamala Harris came out the other day and she said that people should stop ripping on identity politics because it's a way of shutting down the debate.

Identity politics itself is the way that people shut down the debate. They say that weekends have a reasoned to conversation because I'm not a member of your group and you're not a member of my group. Well, then we can't have any discussions at all.

Folks like Kamala Harris are very reliant on identity politics. Bernie actually is not and it's why he has some advantages inside the Democratic Party primaries.

MACCALLUM: He lost three of his top campaign lieutenants today. So, we'll see where the campaign is going. Ben Shapiro, always a pleasure. Thank you, Ben.

SHAPIRO: Thanks a lot.

MACCALLUM: So, the second summit between Trump and Kim is now just hours away. But some critics on the hill already say it won't work. Marc Thiessen and Mark Hannah debate, coming up next.


MACCALLUM: President Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un now getting ready. They're going to walk into the room and just a couple of hours begin that second summit which is aimed at the goal of complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula for the president.

His critics have already pounced they're deflating the chances of success before they even say hello in that room.


JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER DIRECTOR, CIA: -- has been developing a nuclear weapons capability and a ballistic missile capability for many years because it wants to have a deterrent against what it perceives to be an eventual U.S. effort to try to unify the peninsula under South Korea. So he does see this as an existential threat. So I do not believe that he has any intention at this point of giving up that nuclear arsenal.


MACCALLUM: Here now Marc Thiessen, an American Enterprise Institute scholar and Fox News Contributor and Mark Hannah Fellow at the Eurasia Group Foundation and veteran of the Obama and Kerry presidential campaigns. Good to see you both tonight.

Mark Hannah, first to you. I don't know what John Brennan said there that you know, we don't already know. I mean, obviously, you know, that's sort of the -- that that's what he has walking in but at least there's an effort to try to open that door towards denuclearization in the future.

MARK HANNAH, FELLOW, EURASIA GROUP FOUNDATION: Yes. I think we should all be wishing the president well as he tries to achieve that objective. But realistically, this has been a talking point in the foreign policy establishment for several decades, this kind of no denuclearization, no peace. We must insist on complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization on the -- on the Korean Peninsula. That's just not realistic.

And that's not to say I wish President Trump ill and achieving it, but even president Trump has said well that's probably not going to happen this time around. So people -- there are neoconservatives who will be prodding this president to put an economic stranglehold on Kim or you know, to threaten military intervention.

But we just put out a report at the Eurasia Group Foundation that found the American people are very reluctant to want to use military intervention generally, much more reluctant than the foreign policy elite, and they -- and so they see -- they don't see this nuclear threat as existential as some in the -- in the foreign policy a community might want us to -- might want us to.

MACCALLUM: And you're in favor of a more gradual approach that you know, whatever you can get in terms of eliminating some of those weapons is at least a beginning, correct?

HANNAH: Absolutely. We need to clarify what we what our needs are and what our wants are. We would want North Korea to be denuclear, but it doesn't present a threat to us right now. We can deter North Korea with what we've got.

MACCALLUM: All right, understood. I mean, I think we've wanted that for a really long time, Marc Thiessen. Yes, that's the approach that got us in this mess. I mean, look, the reality is that Donald Trump has inherited a mess from his both Republican and Democratic predecessors who over the last 25 years kicked the can down the road and we've now run out of road.

North Korea on his watch is on the verge of developing and deploying a ballistic missile that can deliver a nuclear warhead to the United States. So this is the reality that he's inherited. And you know, the one thing that he has done which we give him -- we should one, we should all be rooting for him to succeed and two, we should give him credit for the fact that he's trying something different.

And the one thing he has done is he has basically said unlike -- the North Korean playbook and all these negotiations the way they played every previous president is they blow up some stuff that we know that they don't really need anymore and then we give them billions of dollars in aid. And they could have played this you know, it's package deal number one played over and over again. Trump stop doing -- playing that game.

