‘Your World’ on Michigan school shooting, Supreme Court abortion case

This is a rush transcript of “Your World with Neil Cavuto” on December 1, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR:  All right, you’re watching the formal 

arraignment of Ethan Crumbley, a 15-year-old being charged as an adult in 

the murders at that Michigan high school yesterday that claimed a fourth 

life today, a 17-year-old student, the fourth victim, succumbing to 

critical injuries that had occurred yesterday. 

The assaults are many and the counts are many, four counts of first-degree 

murder, seven counts of assault with intent to murder, 12 counts of 

possession of a firearm. Crumbley, you might recall, was arrested in the 

immediate aftermath of the shooting, taken into custody. 

We also had a chance to see — his parents were part of this arraignment 

process. We learned through the police and then the chief police in the 

area that they had been with their son that morning on a school discipline 

issue that had come up over two days, first on Monday, and then separately 

meeting with some other teachers, we’re told — we assume teachers — the 

very next day.

Whether they were with him on both days, it appears that they were. They 

were with him at this arraignment. Again, just keeping you posted on this. 

But all of this comes at a time we’re learning that there is now apparently 

a massive amount of digital evidence, videotape, social media, that 

absolutely confirms that we can show this was a premeditated act. 

This is coming from the Oakland county prosecutor, Karen McDonald, who said 

that this was not just an impulsive act, it was planned, it was very well-


Let’s go to Steve Harrigan right now following all these developments in 

Oxford, Michigan — Steve. 

STEVE HARRIGAN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT:  Neil, a lot of news coming out 

about this case and some remarkable images there from the courtroom, where 

you saw the 15-year-old sophomore in a bulletproof vest slumped over, 

looking very small and not powerful at all, his parents in baseball caps on 

a different screen at the same time.

We have learned that the 15-year-old will be charged as an adult, that he 

will face four charges of first-degree murder that show premeditation. 

Also, he will face the charge of terrorism that causes death, an unusual 

charge. The prosecutor explained that, saying this entire community has 

been terrorized by the 15-year-old’s action. 

And, as you referenced, the prosecutor said there was a mountain of digital 

evidence to show that these shootings were premeditated. It certainly 

raises the question, if there was so much evidence out there online, why no 

red flags were raised. 

As for the shooter himself, we’re learning new details about what went on 

yesterday just before 1:00 p.m. The 15-year-old walked up and down the 

hallways, firing a Sig Sauer pistol at extremely close range, hitting 

fellow students in the head, in the body, at times shooting through 

barricaded doors to try to kill more.

At this point, four dead, ages 17, 17, 16 and 14, seven people still 

wounded, and certainly a lot of questions raised about what the school knew 

and when. They held meetings with the 15-year-old a day before the 

shooting. The day of the shooting, just two hours before the rampage, both 

parents, the shooter and administration officials met in that school. 

Two hours later, he came out of the bathroom firing — Neil. 

CAVUTO:  Steve, do we know whether he targeted his victims, the four who 

died, the seven others who were injured, I believe two others critically? 

Do we know whether they were his intended targets, that he was searching 

for them? 

HARRIGAN: Officials right now aren’t saying either way whether they were 

targeted or not.

But from the description of the firing, walking up and down halls, firing 

people at close range and firing into classrooms, it does not seem that he 

targeted the people hit, again, four killed, seven wounded, one teacher 

wounded, and one 14-year-old still in critical condition at this time. 

So those numbers could change even more, Neil. 

CAVUTO:  All right, Steve, thank you very, very much, Steve Harrigan.

I want to go to Ted Williams right now, the former D.C. detective, what he 

makes it this. 

I guess we don’t know what happened, Ted, on those two days that this young 

man, being probably 15, but being arraigned as an adult today on these 

charges, what transpired at those back-to-back Monday and Tuesday meetings, 

including the final one yesterday but two hours before the shootings. 

But what do you make of this? 

TED WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR:  Well, it appears, at this stage, we’re 

dealing with a very disturbed young man, Neil.

But you have just said it, that there was a meeting with this young man, 

the day before yesterday, and then there was one yesterday with his 

parents. This — from what I have been able to glean and what is out there 

is that the gun that was used was a gun that his father had just recently 


And while he was in this school, and while he was doing his shooting, at 

one time, while the students were barricaded in a classroom, it is alleged 

that he asked them, “Come out, come out, you’re safe, I’m with the 

insurance department,” when in fact he was not actually with the sheriff’s 


This is a horrific situation. It is sad. But law enforcement now, the 

investigation begins, because there’s a crime scene. And I can tell you, 

Neil, as a part of this investigation, they’re going to do a social media 

scrub. They’re going to have to talk to his friends, people who are his 

teachers who knew him or people — folk in the community that very well may 

have known him, because, from what I have been told also is that he’s not 


He’s lawyered up. And his parents and him have been told that they are not 

to speak to anyone concerning this case. So the investigation is going to 

continue, Neil, unfortunately.

