Return to Transcripts main page

NEW DAY

Biden Visits Wounded Hero Boston Cop; Religious Freedom Laws Under Scrutiny; Flight 9525 Co-Pilot Had "Suicidal Tendencies". Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired March 31, 2015 - 07:30   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:30:04] ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Nuclear negotiations with Iran coming down to the wire. The self-imposed deadline for an agreement less than 11 hours away. Secretary of State John Kerry telling CNN, quote, "tricky issue" remain, including Iran's refusal to part with its stockpile of atomic fuel and the pace of sanction relief.

Congressional Republicans already preparing to introduce tough new sanctions against Iran if the talks fail.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: We have breaking news: a massive manhunt happening right now in Virginia for an armed prison another staged a brazen escape. An inmate was being transferred from a local jail to a hospital in Falls Church, Virginia. He then managed to overpower a private security guard and escape with the guard's gun. The inmate identified by Fairfax police as Wossen Assaye, is considered armed and dangerous. Fairfax police believe he may be with this woman, said to be his girlfriend.

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: Two federal agents are charged with laundering the digital currency Bitcoin while working with the government to take down the now-defunct black market website Silk Road. Together, the pair extorted over $1 million, all part of a deal with the site's administrator Ross Ulbricht, not to tell the government about evidence found against him. Ulbricht was later convicted.

CAMEROTA: A hero police officer in Boston in stable condition this morning, four days after a gunman shot him point blank in the face. Officer John Moynihan, an Iraq war vet, got a surprise visit on Monday from Vice President Biden. This is not the first time Officer Moynihan has heard from the White House.

More from CNN national correspondent Susan Candiotti.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In Boston to dedicate the Edward M. Kennedy Institute, President Obama takes a moment to pay tribute to one of Boston's finest, police officer and Iraq war veteran, John Moynihan.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Boston, know that Michelle and I have joined our prayers with yours these past few days for a hero.

CANDIOTTI: Shot point-blank in the face, Moynihan is nearly killed in the line of duty Friday night.

Vice President Joe Biden also making a surprise visit to Boston Medical Center, where Moynihan is recovering, and where one day earlier, doctors remove a bullet lodged in his neck.

OBAMA: Thanks to the heroes of Boston Medical Center, I'm told Officer Moynihan is awake and talking and we wish him a full and speedy recovery.

(APPLAUSE)

CANDIOTTI: During Friday night's violent encounter, Officer Moynihan approaches a stopped car. The driver gets out, and police say without provocation, attacks the officer.

COMMISSIONER WILLIAM EVANS, BOSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT: You can see his right arm come up point blank and shoot Officer Moynihan right below the eye.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do we have a police office shot there?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, we do. Yes, we do.

CANDIOTTI: The driver firing on officers with a .357 Magnum before being shot dead.

Last year, Moynihan was among a group of top cops honored by the White House. Moynihan, for risking his life during the 2013 Watertown shoot-out with the Boston bombers -- the officer once again displaying bravery on the job.

Susan Candiotti, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CUOMO: Our thoughts and prayers with that officer and his family, and we will keep you updated on his condition.

Now, another big story we're following here, Arkansas, the governor there says he'll sign it, too. Another religious freedom bill may be passed sometime today, making 21 states that are going to provide a tool for the faithful to avoid burdens on their religion.

Now, that's a premise that has Indiana in a tornado of controversy with lawmakers scrambling to fix their law and appease other states and lawmakers, businesses and hordes of protesters. But many believe the law does not need to be fixed. It's fine the way it is and that's why it was passed that way.

One of them is Ryan McCann, policy director of the Indiana Family Institute.

Ryan, thank you for joining us.

Are you taken by surprised at this backfire of the law?

RYAN MCCANN, POLICY DIRECTOR, INDIANA FAMILY INSTITUTE: Yes, I am taken a bit by surprise. Thank you for having me on.

We were able to get through the legislative session and committee hearings and give a lot of information about the bill, how it passed in 1993 at the federal level, signed by Bill Clinton, supported by the ACLU back then and, of course, co-authored by Senator Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer among others.

And so, we were -- we were a bit surprised. Thirty states have this kind of balancing test within the state law. And we've seen that it really protects a lot of religious minorities. A great example of that comes from Pennsylvania, where in Philadelphia, a group of ministries were trying to minister to the poor and giving food out to the poor, there's a local ordinance passed that said that they could not feed more than four people at one time.

