ADDITIONAL FUNDING PROVIDED BY THE WALLACE GENETIC FOUNDATION, THE COLCOM FOUNDATION, AND THE CHARLES A. FRUEAUFF FOUNDATION.

>> Bonnie: THIS WEEK ON TO THE CONTRARY: FIRST, ELIZABETH WARREN CONTINUES TO GAIN IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY POLLS AND TULSI GABBARD MAY SIT OUT NEXT WEEK'S DEBATE.

THEN, LGBTQ RIGHTS AND THE NEW SUPREME COURT.

BEHIND THE HEADLINES: FACIAL RECOGNITION SOFTWARE AND FAIRNESS.

HELLO, I'M BONNIE ERBE.

WELCOME TO b DISCUSSION OF NEWS AND SOCIAL TRENDS FROM DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES.

UP FIRST, WOMEN AND THE NEXT DEBATE.

WHEN FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN AND MASSACHUSETTS SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN MEET AT NEXT WEEK'S DEMOCRATIC DEBATE, THE TWO SHOULD BE RUNNING EVEN IN THE BID FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION.

THEY'RE VIRTUALLY TIED AT THE TOP OF A VERY CROWDED FIELD ACCORDING TO THE REALCLEARPOLITICS POLLING INDEX.

AND WARREN, WHO IS SURGING MAY BE THE ACTUAL FRONTRUNNER.

WARREN'S JUMP IN THE POLLS FOLLOWS HER RELEASE OF DETAILED POLICY PLANS AND AS WELL AS OUT-FUNDRAISING BIDEN BY ABOUT $9 MILLION IN THE THIRD QUARTER OF THIS YEAR.

BUT PERHAPS IN A PREVIEW OF HIS APPROACH TO HIS PRIMARY RIVAL NEXT WEEK, BIDEN IS SAYING b AND HE'S THE ONE TO ACTUALLY GET THINGS DONE.

MEANWHILE ONE OF THE FOUR FEMALE CANDIDATES WHO QUALIFIED FOR THE DEBATE SAYS SHE MAY BOYCOTT IT.

REPRESENTATIVE TULSI GABBARD CHARGES THAT THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND MEDIA ARE RIGGING THE PRIMARY AGAINST OUTSIDER CANDIDATES SUCH AS HERSELF.

>> CONGRESSWOMAN ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, COULD ELIZABETH WARREN WHEN THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT?

>> ACTUALLY, FOR WOMEN AS A TOP-TIER, WE COULD BE IN FOR OUR FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT, FINALLY.

>> WHEN ELIZABETH WARREN ENTERED THE RACE, ON THIS SHOW, I SAID SHE WOULD BE THE WANT.

I TELL YOU, IF THE WORST THREAT IS WE DON'T WANT TO ELECT A PLANNER, THEN I WOULD SAY, YES, SHE WILL BE THE NOMINEE.>> I THINK SHE SAID A PIECE FOR HERSELF AND THE TONE AND SHE HAS KEPT THAT PACE AND IS ON POINT.

SHE KEEPS IT UP AND SHE'S ON HER WAY.

>> SHE CAN BE THE TOP OF THE DEMOCRATIC TENANT TICKET BUT SHE WILL NOT BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT.

>> YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU SAID THAT IF ALL HE CAN THROW AT HER IS WE DON'T WANT A PLANNER, AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN HE WON'T COME UP WITH SOMETHING WAY WORSE.

OF COURSE HE WILL -- [CROSS TALK] >> BUT CAN SHE STAND UP AGAINST HIM IN THE DEBATES?

>> I THINK SO.

THINK SHE'S GOT A LOT OF FORTITUDE.

SHE IS FIERCE.

AND AS SANDERS FALTERS AND HIS HEALTH FAILS, THOSE VOTERS ARE GOING TO HER, NOT HIM.

>> SHE WILL DO WELL IN THE DEBATES, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE POLLS, SHE IS -- HER POLITICS DO NOT COME FORTH WELL WITH THE POLLS ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE.

SHE IS FAR TOO -- TO THE LEFT.

