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, uh, 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 their fundamental

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 notjust 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. you started by saying that this ruling seemed to ban, or make it a criminal case to ban ivf, and that's simply not what happened. in alabama, the supreme court,

what they actually ruled was that parents of embryos of their own children could bring a wrongful death lawsuit to an ivf clinic that was negligent, criminally negligent, in allowing their babies to be smashed and killed, which is what happened in alabama. in alabaman, an ivf clinic had their children frozen on ice. they didn't secure the door. someone came in and literally smashed the children... but they're not children frozen on ice. i mean, i think people listening and watching this... they are the sons and daughters of these couples. ..will find that phrase completely bizarre. if i may finish, they are the sons and daughters of these couples that longed for children, and they longed for these children so much that then when they were negligently killed by the ivf clinic, these parents of their children brought a suit before the alabama supreme court. that's what happened. those are the facts of the case. the point of this is that... so to say that these are not their sons and daughters is completely callous and untrue. ..the governor of alabama then signed legislation ensuring that ivf clinics could continue their work and wouldn't be liable to this sort

of criminal action. to be clear... you are now angry, as i understand it, with the republican governor of alabama. and this is another issue where you and many senior members of the conservative movement, senior republican politicians, seem to be at odds. you're going to an extreme which even donald trump isn't interested in following you towards. to be clear, stephen, what the alabama state governor did was to say that there is no legal recourse for parents of embryos, of sons and daughters in these ivf clinics, that they love and they want so much to bring to birth, that there is no legal recourse for them if there is intentional, even, or negligent actions by the ivf clinic or others to destroy their children, their embryos. that's what, unfortunately, the alabama state governor signed into law. basically, you can operate without any supervision, any regulation, as an ivf clinic. you can be as negligent

as you want. and your patients, the parents, have no legal recourse. it's an absolute injustice. it also treats human beings, these embryos, as commodities, as material, not even.... they're not even treated as material goods, because at least with material goods, people have a sense of property rights. like, i can have legal recourse if someone destroys my property. they're treated as less than property, even, in the state of alabama, in ivf clinics. so it's an absolute travesty that this happened. and that's why myself and many other pro—life groups and leaders have said, this is an outrage. and again, the reason for this extreme action by these politicians, unfortunately, is the massive misinformation swirling and the power of the pro—abortion and now the ivf industries. you don't realise this, perhaps, but in the united states, there's virtually no regulation of ivf. you can create multiple embryos, dozens of embryos, and destroy them at will. you can do selective reduction. you can do genetic screening and destroy embryos because of their sex. you don't want a girl?

destroy because she's a girl. even in the uk, stephen, and in other european countries, there is more regulation of ivf than here in the united states. right. so for you to represent the situation in alabama as you do is very... it's not honest, stephen. several times in this interview, you've said that your opponents on the other sides of the arguments, whether it be about abortion generally or, in particular, about this ivf issue, you've implied that they have all the money, they are using media access and that you, somehow, are the underdog, fighting a campaign. this interview is a case in point, stephen, of how you present the questions and the misinformation in your questions. i think many people would argue that your movement and many others on the so—called right to life side of this argument are very well funded, have many immensely rich backers of your own, and also have had a very close relationship with the republican party. i'd love to meet some! i'm interested now to discuss with you whether you are ready to break with the republican party — but, in particular, with donald trump — because you want a federal ban outlawing abortion.

you think that the constitution of the united states has to be amended in some way, or at least, the supreme court has to interpret it in a way which will ensure that there is a federal ban on abortion. now, donald trump addressed this the other day. he said that he might be willing to back a is—week federal ban on abortion, but certainly not a total ban. and he also said there would have to be exceptions for rape, incest, life—threatening emergencies. and he explained his position by saying to his fellow republicans, "we have to win elections." now, given he takes that stand, are you telling me that you're no longer prepared to back people like donald trump? well, to be clear, again, i don't know what research you've done on this. i have not backed donald trump in the past. unfortunately, i don't think his position is the pro—life position. you know, certainly, he has done some pro—life things in his history, but...and he's certainly more pro—life than president biden.