And so, the RFRA in that case in Pennsylvania, kicked in.

[07:35:03] And they were allowed to continue their ministry of feeding the poor.

We have other examples, for example in Texas, where you have a Native American boy who was going to a public school. Because of his faith, he had to grow his hair long. In that school system, there was a rule against boys having long hair. The ACLU actually got involved in that and because Texas had a RFRA, the boy was allowed to attend public schools and he also had --

CUOMO: That was the law was about in 1993. It was about the Native Americans in the peyote case. But it seems to have evolved into something very different. I understand the cases you're citing. But more often than no what seems to be the momentum for the Indiana law are Christians, who are majority, certainly not a minority in this country, saying that doing business with certain types of people is offensive to their religion.

And that's really what has brought us here today, isn't it?

MCCANN: No. I don't think so. Actually when you look at the states, the 30 states around the country who have this balancing test within state law, there's never been one example, one instance of a gay or lesbian citizen who has been discriminated against because of RFRA, we just think that's a red herring argument.

When you look at the cases time and time again across the country, it's these sorts of situations. It's the case of Mary Stinemetz in Kansas, where she was a Jehovah's witness and she needed a liver transplant, could not get that across state lines like she need. If she could get across state lines, she would not have to have a blood transfusion, in Kansas she had to. And because they didn't have a RFRA at that time, she was not allowed to go across state lines to get the surgery she need.

CUOMO: Right. I know the case.

MCCANN: She died a year later.

CUOMO: I know the case.

MCCANN: Had RFRA been involved, or the law of the land at the time, Mary might still be alive. So, you have these examples or the cases --

CUOMO: Ryan, I can't look through, I get your example. I'm cutting you off because it doesn't follow where you've been on this issue all along or your organization, or the supporters of this law. When the picture of the governor was came out with the supporters of the bill behind him, one of the pictures had people have a long and pronounced and I would argue ugly experience with the LGBT community.

They're there at the bill, there's nobody there from these other organizations that you're thinking about, about minority religion causes. This is pretty clear on the face half it is about, the outcry of supporters are coming from organizations like yours that are Christian-based, with an animus toward the LGBT community.

Own who and what you are. There's nothing wrong with that you're allowed to believe it but you're not about Native Americans or people who want liver transplants, right?

MCCANN: We're for the first amendment for everyone. First amendment and religious freedom for all, and that includes all of these religious minorities. I'll give you a few examples.

CUOMO: You've given me a lot of examples of what you say this could do. I want to stay on what people are worried about it doing. Let me ask you this --

MCCANN: That's exactly what I'm talking about.

CUOMO: I know you are. Here's the one I want to ask you about --

MCCANN: At the signing there were orthodox rabbis at the signing.

CUOMO: Right, and there were a lot of lobbyists who don't like gays, and that's why some people suspect that it was a private bill signing, right? It wasn't open to the media.

MCCANN: I disagree with that.

CUOMO: I understand that and you have your right to.

MCCANN: It's falsely characterizing people. And the --

CUOMO: They are who they are, though, right?

(CROSSTALK) CUOMO: They are who they are, though, right? You got Micah Clark there who believes homosexuality is a treatable disorder. You have Kurt Smith who is identified and associated with your organization who equates homosexuality with bestiality and adultery. You have Eric Miller who distributed a fear flyer, falsely claiming that pastors could be jailed for preaching against homosexuality.

Isn't it a coincidence that they're standing behind the governor? Are they there talking about peyote and about people who need liver transplants?

MCCANN: That's ridiculous. I know the picture you're talking about.

CUOMO: I know you do.

MCCANN: And the information sent around Twitter on the Internet.

CUOMO: Is it untrue?

MCCANN: That's by the left. The left -- yes.

CUOMO: So, those men aren't there and that's not what they've said? Because we checked all the information, and it does what the reporting bears out.

(CROSSTALK)

MCCANN: They have not.

CUOMO: Let me ask you something, if the governor or the general assembly decided to protect the LGBT community, as a protected class under state law, would you be OK with that?

MCCANN: The LGBT community in Indiana is protected. If you look at the 30 states that have these federal RFRAs, 20 of those states do not have explicitly within state law, specific classification with sexual orientation.

CUOMO: I know, but Indiana could, would you be OK with that?