CAVUTO:  Real quickly on that oddity where he’s not speaking to 

authorities, he’s treated as a minor in Michigan, a juvenile, without 

getting parental permission, yet he’s being arraigned on these charges as 

an adult. 

What do you make of that? 

WILLIAMS:  Well, they have decided, the authorities, that they wanted to go 

forward with charges as an adult, in light of the many individuals who have 

been killed here.

But even if he’s being treated as an adult, the moment he lawyers up, as he 

has done, he does not have to say anything to anybody. So the authorities 

are left trying to determine, what was the motive in this? And that is the 

reason that they’re going to have to backtrack and speak to a lot of people 

in this investigation and check, of course, social media sites.

CAVUTO:  All right, Ted, thank you very, very much for that. 

We will be pursuing this story and getting more information on it, but the 

formal arraignment of this 15-year-old, being arraigned as an adult on 

these charges, four charges of murder that go on and on and on, and still 

questions as to why he did what he did. 

We will have much more on that if it becomes available. 

In the meantime, I do want to bring your attention to the corner of Wall 

and Broad today. We had a huge sell-off, all of that having to do with 

Omicron arriving right now in the United States, the first case reported in 


The administration was the first to sort of put out Dr. Anthony Fauci on 

this first case that he suspects could trigger up news of still other 


Peter Doocy now at the White House with more on that — Peter. 


this news, Neil, from officials around here in trying to help people 

process that there is a new variant is to push existing vaccines and 


And we are told that this infected person is doing better. Their symptoms 

are doing better. They are considered fully vaccinated with two shots, they 

have not yet had a booster, and they’re quarantining in San Francisco after 

a trip to South Africa. 



we call in medicine and N=1, which means that you really can’t take 

anything away from a single patient. It is very — it’s — we feel good 

that this patient not only had mild symptoms, but actually the symptoms 

appear to be improving. 


DOOCY:  White House officials tell us: “The president will have more to say 

about our strategy for fighting COVID this winter tomorrow. But, for now, 

we know that this new variant is cause for continued vigilance, not panic. 

We know that — we know what it takes to limit the spread of COVID, get 

vaccinated, get boosted, and take public health measures like masking and 


Some of those new changes are reportedly going to require stricter testing 

requirements even for fully vaccinated Americans. But there are new 

questions that we posed to Dr. Fauci about possible loopholes. 


DOOCY:  As you have advised the president about the possibility of new 

testing requirements for people coming into this country, does that include 


FAUCI:  The answer is yes.

DOOCY:  But what about people who don’t take a plane and just these border 

crossers coming in, in huge numbers? 


FAUCI:  That’s a different issue. 

For example, when you talk — we still have Title 42 with regard to 

protection at the border. So there are protections at the border, that you 

don’t have the capability.


DOOCY:  And all this is happening is the president admits that he’s still 

dealing with a COVID-crimped supply chain right ahead of Christmas. He said 

today during a brief set of remarks before this news broke that he cannot 

guarantee everyone’s Christmas gifts are going to arrive on time. 

He says, the president says that the only person who can guarantee that is 

Santa — Neil. 

CAVUTO:  Well, I have talked to Santa, and he’s worried, just so you know. 


CAVUTO:  But, Peter, thank you very, very much, a wild day there at the 

White House. 

Let’s go to Jonathan Serrie here, what we’re learning about Omicron. 

A lot of people are very stunned by these developments, but the fact of the 

matter is, Jonathan, we have had reports now that this is already in 23 

countries. The best tipoff probably was learning early yesterday that 

Canada was among them. 

Now the issue becomes what’s next, who’s next, how big a deal this is, 

whether the existing treatments we have can address this or not, delays and 

possible responses going into next year. What are you learning? 

JONATHAN SERRIE, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT:  Yes, well, we suddenly have more 

tools to deal with it, more treatments being developed and certainly some 

powerful vaccines, that they’re still testing the efficacy of them against 

this particular variant, but, right now, federal health officials believe 

with a reasonable level of confidence that full vaccination, plus a booster 

shot, will give you at least some protection, certainly protection against 

the most serious forms of disease. 

Now, as we speak, San Francisco health officials are conducting contact 

tracing on this case, trying to see if anyone else was exposed to this 

traveler, but the city does not plan to impose any new restrictions or 

mandates based on this case. 

Moments ago, city officials wrapped up a news conference on this first 

confirmed U.S. case of the Omicron variant. Take a listen. 



This is not a surprise. 

For those of you who’ve been following us, we knew that Omicron was going 

to be here. We thought it would — it was already here, we just hadn’t 

detected it yet. So this is cause for concern, but it is also certainly not 

a cause for us to panic. 


SERRIE:  White House COVID response coordinator Jeff Zients issued this 

statement: “We are prepared to meet this challenge with science and speed. 