MACCALLUM: So here's how President Trump -- pardon me. Here's how President Trump has tried to change the dynamic. Some people call it the madman theory reminiscent of Richard Nixon. Watch this.


TRUMP: Fire and fury, total annihilation, my button is bigger than yours and my button works. Remember that? You don't remember that. And people said, Trump is crazy. And you know what it ended up being? A very good relationship, I like him a lot and he likes me a lot.


MACCALLUM: So the idea, Mark Hannah, is that you know, maybe in North Korea, they think that President Trump might just be madman enough to do something about it, and that is what has brought him to the table and at least we're at the table at this point.

HANNAH: Absolutely. But look, we could be at the table through any number of methods. And you know, the Bob Gallucci -- and there was a diplomatic approach that was taken in the Clinton administration that actually got a nuclear deal signed before it was sort of unceremoniously torn up by Marc Thiessen's former boss President Bush--

THIESSEN: Because they exploded a nuclear weapon.

HANNAH: OK, Marc --

THIESSEN: You guys were totally -- you guys were totally (INAUDIBLE)

HANNAH: Listen, listen. The -- it's not you guys. He was an American President too. It was us guys, we are the American country. And look, the people were generally concerned when President Trump said fire and fury and we're going to blow them to kingdom come and all this, because Americans generally don't want war with North Korea. They see it as this kind of slave state, this international pariah.

So yes, he might have scared Kim Jong-un into coming to the table but he also scared a lot of the American people who don't think it's worth the treasure and talent and put you know, putting American lives at risk.

MACCALLUM: You know what, I got to go, but you know, the goal is the same. The goal is the same. Nobody wants war with North Korea. It's a question of how you get there and the different tactics and we're watching one tactic play out over the next few days. Marc --

HANNAH: Pease is the main goal. Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you very much. All right, guys -- so coming up, Michael Cohen is weeks away from federal prison. He will begin a three-year sentence for among other things lying to Congress. So why is he spending the next two days as a witness on Capitol Hill? Byron York says, he thinks part of this is an ulterior motive next.



MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER LAWYER OF DONALD TRUMP: At this point in time, I really appreciate the opportunity that was given to me to clear the record and to tell the truth. And I look forward to tomorrow to being able to in my voice to tell the American people my story. And I'm going to let the American people decide exactly who's telling the truth.


MACCALLUM: President Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen on his way out of today's closed-door testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The now-disbarred attorney -- he was disbarred today who pled guilty to lying to Congress late last year has gotten a lot of attention this week with endless speculation about what he might say in that testimony.

Byron York Chief Political Correspondent for the Washington Examiner and a Fox News Contributor has followed every step of this extremely closely. Byron, good to have you with us tonight.


MACCALLUM: So three different testimonies with House and Senate committees but the only one that the people are going to be able to see at home is the House Oversight Committee. But they are not going to ask questions about the Russian investigation correct? Why not and what will they ask?

YORK: That is correct. The issue that has dominated the Trump presidency in all of U.S. politics for a couple of years is the Trump Russia issue. And Cohen is talking about it in two separate hearings today before the Senate Intel Committee and Thursday before the House Intel Committee, but both of those are secret. The one that's going to be public tomorrow before the Oversight Committee, the Chairman has said you can't talk about Russia.

As a matter of fact, he actually released a list of topics that he did want to talk about like the Stormy Daniels payoff and the Trump Foundation and possible Trump campaign finance violations and business practices and the Trump Hotel here in Washington. All these topics, not Russia.

MACCALLUM: So why not Russia? Why don't they want people to see him questioned nationwide television about Russia?

YORK: Well, the chairman of the committee, Elijah Cummings, the Democrat who is now running the committee, says that other committees like the intelligence committee have more jurisdictions over this.

But remember, Michael Cohen is the key player in a number of things. Remember the Trump dossier he's mentioned by name 24 times in that, it would be interesting to ask him about some of that stuff, it's completely unsupported. The whole Trump Moscow, Trump tower Moscow deal he was a key player in that that.