MCCANN: About 20 of those states that don't have that, there's never been an instance, not one, where gay or lesbian citizen has been discriminated against.

CUOMO: The concern is the potential.

MCCANN: That's not what the supporters of the bill want. I find it ridiculous that the media keeps putting it out there.

CUOMO: Here's a media right now and I'm putting it out there -- I'll ask you again, would you support the LGBT community being a protected class under Indiana state law, and then exempting it from the RFRA law, and therefore, they would not be exposed to any problems there?

[07:40:05] Would you go with that?

MCCANN: That's a false premise, Chris, because when you look at the 20 states --

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: I don't want to look at the 20 states. I want to look at Indiana. Just say yes, I'm OK with that or no, I'm not OK with that. It's a yes/no, as George Stephanopoulos would say.

MCCANN: Well, your premise is a false premise. You're trying to say that the folks -- the gay and lesbian community in those state where there isn't a statewide, nondiscrimination ordinance, with them as a classification, that they're being discriminated against and they aren't. I want you to name one gay or lesbian people in one of those states who've ever been discriminated against because of RFRA, you can't name one.

CUOMO: First of all, wouldn't be discriminated against because of RFRA, because what RFRA, as you well know as one of the people who wanted the law, it's a defense mechanism for the people who say they're aggrieved. It's not about RFRA hurting a gay person. It's about RFRA being used to hide and protect those who may discriminate against gay people. That's what law is about.

And what I'm saying is, if you say that that's not what the law is about, it's about or discriminating, you can make that good by saying this class is protected under Indiana state law. And then they're not exposed to this law being used as a defense. That's a yes/no question. Would you support it?

MCCANN: But you're saying that they would be exposed. You're saying that --

CUOMO: Yes, I am.

MCCANN: They would be exposed to some sort of discrimination. If that was the case, they would be exposed in these 20 states where there is a RFRA, but there is no classification in the state law.

CUOMO: Do you think it's odd that you won't answer this question? I get it that you're saying in these other states, they don't have an explicit law and it's OK.

MCCANN: I am answering the question.

CUOMO: No, this is the question -- are you OK with the LGBT community being protected under Indiana state law, yes or no?

MCCANN: There are already, if you look around the state of Indiana --

CUOMO: Certain municipalities have it, they're not covered by state law, Ryan. I don't mean to cut you off, but I know the answer. Anybody can with a single Google. Cities do it, but not the state overall.

How about that?

MCCANN: Well, when you look at Indianapolis, I actually did an open records request for Indianapolis, because they've had sexual orientation protected for eight years now. And I asked, how many cases of discrimination have come up in the city of Indianapolis under that time? Zero. Not a single one.

There's not need for additional protections, there is not need for additional protections in Indiana.

CUOMO: So you're saying no?

MCCANN: Hoosiers are good people.

CUOMO: So, no? So, no?

It's not about the people of Indiana. Please don't do that? Please don't make these about Indiana people and Hoosiers? This is about lobbyists and special interests groups and the politicians at the top of the food chain that went along with you. It's not about the people of Indiana.

MCCANN: It is not.

It is about the people of Indiana, because the people of Indiana want this bill. They want greater religious liberty protections against government. That's what the bill is about. Protecting the First Amendment rights of all Hoosiers.

Now that this law is passed and into law, every single Hoosier, whether you're gay or straight, whether you're conservative or liberal, whether you're Republican or Democrat, you have greater First Amendments rights in Indiana today than you did before because of the protection of this bill and this law gives you. And that's my statement.

CUOMO: That is your statement about it. You're also a Christian, yes?

MCCANN: Yes.

CUOMO: And do you believe that doing business with gays would be offensive to you if you were a businessman?

MCCANN: No. You know, there is talk if you're a hotel or restaurant, this bill would allow you to discriminate against gay and lesbian people. That's just not true. It's never been true of any of the 30 states where this has come up.

I wouldn't do that. I would gladly serve -- I have gay and lesbian friends, I would gladly serve them in my restaurant if they came and wanted a sandwich.

