Funding for To the Contrary provided by Coming up on To the Contrary, the politics of women's health heats up as the November elections edge closer then homeless in America.

Outgoing HUD Secretary Fudge on the housing crisis.

(MUSIC) Hello, I'm Bonnie Erbe' Welcome to To the Contrary discussion of news and social trends from diverse perspectives.

Up first, abortion politics dominate a divided nation.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments next week on the future of the abortion pill, mifepristone.

Medical abortions now account for up to 63% of all U.S. abortions.

Meanwhile, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced women can now purchase birth control without a prescription from New York state pharmacies.

Also, President Biden signed an executive order this week prioritizing women's centered health research.

And Donald Trump.

Former abortion opponent turned supporter signals approval for a national abortion ban after 15 weeks with exceptions.

Joining us today are D.C.

Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, Former memberof the House of Representatives Nan Hayworth, Sam Bennett of the New York Amsterdam News, and Rina Shah, Republican political strategist.

So, Eleanor, what is this Supreme Court going to do with the FDA's ability to control drugs?

Is it worth opening up everything to state controls just to get rid of medical abortions?

Well, when they struck down protections, they struck down protections when they overturned Roe versus Wade.

But the rate has been going up ever since they struck down our protection.

So you have two two Americas where rates are going up and rates are going down.

But what do you think they will do?

I mean, it would be a huge a huge move by this court to take away agency control over drugs, something they're not doctors.

They don't understand the drugs the way the analysts that the the people with the MDs and the researchers with MDs at the federal and the Food and Drug Administration.

So for them to say, you don't have the power to legalize it for a first stone would be a pretty huge move.

Do you expect it from this court?

These are decisions that hinge on whether or not the Constitution allows or specifically denies such things from the federal level.

That's what the Supreme Court does.

That's what the Dobbs decision was about.

Politically I did not like the Dobbs decision, but constitutionally I understood why it was the decision that was made in terms of access to medications.

You know, it's going to have to be couched in, again, in constitutional terms.

I mean, there's a lot that can be said about the limitations on the administrative state, but whether or not it specifically unconstitutional for government agencies to allow or enable the prescription of medications, all of which depends on providers doing so.

And indeed, there are limitations, obviously, to state by state.

It'll be interesting to see what what the court does, but whatever they do, it will be based on how they construe the Constitution as little as governing these things.

Rina, your thoughts on this?

Well, I think that's the key phrase here is that it's about the states.

What are the states going to do?

And that is what I hear from so many conservatives.

And I've even heard that from people who are, you know, anti-abortion in my circles, that they actually feel pretty good about abortion being kicked to the states.

I hadn't met so many ways feel, Bonnie, that this is frustrating on a huge level for women in my generation who are of childbearing age.

I am somebody and have said it many times on this show.

I'm anti-abortion for myself, but I'm pro-choice for other women.

I am concerned largely because I do come from southern West Virginia.

Now I know who is hardest hit when we talk about taking access to reproductive care away, and that is women from, you know, lower socioeconomic status.

They are rural women.

They are black and brown women.

And so in a sense, I use the word frustrating because here at the ripe old age of 40, I feel that anybody who needs to terminate a pregnancy should be able to do so in a timely manner and get access to compassionate care, to affordable care.

I you know, I'm the daughter of a physician.

I'm the sister of one and the wife of one.

You're not going to get anything different from me.

And and I think what I just it pains me to know that this is back on not the table, but I do worry about really the future of bodily autonomy for women when when it feels like certain states are going to go as far as they possibly can.

And that is a just it's a really frustrating moment in time.

Of course, I'm watching the Supreme Court.

Of course I care about what they do.

But wherever things land up in state houses or at the federal level, one thing is for sure, my generation just never thought this day was possible.

Well, I think thank you for your remarks, Rina.

Very appreciate it.

Coming from the New York Amsterdam News that now has the largest digital readership of any legacy black newspaper in the country.

Bonnie, this overwhelmingly, these anti-choice legislations and decisions overwhelmingly disproportion socially impact women of color.

And so we at the Amsterdam News are very firmly for a woman's right to choose out of respect for what our readers need.

But I think that more troubling issue is what this is doing to us globally as a country.

We we were already bad on women's rights.

We're now ranked 100th in the world in among women in elected office.

