- Welcome to The 700 Club.

Easter's supposed to be a happy time,

but there was no happiness in Sri Lanka.

300 people, at least, killed,

as many as 400 or more injured,

as multiple bomb blasts hit churches

where worshipers wereworshiping for Easter Sunday.

It was one of those things, you know,

it's to say it, SriLanka is the old Ceylon

off the coast of India.

Efrem Graham has more.

- Sri Lankan police say thesix near simultaneous attacks

on three Catholicchurches and three hotels

were carried out by seven suicide bombers.

Inside the churches, devastation.

The blasts hit during Sunday mass.

Church pews were left shattered,debris strewn everywhere,

and blood was splatteredon a statue of Jesus.

This morning, the Archbishop of Colombo

was demanding justice.

- And find out who isresponsible behind this act.

And also to punish them mercilessly

because only animals can behave like that.

- [Efrem] A government official says

a local Muslim terrorist group

called National ThowheethJamaath is responsible.

- This is a very cowardly attack

at a time when innocentpeople would be worshiping God

on an auspicious day such as Easter Sunday

- More than 30 foreigners werekilled in the deadly blasts,

including several Americans.

President Donald Trump sent hiscondolences through Twitter,

writing: We stand ready to help.

As the investigation goes forward,

police say officialsfailed to heed warnings

from intelligence agencies

about the threat of anEaster Sunday attack.

Efrem Graham, CBN News.

- Well, the Mueller report is out

and, oh man, theDemocrats are going crazy.

Are they going to try toimpeach the president?

If they do, it will be a bloodbath.

It'll be the most stupidthing they could possibly do,

and yet, many of them want to do it.

Nancy Pelosi's urging calm and patience,

but well, we'll see.

John Jessup has more about that.

- That is right, Pat.

The release of the Mueller report

has Democrats at full throttle

As Amber Strong reports,

some are picking up thecall for impeachment.

- Democrats are wrestlingwith the impeachment question

as they move forward withplans to investigate key parts

of the Mueller report.

- If proven, some of thiswould be impeachable, yes.

- [Amber] That 448-page report

lays out at least 10 instances

of possible obstruction ofjustice from the president,

indicating Mr. Trump was thwarted by aides

like White House Counsel Don McGahn,

who refused to follow his directives.

- Do you believe Don McGahn when he says

the president tried to gethim to fire Bob Mueller?

- I believe the president was frustrated

about the investigationfrom the very begininning

and knew it was ill-conceived.

- [Amber] Trump's personalattorney, Rudy Giuliani, says

even still, there's nocased for obstruction.

- Remember, he's the presidentof the United States.

Mueller's not an independent counsel.

Mueller works for the Justice Department.

He could've been fired at any moment.

- [Amber] Giuliani also says

it's okay to acceptinformation from the Russians,

although he would've advised against it.

- There's nothing wrongwith taking information

from Russians.

- [Jake] There's nothing wrong

with taking information--- It depends on where it

came from.

It depends on where it came from.

You're assuming that thegiving of information

is a campaign contribution.

- [Amber] House Democratsare marching forward

with their investigation,

subpoenaing Attorney GeneralBarr for the unredacted report

and saying that's only the beginning.

- We have to hear from Barr.

We have to hear from Mueller.

We have to hear from otherpeople like Don McGahn,

- Yeah.- whom we're gonna call.

- [Amber] And while somepresidential candidates

like Elizabeth Warren and Julian Castro

are calling for impeachment,

some congressional Democratsaren't ready to take that step.

- I'm not there yet,

but I can foresee that possibly coming.

We have to do, be very careful here.

The American people, a lot of them,

clearly still don't believethat President Trump

is doing things to destroy our democracy.

- [Amber] Republicans sayDemocrats would pursue impeachment

at their own peril.

- Politically speaking,

it would be a mistake for them to do it.

- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

plans to meet with caucus members Monday

to discuss a plan forward.

As for the president's team,

they did plan to release a counter report,

but say, so far, theydon't think it's necessary.

Amber Strong, CBN News, Washington.

- Thanks, Amber.

Pat, this question on impeachment

seems to have theDemocratic caucus divided.

- Well, it should because thewhole thing, it looks like,

if all the Democrats cando is try to take out

an elected president of the United States,

the American peoplewon't go along with it.