That's not what this is about. This is about -- I'll tell you what the main thing we haven't discussed is the Hobby Lobby case. If you look at it that last summer, there are a lot of people across the country who looked at the case and the Supreme Court looked at RFRA over and over again, and they embraced RFRA. If not for RFRA at the federal level, Hobby Lobby would have lost that case. And people really started to look at it and thought, boy, if a family-

owned business like Hobby Lobby could be forced through Obamacare to be funding abortion-causing drugs through federal legislation, yet that federal RFRA doesn't apply at the state level, what should we be doing at the state level to get in line with you know these protections across the country. We looked at our laws in Indiana and realized, we don't have the same religious liberty protections that these 30 other states have and the federal government has. So, why shouldn't we go ahead and give our people this greater protection?

It has nothing to do with the issues that I think perhaps you, I hope not, and others in the media are making this about.

CUOMO: Well --

MCCANN: It has to do with protecting religious minorities and I think as a Christian, as any Christian would want to do, we want to protect and other faith backgrounds, we want to protect everyone's First Amendment rights.

[07:45:02] I don't care what faith background are. I don't care what your sexual orientation is. If you're a gay business owner, I want to support protect you from government just as much as a straight business owner.

This is about protecting everyone's First Amendment rights.

CUOMO: You understand why that's a little bit of a suspicious premise, though, coming from you, given your past and what you've said about the LGBT community, and the animus that you have toward them. And then this bill comes up --

MCCANN: Not at all.

CUOMO: -- that expands the definition of who is a religious actor, who can act out of religion to any kind of business, which is unusual and it starts to seem suspicious that you are targeting this group to protect yourself from another trend that's coming, which is gay marriage and equality. Not just what we saw with Obamacare.

That's why I'm asking you the question.

MCCANN: You act like you know me well this is the first time we've ever met. And I really --

CUOMO: I only know what you've said. I only know what you've said about self-described lesbians and how they can --

(CROSSTALK)

MCCANN: I'm really offended by the things you're saying about me personally.

CUOMO: No, no, listen, don't take it personally. I'm just going on what you've said publicly. MCCANN: But you are. No, you're -- the statements you just said

about my views of gays and lesbians is offensive. I have gays and lesbian friends. And the fact that you would say that, it's just wrong.

CUOMO: Let's put up what you said. Put it up. Let your friends see it.

"If these straight people and the president really cared for self- described, what does that mean, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered citizens and those who love them, they would promote life-changing counseling to help them confront and defeat their temptations."

You cannot fix gay, do you understand that? This is who these people are. It is not just a choice, it is not a lifestyle.

These people say, this is who I am. This is whom I love. This somehow I think. This is how I feel this is how I was born.

Do you understand that? Forget about whether that's offensive or not. It's that if that's where you're coming from and then this law is developed, it seems like a very suspicious connection. That's what's fueling my skepticism.

MCCANN: I can't, obviously I'm in a studio here, I can't see what you're putting up on the screen.

CUOMO: So, they're not your words, you've never said it?

(CROSSTALK)

MCCANN: It doesn't familiar to me.

CUOMO: Blog post, June 2009.

MCCANN: Well, I tell you one thing, that this bill is has nothing to do with what you're trying to make it about. I think it's unfortunate.

CUOMO: All right.

MCCANN: I've talked over and over about the examples of what has happened. You want to talk about hypotheticals of things that have literally never happened in any of the states that have this. But the examples of the things that have actually happened that protect citizens, we don't want to talk about them.

CUOMO: Everybody wants religious freedom protected. Everybody wants that. This is America. It's just about making sure everybody gets protection and we don't use the law to advance discrimination.

But, Ryan McCann, I appreciate you coming on.

MCCANN: We're in agreement with that. CUOMO: We'll see what happens there. We'll see where your group comes out on any efforts to modify the legislation, we'll continue the conversation, I appreciate you coming on NEW DAY.

MCCANN: Thank you.

CUOMO: All right. Now, in the next hour, we're going to talk about the other side of this controversy, the mayor of Indianapolis, a Republican, his name is Greg Ballard, and he wants to come on to tell you why he believes this law is something very different than what you just heard from Mr. McCann.

We also want to hear from you. You can tweet us @newday, or go to Facebook.com/NewDay. What are the questions? What are your concerns? Where do you come on this?

Mick?

PEREIRA: Wow, what a conversation, Chris. We'll be glad to hear from the mayor of Indy coming up.

We're going to get back to our top story, revelations that Flight 9525 co-pilot Andreas Lubitz had hid his mental health issues and history from his employer, triggering a debate over privacy and public safety? Could 149 lives have been saved? And could changes save lives in the future?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:52:27] PEREIRA: Investigators have revealed Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot of Flight 9525, had a history of mental illness that he apparently hid from his airline. So, how can public safety and disclosure laws be reconciled to prevent further tragedy?

