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 alabama, 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 nf 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 nf industries. you don't realise this, perhaps,

but in the united states, there's virtually no regulation of nf. 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 nf 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 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, againstjoe 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, oranything, 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, with just 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 south—east. but eventually, as we go through the day, we'll start to see some outbreaks of rain pushing into the south—west. 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 south—east. 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 south—west. 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.

welcome to newsday, reporting live from singapore, i'm steve lai. the headlines... israel is blamed by iran over the killing of a senior revolutionary guard commander and several others in the syrian capital. it promises a "decisive" response. israel hasn't commented.

palestinian medics say they're recovering dozens of bodies from the ruins of gaza's biggest hospital after a two—week operation by israel which said it was targeting a hamas base there. russia denies any involvement in "havana syndrome" — a mysterious illness affecting us diplomats across the globe. and jameela the baby gorilla on a journey to find a surrogate mum. hello and thanks for joining us on bbc news. iran has vowed to respond decisively, after accusing israel of killing a senior revolutionary guards commander — brigadier—general mohamed reza zahedi — in an air strike on an iranian consulate building in syria's capital, damascus.

at least five people are reported