AND I SAY THIS AS A PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT: I DON'T WANT TO SEE MY PARTY FAIL TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHO CAN WIN THIS ELECTION, AND THAT IS WHY I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SAYING SOMETHING TO US WHEN THEY ARE -- WHEN THEY ARE LOOKING AT A MAN WHO I HAVE NO REASON TO VOTE FOR EITHER, JOE BIDEN, AS SOMEONE WHO MORE CLOSELY REPRESENTS THEIR POLITICS.

>> WHERE EXACTLY IS SHE TOO FAR LEFT?

>> MEDICARE FOR ALL, FOR EXAMPLE.

YOU KNOW, YOU GO TO AN AVERAGE PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT, AND WE KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

IT MEANS YOU ARE FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE WITH THE GOVERNMENT PAYING FOR ALMOST ALL OF IT.

>> WHICH MEANS TAXPAYERS.

>> WHICH MEANS TAXPAYERS.

YOU WOULD PROBABLY FIND MOST DEMOCRATS FOR THAT, BUT IN TERMS OF WHERE THE ELECTORATE IS THIS TIME AND WHO IT CAN BEACH TRUMP, THAT IS WHY YOU SEE MORE PEOPLE ALL LOOKING MORE TOWARDS BIDEN.

>> SEE, SHE MATCHES DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTER VERY CLOSELY.

MAYBE NOT THE GENERAL ELECTION DEMOCRAT MAYBE NOT THE DEBT GENERAL ELECTION PRIMARY VOTER, BUT SHE'S A REAL FORCE.

>> THE ACHILLES' HEEL IS HOW WILL SHE PAY FOR HER SOCIALIST WISH LIST?

LET'S BE HONEST.

NO ONE HAS REALLY ATTACKED THE QUESTION OF HOW DO YOU PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?

MEDICARE FOR ALL IS JUST THE START.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FREE COLLEGE TUITION, REIMBURSEMENT FOR STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS.

TAXING EVERY WEALTHY PERSON ACCORDING TO HER OWN PLANS ONLY CANCER ABOUT $3 TRILLION, MAYBE, AND THE TOTAL PRICE TAG FOR WHAT SHE'S PROPOSING IS AROUND 35.

THAT MEANS THAT MIDDLE-CLASS AMERICANS WILL HAVE TO FIT THE BILL WHICH MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, I CANNOT GET BEHIND THAT KIND OF ARGUMENT.

>> I AGREE.

I THINK THE SHIFT IMMEDIATELY TO BIDEN, CONSIDERING HIS ENTRY INTO THE CAMPAIGN IS INDEED ASSIGNED THAT I THINK IS A SIGNAL CONSIDERING HOW WIDE THE PLAYING FIELD IS RIGHT NOW THAT EVERYONE LINED UP IN THE POLLS ANYWAY BEHIND HIM, IS THAT WE DEFINITELY HAVE TO CORRAL AND START TO FOCUS.

BUT I WILL SAY IS A CANDIDATE, YOU KNOW, IN THE PRIMARIES, AMONGST A FIELD YOU KNOW WHAT SHE STANDS FOR.

SHE IS CLEAR AND CONSISTENT AND HAS STAMINA.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THESE ISSUES IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN A WAY THAT PERHAPS WE HAVE NOT BEFORE.

>> YOU KNOW, THE LIKABILITY ISSUE, WHICH OF COURSE IS ALWAYS THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE, ALTHOUGH IT SHOULD NOT BE, BUT SHE STRIKES ME AS -- SHE IS VERY SIMILAR TO HILLARY CLINTON IN THAT SHE'S NOT SUPER LIKABLE.

SHE'S KIND OF A COLD FISH AND SHE'S A POLICY WONK.

SO HOW IS LIKE HIM TO BEAT MR. TELEVISION, YOU KNOW?

>> ALL HE'S GOT HIS TELEVISION, BUT HE'S VERY GOOD AT IT.

I THINK THAT HER STORY AND THIS IDEA THAT SHE'S SORT OF A LONE WOLF AND PULLING HERSELF UP AND NOT TIME TO -- I THINK THERE'S A FEW THINGS THAT VARY MUCH DISTINGUISH HER FROM CLINTON AND THAT OTHER PEOPLE ON THE OUTSIDE LOOKING FOR SURE.

