welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. when the us supreme court overturned the roe v wade decision, establishing a woman's right to an abortion, it looked like america's so—called right to life campaigners were winning. now? well, it's not so certain. the conservative movement is split on just how far anti—abortion legislation should go. opinion polls suggest most americans don't believe abortion should be outlawed, and some republicans fear this could be a vote loser. my guest is lila rose, described as one of the fiercest anti—abortion activists in america. are her absolutist views turning america off?

lila rose, in southern california, welcome to hardtalk. thanks for having me, stephen. it's a great pleasure to have you on the show. ijust wonder if, right now, you feel you are wrestling with the law of unintended consequences. you welcomed that supreme court decision to overturn roe v wade, but since that happened a couple of years ago, it's become clear that most americans do not want to see a woman's right to choose an abortion to be outlawed and overturned. that's become a big problem for you, hasn't it? well, to be clear, the majority

of americans actually support abortion restriction, stephen, which is not the case for pro—abortion activists in this country. so those that are bewailing the overturning of roe v wade and planned parenthood are some of these very activistic, pro—abortion groups, they don't want any abortion restrictions. and as you know, even in most european countries, abortion is largely restricted after the first trimester. that's not so in the united states. in fact, most states in the united states don't have those sorts of abortion restrictions. so i think there's a misunderstanding that some folks have in media, that roe v wade somehow banned all abortions being overturned. that's simply not the case. in my state of california, abortion is legal through all nine months of pregnancy, virtually for any reason. so the pro—life movement is working hard right now to combat the misinformation and to enact restrictions to protect preborn lives. yeah, but what i'm getting at is that, since that supreme court decision, states have the right to impose their own abortion laws. some have chosen to impose the very strictest of laws.

i believe i'm right in saying that i think it's 14 states have essentially imposed pretty much a ban on all legal abortion inside their states. and what i'm telling you is that i look at national polling evidence in the united states and a clear majority of americans do not believe that abortion should be outlawed. that's a problem for you, isn't it? well, first of all, you're right. there are over ten states now, out of our 50, that have made abortion, er... have complete legal protections for preborn children, that have banned abortion. this, of course, is a step in the right direction, so we're working hard... but my point is, that's not what americans want. you look at the gallup poll from last may, 85% of americans, this is across the nation, believe abortion should be legal — that is 51% say under certain circumstances — and another 34% say under any circumstances. so you add those two numbers together... sure. ..85% of americans believe that abortion should — at least in some form

— be legal. i think it's important... there's two important points here, stephen, if i may? first of all, democratic votes, certain human rights should not be up for democratic votes. so my right to live, my right to not be killed, your right to live, your right to not be killed, you know, a group of folks voting democratically on whether or not innocents, stephen, should die, that's not their right. and we see the same for preborn children in the womb. the science is clear that, at the moment of fertilisation, you have a unique, individual human life. human life doesn't begin at birth, the science is clear it begins before. and if we believe that human rights are universal, that they're inalienable, that they're for all humans, then that must extend to children even before birth, who have the right to live and not be killed. abortion is a direct and intentional... i just want to be clear about... if i could just finish? abortion is the direct and intentional killing of a human life.

so, first of all, because americans, i think, need more education, i think there's been a pro—abortion lobby in this country that's been well—funded. you know, our government gives hundreds of millions of dollars to the biggest abortion chain every single year. hang on, you said something very important that i do want to pick up on, lila, before you go any further. you seem to be saying that this debate about abortion shouldn't be subject to any kind of democratic process at all. i mean, that seems strange to me, given that the, as you call it, pro—life campaign was so keen to bring this whole issue back to the states and to state legislatures. and what we've actually seen since 2022, when the supreme court overturned roe v wade, is a couple of states i can think of right off the bat — kentucky being one, michigan the other — which have organised state ballots, cross—state ballots on this issue, and where people, given the right to vote, have said, "no, we don't want "more ultra—restrictive abortion laws. " you're telling me that the people have no rights here to express their view? stephen, i think there may be a misunderstanding here, stephen,

