HARRIS FAULKNER [ANCHOR]: I also want to talk about the legalities of crossing state lines to get to places where you can get an abortion, if women choose to do that. And now, we have just gotten this from Fox Business. There's a list of companies, you can imagine that states may want to offer, you know, a free doorstep to stand on while you wait inside to get into the clinic. But now people have Amazon up to $4,000 if you're planning to travel for an abortion or other treatments. Citigroup, they didn't tell us how much, but they are on the list. Yelp, again don't know the dollar amount. Uber state by state, they'll take a look, Lyft, state by state. Apple, Bumble, Match Group. Levi Strauss, Hewlett-Packard. I mean the list is rather lengthy. What is your reaction to that? And legally what does that mean?
RAYMOND ARROYO [FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR]: Well, legally, I mean, look, you can pay for anybody to go to another state. And if it's legal to do something in that state, that individual can presumably practice it and do it. The question is why are private companies, Harris — and this shows you and we all should consider this and note it, why are private companies getting in the business of helping facilitate a woman to abort her child when they're doing nothing and offering nothing to help a woman who might choose to keep that child? If you're pro-choice, and I encourage everybody to be fully pro-choice, which means give women that option. And if they wish to bring their child to term and raise that child, why doesn't a private company with the means like Amazon and these other companies you mentioned, why don't they extend help to that mother in a crisis pregnancy?
FAULKNER: It's a great question. It's a great question.
ARROYO: I have another idea, why don't they fund some of these crisis pregnancy centers and again, show balance. Don't fall on one side or the other. This shouldn't be politicized, Harris. This is always a tragedy, abortion.
FAULKNER: If anybody has learned their lesson with that, it would be Disney over the issues that have gone on with certain laws down in Florida and getting involved in that in a way. I think we can put these numbers and things up on the screen now. Companies who are reimbursing their employees for travel for an abortion or other treatments. And that is the list that I gave you. So what you are saying, too, is are they willing to do that, Raymond, are they willing to do that for people who might be seeking to keep a child or to have — it says other treatments. So, you know, the journalist in me wants to pick up the phone and call all of them. There is a long list and ask them, well, which one of you are going to include pregnancy centers and churches and other types of support? They didn't mention that part.
ARROYO: Well you know, the pro-life movement, Harris, very I think deliberately decided to focus their attention on the mothers, their well-being, and the child that they were carrying. And that was their way of being pro-life. Supporting the mothers. That really should be everybody's focus here, to support these women, particularly if they're in a crisis moment. And you know, today as I look at this, I see this scene outside the Supreme Court, Harris. It also is a testament to brave jurisprudence in the face of enormous hostility. You're talking about violence being threatened now against these pro-life centers and crisis pregnancy centers. There was enormous pressure, and enormous violence threatened against these justices and yet today they came together, they voted, and they took the hard stand they felt needed to be taken in the name of originalism, of defending what the constitution actually says and not an imagined right and that is another thing that also should be noted and another victory of this day. One of our institutions held firm, held firm in the face of enormous pressure and violence.
FAULKNER: Raymond Arroyo, always good to have you as these things are breaking and a huge day at the Supreme Court, as many have said on this network this morning since less than an hour ago. We had anticipated that this day would come with a decision. Now we know what the ruling is. And we also know how closely it is worded to in some places and even quoted from that leaked draft opinion. That kind of triggered all of this response before anything had been officially agreed to in the Supreme Court.