I THINK SHE HAS THAT, I'M JUST LIKE YOU VERY MUCH EVERYDAY PERSON, HILARY CANNOT PULL THAT OFF.

BUT AGREED, WHERE WE ARE MOVING AS A PARTY AMONGST THESE VERY POLARIZING ISSUES I THINK WILL BE VERY CRITICAL IN HOW BIDEN -- HOW THESE TWO CANDIDATES MEET IN THE MIDDLE ON SOME OF THESE ISSUES, I THINK WILL BE FOR ALL OF US TO SEE.

BUT WE HAVE NOT THUS FAR.

>> CAN I CHALLENGE YOU ON THE LIKABILITY ARGUMENT?

I THINK SHE HAS AN AUTHENTICITY ISSUE.

WE SAW THAT WITH HER HERITAGE CLAIMING TO BE SOMETHING SHE WAS FOUR POTENTIAL ACADEMIC GAIN OR PROFESSIONAL GAIN.

NOW WE HAVE SEEN THIS POTENTIAL PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION ARGUMENT.

MAYBE SHE WAS, MAYBE SHE WAS NOT FIRED BECAUSE SHE WAS PREGNANT.

I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT WHO REALLY IS SHE CONNECTED SHE CHANGE BASED ON WHAT SHE THINK SHE CAN GET OUT OF IT?

ONNIE -- >> WAIT A SECOND.

WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO NOT ONLY ELIAS BUT A PRESIDENT WHO DOES WANT 80s ON WHO WE IS, WHERE IT COMES FROM, WHAT HE'S DONE IN HIS LIFE EVERY DAY AND THE PUBLIC ARE SICK OF THAT.

YOU GOING TO TELL ME THAT MAYBE SHE LIED ABOUT , YOU KNOW HER HERITAGE FOR PRETENDING TO BE MORE NATIVE AMERICAN THAN IT TURNS OUT THAT SHE WAS AND A PREGNANCY CASE ARE GOING TO HURT HER UP AGAINST WHO SHE MIGHT BE UP AGAINST?

>> YES, I DO, BECAUSE CLAIMING TO BE A MINORITY, AS A MINORITY, THAT'S INSULTING.

CLAIMING TO BE HAVING PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE YOU ARE A WOMAN, AS A WOMAN WHO'S JUST HAD A BABY, THAT'S INSULTING TO ME.

>> IS NOT CONSORTING WITH HORSES AND PAYING OFF THE HIGH DOLLAR PROSTITUTES.

COME ON, THERE IS NO COMPARISON.

>> WE ON WHO PRESIDENT TRUMP AS WELL.

HIS ALWAYS FELT HIMSELF TO BE A MOGUL.

MAYBE HE STARTED WITH A FEW MILLION OR A FEW LESS POINT WHATEVER THE CASE, THAT'S ALWAYS WHO HE HAS BEEN.

THERE'S MORE BEHIND THEM THAN THE TELEVISION PROWESS.

HE HAS AN ECONOMY THAT'S STELLAR, 50 YEAR LOW UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, LOW HISTORICALLY LOW UNEMPLOYMENT RATES FOR PEOPLE OF COLOR, HE HAS MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD OLD INCOME HAS A 50 YEAR HIGH.

THERE'S A LOT BEHIND HIM THAT WILL BE HARD FOR LEFT TO CHALLENGE.

>> AND THINK THERE'S ANY CANDIDATE OUT THERE WHO CANNOT BE ACCUSED OF SWINGING ONE-WAY OR THE OTHER FOR THE SAKE OF A PLATFORM OR A VOTE.

I THINK THE WORLD OF POLITICS IS SUCH THAT YOU COULD SORT OF GO DOWN THE LIST ON AUTHENTICITY IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO CALL IT.

I DON'T THINK THAT IS WHAT HER PRIMARY LIABILITIES ARE, FRANKLY.

I THINK IT'S AN ISSUE OF OUR PEOPLE COMFORTABLE WITH HER?

