Return to Transcripts main page

LEGAL VIEW WITH ASHLEIGH BANFIELD

Discussion of the Failed Rocket Launch; NCAA Concussion Incidents Examined; Abortion and the Midterm Elections

Aired October 30, 2014 - 12:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Breaking news. An update on that plane crash in Wichita that we told you about earlier in the program. At least two people have died, four people seriously injured and taken to the hospital after a small plane flew into the flight safety building at Mid-Continent Airport. Five people are right now unaccounted for. The plane lost an engine on take-off and was trying to return to the runway when it crashed instead.

That NASA rocket that came apart in a fireball over the launch pad this week made one hell of a mess on the ground, too. We got some of the first pictures that are pretty remarkable. Peek to the right of your screen, that the burned-up launch tower and the scorched-up Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia, and how it looks today pretty much. All that rocket fuel turned everything black for about 100 yard radius. The official say there are lot of pieces of the rocket that flew into the water and they're telling people not to pick them up either or keep them as souvenirs, please, especially as the debris washes up on shore because that stuff is dangerous and the investigators also need it to help piece back together the rocket to figure out what happened, so that it don't happen again.

Here's the short version, an Antares rocket, no one on board, thank God, was T plus 30 seconds into its mission to space when Houston, yes, we had a problem, that was the problem. Right now, the place is crawling with investigators and NASA scientist and they want to know what went wrong.

Astronaut Ron Garan is here with me. Colonel Garan has been launched into space twice. He also lived aboard the international space station and he officially wrote the book, "The Orbital Perspective". So perfect guest yet again today.

Colonel Garan, thanks for taking the time to talk with me. You're just -- you're so just brilliant on this topic. And I want to go off the--

RON GARAN, FORMER ASTRONAUT: Exactly.

BANFIELD: ... mechanic and go into the culture. A little bit of a blend of both because we are really dependent on the Russians right now. And from what I gather and I'm no rocket scientist, trust me. We're using a lot of repurposed Russian gear to make these things go and they're old. That stuff is old, is this the best policy? GARAN: Well, you know, in the space business, we try and avoid what we call single-point failures where the loss of a piece of equipment or a rocket would mean the end of the program. And unfortunately, we have a single-point failure in our reliance on Russian Soyuz spacecraft to bring humans to the space station. So if the Soyuz got grounded for any reason, we would no longer be able to have a continuous human presence on the ISS and we've had that since the year 2000.

So we need to get away from having a single-point failure. We need to be able to have U.S. astronauts launch from U.S. soil as soon as possible.

BANFIELD: You know, the relationship between the United States and Russia is not perhaps the best that it's ever been right now. And I was sort of -- well, look I was really fascinated to see a statement that you made about political instability and how it does bleed its way into the space program that it is not immune to politics. And the first thing I thought was, they got guys on board those aircraft, too, those spacecraft, too. Are there guys worth less than we consider our guys because I kind of thought when you're dealing with human cargo, everybody cares.

GARAN: Yes, of course. No, there's no difference in the value of human life put on any crew members. And you're right, you know, the space programs are not immune to what the national leadership does. We have to function within our own national leaderships and sometimes, and hopefully, most of the time, the space station rises above, both literally to figuratively, the political bickering that we have here on earth. And that's kind of the point of the whole thing and why the International Space Station was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

I think one of the greatest accomplishments of the program, besides the technological accomplishments, is the political accomplishments where 15 nations came together that had different political systems, different cultures, different languages, and built arguably the most complex, complicated thing ever built, and built in space.

BANFEILD: Colonel, the pictures we put up as we were doing the introduction into you, sort of the (inaudible) that's been left behind on the launch pad itself, we can't even see the bits and pieces that are all over the place, but can you speak to the image that we're looking at on the screen right now, that giant black scar right next to the beach. What does that represent in terms of how long it's going to take to fix. How much we're going to have to do to get that launch pad active again, and how reliant we might be on it.