There are many things that these lawmakers have a chance, they have a star witness sitting in front of them to ask about Russia --

MACCALLUM: Absolutely.

YORK: -- and the chairman says don't do it.

MACCALLUM: Well, maybe they'll sneak at the row. Republicans may sneak in a few. I want to put up this Matt Gaetz situation, here's what he tweeted today going into this testimony. "Hey, Michael Cohen, do your wife and father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat, I wonder if she will remain faithful when you're in prison. She's about to learn a lot."

Now there's obviously a lot of pushback on this. And folks calling it witness intimidation, what do you think about all that?

YORK: Well, it sounds pretty thuggish to me.


YORK: And Nancy Pelosi, by the way, has just released a statement encouraging members not to do this sort of thing --


YORK: -- and suggesting they could be investigated by the ethics committee. I will say, on the other hand, the Cohen team today used the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Washington Post to sort of laid the table, set the table for all sorts of Trump dirt that they want to talk about.

Not -- it would not be unusual for, during the hearing for Republicans to question his credibility. He has not only pled guilty to lying to Congress. Some of the very members he's testifying in front of, he's also pled guilty to defrauding banks and evading taxes to I think the tune of $1.4 million.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Byron York, always a pleasure. Thank you very much.

YORK: Thank you, Martha.

MACCALLUM: Good to see you tonight. We'll be watching tomorrow, we'll going to be covering it all day actually.

And coming up right here, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and others in the Supreme Court could soon decide the fate of the Peace Cross memorial, it's a World War I memorial. It stands at the center of a huge legal battle and it will be the first time that we hear Judge Kavanaugh really on the issue of religious freedom. Shannon Bream next.


MACCALLUM: World War I gold star mothers in Maryland with the people behind the building of the Peace Cross, they had it put up to honor the sons that they lost in the so-called war to end all ward. There were 49 men's names on the cross which was later rededicated to all American veterans. Now some say that the cross does not belong in this public spot and the Supreme Court is about to decide.

Joining me now, Shannon Bream, host of Fox News at night. Shannon, great to see you tonight. You went and spent some time talking to people around the Peace Cross, what did you learn?

SHANNON BREAM, HOST: Yes, indeed. It's very interesting. Because as you mentioned, there are 49 names engraved in there along with words like 'valor' and 'endurance,' and 'courage.' There is nothing overtly religious inscribed anywhere on that cross but it stands in a big busy intersection in Maryland just outside of suburban D.C. here.

And listen, a lot of folks there in the community say they have seen it for generations, it's been an honor for them to have it there but there has been an atheist group to come forward to say listen, it now sits on government land, it gets some government funding to upkeep the memorial and because it's in the shape of a cross, they don't care that it's a war memorial it doesn't work there and it's got to go.

This case has raged for years. It lands at the Supreme Court tomorrow morning on Wednesday. We want to give you a little bit, folks, we talked to on both sides. One leading the group to tear it down and a veteran who says he's going to fight to save it.


ROY SPECKHARDT, FILED ORIGINAL LAWSUIT IN 2014: Unfortunately, the cross can't be a symbol for all, it doesn't represent our veterans who served honorably who are Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, and of course of no faith at all.

MIKE MOORE, AMERICAN LEGION LEADER, VETERAN: For me to think of having that memorial defaced or torn down or bulldozed, I can't conceive of it. It's an insult to all of the veterans who served.


BREAM: You know, it's really interesting to go see it there in person, it's been there for almost a century. It's 40 feet high concrete and granite. And of those names, an interesting point that a lot of folks have brought up is the fact that the service was very much still segregated at that point. There were black and white troops who fought overseas but they didn't serve together but the people who put together this memorial, those mothers in the American legion thought it was very important to list them all together.

There's no segregation on this memorial. They just wanted to remember all of those 49 young men that they lost in their community. So, whether they get to do it with this memorial or whether the court says it's got to go, will know by late June. That's when they'll have a decision.