We're behind Afghanistan now.

We've plummeted to 43 in the global rankings women's rights.

When we look at half of our population being crippled by not being able to make their own important life decisions, I think there's very, very dangerous impact.

And I'm fascinated to see what happens in this state by state landscape we're in Will states like California that have been so proactive in reaching out to other women in other states to say, you can't get an abortion in your state, come to us.

And we've seen that sparked rise in particular in border states that are near.

So if California's next or another state that outlaws abortion, the women are going to California to get their abortions.

What is the long term economic effect?

Am I a woman?

Am I going to say, well, the heck with this, I'm going to move to California?

I think there's a lot of unaccounted for blowback, including this election.

I love the bumper stickers I'm seeing everywhere that go row, row, row, your vote.

Women are getting catalyzed in a way that I think has been long overdue.

Haven't seen that one, but have seen the polls that show, that's definitely I mean, the justices aren't supposed to, as I recall from law school, get involved in political questions.

They're supposed to stay away from areas where they don't have the technical expertise and yet it seems like this particular court anyway, whether there's there's the five court, a five member majority to do this or not, but for them to overturn half a century of precedent, which of course they did with the Dobbs decision.

Right.

And tell the FDA you don't have control over drugs and who has access to which drugs.

We do.

And and and we're taking that control away from you is a pretty major step, is it not, Eleanor?

It's a huge step.

And I think the court is going to have to decide that.

And are we are we at the point where there has been enough evidence to show that American voters, particularly Democrats, one in five Democrats, now says and we haven't seen numbers like this since before Roe was handed down by the Supreme Court in the seventies.

One in five Democrats says abortion is his or her top issue.

Are Republicans going to feel the whiplash from the Dobbs decision Nan in November?

I think they very well could.

Yeah.

I would respectfully disagree with you, Bonnie, on the court's role, if you will.

The court's role is to determine whether or not the Constitution, the amended constitution, but the constitution permits certain types of authority to the federal government, to its agencies.

They're not assuming expertise.

They are judging on whether or not purview over certain decisions is constitutionally appropriate.

That's very different thing.

But you are absolutely right that it has some very profound political implications on the ground.

And I am a Republican who believes the Dobbs decision, again, was constitutionally appropriate, but that Republicans should fall on the side of respecting women's autonomy over the decisions made regarding their own bodies.

And I think where Republicans can square the circle is in terms of how taxpayers are asked to provide for things that they may find morally repugnant.

And I think that's where the the argument could go appropriately.

There's no reason that Republicans on the ground cannot be passionate advocates for the pro-life position and provide their time and their treasure to supporting pregnant women, to supporting women and children.

But I agree politically, it could have profound implications, and I think it definitely had a major effect in the 2022 election.

And I want each of you to respond to what you think about Donald Trump saying this week, quoting the, you know, sending up the clichéd trial balloon to see how his constituents would respond to him approving a 15 week ban on abortions as opposed to a total ban, which some states have done.

And as we have seen in the special elections and in local elections since, Dobbs have really hurt Republican parties in some very red states .

Your thoughts, Rina I mean, every time you see abortion on the ballot, since obviously Roe was overturned, you see Republicans lose.

Right?

And so Ohio is one such place that has has taught us a lesson.

And I think this week somewhere in the Midwest and forgive me for getting it wrong, some Republicans recognize that and try to get it off the ballot.

I, I believe it's Montana, but I also believe I'm wrong on that so fact check me there.

But but here's the thing about Donald Trump.

Of course, he's going to test the waters because Nikki Haley continues to loom large in this race.

And he saw her masterfully.

She's not pro-choice.

She's not pro-choice.

No.

But I bet if you saw her debate performances last fall in at least three of them, if not four, she knocked it out of the ballpark in discussing abortion.

She she even, you know, had the heads turning of some women who consider themselves center left that, my goodness, this is somebody that might have a different position, but they had faith that she wouldn't go to the White House and do a total ban or something of that sort.

She talked about humanizing women and sort of demonizing them.

It was okay, sure, it was talking points, but it was the best we've heard from a Republican in the aftermath of the overturning Roe.

So Trump was never going to be for a total ban.

Let's just get that straight.

I don't think he'd ever would have gone for that.

He knows what he's doing in that sense.