The president’s medical team continues to believe that existing vaccines 

will provide some level of protection against severe illness from Omicron, 

and individuals who have gotten boosters will have an even stronger 


Some more details on this first U.S. case. It involves a person who 

recently traveled to San Francisco from South Africa, developed symptoms 

upon return, and then immediately reported it to physicians, and went in, 

got tested, and, with the positive test, went into isolation.

The patient had been fully vaccinated with two doses of the Moderna 

vaccine, but had not received a booster shot. Thankfully, this case was 

very mild. The person, in fact, has already recovered. But, again, contact 

tracing is going on. 

One thing going on in San Francisco’s favor is that there are very high 

vaccination rates in that city. And public health officials believe that 

that will slow the spread of this variant in that town, even if it can’t 

prevent it altogether — Neil.

CAVUTO:  Jonathan Serrie, thank you very much for that. 

SERRIE:  Certainly.

CAVUTO:  All right, to Francis — Dr. Francis Collins right now, the 

director of the National Institutes of Health. 

Doctor, very good seeing you again.

I mentioned, Doctor, a little earlier the panicked reaction. Certainly, 

Wall Street gave this, at the great unknown. Is this another step backward? 

Are we going to see a variant that’s going to take a while to come up with 

a vaccine to treat? 

So, of course, in Wall Street’s mood, it’s to sell first, ask questions 

later. Did they overreact? Do you think this is worthy of the sort of 

crisis reaction at least investors had? 


kind of surprised that the first case turning up in California is really 

seen as a big event, because we have all been saying it’s only a matter of 

time. Anytime this week, it was very likely to happen, considering, as you 

have just said, more than 20 countries have had cases of Omicron. 

So it should not come as a great surprise, with a South African traveler, 

who, by the way, is California resident, coming back from a trip, turns out 

to be positive, seems to be doing really well. 

And I guess it’s an indication investors hate uncertainty, Neil. 

CAVUTO:  Yes, they do.

COLLINS:  And that’s long been known. 

And we have some uncertainty right now about, just how serious is this 

variant? Is it highly transmissible? How severe is the disease it can 

cause? And will the vaccines and the boosters fully protect us? Or do we 

have to think about redesigning them? 

And we don’t have answers to those things as clearly as we would like, and 

it’s going to be a couple of weeks before we do. So, Wall Street’s going to 

have to deal with some uncertainty. 

CAVUTO:  Yes. 

COLLINS:  I wish we could do this faster. 

CAVUTO:  No, you’re right not to be focusing on those money guys. I guess I 

do that for a living, Doctor, and compensate. 

But let me ask you. When the South African, I think, health minister was 

commenting on the cases in her country, she was referring to the fact that 

they were all relatively mild. Now, she and others in the region might be 

talking book because they don’t want to be isolated from the world, that 

travel restrictions imposed. But that’s already happening. 

Do you think that some of the restrictions that have been put in place 

already and contemplation of still more is warranted? 

COLLINS:  Well, I think it’s smart to try to limit the number of infected 

individuals coming to the U.S. So I’m totally supportive of what the 

president needed to do there in terms of blocking flights from South 

African and countries close by. 

And I think it’s a really good idea, Neil, to get everybody having a test 

one day before they get on the plane to make sure people aren’t coming who 

are already infected, and also to require everybody to be vaccinated. 

But nobody should imagine that that’s a perfect situation that’s going to 

block other cases. I will be surprised if we don’t have additional cases of 

Omicron in the United States in the coming week or two. And nobody should 

be surprised if that’s the case. 

And I think the big question is, really, how much should we be concerned 

about whether that’s going to change our plan? Keep in mind, Neil, right 

now, all the buzz is about Omicron, but the disease that’s killing people 

in the United States right now is Delta.

CAVUTO:  Yes. 

COLLINS:  Delta is still taking about 1,000 lives that day. And we are not 

necessarily handling that one very well because of the limit in the number 

of people who’ve actually taken advantage of vaccinations and boosters. 

If Omicron is waking people up a little bit to taking advantage of those 

things, then that, I guess, might be a silver lining, because we do believe 

those vaccines are going to be our best protection and are the best 

protection now. 

CAVUTO:  You might think that would be the reaction. That was my thought 

too, Doctor. 

But I have heard from a number of people who say this is proof why I 

shouldn’t get vaccinated, because people keep having problems, even those 

who’ve been fully vaccinated. So why the heck should I?

What do you tell them? 

COLLINS:  Well, let’s try to answer that question carefully. 

It’s true that people who are fully vaccinated can still have breakthrough 

infections, but their likelihood of getting such an infection is about 

tenfold less. And their likelihood of getting really sick or dying is even 

greater in reduction.

So, just because a vaccine is not perfect doesn’t mean you don’t want to 

take advantage of it, if it has a chance of saving your life. Again, Neil, 

I think that the statistic that I’m surprised people haven’t focused on is, 

let’s look at those 1,000 people every day who are dying in the United 

States of Delta. Are they vaccinated? 