ARE THEY SWINGING TO A CANDIDATE WHO DOES NOT HAVE A LOT OF STRENGTHS GOING FOR HIM RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY ARE NERVOUS ABOUT WHO THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE WILL BE?

WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW SHE SPEAKS TO THOSE ORDERS.

>> BUT ALSO A LOT OF THE THINGS SHE RAISED IN TERMS OF POLICY ISSUES THAT ARE SO EXPENSIVE, MOST PEOPLE ON THAT STAGE, IF NOT ALL, HAVE ALSO ENDORSED.

I MEAN, SHE AND SANDERS HAVE TAKEN THE PARTY EVEN FARTHER LEFT.

IT WILL BE HARD EVEN FOR BIDEN -- >> WHEN YOU HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO SAYS HE NEVER MET SOMEBODY, DID NOT KNOW SOMEBODY, THIS IS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, AND THEN SHARING PICTURES OF HIM WITH THESE PEOPLE, UNLESS THERE IS SEXISM THERE, LIES ARE OFF THE TABLE AS A CRITERIA TO VOTE AGAINST SOMEONE.

LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK.

PLEASE FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER @BONNIEERBE.

FROM POLITICS TO THE SUPREME COURT.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HEARD ARGUMENTS THIS WEEK ON THREE CASES THAT MAY WELL DETERMINE THE RIGHTS OF LGBTQ WORKERS, AND THE DECISION MAY HINGE ON TWO TRUMP APPOINTEES TO THE SUPREME COURT.

EXPERTS SAY NEIL GORSUCH AND BRETT KAVANAUGH, TWO CONSERVATIVES, MAY BE THE SWING VOTES IN THESE CASES ABOUT LGBTQ PEOPLE WHO SAY THEY WERE FIRED BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL IDENTITIES.

SUPPORTERS OF LGBTQ RIGHTS GATHERED OUTSIDE THE COURT EARLIER THIS WEEK, AS DID A CONSERVATIVE FEMINIST WHO CLAIMS THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN AND GIRLS WILL BE HARMED, ESPECIALLY IN SPORTS, IF MEN WHO IDENTIFY AS WOMEN CAN CALL THEMSELVES WOMEN.

INSIDE THE COURTROOM JUSTICE GORSUCH MADE A TELLING COMMENT DURING ARGUMENTS ON THE CASE IN WHICH A TRANSGENDER WOMAN SAYS SHE WAS FIRED DUE TO HER SEXUAL IDENTITY.

GORSUCH CALLED THE CASE b KAVANAUGH GAVE NO INDICATION ON HOW HE MAY RULE.

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS, A CONSERVATIVE WHO HAS SIDED WITH GAY RIGHTS ADVOCATES IN THE PAST, APPEARED UNSYMPATHETIC TO TRANSGENDER ACTIVISTS.

HE STRUGGLED WITH THE USE OF TWO PRONOUNS DESCRIBING ONE PERSON AS b OTHER TWO CASES ARE ABOUT GAY MEN WHO CLAIM THEY WERE FIRED SIMPLY FOR BEING GAY.

A RULING IN THE CASES IS EXPECTED TOWARD THE END OF THE COURT'S TERM IN LATE JUNE.

>> Bonnie: SHED SOME LIGHT, IF YOU WILL ON JUSTICE KAVANAUGH'S POSITION ON GAY RIGHTS, BECAUSE YOU -- >> I THINK GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, AND ROBERTS COULD END UP SURPRISING PEOPLE.

AGAIN, I THINK IT WILL BE A MIXED DECISION AND THEY WILL CARVE OUT TRANSGENDER AND PRESERVING IT FOR THE ARGUMENT ON SPORTS AND OTHER.

BUT I THINK THERE IS A WAY THAT THEY CAN LOOK AT IT TO SAY THAT A GAY MAN WHO IS DENIED RIGHTS BECAUSE HE HAS A MALE HUSBAND OR MALE WIFE, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE SAME THING AS A WOMAN BEING DENIED RIGHTS WHO HAS A HUSBAND.

>> SO WHY THE DIFFERENCE WITH TRANSGENDER, THEN?