Why should they?

We need a strong president.

The Constitution establishesa strong president.

He's supposed to faithfullyexecute the laws.

But he's not supposed to be the subject

of numerous witch hunts.

And this whole businessof obstruction of justice

is nothing short of nonsense.

But, you know, the Mueller reports says

we have not been able to exonerate him.

Well, why should they exonerate him?

A person is innocentuntil he's proven guilty,

so they were not tasked with the job

of making the president innocent.

He was already innocent.

They were tasked with finding

whether there was collusion with Russians.

They said there was no collusion.

Now they're talking aboutobstruction of justice.

We're gonna bring the dean

of the Regent UniversityLaw School tomorrow,

a distinguished jurist.

He's gonna talk to us aboutwhat constitutes obstruction.

But how is the head ofthe executive branch

guilty of obstruction when he merely asks

a member of his subordinatesto do a particular thing?

I mean, there's nothingabout obstruction of justice.

Well we'll have to find that out.

But even so, is thatsubject to an impeachment?

But what do you have toget with impeachment?

The House has got to vote it.

All right, there hasto be a majority vote,

so they're gonna spend

all those months and months and months

talking about impeachment

instead of moving forwardany kind of agenda.

Then it will go from there to the Senate,

which will sit as a judgeor jury on the matter,

and there has to be a two-thirds vote.

There is no way under heaven,

with the number ofRepublicans in the Senate,

that they will get a two-thirds vote.

So it's an exercise in futility

that will waste their timeand take away from them

the opportunity to putforth a positive agenda

going into the 2020 election,and that would be folly.

So I'm sure that theRepublicans would be delighted,

delighted to have impeachment on the table

instead of something else.

John.

- Pat, in a number ofstates across the country,

pro-life legislators areadvancing laws limiting abortion.

One of those states is Indiana,

and as Paul Strand reports,

lawmakers there are hopingto get the abortion question

back in front of the Supreme Court.

- Lawmakers like those here in Indiana

keep churning out measure aftermeasure to limit abortion,

and they keep getting challenged in court.

But pro-life forces saythe battles are worth it.

That's because a case appealed

to the US Supreme Court couldaffect the whole country.

One such case, dealing with civil rights,

was struck down last year

by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

- Indiana's actually the onlystate that's passed a law

that protects unborn childrenbased upon their civil rights

that prohibits abortionbased upon a child's

color of the skin, sex, national origin,

disability, or Down syndrome,

so the court has never addressed

the civil rights ofunborn children before.

This is historic.

- [Paul] Indiana's leadattorney at the ACLU

says that could potentially open the door

for states to limit abortions.

- The state of Indiana issaying, prior to viability,

we have the right to tell you

whether or not you can get an abortion,

and once you admit that,then there's no limit

to how the state caninterfere with that right.

- [Paul] And that's the goalof these Indiana legislators,

a fundamental change to Roe v. Wade,

the ruling that legalizedabortion nationwide.

- We believe that, ifthey accept this appeal,

it's a clear sign that the Supreme Court

is willing to reconsider Roe,

and we hope that theend of Roe versus Wade

comes from Indiana.

- [Paul] The high court may also take up

another state measure.

- Indiana's ultrasound law requires

that any woman consideringan abortion in Indiana

must have the opportunityto see an ultrasound

of her unborn baby at least 18 hours

before she can have an abortion.

- [Paul] Constitutionallaw attorney Jenna Ellis

says that often changes a woman's mind

as she sees the babyand hears its heartbeat.

- There is still a fundamentalconscience that God gives us,

and most women can'tnegate that and suppress it

to the point that they arewilling to kill their child.

- [Paul] Falk says that's questionable.

- Statistics show that most women,

when they review the ultrasound,don't change their mind.

- [Paul] While he sees this lawas an unnecessary roadblock,

Ellis counters thatultrasounds are crucial.

- What the founderssaid in the Declaration

was that truth is self-evident,

and that's what we see in ultrasounds.

We see the self-evident factthat this is a human being.

- If the court takes up either measure,

it could mean a change inthe country's abortion law.

Lawmakers continue totry to save as many lives

of the unborn as they can here in Indiana,

but they also have theireyes on the big picture,

hoping to affect abortion nationwide.

Paul Strand, CBN News, Indianapolis.