No. They’re almost all unvaccinated. If you wanted proof that the vaccines 

are saving lives, it’s right there in front of us every day. And the 

boosters will do even more than that, because we know the vaccines tend to 

wane in their effectiveness after six months. 

CAVUTO:  Right. 

COLLINS:  So, anybody who is listening to this, if you haven’t got 

vaccinated, yes, Omicron is one more reason why you want to do this for 

yourself and your family. 

If you have gotten vaccinated, but you haven’t gotten around to that 

booster yet, it’s now recommended, everybody 18 and over. And it’s easy to 

find a place. Vaccines.gov will tell you what’s close to you. Get the 

booster and you will be even better prepared for the holidays and more 

confident that whatever’s going on now with this doggone COVID-19 is not 

such a threat to you. 

It’s not that hard. It’s pretty straightforward. Look at the data, America. 

CAVUTO:  Yes. 

I know — all I know, as a breakthrough case myself, that it would have 

been a lot worse had I not been vaccinated. So, when I tell that to people, 

they just say, oh, well, you’re Mr. Vaccine. 

I guess, in that case, I am.

Doctor, thank you very, very much. Good seeing you again.

And I will have you back to talk about the stock market another time. How’s 



COLLINS:  That will be really illuminating, I’m sure, for everyone.

CAVUTO:  Yes, I am absolutely sure it would be.


CAVUTO:  Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of 


All right, in the meantime, there was some other news going on today, 

particularly in Washington, where they’re trying to avoid a government 


But they have to do it all by Friday night at midnight. Then there’s the 

debt ceiling. Then there’s trying to get that Build Back Better thing 

going. Then there’s trying to calm markets that are just freaking out over 

all these things — after this. 


CAVUTO:  It might not be able to overturn Roe v. Wade, but did the Supreme 

Court in today at least it’s considering seriously undercutting it?

More after this.


CAVUTO:  All right, by Friday, they have to come up with something in 

Washington to avoid a government shutdown, or at least start the process. 

And we’re told, at least on the part of Chuck Schumer, that they’re close 

to something, but another Democratic senator saying, well, we’re not close 

to anything. The debt ceiling hangs in the balance just a couple of weeks 

after that. Then there’s the Build Back Better plan the president’s trying 

to marshal enough support to get done. 

It is a busy time in D.C. 

Aishah Hasnie following at all from Capitol Hill — Aishah.


Yes, it’s going to take a Christmas miracle to get a lot of this done, 

especially the Build Back Better plan, if they want to get it done by 


The man of the hour is of course, Senator Joe Manchin. Everyone’s been 

talking about him. His biggest gripe with this spending plan right now is 

paid family leave. He’s not against the idea. He wants to see it in a 

separate bill. 

But these wants and wishes have Democrats really losing patience with him. 



SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL):  Some programs have been eliminated. Ones that

I dearly love have been eliminated at his request. And now it’s time for 

Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to close the deal. For goodness’ sakes, 

enough is enough. 


HASNIE:  Enough is enough, he says.

Not certain that’s going to deter the moderate Democrat from West Virginia, 

who, by the way, got an earful from constituents when he was home for the 

holidays. That is why he says he wants to look at this House bill through 

the lens of the ongoing inflation crisis. 

He also doesn’t really like how this 10-year-long bill is being paid for. 

There are some social programs in this like universal pre-K that are 

written to last only one to six years. That helps trim the bill’s price tag 

at the top. But these programs will probably be extended in the future. And 

somebody has to pay for that. 

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell calls it — quote — “total accounting 

fiction.” Manchin doesn’t like it either. 


SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): If you’re going to do something, then do it for 

the 10-year period. Don’t do it for one year, three years, or four years or 


That’s just — that’s disingenuine for the American public to understand. 


HASNIE:  And, Neil, it is not just a Joe Manchin issue. 

Take a look at all of the items Democrats still need to work out in this 

bill, not to mention it has still not gone through the Byrd bath, as they 

call it, through the Senate parliamentarian to clear Senate rules. 

So, still a long way to go, 24 days until Christmas. Who’s counting? 

CAVUTO:  Yes. I have a feeling you will be working Christmas, at the rate 

this goes.

HASNIE:  We will see.

CAVUTO:  Aishah, thank you very, very much.

HASNIE:  I will get you a nice present.


CAVUTO:  There you go.

Aishah Hasnie following that. 

So, where do we stand on the Build Back Better thing in particular right 

now, especially with some of the things that Joe Manchin has been saying?

Let’s go to Congressman Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the House majority 


Congressman, great to see you. 

When I heard Senator Durbin, sir, he sounded very frustrated with Joe 

Manchin, that Democrats have tried to give him everything he wanted, 

Kyrsten Sinema as well. 

Are you? Are you frustrated with Joe Manchin? 

REP. JAMES CLYBURN (D-SC):  Well, first of all, thank you very much for 

having me, Neil. 

CAVUTO:  Thank you.

CLYBURN:  I think I almost.