MACCALLUM: Just last one last quick question. Justice Kavanaugh, it's going to be his first sort of religious liberty test issue that he will deal with and it comes down to whether or not the government is showing a preference for a religion in this monument, right?

BREAM: Yes. And over the years, people have said this is a very muddled part of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court because there's not a clear directive. They have decided cases on other public memorials and display but it's actually very hard to understand for a lot of folks.

Even Justice Thomas has said it's anyone's guess what we would expect people to do. So, people really want to get a clarifying rule out of this. Justice Kavanaugh has been on the side of religious liberty issues in the past especially with respect to the HHS Obamacare contraceptive mandates for religious employers.

We'll see how that translates here. But it sounds like even the court itself is ready to draw some lines so the people who put up these memorials or support them can have a real definition of what will qualify because some of the things these veterans are worried about are things like Arlington National Cemetery and other places where there are symbols that an opponent could argue are religious in nature.

MACCALLUM: Shannon Bream, as always, thank you, Shannon. Great to see you tonight.

So, when we come back, Ivanka Trump versus Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.


MACCALLUM: The war on Amazon championed by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appears to be back on tonight and this time in the other place where they want to build a headquarters in Virginia.

Activists including this organizer named Roshan Abraham are trying to shut down the company's plans to build that second headquarters setting the negative impact that it could have on housing costs and low-income communities.

This may sound familiar. It's the same argument that was made a couple of weeks ago before the tech giant pulled the plans to build their other headquarters in New York City which according to Amazon would have created 25,000 jobs.


REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: It's like they say it's 25,000 jobs, is it?


MACCALLUM: Here now Katie Pavlich, Fox News contributor and editor of, and Richard Goodstein, a Democrat strategist and former adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Welcome both of you. God to have you here tonight.



MACCALLUM: This is a billboard that was put up in Times Square that people thinking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez not exactly. Thanks for nothing, it said. And I would imagine, Richard, that you're going to see a similar response from a lot of people in Virginia.

GOODSTEIN: Well, that's assuming that the not in my backyard crowd succeeds. I frankly doubt that. I mean, I do think, somehow rather Amazon probably learns some lessons from its experience in New York, will approach the community in Virginia bit differently.

And the fact is, these facilities are going to get built somewhere. From a political standpoint, actually I hope they are built somewhere other than blue states. I hope they are put in purple states. Let's put them in Arizona or some other states because all the people that work there are highly paid, highly educated, tend to be Democratic voters.

MACCALLUM: Well, I mean, the irony is that they clearly wanted to be in New York and Washington, D.C., you know, the two power center areas --


MACCALLUM: -- and they got, you know, shouted out by progressives who didn't want them there. Katie, your thought on this.

PAVLICH: Well, first of all, Amazon is also located in Arizona, just like a number of states around the country. But as a resident of Northern Virginia I can tell you on the ground in that area, real estate agents have been talking about Amazon coming into town, a bunch of businesses in the area have talked about how they're going to get more clientele.

There's more businesses actually starting as a result of the Amazon announcement. And so, it's not just about running Amazon out of town --


PAVLICH: -- and the 25,000 jobs they may bring and the economic activity, it's also the other effects that Amazon has on the community. And I know that they want to talk about how this disproportionately impacts certain communities but the truth is that they would provide an uplift for everybody in the community to be able to start a new business, start a new job with a higher pay --


MACCALLUM: Well, she was very successful in her crusade in New York. And we'll see what happens --


GOODSTEIN: I totally agree with Katie incidentally.

MACCALLUM: Hold on. I just want to --


MACCALLUM: I want to move on to this sound bite that we have from Ivanka Trump's interview with Steve Hilton which is getting a lot of blowback tonight, watch this.


IVANKA TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP'S DAUGHTER: People want to work for what they get. So, I think this idea of a guaranteed minimum is not something most people want. They want the ability to be able to secure a job. They want the ability to live in a country where there is the potential for upward mobility.