about the pro—life position that you have, which is that the pro—life position is not that democracy or any group of people should vote whether or not a preborn child should live or die, or should be up for the choice to be aborted, because we believe in theirfundamental human right to life, which is the first human right. so this idea that the pro—life movement wants different groups of people to vote state—by—state on which children can live and which children can die is simply not the case. we think all children deserve the right to life, as all humans do. i mean, imagine if democracies were voting on things like whether sexual assault was ok, or whether child abuse was ok. these certain fundamental moral wrongs and human rights issues are not up for democracies to decide, even democracies that might decide wrongly. so the reality is our movement, of course, is working to restrict abortion, protect these human beings, but it's also working on education. because here's the thing, you mentioned kansas. you know, there's ohio. there are these state ballot initiatives in the united states. and there have been tens of millions of dollars poured into these state campaigns by pro—abortion groups, who are sending around massive

misinformation to voters, telling them that miscarriage care will be banned, women will die. a litany of lies about what these laws would do. no miscarriage care would be banned. if there's no heartbeat detected in the child, then, of course, the child should and can be removed by a medical professional. what these abortion laws would do would restrict the killing, the intentional killing of these children. so i think when you get into the politics of what's actually happening on the ground in the united states and some of these states, you'll find that the reality is, there's a lot of misinformation, which is making people fearful that abortion restrictions will hurt women, when the reality is, it doesn't hurt women, it protects children. and we can care and love for both of the patients in the pregnancy, the child and the mother. let me just drill down a bit into what you actually believe, because you talk there about the pro—life movement and you imply that there is a unity within this movement. there clearly isn't. i mean, you, lila rose, i have described as an "absolutist". i don't know if you think that's fair. but the truth is, you want a ban,

and ideally, you want a constitutional federal ban on all abortion. that is, no exceptions. even if the life of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy, even if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest or even child rape, you say, absolutely no exceptions. and you are not in tune with many other members of this pro—life coalition. i think you might have a misunderstanding, because the pro—life leadership in this country is united that we should have equal protection for preborn lives. i mean, what does it mean to be pro—life? it means to say that all human beings have the right to life, that regardless... you mentioned rape and incest, horrific situations, absolutely horrific. and in that situation, the survivor of the rape or the incest violation should get support and care. we need to have serious penalties against the aggressor

in that situation. but the pro—life movement would say the child that might be conceived in an act of sexual violence is still a human life, they still have rights, and they shouldn't have the death penalty, be given the death penalty, which we don't even allow for rapists in the united states, that's not permitted. why would we give the death penalty of an intentional abortion on the child who's conceived in sexual violence? so the pro—life leadership in this country is united that "pro—life" means complete legal protection for the preborn child. i just want to quote you a very recent example just from the last couple of months. amanda zurawski, a texan woman, she became pregnant, and then she was told that she needed an abortion, because her waters broke after only 18 weeks. there's no way that the foetus was going to be viable and she needed to have that baby medically induced, even though it was clear it was going to be dead. but because the doctors were operating under texas's new restrictive rules, and because they could still detect a foetal heartbeat, they were not

able, at that point, to offer her the medical care she needed. so as a result, she went into septic shock, she nearly died. she ultimately delivered, of course, the dead baby, but because of the extra trauma that she'd experienced, herfallopian tubes have been irreparably damaged. now, she says that the treatment she received — as a result of texas's new restrictive laws — was an outrage, completely unacceptable, and many americans will empathise. clearly, you do not. you misunderstand, and you're misreporting that case, stephen. what happened in that case is that in the state of texas, if there is a medical emergency, then early delivery may be permitted, and that's what the state law says. and the reality is, in many cases where water begins to break, there can be bed rest, there can be situations where there's continued care and monitoring, and that baby could have been delivered. so i think it's very important. there's a lot of misinformation swirling by pro—abortion groups, who are trying to fearmonger women and try to tell women that they need abortion,