Look, I think Durbin is absolutely correct. This whole notion that, if you 

are going to do something, do it for 10 years, or not at all, that’s a 

fallacy, and we ought to stop that foolishness. 

We don’t know what conditions will be in two or three years. Even if you 

were to fund it now for 10 years and there’s dramatic change in our 

circumstances, then it may not be but for one or two years. So doing 

something for two or three years, rather than 10, is just — it’s crazy to 

think that it must be 10 or nothing.

So he ought to be ashamed of himself for saying something like that. That’s 

not the way the world works. Everybody knows…

CAVUTO:  So, it sounds like you have gotten frustrated with this process 

here, and that maybe there’s a sense in the Senate that this is falling 


Do you think that it’s falling apart? 

CLYBURN:  No, I don’t think it’s falling apart at all. 

You just have someone who seems to want to have his way or the highway. 

That’s what this seems like to me. All of us have been getting outside of 

our comfort zones. Durbin is right. He’s given up a lot of things that he’s 

comfortable with. 

We over here on the House side gave up a lot of things that we were 

comfortable with. You may recall, when we were doing this bill, even within 

our own caucus, I asked the Congressional Black Caucus, the Hispanic 

Caucus, the Asian/Pacific Islanders to get beyond their comfort zones. Get 

outside of your comfort zones. And we did the same thing with the moderates 

in order to find common ground. 

So, this whole notion is that you are the only one that must be comfortable 

with the process, that’s not the way the world works. You’re aren’t 

successful in government or even in family affairs by having it your way 

all of the time or no way. 

CAVUTO:  But isn’t the fear, Congressman, that it’s the progressives having 

it all the way, that they’re ruling the roost here, that they’re forcing 

this spending, that this spending is going to be inflationary, that we know 

from the CBO score it’s not paid for, as the president keeps stating, and 

that, when people go back to their various districts, like we’re told 

Senator Manchin did in West Virginia to his state, people were giving him 

an earful about all of that?

What do you say? 

CLYBURN:  I would say that that’s not quite right, Neil.

They did say that some things were not paid for under the calculations that 

they were using. They also said that, if certain other things were to 

happen, it would be paid for. 

We just saw this analysis from Moody’s. That analysis indicate that not 

only will it be paid for, that we will contribute to a big reduction in the 

deficit. And it also said it would have a positive impact on this whole 

notion of inflation. 

So, who are we supposed to believe, the people who trying to score 

political points or an independent house, like Moody’s is? And they don’t 

have any political considerations here. So, I believe the Moody’s analysis 

to be closer to what’s the fact. 

CAVUTO:  Well, they’re about the only one. And Moody’s might — Moody’s 

might have a calculated interest in this. 

They underwrite bonds and all the rest. So, if there’s a lot of activity on 

building and municipal bonds, they’re the guys behind it and the rating 

agencies. But you’re quite right to say they aren’t saying that. Not too 

many other financial types are. 

So, I guess what I’m going to ask you here, Americans are very concerned 

with runaway inflation and prices getting out of hand. The president says 

this is going to fix that. But almost every time the government has spent a 

lot of money, you do get inflation. 

Now, there might be some benefits in the near term, but you do get 

inflation, and it’s only going to get worse. Or — does that worry for your 

party and a possible reversal in fortunes for Democrats, where you’re going 

to be the minority party after next year? 

CLYBURN:  Well, I worry for the country. Party is secondary to me. And it 

should be secondary to everybody. 

I think that the problem we have got here on this Hill now is that 

everybody is thinking about the party this, the party that, who will win 

next year, who will be in the minority? 

Let’s get things going for the American people, and let’s worry about the 

politics after this gets done. 

So, what we want to do…

CAVUTO:  But what if the American people — what if the American people, 

sir, aren’t keen on this? 

CLYBURN:  Well, we have looked at the polling. 

How do you tell — determine whether or not they are keen on it? If you 

look at the polling — and I have looked at it — well, you got 60, 65 

percent of the American people saying this is what they want. So, what does 

that tell us if more than 50 percent of the American people…


CAVUTO:  That 66 — are you saying there’s a poll that 66 percent of the 

people like the Build Back Better plan? 

CLYBURN:  I said 50 or 60.


CLYBURN:  It’s beyond — yes, the Build Back Better plan, the last number I 

saw was somewhere like 57, 58 percent. 

CAVUTO:  All right.

CLYBURN:  So, and that’s a fact. 

If you get 58 percent, you’re in pretty good shape. We call that a 

landslide in elections. 

CAVUTO:  OK. I will have to watch it. I was not aware of that. 

But, Congressman, it’s always good having you. Thank you for taking the 


CLYBURN:  Thank you very much for having me.

CAVUTO:  All right, Jim Clyburn. 

Fair and balanced right now, I want to go to John Barrasso, the Wyoming 

Republican senator, the Senate Republican Conference chairman.

Chairman, very good to have you.