MACCALLUM: Richard, do you see anything wrong with her saying that?

GOODSTEIN: No, but she also said in that interview Americans don't want to be given something. Her dad was given $100 million by his dad. She did not -- she would work with a silver --


MACCALLUM: She meant by the government.


MACCALLUM: She's talking about from the government.

GOODSTEIN: I understand. I understand. But the point is she's hardly the spokesperson for people lifting themselves up by their bootstraps.

MACCALLUM: Let me tell you something.


PAVLICH: Come on.

GOODSTEIN: What she's had was very admirable.

MACCALLUM: Richard, no, no, no, I'm going to stop you because that is really, really unfair. You can think whatever you want about Ivanka Trump politically but she is an extremely hardworking woman.

GOODSTEIN: I agree, but she had benefits that those people don't have. That's all I'm saying.


MACCALLUM: And she has worked really hard to get where she is, and the whole argument that like, there is something wrong with their, you know, your family being successful in passing something along to you is not what she's getting. Well, she's saying, people want to have pride in what they do, and they want to work hard and they want to have pride on what they do. They don't want a hand out.


GOODSTEIN: Listen, I agree. Go ahead, Katie, please.

MACCALLUM: Katie, go ahead.


MACCALLUM: Thank you, Richard.

PAVLICH: Look, Ivanka Trump is a woman who has spent her entire career at signing the front of checks, not just the back of checks.

MACCALLUM: That's right.

PAVLICH: She's been a boss, she has employed probably hundreds of people with her businesses and now that she's been in Washington, D.C., she has put her own financial success aside her own businesses and decided to take on a role through the White House of workforce initiative.

She's flown all over the country, she's not working with billionaires and millionaires. She's working with companies to fill a skills gap in places like Iowa and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. She was just in Atlanta at a UPS facility talking about how the skills gap there can be filled.

She is actually asking the right questions about how the government can get out of the way and pave the way for businesses to gain employees that can then -- she talked about have upward mobility not only just from the country economically but for themselves and their families.

And so, she understands that directly, she has spent her entire time in Washington, D.C. promoting those things that she's a really successful track record when it comes to actually impacting people.

MACCALLUM: Thank you both.


GOODSTEIN: It would have been great -- it would have been great if she's in the tax bill that passed that their benefits went to the very people that you just ticked off, Katie, as opposed to people frankly who are doing quite well without that --


PAVLICH: You want to take --

MACCALLUM: You know what? We are going to have you back. We're going to leave it there. Believe me, this is not the last time we're going to talk about socialism and capitalism as we head into 2020 because it's the central issue.

Thank you, guys. Good to see you.

PAVLICH: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, every single Democratic senator running for president voted against a bill that would protect the life of babies that survive abortion. And Brit Hume feels very strongly about this, and he joins me next.



SEN. TIM SCOTT, R-S.C.: And whether you are pro-life as I am, or a pro-choice like others, that this would be even an issue of debate and discussion within the two sides. There is no side on this topic. There cannot be a side about lives separated from the mother whether or not that life should continue to live.


MACCALLUM: Senator Tim Scott on the Senate floor today with a passionate message for his colleagues who rejected the bill to protect the life of babies who survive abortion procedures. The bill was championed by Republican Senator Ben Sasses who brought it to a vote yesterday, but it failed to advance with every single 2020 Democratic presidential candidate contender voting no.

Joining me now is Brit Hume, Fox News senior political analyst. It's worth mentioning that Senator Scott was delayed by a flight that didn't arrive in time for him to vote and he wanted to make that statement today to make it clear how we would have voted.

Brit, good evening to you. Good to have you with us.


MACCALLUM: Hi. So, you know, what is, politically, what is it -- what's at stake for these candidates, these Democratic candidates who have sort of staked out this ground on this bill?