REALLY, THE QUESTION, UNDER A STATUTE PASSED IN THE '60s, WHETHER THAT WAS -- EITHER YOU COULD INTERPRET IT THROUGH WITH THE JUSTICE SEES IS THE RIGHT DECISION TO BE COVERED BY THAT.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE '60s, CLEARLY NO ONE WAS TALKING ABOUT TRANSGENDER BACK THEN.

>> FOR GAY MEN AND GAY WOMEN, BIOLOGY IS CONSISTENT.

IT'S A GAY MAN WHO WAS A MAN AND A GAY WOMAN WHO WAS A WOMAN.

WITH TRANSGENDER, IT PUTS ANOTHER VARIABLE IN THEIR THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY SEX, IT IS THEIR PREFERENCE.

SO I THINK IT DOES ALTER THAT.

ALSO, THE IMPACT IT HAS ON SPORTS, I MEAN, HOW UNFAIR FOR GIRLS THAT ARE ASPIRING TO HAVE A BOY DECIDE THAT HE IS A WOMAN AND JUST BLOW THEM OUT.

EVERY TIME THAT HAPPENS, THEY DO BLOW THEM OUT AND THEY WIN EVERYTHING.

>> LET'S NOT CONFUSE SPORTS AS TITLE IX.

THESE CASES -- >> THAT'S SEPARATE.

>> THESE CASES, UNDER TITLE VII.

THIS IS A STATUTE.

AS CHAIR OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.

I HAVE TO TELL YOU, THESE JUSTICES HAVE A BIG PROBLEM ON THEIR HANDS BECAUSE THE STATUTE HAS BEEN ENFORCED OVER AND OVER AGAIN ON ONE BASIS: WHAT IS THE MEANING OF BECAUSE OF SEX?

THIS IS WHY GORSUCH IS CONFOUNDED.

AND WHEN SEXES COME BEFORE THIS COURT, IT HAS -- CONSERVATIVE COURTS AS WELL, THEY HAVE CONSISTENTLY INTERPRETED THE WORD SEX VERY BROADLY.

AND NOW, GOING THROUGH DOZENS AND DOZENS OF CASES, SO THIS IS NOT A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION.

THIS IS SIMPLY THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE HAD FIVE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES.

AND TITLE VII HAS BEEN SINCE, YES, THE 1960s, HAS BEEN INTERPRETED TO MEAN SEX MEANS SEX, WHETHER IT'S SAME-SEX -- >> MEANING SEX AND GENDER OR THE SAME THING -- >> SEX OR GENDER, AND THEY HAVE NOT DIFFERENTIATED BETWEEN THOSE TWO.

>> YEAH, BUT CAN'T THEY -- WAIT A SECOND.

YOU ARE A GRADUATE OF THE BEST DARN LAST SCHOOL IN THE COUNTRY.

YOU KNOW THAT THEY CAN -- LAWYERS CAN ALWAYS FIND ARGUMENTS AROUND WHY A PRESIDENT SHOULD -- YOU KNOW, NOT EXACTLY THE SAME PRESIDENT -- >> THE REASON I STRESSED THAT IS NOT AS IF IT'S A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION.

THEY HAVE HAD CASES BEFORE THEM JUST LIKE THIS INVOLVING, DO YOU REALLY MEAN A MAN AND WOMAN?

A MAN AND MAN?

AND TIME AGAIN THEY SAY SEX MEANS SEX AND I'M SAYING IT WILL BE HARD FOR GORSUCH WHO HAS BEEN, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, A TEXT HE WANTS.

THAT MEANS YOU LOOK AT THE WORD AND THE WORD ONLY.

YOU USE THE TEXT AND TEXT ONLY.

I THINK THE FIVE JUSTICES WILL HAVE A PROBLEM.

>> I THINK THEY ARE PROBABLY GOING TO UPHOLD THE PRESIDENT BUT CARVE IT OUT SO IT DOES NOT AFFECT TITLE X.

>> BUT THAT'S RUNNING HEADLONG INTO THE PROBLEM SHE'S TALKING ABOUT.