But if 15 keep, he thinks it's palatable.

And for the vast majority of Americans who are Republican, they can kind of get with the 15 week.

But again, we don't we don't need to split hairs here.

This is just Donald Trump trying to figure out how he can also gain ground and sound reasonable on abortion.

What is it?

You're a Republican woman Is any Republican woman who was opposed to Donald Trump because of his anti-abortion stance going to believe him that he is now all of a sudden changing position?

I mean, it used to be the politicians took one position and stuck with it.

That may be completely changed in this environment, but it used to be that you would vote for somebody believing they would follow the agenda that they tell you while they're campaigning they would follow.

So will Republican middle of the road women who are pro-choice or at least partially pro-choice, going to believe him now that he's saying maybe he'll support a 15 week ban?

Well, that type of woman you're describing has some huge trust issues with Donald Trump anyway.

And so that's kind of over there.

But in looking at that segment of women also, and not to paint with the broad brush these women are putting economy and immigration slash public safety ahead of abortion, because in a sense, what they're determined what they've determined is that it's been kicked back to the states.

States are doing what they will on it.

And so this is the voter, though, that's outside the Republican Party, again, independently minded in a swing state, college educated, suburban woman that will help determine the election, of course.

Okay.

What about evangelicals?

I mean, the president got to where he is there, the base of his support.

What are they going to do if he now says, okay, I'm for a 15 week ban?

Most abortions are performed before 15 weeks or almost four months of pregnancy.

Well, I think they're still going to hold their nose and vote for him.

But obviously, I would imagine he's running the risk of alienating them.

But they are they're going to be motivated to vote, which is a huge.

When I when I was a political organizer on the ground, you know, we always joked Republicans roll out of bed on Election Day and show up at the polls.

Democrats, you have to, you know, kick and scream and drag them out of bed to get them there.

So I think we can count on them to perform.

I would count on them to hold their nose on this one.

What is fascinating to me is that at this stage of the election, with the Democrats amassing a much bigger war chest this point than Trump's got, the Democrats have a lot to flagellate him with on abortion right now with the continued war chests that are being developed not only on the national level, but by independent, you know, individual candidates that are running.

I think the Republican Party is setting itself to be very vulnerable for Democratic attack on all fronts, on abortion.

I think they're very vulnerable right now.

All right.

From the political impact of women's health to help for the homeless.

Tents and other temporary housing are popping up in cities nationwide, spotlighting homelessness.

Some 650,000 people in the U.S. are homeless.

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and longtime U.S. House member Marcia Fudge has been working to find solutions to this enormous problem.

With mixed emotions.

Fudge has resigned and leaves office this week for family reasons.

We recently spoke to her about the crisis.

The greatest nation in the world should not have people sleeping on its streets.

Not only is there a.

Crisis of homelessness or unhoused people.

There is a crisis of having low income and moderate affordable homes.

But think about young people coming out of school or young couples who can't afford.

Their rent or have to stay with their parents.

People now with young families, which is one of the fastest growing group groups of people on the street, they do not want their children.

Sleeping on the streets.

Women my age, Bonnie are now another fast growing group of people who are sleeping on the streets.

Secretary Fudge told me HUD has been instrumental in the building of more than 500,000 low and moderate income housing units, but that's 3 million units short.

We need to build in more density, which is also a problem in many communities because of their zoning.

We have landlords who don't want to take vouchers, so we have that source of income discrimination.

In order to turn this crisis around, we all have to work together to make it happen.

That means developers, it means mayors and communities.

Fudge fears the US is becoming a nation that is inured to the pain of poor people.

You drive by an encampment long.

Enough money, you.

Seeing it, you don't see the people in it, all you see is a tent.

So we can make it personal.

We're not going to stop it.

So Nan not to mix this with another issue, but it occurred to me that I wonder if this incredible growth of homelessness has anything to do with increased immigrants, and particularly immigrants who come across the borders of Texas.

There are 60,000 in New York City whom they are about to say, we can't house you anymore for more than 30 days.

Is that contributing to the problem of homelessness nationwide or not?

Sure, it almost undoubtedly is.

And indeed, Bonnie, we know of instances at least in which some veterans, for example, who are dear to people's hearts, and it tends to become a highly publicized event.