they need abortion to survive, when the reality is, in medical care — and this is the opinion not of myself, but opinion of thousands of medical experts and obstetricians and gynaecologists — there are ways to care for both mother and for child. and you do not need to intentionally kill the baby, directly end the life of the baby, in these high—risk situations. you may need to do an early delivery and that can be done, and it is permitted in texas, under medical emergencies. so you can bring up these very tragic cases that, unfortunately, have a lot of misinformation associated with them, that are designed to scare women, but the reality is, that's not the state of the law in texas, and that's not the state of the pro—life position either. you describe yourself as an — and this is a quote — "anti—abortion feminist. " in what way are you a feminist? yeah. i mean, it depends how we define feminism. so i'm not sure where you're getting that quote from. i think if feminism is true equality under the law for women and men, then, yes, i'm proud, as the original feminists supported. i think kind of new age, modern feminism, unfortunately, has been hijacked by pro—abortion

and sort of sexual libertinism ideologies, and i don't abide by that, of course. i think our superpower as women is that we can bring human life into the world. that makes us different from men. it's a superpower, and it deserves to be respected and protected. and pregnant mothers deserve care and support. but to say that my power as a woman is to kill my baby, is to abort a child... well, i... ..i think is an affront and an outrage. i don't think any feminist would frame the decision to have an abortion as a decision to murder a baby. i mean, you use this language... i don't think that language is used by... ..but it's not the only kind of language you use which is deeply pejorative. because if i mayjust look at your background, you're obviously, i know from your own personal story, you're a very observant catholic. you've had two children. i believe you're currently pregnant with a third. but you've always said that you absolutely rejected the idea of sex before marriage.

i think you said you didn't have sex till you were 30. and you have talked about the "shame" of women who are promiscuous. you say that women having sex outside of marriage deserve public shame. you even said once that if a woman had to have an abortion, she should have it in the public square, as a form of punishment. mm. i mean, you bring your own morality into this discussion. ithink, stephen, you're misrepresenting... stephen, like you did with the case from texas, you're misrepresenting a lot of information here. and i've never said that women who have sex before marriage should be shamed. i've never said anything close to that, so you're absolutely... ..misleading your viewers right now. and the reality is, i have friends and we work with women from all different backgrounds and walks of life. our position — and the position of the pro—life movement — is, very proudly, that women don't need abortion to thrive, that abortion is the unjust act of violence, lethal violence, against a child, and that we can and must do betterfor women. and i believe, if you want to talk about true feminism, that is the true feminist position, to say that we should uplift and uphold women

and our ability to mother, and that we should not denigrate it or discard it or treat it like some sort of threat or burden, as a society. and you talk about sexual... i don't want to belabour this point about shame... would you like me to respond to your comment about sexual ethics? ..but why did you say that any woman having an abortion should have to have it done in a public square? so, if you go back to the context of my remarks from a speech i gave ten years ago, and my comments, in context, were saying, if america had to see what abortion actually was, what it actually did to that preborn child, if people had to confront or know about the reality of what these procedures actually do, the large majority of people would reject them. and we see that every day at live action, especially among younger people, youngerfolks, millennials and gen—zers. when they learn that abortion is not just some euphemism, it's notjust disappearing the baby, that abortion is this lethal destruction of a child... no, i understand your position. ..it changes a lot of minds. let me just test you on one other stand i believe you've taken. i just want to be clear. i'd love to respond on your comment

about sexual ethics, too. i think it's an important one. so, when you're ready. well, we've limited time and there's important issues we haven't touched yet. one is ivf. the court in alabama briefly appeared to outlaw ivf treatments — or, at least, make them very difficult in alabama — because they suggested that the destruction of a fertilised embryo frozen at an ivf clinic, that destruction would constitute a serious crime. and that's generated a very important debate about i think what you call "foetal personhood", from the moment of conception, which you apply even to frozen, fertilised embryos in an ivf clinic. are you saying that as far as you are concerned, that kind of activity — freezing embryos, destroying them later, when they're no longer needed, orjust leaving them frozen indefinitely — should be outlawed and made a serious criminal offence? stephen, again, there are some significant

inaccuracies in your question.