- Thanks, Paul.

Pat, back to you.

- You know, Roe versusWade was a put-up job.

The proponent of Roe versus Wade

was somebody the ACLU got, Norma Covey,

who actually later renounced her stand

in relation to that case.

When it got up the Supreme Court,

the reasoning was sobad that it was called,

it was written by Justice Blackmun,

it was called Blackmun's Abortion

because it had to relyon a right to privacy,

it relied on Griswold versus Connecticut

and various other cases, butit had no foundation in law.

And what happened was theSupreme Court took this matter

and federalized the wholematter of reproductive rights.

That was always part ofthe states' police power

and it should've beenattended to by the states,

and therefore, the people in the states

had the right to vote on it.

But this right to votewas taken away from them

by the Supreme Court.

And there's been nothingbut controversy ever since.

The Supreme Court should never,

ever have done Roe versus Wade.

But what they were talkingabout, essentially,

was the first trimester.

They weren't talking about later on.

But that has morphed into the idea

of what is called partial birth abortion,

where you could kill a child

when he was coming out of the birth canal.

And then you've got thishorrible governor of Virginia,

who said, in the caseof a botched abortion,

the child which is bornafter the abortion proceeding

may be killed, and that is infanticide,

and that's how far they've gone.

And now something has got to be done

and I believe there's a, coming to pass,

a majority of justiceson the Supreme Court.

They say Roe versus Wade is settled law.

Well yeah, it was flawed to begin with

and it needs to be overturned,and it will be, ultimately,

little by little by little by little.

John.

- Pat, there is a movementto start Bible classes

in public schools, andit is gaining ground.

Seven states alreadyrecognize these classes

and several others could soon follow.

Heather Sells has this story.

- The believers behind this latest push

say their idea is simple and to the point.

Teach the book that hasshaped our civilization

like no other.

- Who in the world would want to ban

or censor one of thetop five impactful books

in all of history?

- [Heather] FormerCongressman Randy Forbes

is helping to lead the charge.

His Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation

has joined other Christian groups

to promote religious freedom legislation

at the state level.

President Trump gavethem a Twitter shout-out,

publicly praising the ideaof elective Bible classes

for high school students.

- Doesn't it just make sense

that we should have thatbook that's been so impactful

at least be studied and examined

by people who want to study and examine

in the place where we go to explore ideas

and look at what we'regoing to do for tomorrow?

- [Heather] Not everyone agrees.

Religion writer Jonathan Merritt

says evangelicals need to remember

that the same schools teaching their kids

about sexuality and science

would now teach them the Bible.

- So it seems to me tobe kind of a strange ask

that you would say, yeah, Iwant a government employee

in a public school teachingmy kid about holy scripture.

Because when it comes to alot of the scholarly consensus

on holy scripture, these things diverge

from majority opinions among evangelicals.

- [Heather] Teaching this subject

in the public school systemclearly has its complications.

Their main concern, Christianswill use these classes

as an opportunity to evangelize.

- The problem, criticssay, with these bills

is that they're really a covert attempt

not just to teach the Bible as history

or as literature, but to teach the Bible

through an interpretive lens,

essentially to promote Christianvalues in public schools.

- [Heather] Forbes and others maintain

if schools can objectivelyteach controversial topics

like politics and government,

they can do the same with the Bible.

- We are not trying to get someone

or tell someone they haveto believe a certain thing.

We're just saying look atthe history of this book,

look at the importance ofthe ideas in this book,

look at how it plays arole in even the policy

in the United States of America.

You make your own decisions.

- [Heather] It's a tall order,but worth it, say supporters,

to teach such an importantbook to the next generation.

Heather Sells, CBN News.

- An important book and thebest selling book of all time.

Pat, back to you.

- It's the foundational book of the,

the whole principles wehave here in America.

As long as we were a Bible-reading people,

we would stand for freedom.

When we stopped reading the Bible,

we've had all kinds of confusion.

But at the same time,who do you really want

teaching the Bible, andthat's another matter.

We think that it would be better left

to the religious authorities

and the people who want tobe Catholic are Catholic

and the people who want tobe Protestant are Protestants

and they have their owninterpretations of the Bible,

which probably is the best way to go.

I'm not sure I want some public servant

teaching the holy scriptures

'cause they might not understand

what they're talking about, all right.