HUME: Well, I think this ground is pretty far out of the mainstream, Martha. I mean, all of the polling that we've seen in recent times about pro-life versus pro-choice suggest that people are, you know, about split 50/50 on the matter. But when you start talking about abortions that are done late in a pregnancy, the numbers just plummet. There is very little support for that.

And now, here we are talking about something that goes beyond that, we're talking about a child born alive as a result of an abortion and that fails and whether that child should receive the medical care necessary to keep it alive. And that is what this bill was about. It would require doctors to give the necessary requisite medical care to keep it born alive infants who survive an abortion going. And that's what the vote is about.

And that's a pretty extreme position. And if you got, you know, these Democratic presidential contenders who are climbing out on that limb on that issue I think is very risky particularly when you put it together with all of these other, I think, it's fair to say extreme positions that someone in that party are now taking on everything from reparations as you discussed earlier to all of the elements of the green new deal, which are just remarkable how extreme they are.

MACCALLUM: I just want to put up a tweet from Elizabeth Warren that sort of expresses why she was not willing to vote for this. She said "Republican politicians just tried and failed again to score political points at the expense of women. Enough. Women and their doctors should decide what is best for their health, not the Senate GOP." Brit?

HUME: Well, first of all, Martha, the most obvious point about that is, they were not talking about the woman's health here. We are talking about the health of an infant who is left in the mother's womb and is alive on the earth. And whether that -- whether that child should be entitled to the medical care that is required to keep it alive.

Infants who survive abortion arrive, in many cases, and they are an extremist and they need medical help. And this is not about the mother's health. This is about an infant child's health in America.

And for her to say that is strikingly dishonest and misleading. But you know, this is a movement. This is the choice movement. The abortion movement is about euphemism like that, women's health, reproductive health. This is not about reproduction, abortion, and this certainly are not about reproduction. They are about non-reproduction.

And what we are talking about here, Martha is this. What the defend -- what the opponents of this measure are trying to protect is not really a woman's health. It's a woman's ability when an abortion has failed to achieve the same results by other means. That's what this is about.

MACCALLUM: Well, you know, one of the things that strikes me, Brit, is that with Judge Kavanaugh in place now, it feels like this whole issue because there is a fear on the part of people who do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned that there is sort of, you know, a creep in that direction that's happening in the Supreme Court.

And then you see all these states effort to, you know, to pass laws that will make sure that the state has the strongest possible laws allowing it. You know, do you think that ultimately, this issue because it is becoming so front and center once again in our society, that it becomes something that the Supreme Court has to deal with?

HUME: Well, that could happen, certainly, Martha, but I think that in the new term, the question really is how central the issue becomes in the 2020 presidential campaign and the campaigns that go on around the country during that whole election cycle.

And you know, my own thought about people who are in favor of abortion rights should be doing, is they should be willing to go along with restrictions on abortion that would bring the process within to the point where as it is practice, is approved by a majority of the public.

By and large, we've had, you know, it's been close, but this kind of been a pro-choice country for a while. That may be changing and not in a way that the pro-abortion rights folks want. And so, I think that, you know, there is a very good chance if these extreme practices that such as the one described by Ralph Northam that gave rise to this bill --


HUME: -- or in the imagination of the American public when they go to vote on this issue is front and center, I don't think that helps the choice movement at all. I think it harms it and harms the candidates who are so far out on this issue.

MACCALLUM: We will see. I just want to put up this one poll that we showed. This a Marist poll that shows the movement towards pro-life, 38 percent in January, 47 percent now, and backs up the point that you are making, Brit, which is that the discussion of this that generated began with Governor Northam and leads in this chapter may be moving the needle on this.

Brit Hume, thank you very much, sir. Always good to see you.

HUME: You bet, Martha. Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So that is "The Story" on this Monday night. Let us know what you think about tonight's show. E-mail us your thoughts at Be sure to let us know what city you're writing from. We will see you back here tomorrow night 7:00 with more of “The Story” as it develops. Good night, everybody. "Tucker" is next.

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.