GARAN: Well, in order to launch into space, you have to -- or to orbit, you have to launch it to orbital velocity which is 17,500 miles an hour, and that takes a tremendous amount of energy to do that. In this case, it was in fuel and kerosene and liquid oxygen, and so when that didn't go right, you know, basically, a few seconds after launch all the fuel is basically still there, and so a launch into space is basically a controlled explosion or at least it's supposed to be a controlled explosion. In this case, it wasn't so controlled, so the damage you see to the launch pad is that explosion getting out of hand and causing, you know, a considerable amount of damage in the launch pad.

Now, this launch pad is the only one that's capable of launching the Antares rocket, so, you know, orbital science with NASA and others are going to get to the bottom of this. They're going to figure out what happened. They're going to learn from it. They're going to repair the launch pad and they'll get back into the business of flying.

BANFIELD: Fast. I mean how quickly can they repair that?

GARAN: Well, I don't know the true extent of the damage on the launch pad and -- so there's two issues. One is the launch pad itself, and what is the cause of -- we don't know what the cause of the failure is yet, so that needs to be determined and then that has to be fixed.

BANFIELD: Well, it's great to talk to you again, and thanks so much for lending your expertise and your book again, I'll just mention it for those who -- this is great stuff, nerd out, geek out on it, it's the "The Orbital Perspective:", Colonel Garan, the author of it and our guest today. Thanks so much.

GARAN: Thank you, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: Nice to talk to you.

So next week, you have it on your calendar, right? Tuesday's big day. Big day if you're American. Voter in several states, and I am talking to you. You're being asked to define a few things and then a couple of state are being asked to define personhood. Personhood. Amendments that actually might have some pretty consequences beyond what their anti-abortion supporters are claiming. So we're going to break it down next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Five days and that includes the weekend until the midterm election. I'm just going to go out and say people died for your right to vote, so please go and vote, please. It took me almost 20 years to get that right in this country.

Everyday between now and Tuesday, we're going to take one key issue that both parties are hammering away at and we're going to put it to our panel here on Legal View. And today, we'll it's that one that just won't go away, abortion. Five days from now, in three states -- Tennessee, North Dakota, Colorado -- Americans are going to vote on bills that could profoundly impact a woman's access to legal abortion. Good thing, bad thing, I know you all feel it.

Mel Robbins is here, Paul Callan is here. So first things first. I'm going to get you to sort of wrap up for me what's the play here, particularly in two states when they have this personhood issues at states. Some people are saying these are backdoor approaches with consequences that maybe unintended. Can you give me some feel?

MEL ROBBINS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, absolutely. So, personhood is when you attempt to give a fetus or a fertilized egg, legal rights. So you're basically defining conception as the beginning of life, Ashleigh. And a fertilized egg, if it's defined as a living being, will then have rights that they don't normally have now. And so it has enormous implications, not only just for abortion rights, but it could have implications on in in-vitro fertilization. It could have implications with birth control, and so on.

BANFIELD: So some people probably say that there so much ambiguity, but when I actually look at the laws, they seem fairly clear cut to me and I'm not entirely sure where the ambiguity comes in.

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I have to agree with you on that. These laws seem very, very clear. I mean some of them say and, you know, one, I think the wording was, what, from Colorado.

BANFIELD: Is that the one with the Brady Amendment, "The interest of the protection of pregnant mothers and their unborn children...

ROBBINS: Yes.

CALLAN: Yes.

ROBBINS: Yes.

CALLAN: Yes, that's right.

BANFIELD: ... from criminal offenses and negligent and wrongful acts -- let's put that up in the screen. Can I ask the control room to put the Colorado Brady Amendment? Is that the one?

CALLAN: Or actually, you know, the North Dakota one is very...

BANFIELD: Well, let's see this one...

ROBBINS: Oh this one right here affects the criminal code. So this is not a constitutional amendment. This is the attempt to...

BANFIELD: This is amendment 57...

ROBBINS: ... amend the criminal laws.