Let me get your sense of what the congressman was just saying, that this is 

going to get done, that Manchin and, by extension, Kyrsten Sinema of 

Arizona, they will eventually settle their differences, this gets done. 

Now, you talk to your Republican colleagues, I know, to a man or woman, who 

don’t like this. Do you think he’s right about those two Democratic 


SEN. JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY):  Well, look, Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer say 

they want to have it done by Christmas. 

And, to me, that’s going to make for a very long December, because the 

Democrats are going to run into a buzz saw of individuals in the Senate who 

realize this is going to hurt the economy if they pass this sort of thing. 

It’s going to break the back of the American people, in terms of the taxes, 

in terms of the inflation, in terms of all of this additional government 


And I talk to Joe Manchin regularly. He and I have a committee meeting 

tomorrow, the Energy Committee. He has lots of concerns. And so does 

Senator Sinema.

My recommendation is, they put the pause button this to say, let’s take a 

look at this after the new year. Inflation, we know, is getting worse. We 

know that the taxes are going to be a huge burden on the American people. 

I just heard the previous guest talk about how he says this is a popular 

bill. You start talking to people at home about components of this bill, 

they hate it, when they hear that there are five different new entitlements 

for illegal immigrants, including amnesty, when people know that there’s 

all this money for more IRS agents, people to do additional audits to spy 

on our checking accounts and banking accounts.

They hate that component of it.

CAVUTO:  Bottom line, you don’t think this is going to come to pass.

If I could just get your sense of where Democrats and Republicans might 

meet on common ground to avoid a government shutdown on Friday. We’re told 

that Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer have had what is said to be 

productive discussions.

Do you think that that can be avoided, that they push this back? How will 

they do it? How will Friday night look, Senator? 

BARRASSO:  I mean, the goal is to keep government open. I’m somebody that 

is against government shutdowns. 

But what you really are seeing here also is the fact that Chuck Schumer has 

been the majority leader for a year. He’s not brought a single 

appropriations bill to the Senate all year. He can’t even get the nuts and 

bolts of the normal actions of government done. So, the idea…

CAVUTO:  But the shutdown thing, Senator, do you think — do you think 

there’s enough Republican support to avoid that, to work on some agreement 

to just push it back a little bit, set up the stage where they deal with 

the debt ceiling in two weeks? 

I know you have said that they should be doing that by reconciliation, 

leave it up to themselves. It’s up to them. Republicans won’t help with 


Where are you? 


Yes, I believe that it’s all going to get done. I’m — look, I’m a guy 

that’s introduced legislation that’s called end government shutdowns. I 

don’t think that we accomplish anything by shutting down the government, 


CAVUTO:  So you don’t think that’s going to happen? 

BARRASSO:  I do not. Neil, it’s hard to speculate this.

CAVUTO:  OK. And on the debt ceiling thing…

BARRASSO:  Go ahead.

CAVUTO:  … you will not be part of that push to raise the debt ceiling, 

Democrats should make that happen, or not? 

BARRASSO:  Yes, I am clearly not going to vote to raise the debt ceiling. 

I don’t know a single Republican that’s going to vote for that, because 

it’s so tied to this reckless tax-and-spending bill. We’re not going to 

default on our debt. We never have. But every time we have had a debt 

ceiling vote in the past, the idea is to have a discussion about how to get 

the deficit under control. 

That’s the exact opposite of what’s happening here. The Democrats want to 

raise the debt ceiling, so they can do this massive socialist spending. Not 

one single…

CAVUTO:  Yes, but Republicans have raised the debt ceiling a number of 

times. You’re both guilty of it, right? It is just different ways of going 

about it, but it happens all the time, right? 

BARRASSO:  And every time it’s done, it generates a discussion about — a 

serious discussion about…


BARRASSO:  … how are we going to get spending under control? That’s not 

being done this time. 

This time, they want to raise it, so they can do reckless spending. 

CAVUTO:  All right, we will see what happens. 

Senator, thank you very, very much for taking the time. 

A very, very busy time in Washington today, the Supreme Court maybe hinting 

today, given some of the questioning we heard in that august chamber, about 

a measure that could undercut Roe v. Wade. Now, I’m not saying remove it, 

but maybe, maybe take it apart — after this. 



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are here today to empower women and promote life.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Any decision that allows courts to override and to 

violate our basic rights is an unacceptable one.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What almost most of us knew in 1973 was wrong. Now 

the rest of the country has caught up. And it’s time for this to go. 


CAVUTO:  All right, no middle ground on this abortion issue.

Nearly 50 years after Roe v. Wade, signs, just signs — and they could be 

wrong — the Supreme Court is looking at slightly unraveling that. Easier 

said than done. 

Shannon Bream following it all in Washington — Shannon. 


So, today, what was at issue is this Mississippi law that bans most 

abortions after 15 weeks. And so, listen, Mississippi has made clear, and 

the lawmakers who backed and crafted and got this law passed said they 

wanted to make a direct run at Roe v. Wade. 