SHE IS SAYING HERE EITHER -- [CROSS-TALK] IF YOU DO ANYTHING BUT -- >> EXCEPT TRANSGENDER ALONG WITH.

>> I THINK THIS IS A GREAT PLACE FOR CONGRESS TO DETERMINE WHETHER SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND ALL THESE ISSUES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PROTECTED CLASSES AND RECEIVE THE SAME PROTECTIONS UNDER TITLE IX, TITLE VII, TITLE IX.HE INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S LAW CENTER, WE JUST LAUNCHED THIS AND WE SUBMITTED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN THIS CASE BECAUSE OF THE TRANSGENDER ISSUE IN WOMEN'S SPORTS.

THE IMPACT OF -- OVER 300 FEMALE ATHLETES, HIGH SCHOOL ALL THE WAY TO COLLEGE, OR EXPERIENCING THE CHALLENGES OF HAVING TRANSGENDERED STUDENTS COMPETING AND TAKING AWAY THEIR OPPORTUNITIES.

>> RIGHT.

I UNDERSTAND.

LET'S GET YOU BECAUSE WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME.

UNDERSTAND THERE ARE SEPARATE TITLES BUT COULDN'T PRECEDENT STILL BE USED, PRECEDENT UNDER THIS TITLE VII ARGUED BE USED BY A LAWYER REPRESENTING LGBTQ PEOPLE THAT IT SHOULD BE SEEN THE SAME UNDER TITLE IX, REGARDLESS OF THE TITLE?

>> YOU CANNOT JUMP STATUTES.

EVERYTHING I'VE SAID TO YOU IS ABOUT INTERPRETATION OF TITLE VII.

THIS IS A TITLE VII CASE AND THE COURTS WILL HAVE TO LOCK THEMSELVES INTO WHAT IS TITLE VII MEAN AND WHAT DOES SEX -- >> YOU COULD GIVE LGBTQ PERSONS EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER TITLE IX BUT NOT UNDER SEVEN OR VICE VERSA.

>> SEX MEANS SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT UNDER TITLE IX.

>> YES.

I WANT TO SAY THAT THIS IS ABOUT -- THE CASES SPECIFICALLY ABOUT PEOPLE BEING FIRED AND DISCRIMINATED AGAINST VERY BLATANTLY.

THE IDEA THAT PEOPLE DON'T HAVE THESE PROTECTIONS, I THINK, IS EVEN MORE ALARMING AND THIS WILL CERTAINLY HAVE A RIPPLE EFFECT IN PLACES WHERE YOU HAVE SOME DEPENDING ON WHAT STATE YOU ARE IN.

AT THE END OF THE DAY WE HAVE TO PROTECT PEOPLE IN THE WORKPLACE AND THERE ARE A LOT OF LOOPHOLES INCLUDING THIS ONE THAT ALLOWS FOLKS TO BE FIRED FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THEY ARE GENDER OR SEX.

>> WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE FIRED FOR NO OTHER REASON BUT THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION?

I HAD A SON -- >> THAT'S NOT A PROTECTED CLASS.

>> WE ARE ABOUT OUT OF TIME.

SORRY ABOUT THAT.

POLITICAL AFFILIATION IS NOT LIKE BEING OLD, BEING A WOMAN, BEING A PERSON.

>> SHOULD THAT BE A PROTECTED CLASS?

>> THE SUPREME COURT HAS NEVER RECOGNIZED THAT AS A PROTECTED CLASS.

>> MAYBE IT SHOULD BE.

>> BEHIND THE HEADLINES: BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING.

IS THAT DAY HERE?

FACIAL RECOGNITION PROGRAMS HAVE CHANGED THE WAY PEOPLE LIVE, TRAVEL -- EVEN PROTEST.

A NEW BILL MAY CHANGE HOW THIS TECHNOLOGY IMPACTS LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES.

INTO THE.

>> Rep. Yvette Clarke: THIS TECHNOLOGY IS BEING DEVELOPED BY A SET OF INDIVIDUALS.

THOSE INDIVIDUALS DON'T NECESSARILY REFLECT THE DIVERSITY OF OUR SOCIETY.