BANFIELD: So it's hard for viewers to hear one thing and see another. So let's just read through this first, the midterm issue, "Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution protecting pregnant women and unborn children by defining person and child."

CALLAN: Now, let's talk about -- that's pretty specific if they say we're going to define a person as a -- as when conception occurs. That's when personhood starts. If that's the case, and a lot of these laws say any person must be given all of the constitutional rights that any other person has. Well, what does that mean in terms of even what we call a non-viable fetus which, you know, the Supreme Court has previously said, "When the fetus can't live outside of the woman's body, then abortion can be a decision between the doctor and the woman." But if you define that as a person, can the woman be charged with endangering the welfare of a child if she has a glass of wine or if she smokes? Can -- does the state have some sort of an obligation if the child is born prematurely and the doctor say, "This child has no chance of surviving...

BANFIELD: Survivability.

CALLAN: ... forcing the child to stay alive and maybe suffer during that period of time. The unintended consequences of this also birth control methods...

ROBBINS: Or astronomical...

BANFIELD: Did you ever mention the fertility clinic issue?

ROBBINS: Yes. Because here's what happens with in-vitro, if you fertilize eggs and you store them, and you have a successful procedure where you have eggs implanted...

BANFIELD: What happens to the rest of them?

ROBBINS: Because those are now under personhood laws, actually people with rights.

BANFIELD: So actually -- and let me show you. In North Dakota, that's where you are folks and even if it isn't where you are because these are sort of getting some traction in North Dakota. It's the inalienable rights to life of every human being at any stage of development that must be recognized and protected. At any stage of development is clear.

ROBBINS: Well, this is also the most likely one to pass actually. And so there's only one other state with a personhood statute on the books, and that's Missouri. And this one in North Dakota...

(CROSSTALK)

CALLAN: I want to take it to the -- because we're talking about babies and how it affects fetuses. I want to take this one to other end of life (ph)...

ROBBINS: Which is Colorado?

CALLAN: This -- no this is...

BANFIELD: No, this is North Dakota, yes.

CALLAN: This is North Dakota which says the inalienable right to life at any stage of development must be recognized and protected. So let's say you have an elderly person who is dying of a terminal painful disease, do you have to keep them alive through artificial means...

BANFIELD: That's interesting.

CALLAN: ... because of this amendment unintended consequences.

BANFIELD: I have to cut it there, but you're going to come back. We've got other issues until Tuesday. I'm going to say it again, please vote. People don't vote in midterms, they think they're boring. This is a good midterm. It's actually one of the better ones.

So, thanks guys. They'll be back again on the next issue.

Does the NCAA do enough to keep its athletes safe? The organization oversees college athletics, says it has no legal obligation to do that. Just ahead, we're going to show you how the NCAA has ignored its own studies on the dangers of concussions.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: The college football in full swing across the nation, there is a hidden danger on the field. It's actually taking lives and destroying families. You've heard the work before, but maybe not in this context of concussion. A new CNN investigation has found that the NCAA has far fewer rules than even the NFL when it comes to players and concussions. And we've then covered case after case of college football players being seriously injured and some even killed by traumatic brain injuries that happened on the field. Our investigative correspondent, Sara Ganim, tracking the story.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARA GANIM, CNN INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: The NCAA has ignored more than a decade of concussion research according to critics, even some it paid for.

BOB CANTU, NEUROSURGEON: The NCAA does have a problem.

GANIM: Neurosurgeon, Dr. Bob Cantu, has co-authored hundreds of studies, including two funded by the NCAA which show athletes required a full seven days to recover from a concussion and players with one concussion are susceptible to more.

Why do you think that they didn't take drastic action when they asked you to study those issues?

CANTU: I suspect that part of the reason is they didn't have to at that particular point in time.

GANIM: The NCAA which has rules for everything, from scholarships to autographs to free meals, only has one rule when it comes to concussion. The school has to have a plan. In fact, the NCAA admitted to CNN it does not punish universities for the way player injuries are handled.