But some veterans have been deprived of the housing that they were being provided by it with public funds because the housing was needed for migrants and it in continent southern border helps no one.

It does exacerbate our difficulties.

So the entire emphasis directionally should be on how do we use the power of consumers, how do we let American citizens in need be better consumers, empowered consumers in markets that offer more choices.

All right but it's pretty difficult to make.

I mean, rents right now are high.

The home prices are high.

Rent controlled rent control actually has a lot to do with limiting markets.

As a.

Developer, if these two things are true and they certainly are in this economy, you could possibly build housing for low income people and not go broke doing it.

Well.

It's indeed a challenge.

But, you know, I look at the state of New York, in the state of New York has taken many steps in recent years to make it harder to, and mind you, developers get lots of breaks.

So I'm.

Not saying they.

Don't, and I don't think that we should play favorites on either side of this.

But because of the way the way in which rents have been limited, the way in which returns on these investments have been limited, that severely restricts the amount of investment that people want to make in this marketplace doesn't have to be that way.

So there is there is a middle ground to be reached.

I agree with Secretary Fudge on that.

And it does take imaginative thinking on, you know, looking back and saying, wait a minute, how can we enhance the markets in this?

How can we empower consumers?

That means letting them keep more dollars in their pockets, too.

Eleanor, you worked in in the U.S. House for many years with Marcia Fudge.

What do you think of her tenure as a housing secretary?

Did she ease the huge gap between the number of units needed and the number of units available?

And is there anything she should have done that she didn't?

Well, she.

She had a remarkable tenure because she provided and she presided during the pandemic.

Right.

When when housing costs have have been on the rise.

But but she's put the president in a difficult position because it's going to be hard to appoint a new secretary right now when the November vote is is upon us.

So that may have to wait until after the elections or?

It certainly may and I think it's going to become one of the primary issues after that.

Your thoughts, Rina?

Yeah, I'm so frustrated because for years we've been talking about the housing bubble and how it's going to pop at any moment.

And so in a sense I look at the data and it's just so stark.

Of course, we know that the post-pandemic era has its challenges, which are unique, that are related to what the cost of housing is.

But also, I think this this issue of women living on the streets and about 38% of our homeless population here in the U.S. is comprised of women and girls.

That leaves the door open to so much.

I mean, sex trafficking, you know, girls trying to just find a safe place to sleep at night.

And so they enter into trafficking situations.

It almost feels like one bad move and that's it you're on the street and a lot and we don't have familial bonds the way we used to.

People aren't doing intergenerational living and so therefore, you know, you don't see people have an opportunity to to land up with their children in a relative's home and be safe for the night.

They're ending up in shelters and then what's that mean for them is there a bridge to even having an affordable place to rent?

I just fear that this is so out of the the dialog, the societal dialog, daily life that we don't talk enough about how this problem can be solved.

What research shows that the most effective way to end how homelessness is is to provide housing, and it ends up being the least expensive solution.

A lot of European nations have made great progress here, but that requires these government private partnerships to make that possible.

The other thing, it's very important now.

What about tiny houses or.

Example in all.

Apartments, out of storage bins, as I've seen done all over the world.

All you need is 200 square feet.

You don't need much.

And there's very creative ways to do it.

And I think the other thing it's critically important is, well, what causes homelessness?

A lot of it is the incredible cost our health care in this nation is we spend far more than other nations do per citizen with lower health positive outcomes.

It's the biggest reason that forces homelessness is medical medical costs.

Really.

We really need to cut the administrative costs of medicine, in particular.

Yeah, but it is it we have we have the worst of both worlds in the United States.

We have heavy government involvement and we also have market players, big market players who are reaping enormous profits and the benefits are being seen by the public.

Exactly and I just want to put a shout out to my dear, dear, dear friend Marcia Fudge was so proud when she was named secretary of housing.

She accomplished a lot.

And to to Eleanor's comment, Congresswoman Norton, she took it over at arguably one of the worst times one could in the middle of the pandemic and managed to get things done.

That's a huge accomplishment.

All right.

And thank you all for contributing to this accomplishment.

That's it for this edition.

Please keep the conversation going on our social media platforms.

Reach out to us at the counter and visit our website.

The address on the screen and whether you agree or think to the contrary.

See you next time.

(MUSIC)