SO YOU'LL FIND, FOR INSTANCE, THAT THERE IS A MUCH HIGHER ACCURACY RATE OF THIS TECHNOLOGY USED IN WHITE MALES.

WELL, WHY IS THAT?

BECAUSE WHITE MALES ARE WRITING THE PROGRAMS, THEY'RE VIEWING FACES THROUGH THEIR LENS AND EXPERIENCE.

>> Bonnie: NEW YORK REPRESENTATIVE YVETTE CLARKE ANNOUNCED THE b BARRIERS TO HOUSING ACT OF 2019b AYANNA PRESSLEY AND RASHIDA TALIB.

THE BILL WOULD BAN PUBLIC HOUSING FROM USING FEDERAL AID FOR FACIAL RECOGNITION SOFTWARE INCLUDING VOICE, FINGERPRINTS, AND DNA AND THE AUTHORS HOPE IT WILL PROTECT TENANTS FROM BIASED SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY.

>> Rep. Yvette Clarke: EVERYONE IS GUARANTEED THE RIGHTS OF PRIVACY UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, BUT WHEN ONE IS SUBJECTED TO SOMETHING -- IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO OPT IN OR OPT OUT -- THAT I BELIEVE CROSSES THE LINE, AND THAT'S WHY THIS LEGISLATION HAS BEEN INTRODUCED, TO SAY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, YES, YOU HAVE JURISDICTION OVER PUBLIC HOUSING.

HOWEVER, THE USE OF THIS TECHNOLOGY WOULD REALLY EXACERBATE THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE.

>> Bonnie: THE TECHNOLOGY IS BEING USED WORLDWIDE IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS.

AMAZON'S b AND THE POLICE USE CAN ALLEGEDLY DETECT EMOTIONAL STATES.

IT'S SUPPOSED TO KNOW IF SOMEONE IS HAPPY, SAD, ANGRY, SURPRISED, DISGUSTED, CALM OR CONFUSED.

IN A b KONG, A b TO MONITOR TRAFFIC, CAN REPORTEDLY TELL A PERSON'S ETHNICITY, CALCULATE HOW THEY LOOK WITH OR WITHOUT FACIAL HAIR, DETECT THEIR MOOD, AND READ LIPS.

BUT ITS ACCURACY ISN'T 100%.

CLARKE SAYS IF THE SOFTWARE IS GOING TO BE SOLD FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION IT NEEDS TO BE 100% ACCURATE.

>> Rep. Yvette Clarke: THERE ARE USES ALREADY OF THIS TECHNOLOGY.

AND THAT IS TROUBLING IN AND OF ITSELF, BECAUSE AGAIN, THIS TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FULLY TESTED IN THE AREAS WHERE IT HAS BEEN TESTED, WE'RE FINDING, PARTICULARLY BLACK WOMEN, WOMEN OF COLOR, ARE HAVING MUCH ERROR RATES THAN THE GENERAL POPULATION.

ADD THAT ERROR RATE TO SUBJECTIVE USAGE IN A HOUSING SETTING AND YOU HAVE NO SAY WHATSOEVER IN ITS USAGE AS PART OF YOUR DAILY LIFE.

>> Bonnie: CLARKE IS CONCERNED THAT WHAT SEEMED TO BE USED TO INFORM AND PROTECT IS CAUSING MORE HARM THAN GOOD ESPECIALLY FOR DISENFRANCHISED COMMUNITIES.

>> Rep. Yvette Clarke: WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HOW WE ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF COMMUNITIES OF COLOR ACROSS THIS NATION, WE CAN'T FIGHT AGAINST THE ASSAULT ON, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WITH WEAPONRY AND NOT RECOGNIZE SORT OF THE POLICING OF BLACK BODIES, OF BODIES OF COLOR.

AND THAT IS WHAT THIS TECHNOLOGY PUT INTO PUBLIC HOUSING WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE THERE TO DO, IT IS TO POLICE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THERE.

>> Bonnie: YOU AGREE?

>> I DON'T.

I THINK THAT TECHNOLOGY IS BENEFICIAL TO CONSUMERS, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND TERRORISM FIGHTS.