president biden is opposed to abortion restrictions, and at any point in pregnancy. he supports abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason. that is the democratic party platform, is taxpayer—funded support for abortion at any point in pregnancy, for any reason. so in that sense, donald trump has more... is your message to fellow pro—life campaigners that they should not, given what trump has now outlined as his position, they should absolutely not vote for donald trump? no, i did not say that, stephen. what i'm saying is that donald trump is more pro—life thanjoe biden as a candidate. that's very clear. but in addition to that, unfortunately, donald trump isn't fully anti—abortion, as you stated yourself. i mean, he supports some abortions and he's kind of trying to find what his position fully will be, because obviously, against joe biden, he will always size up as more pro—life because president biden is so extreme on abortion. but to be clear, you know, the 14th amendment to our constitution in the united states says that we all have

equal right to equal protection. all persons have a right to equal protection under the law, and that no state has the right to deprive anyone of their life, property, or anything, without due process. but life is first. and so the pro—life position is, when you talk about this federal legal protection, federal ban on abortion, the pro—life position is, yes, you should be federally protected, your right to live. it's the most fundamental human right. it comes first. you can't enjoy any other right without the right to live, to not be killed by lethal violence when you're innocent. right. that is what the 14th amendment promises. americans are undoubtedly deeply worried about the toxicity in their political culture. we saw it in the jan 6th assault on the capitol. we see it in the trump—biden exchanges all the time. you, just the other day, when kamala harris, the vice president, chose to visit a planned parenthood clinic, you wrote on x, i believe — certainly, on social media — "even hitler tried to hide his death camps. "joe biden and kamala harris

"are proud to support mass murder." do you think most americans approve of that kind of sentiment, that tone? stephen, as i said earlier, i think when people actually learn what abortion does to that preborn child, when people are confronted with this horrible truth, this tragic truth about what abortion actually does to that baby, yes, many people realise this is the killing, this is the murder of a human life, and it should not be permitted. so i think that, again, you can ask these questions different ways to say, oh, you know, americans side this way or that way, but education is powerful and people's minds are changing on abortion. and we see this especially among younger generations in the united states. so, yes, at the end of the day, when you have a vice—presidential... our vice president and the candidate, obviously, to be the vice president again, touring a clinic where they are doing live dismemberments and lethal destruction of preborn human beings, and setting that up as women's rights and praising that, it's absolutely atrocious.

and again, the more that people are educated and learn, the more eyes are open to see abortion is a human rights violation. the direct and intentional killing of children. women deserve better, and we must do better for both children and for women in this country and across the globe. lila rose, we have to end there. i thank you very much indeed forjoining me on hardtalk. thank you. hello there. easter monday brought a day of mixed fortunes, and it's going to be a similar story throughout the week. now, across eastern england, we had some sunshine and where it stayed dry, it was relatively warm — 16 degrees, 61 fahrenheit. but cloud and rain pushing its way steadily northwards. it stayed rather grey and overcast in western scotland, withjust a high of 5 celsius here. now, that weatherfront is going to linger, weakening all the time. but a brisk northeasterly wind will dominate the story across the far north of scotland.

clearer skies for a time, early morning mist and fog, perhaps, for england and wales. some showers easing away from the southeast. but eventually, as we go through the day, we'll start to see some outbreaks of rain pushing into the southwest. and as this front gradually moves its way north, the winds will strengthen here. but ahead of it, with some sunny spells injust a few isolated showers, one or two spots, again, could see temperatures into the mid—teens. not a bad afternoon with a few isolated showers for northern ireland. scotland will stay rather grey and overcast, with outbreaks of showery rain, and that brisk north—easterly wind at times will make it feel rather cool, just a maximum of 6—8 celsius. now, we'll see that frontal system down to the south—west, bringing some wet and windy weather through the night tuesday into the early hours of wednesday morning. the wind direction coming from the south—west, so it will be a mild start to wednesday, with double figures perhaps likely across the far southeast. but we will see outbreaks of rain gradually pushing their way steadily northwards.

the wind direction here is south—westerly, so driving in some milder air, but we still keep that north—easterly feed in scotland — a real contrast with the temperatures over the next few days. so we're looking at 5—7 degrees across the far north—east, highs of 15, possibly 16 degrees once again, somewhere across south and eastern england. now, towards the end of the week, low pressure is going to continue to dominate, but still that wind source coming all the way from the southwest. so it will be mild, but it will still continue to be pretty wet at times. but the mild air sitting across the vast majority, still the far north—east of scotland staying on the cooler side. so, here, those temperatures will struggle a little, but there'll be showers or longer spells of rain. when we get some brightness, temperatures are going to respond. take care.

live from london. this is bbc news. australia's prime minister confirms one australian national is among the four aid workers killed in an airstrike in gaza. iran vows to respond harshly to a suspected israeli air strike on its consulate building in the syrian capital damascus.

the attack left two senior commanders of its armed forces dead. and former us president donald trump posts a $175 million bond to new york state. "$173 million. we'll have the latest developments on his civil fraud trial. hello, i'm sally bundock. we start in the middle east — we're following developments on several key stories there this morning. four foreign aid workers have been killed in what the hamas—run health ministry says was an israeli air strike in gaza. it's understood the incident took place in the central city of deir al—balah. the ministry said the bodies of the five wearing bullet—proof vests bearing the logo of the world central

kitchen charity arrived at the hospital after their car was hit by an air strike.