Here to weigh in, CNN chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

Also with us, forensic psychiatrist and chairman of the forensic panel, Dr. Michael Welner.

Doctors, it's really good to have both here.

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.

PEREIRA: Quite a discussion we're going to have, and I know we're delving into heavy and topical and complicated stuff.

So, why don't we start with Sanjay, if you don't mind? Let's run through the history we know of right now, of this co-pilot. And walk us through what we know?

GUPTA: We're piecing some of this together, I'll tell you, as we put up the specifics. We're piecing this together based on various interviews, but also looking at some of the medications he was taking and the time frame, had suicidal tendencies, as you can see there, before getting his pilot license. He was treated by psychiatrists over a period of time. We know five years ago, he was receiving an injection. A powerful one

often used as an anti-psychiatric medication. You can see there interrupted his training around that time as well.

It's a lot of symptoms sort of start -- seem to have started in his early 20s. Again, just based on what we know so far. At that time, you know, beside it is suicidal sort of tendencies that were described, he seemed to have had psychosis as well -- whether it was depression that was not easily treated and became psychiatric depression are or whether he had a separate psychosis. Just not right clear now.

But to your point, Michael, it seems to have been going on for some time.

PEREIRA: And, Dr. Welner, I know the suicidal tendencies. You take issue with that designation. Explain to me why.

DR. MICHAEL WELNER, FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIST & CHAIRMAN, THE FORENSIC PANEL: I think we have to completely change the paradigm of the discussion about this case. This was murder. This was a mass murder --

PEREIRA: But he could have had suicidal tendencies.

WELNER: -- by someone ready to die.

That's exactly right. The overwhelming majority of people not only with suicidal tendencies but people who even attempt suicide would never carry out a murder and would especially never carry out a mass murder.

Murder is -- suicide is a selfish act. Murder-suicide is an exceptionally selfish act because you feel the entitlement to take another person's life.

Now, let's take a step back. Not only did he murder, but he murdered people he never even knew, who had no connection to him, he had no grievance with. That's at the extreme end of selfishness. Selfishness is different neuro-anatomically, neuro-biologically, and psychiatrically from depression and hopelessness.

[07:55:05] So, I think the paradigm is demonstrated in the rarity of the event.

PEREIRA: This is important to look at. But at the bottom line for me and many people, this guy shouldn't have been at the helm of the plane. He should not have been piloting. I think what's upsetting to many and what many are struggling to understand is why was this mental health history not available to the employer? It's because of German privacy laws, correct?

GUPTA: They are strict laws, and they stricter probably than in the United States.

But you're absolutely right. A lot of this is based on self- reporting.

So, here's the situation. You are told to self-report. If you self- report these things you are not going to fly. If you put down that you have psychosis. You are treated for psychosis with these powerful medications you are not going to fly. So, that's the case. The system really doesn't work based on self-reporting.

Next step, could a physician have basically said, look, I am worried enough about this person being a danger to himself -- that he should have been. He apparently had suicidal tendencies earlier in life. Are they worried about him hurting himself? Are they worried about him hurting others?

If they are, they could have flagged it at that point. By the way, this is a federal aviation.

PEREIRA: Right.

GUPTA: This is not an airline-specific thing.

PEREIRA: One final question, Dr. Welner. I'm sorry to cut you off, we're short of time.

But, Dr. Welner, if someone is psychotic and homicidal receiving strong medical injections of an anti-psychotic medications, how do we count on them self-reporting?

WELNER: Well, we can't, because if you're selfish enough to kill a lot of people, you obviously are selfish enough not to be honest.

But here's a key point. The most important tipping point is it fantasy or is it plan?

PEREIRA: Right.

WELNER: If it's a plan he's not going to tell a doctor. If someone in the community has a hint that someone is contemplating this, then it's a public safety issue and public safety needs to be the highest priority.

PEREIRA: I'm going to wrap it there.

Dr. Welner, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, we appreciate it.

Alisyn?

GUPTA: Thank you.

CAMEROTA: OK, Michaela.

The clock is ticking but tricky issues remain with the Iran nuclear deal. We'll tell you where they are when we come right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)