There’s no pretense about that. But, today, there was a lot of discussion 

in the court about stare decisis or this concept that you leave precedents 

alone unless there is absolutely an egregious error or a correction that 

needs to be made by the court. 

Justice Breyer today was among the three liberal justices who said they 

warned very much that overturning a precedent of that super-precedent sort 

of status would signal that it was a political decision. 

Here’s a bit of what he said. 



And it is particularly important to show what we do in overturning a case 

is grounded in principle, and not social pressure, not political pressure.


BREAM:  But Justice Kavanaugh was among those who said, hey, listen, we 

have done this before when the court thought we got this wrong, something 

egregiously wrong in our past, it was a despicable decision, and now we 

have progressed and we need to correct this, he said, a list of decisions 

that prove that the court will do this when they think it’s necessary. 

Here’s a little bit more of what Justice Kavanaugh said. 



the prior precedents are seriously wrong, if that, why then doesn’t the 

history of this court’s practice with respect to those cases tells us that 

the right answer is actually a return to the position of neutrality, and 

not stick with those precedents, in the same way that all those other cases 



BREAM:  So, we will have to see if there are a majority of justices who are 

willing to go further, not only upholding Mississippi’s 15-week ban, which 

it sounded like today — and you can’t predict until the votes are out — 

that they’re willing to go, at least a majority of them, down that path, 

but whether they’re willing to go the next step, overturning Roe or its 

progeny, Casey.

Whether they’re willing to do that, I don’t know that the votes are there. 

We’re just going to have to wait and see. The court will have its first 

secret behind-closed-doors vote on Friday. But, from there, there will be 

months of drafting opinions, of trying to persuade and move votes. 

And it’s probably going to be, Neil, not until the end of June, early July 

when we know what this court decides. And, of course, that comes right in 

the middle of the midterm election — back to you.

CAVUTO:  Yes, I was just thinking the same thing. 

Shannon Bream, thank you very, very much. 

In the meantime here, this whole issue of the 15 weeks you hear a lot about 

in this Mississippi law that says abortions are not allowed after that 

stage, I brought that up with the Mississippi governor, Tate Reeves, who 

was telling me there is a reason for that. Take a look. 


GOV. TATE REEVES (R-MS): There’s no guarantee to an abortion in our U.S. 


But I would go step a further and tell you that not only is there not a 

guaranteed right. There’s also nothing in our United States Constitution 

that would prevent a state, a state like Mississippi, from implementing and 

placing reasonable restrictions on abortions. 

CAVUTO:  And that restriction in your state’s case is after 15 weeks, 


REEVES:  Under the statute that is being tested at the Supreme Court, it is 

a 15-week ban.

CAVUTO:  Do you think it will become — and that the High Court will affirm 

this and, for the first time, a time period by which you cut off all 

abortions, putting an actual time to it, after 15 weeks? 

REEVES:  I believe that, if the court were to read the United States 

Constitution, the individual justices would read the Constitution, I think 

they would recognize that not only was Roe incorrectly decided, but, also, 

I believe Casey was incorrectly decided in 1992. 


CAVUTO:  All right, the governor of Mississippi, Tate Reeves.

Let’s get the read on this from Geraldo Rivera. I know he doesn’t seem that 

old, but he was back there in 1973 following that case development. He was 

kind enough to join us. John Yoo, I don’t think John was even born yet, but 

I could be wrong, the former deputy assistant attorney general, law 

professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

Gentlemen, thank you bow.

Geraldo, to you on what could be shaping up to be not maybe the turning it 

off, but changing Roe v. Wade. Where do you think this is going? 


are in favor of that conclusion. 

I believe that with, the super conservative majority on this court now, 

with Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, and Kavanaugh, the justices added by Donald 

Trump, it’s now a 6-3 conservative supermajority. 

And I think they’re very keen on overturning or modifying Wade. You also 

have the technological aspect of it, Neil. Roe is based on viability, that 

is, the fetus’ ability to live outside the womb independently. And in 1973, 

21 to 24 weeks maybe. This 15-week Mississippi law is getting pretty close, 

as the technology improves for taking care of fetal health. 

So I believe that you have a very fraught circumstance here, where the 

conservatives are in a position to modify profoundly Roe v. Wade. I believe 

that that is the odds-on destination where the court is headed right now, 


CAVUTO:  If they do line up, as Geraldo said, John, to their philosophical 

bent, it’s a 6-3 conservative court.

It certainly was mirrored in a lot of the questioning from the justices. 

What did you learn from that? 


make clear I was around for Roe, but I don’t remember it.


YOO:  So — but I agree with Geraldo’s read.

You have a conservative supermajority. You had Chief Justice Roberts, whose 

vote may not matter here because you have these five other conservative 

justices, throwing out a compromise that sounds a lot like what you were 

discussing, Neil, where he might say, OK, Roe vs. Wade requires us to 

strike down laws that interfere with abortion before viability, which is 

around 23, 24 weeks of pregnancy. 