And there's no NCAA rule preventing injured athletes from being sent back into play after a concussion, even though research shows another hit can be dangerous.

CANTU: There is massive increase in intracranial pressure, brain herniation, a very high degree of fatality.

GANIM: Yet this internal NCAA e-mail points out it is not a requirement that a student athlete is precluded from returning to athletics activities. The NCAA does have concussion guidelines but it's up to the universities to please themselves. Adrian Arrington says he had at least six concussions when he played for Eastern Illinois University.

ADRIAN ARRINGTON, NCAA ATHLETE: Yes, this is me right here.

GANIM: Arrington grew up poor in Mississippi. College football was supposed to lead to opportunity.

ARRINGTON: I was excited to go to Eastern. I'm the first person in my family to get -- tried to get a degree, and that was my goal.

GANIM: Instead, he says he has frequent seizures and other symptoms of brain damage.

ARRINGTON: I have memory loss everyday. I have migraine headaches everyday.

GANIM: Arrington loved the game. But by his senior year, he was struggling.

ARRINGTON: It was (inaudible) my friend say, "Adrian, you really blacked out. We wouldn't have told the coaches and the training staff about it." They was like, "Here, just take this pills and you should be fine."

GANIM: A 2010 NCAA survey found half of college trainers admitted to allowing athletes to go back into a game after they suffered a concussion. Pressure from coaches is sighted as part of the problem.

JOE SIPRUT, ARRINGTON'S ATTORNEY: The irony of that is that the founding principle of the NCAA is player safety.

GANIM: Joe Siprut is Adrian Arrington's attorney.

SIPRUT: The reason why people like Adrian have had these horrible things happen to them is because the NCAA has not had mandatory protocols that are binding on member schools that member schools have to have in place.

GANIM: Despite all the research that exists, the NCAA told CNN it does not have rules on concussions because there is very little published science to guide us at this point. But current recommendations may become NCAA rules as definitive medical evidence becomes available. Right now, the NCAA says it only enforces academic and amateurism issues and leaves health and safety best practices to the schools, which didn't help Arrington in 2009. He was sent right back into a game after hitting his head, until his father ran to the field and stepped in.

ARRINGTON: He's not going back in the game. Please, take him out of the game. He's had too many concussions. He's done playing football.

GANIM: Was that your last game?

ARRINGTON: That was my last game playing football.

GANIM: Arrington was the first member of a class action lawsuit against the NCAA. A preliminary settlement could implement return to play rules for the very first time and set aside $75 million for research and screening of athletes going back 50 years. Critics of the settlement say, "It's shameful."

RAMOGI HUMA, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COLLEGE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION: It draws a lot of parallels to the cigarette makers, you know, tobacco industry.

GANIM: Ramogi Huma, the President of the National College Players Association said the settlement doesn't do nearly enough to protect players.

HUMA: They've known for quite a while of the problems associated with concussions and how they should be managed. Sitting back, doing nothing, and cashing in on lucrative TV revenues and ticket sales. And at the very least, it is not illegal. It's definitely immoral.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Lucrative ticket sales and TV revenue. What do the players get out of that?

GANIM: Out of this settlement? Ashleigh, the players get nothing. None of that $75 million go to the players specifically. Now, there are some people, Adrian Arrington is one of them, he can pursue his -- a new lawsuit basically, a personal injury lawsuit against his university, against the NCAA. But not of them fall inside the (inaudible) limitation, so some of them will literally get nothing out of this deal. That's one of the reasons that critics quite frankly are just so critical of this lawsuit.

BANFIELD: And what is so surprising, you send your kid to college, you think the college is looking after him, and that's just so surprising. Sara Ganim, as usual, the Pulitzer girl, works it out. Great reporting as usual.

GANIM: Thank you, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: Thank you for that, nice to have you. Hey, thanks everyone for watching, nice to have you with us. My colleague, Wolf Blitzer, coming up right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)