DO I LIKE THAT ANYBODY CAN BE WATCHING ME THROUGH ANY CAMERA?

NO, NOT NECESSARILY BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE UNDERSTAND.

TRYING TO LEGISLATE A DEVELOPMENT OF EVOLVING FORM OF TECHNOLOGY IS A FUTILE EFFORT, NUMBER ONE, BUT CAN ALSO HARM HOW IT'S DEVELOPED.

>> IS SHE LEGISLATING -- >> NO, SHE'S NOT.

>> -- THE TECHNOLOGY OR THE USE OF THE TECHNOLOGY WHICH ARE SEPARATE?

>> SHE'S TRYING TO GET THE USE AND I UNDERSTAND PARTICULARLY WHERE GOVERNMENT HAS CONTROL, WHICH IS PUBLIC HOUSING.

GET THAT BUT I THINK THE LARGER SPIRIT IS, WELL, BECAUSE BLACK PEOPLE ARE NOT BECAUSE PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, THEN THE PRODUCT WILL BE WARPED.

THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT, YES, BLACK WOMEN HAVE A LARGER INCIDENCE OF NOT BEING OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED LIKE MYSELF, THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT'S NECESSARILY THROUGHOUT ALL TECHNOLOGY.

>> NO ONE WANTS TO THROUGHOUT ALL THE TROUBLE -- THE HIGHEST RATE IS WITH BLACK WOMEN.

>> I WONDER, CONGRESSWOMAN, IF IT'S THE TECHNOLOGY -- LET'S FACE IT, IT IS HARDER -- ANY CAMERA THAT SHOOTS A DARK SURFACE, YOU WILL GET LESS OF A CLEAR PICTURE THAN IF IT SHOOTS.

>> THAT'S BECAUSE OF REFLECTION.

FRANKLY, THEY DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHY THE ERROR RATE IS GREAT, WHICH SAYS TO ME IT'S NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME.

BEFORE WE GO INTO PUBLIC USE, I AGREE WITH YOU.

LET'S TEST IT.

IF I'M NOT ON THIS BILL, I'M GETTING ON IT, BECAUSE WHAT I WANT TO DO, BECAUSE ONE OF THE b ää OF THE PROVISIONS IS FOR TESTING, FOR REPORT TO THE GOVERNMENT.

THERE WAS NO REASON TO RUSH THROUGH THIS.

GO OUT INTO THE STREETS OF WASHINGTON D.C. TODAY AND YOU WILL BE PHOTOGRAPHED.

BUT THAT WILL NOT BE USED AGAINST YOU IN THE WAY THAT THE STOCK ANALOGY -- >> THAT'S HOW WE FOUND THE BOSTON BOMBERS.

>> NOT FACIAL TECHNOLOGY.

>> NO, VIDEOTAPE -- I'M TALKING ABOUT THE CAMERAS ON EVERY STREET CORNER.

>> YES, BECAUSE THEY ARE EVERYWHERE.

>> RIGHT.

>> SO THERE IS A SCORE A JOB PROFILING, DISCRIMINATION, AND HOUSING IN GENERAL.

I THINK LAYING THIS UNKNOWN, ALREADY PROTESTED ISSUE ON PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY DISENFRANCHISED IS A NONSTARTER FOR ME.

>> AND SO, DOES NOT USE IT UNTIL IT'S PERFECT?

>> I DON'T THINK IT HAS ANYPLACE IN HOUSING OR, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY NOT IF IT'S NOT OPTIONAL BUT IN GENERAL, THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE USE FOR IT ALL.

>> GET SO MUCH.

THAT'S IT FOR THIS EDITION.

PLEASE FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER AND VISIT OUR WEBSITE, PBS.ORG/TOTHECONTRARY.

WHETHER YOU AGREE OR THINK, TO THE CONTRARY, SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.

WEEK.

FOR A TRANSCRIPT OR SEE AN ONLINE EPISODE OF "TO THE CONTRARY," PLEASE VISIT OUR PBS WEBSITE AT PBS.ORG/TOTHECONTRARY.