Robert says, well, what’s so bad about 15 weeks? Maybe that means we toss 

out the Roe-Casey framework, but we will still allow a right to abortion up 

to 15 weeks?

The interesting thing is, you didn’t hear any other justices taking the 

bait for that compromise. In fact, I think the most startling thing to me 

listening to arguments was that Justice Kavanaugh, who is a big question 

mark, really could be the fifth vote here to strike down or overturn Roe, 

he actually seemed pretty clear that he wasn’t going to pay much deference 

to past decisions, and he thought the court should just be neutral on 


He repeated that several times in the oral argument. I think that would 

have been — that’s probably been a surprise for a lot of court watchers to 

see Kavanaugh come out so openly against precedent and possibly against 


CAVUTO: Interesting.

Geraldo, in listening to Justice Sotomayor on this question of viability of 

the fetus, for lack of a better explanation — you guys are great lawyers. 

I’m not. But I have watched enough last shows to become an expert. 

But I’m curious, Geraldo. She was asking about the viability of that fetus 

and what’s so special at that time, at that moment, referring to the fact, 

for dead people, you could poke them on the foot or the hand and that they 

would have a response, but that didn’t mean that they were alive. 

I don’t quite know what she was getting at, but the point being that there 

was nothing magical to that time or reading into life at that time. What 

did you make of that? 

RIVERA:  I think the court, Neil, has struggled over the decades to find a 

line where the rights of the woman are now subordinate to the rights of the 

fetus. At what point does that happen? That is viability.

So they’re trying to draw the line. And they’re struggling with it. But it 

is clear that viability as defined in 2021 will be, I think, what they hang 

their hats on, and what — the justification that they use to overturn this 

stare decisis, this concept that because a law, because a decision has been 

in place for decades and has stood so many legal challenges, it should be 

given a profound deference. 

But I really do believe — I think that what President Biden has to do 

right now is to remind America of the movement that took place when I was a 

law school graduate in 1969 and 1970, the movement whereby they wanted to 

get abortions out of the back alleys.

CAVUTO:  Right. 

RIVERA:  And they were talking about the women who died with coat hangers 

stuck up into their wombs trying to abort the fetus themselves, and to 

provide a safe, legal — that’s what Roe was about, is a single pregnant 

poor woman in Texas, who wanted to — a safe abortion, and couldn’t afford 

to go to New York or someplace else to get one. 

So I — this is very emotional. It’s fraught with all of these competing 

equities. Religion is deeply involved in this. But I believe that what they 

will do is, they will use viability and move that — move that line back 

from 24 weeks, 23 weeks, that John suggested, and get it lower and lower 

and closer and closer to Mississippi. 

And, as Roberts said, Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts said, why not 

15 weeks? So, I really do — I’m not stating my preference, Neil. 

CAVUTO: Understood.

RIVERA:  I’m just saying that this is what I believe will happen with this 

court as it struggles with this epic, epic problem here.

CAVUTO:  John Yoo, not a great deal of time left, but I’m curious, if it 

then reverts to something like Geraldo said, where the 24 weeks, and move 

that to 15 weeks, the analogy that some were using to say, all right, then 

different people will have to go to different states, where there are other 

laws, but would then 15 weeks be the law of the land?

I didn’t understand that. 

YOO:  No, 15 weeks is just Mississippi’s choice. 

If Roe gets overturned, we should be clear that doesn’t mean abortion is 

banned throughout the country. It just returns it to the states, like 

Mississippi, to make their own decisions. And that’s part of what 


CAVUTO:  So, a state like…


CAVUTO:  … that might be still at the 24 is not affected by this 


YOO:  Yes. Right. 

In fact, this just means the Supreme Court will stop drawing those lines. 

CAVUTO:  I see.

YOO:  In part, the court was saying, it’s too hard. Let legislatures do it. 

Let states do it. 

CAVUTO:  But that means people are running back and forth to different 

states, depending on what has the fewest restrictions, right?

YOO:  Yes. Yes. 

RIVERA:  Ohio, my state, Neil, has a fetal heartbeat law, where, if you can 

detect a heartbeat in the fetus, that’s where abortion becomes illegal. 

CAVUTO:  I see.

RIVERA:  I mean, that could be as early as six weeks. 

CAVUTO:  All right.

RIVERA:  I think that those laws in Ohio and similar states, those laws 

will be ruled unconstitutional.

But I do think that there’s going to be some movement here, and it’s not 

going to please everybody.

CAVUTO:  Yes, it is a divisive issue, gentlemen, as you pointed out, 

whether you remember it literally or not 50 years ago, but some changes, 

maybe some very big ones, afoot. 

I want to thank them. I want to thank you. 

Here comes “THE FIVE.”

Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL 

RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc.  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 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You 

may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from 

copies of the content.

‘Your World’ on Michigan school shooting, Supreme Court abortion case Source link ‘Your World’ on Michigan school shooting, Supreme Court abortion case

Back to top button