MSNBC "The Beat with Ari Melber" - Transcript: Interview with Gwen Moore

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Joining me now is Congresswoman Gwen Moore, Democrat from Wisconsin, Wendy Davis, the former Texas state senator and founder of Deeds Not Words, a women`s rights organization, and Professor Melissa Murray, NYU law professor.

Congresswoman Moore, I will start with you.

Just right off the bat, I mean, you were -- you saw the Democrats. They flee Texas. They fled the state of Texas. They were trying to get assistance on this. What can be done? What is being talked about right now in Washington, D.C., with the Biden inspiration about how we can basically save Texas?

REP. GWEN MOORE (D-WI): Well, just let me say, there is a bill, main sponsor in the Senate, to codify Roe v. Wade.

And in terms of voting rights, we are continuing to try to get the two Democrats, two-plus Democrats, to agree to suspend the filibuster. I think that the Texas case is yet another reason to suspend the filibuster.

The argument that once Republicans get in charge that they will use the filibuster against us, they have been ruling in the minority already for too long. So, that argument doesn`t really hold weight. We have to use the power while we have it.

And I`m very hopeful. I remember John McCain doing the thumbs down. And I remember that public pressure, not an assault on the Capitol, not a January 6, but a sustained effort from people will ultimately get us across that threshold.

JOHNSON: Well, we have seen Senator Sinema do a thumbs down and a curtsy, but it hasn`t necessarily been for the right votes yet.

Wendy Davis, I have got to ask you, what is this like on the ground? I mean, like, there were so many fights. There were so many -- the whole country saw the ridiculous lines to vote in Texas. How are your average citizens in Austin and Houston and Dallas, how are regular people in Texas responding to this ridiculous new voter suppression law by the governor?

FMR. STATE SEN. WENDY DAVIS (D-TX): Well, with tremendous upset, as you can imagine, because we recognize exactly what`s happening here.

These laws are a way to try to maneuver around the changing electorate, rather than trying to solve any problem of fraud. And, in fact, our own secretary of state came forward after this election, which, by the way, Donald Trump won by nine points in our state, to say that we had had a safe and secure election.

And, as you can imagine, she was pretty quickly removed from her position. She`s a gubernatorial appointee.

But people are ready to fight. And we know that, because we have lost protection of the Voting Rights Act preclearance provisions, we aren`t going to have the same protections that we would have had absent the loss of those protections.

[18:05:12]

And we are going to do everything we can to support the efforts of this wonderful congresswoman and others in Congress who are fighting to make sure that voting rights protections are put in place.

JOHNSON: I want to follow this up, because I think this is -- this is a conversation. It`s a very D.C. conversation. It`s a political science nerd conversation, but I think you`re in the best position to sort of answer this for us tonight.

I believe that Texas is probably, probably a purple state, if people were actually allowed to vote. But you`re there on the ground. Is this being done, is Abbott able to pass these kinds of laws because, at its core, the majority of Texans are comfortable with this kind of voter suppression? Or do you really think it`s to counteract actual trends in the state which may put someone like him or even a Ted Cruz one day at risk at the ballot box?

DAVIS: This measure is deeply unpopular in Texas.

In a recent poll, as many of 80 percent of Texans said they believe that the election here was safe and secure, and that they do not want to see voter suppression efforts put in place. So this is not a situation where a governor is reacting to what the majority in our state wants.

Instead, he`s reacting in a way to protect and support his own political ambitions and to maintain the stronghold that Republicans have had in this state over redistricting and their ability to pass the kinds of laws, like the Senate Bill 8 anti-abortion law that they just passed, again, a deeply unpopular law with most of the people who live in our state.

JOHNSON: So, Professor Murray, a lot of people watching now, they -- look, there`s some hyperbolic references to what`s happening in Texas.

People are comparing it to a "Handmaid`s Tale." People are -- I think it`s somewhat Islamophobic to compare it to the Taliban. It`s not that. But there are people who see nothing but gloom and doom.

I am not a lawyer. I`m not even going to play one on TV, but you`re our lawyer here. So, legally, what are the chances of the federal government or any of these local lawsuits being able to not just overturn or diminish this law that Abbott has just signed, but set the stage for this to not just happen again some time right before next fall`s elections?

MELISSA MURRAY, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: So, Jason, it`s important to understand the limits of law. Will law play a role here? Surely, it will.

It`s very clear that this law, Texas SB-8, violates the Constitution. But it was also drafted for the purpose of evading federal court review and having it being adjudicated, any challenges to its constitutionality in the state courts, where many of its state court judges in Texas are elected and, therefore, somewhat susceptible to political pressures, or at least mindful of those pressures.

The law takes a long time. It`s going to be a while before a challenge makes its way through the state court system, and eventually to the Supreme Court, if it even gets to the Supreme Court.

The problem is that it doesn`t matter, because this law was drafted purposely to ensure that it would go into effect and that, when it went into effect, it would hobble abortion access in Texas. And that`s exactly what`s going to happen.

And even if this law is later declared unconstitutional, you can`t unring this bell. We saw this in HB-2, which was the law that Senator Davis valiantly stood on the floor of the Texas House to combat when it was being passed back in 2013.

But when that law went into effect, just one of its provisions, it shuttered abortion clinics in Texas. It went from having 42 clinics to having just 18. And when it was later declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, those clinics did not necessarily reopen.

If something gets shuttered, it`s likely to stay shuttered. And that`s the point.

JOHNSON: So, I want to talk about this idea of influence before we go sort of directly into the ridiculous nature of some of these abortion laws.

So, there -- we have a list here of corporate contributions to the sponsors of Texas` abortion law. And we have Charter Communications, and AT&T, and "USA Today," and Farmers Insurance, even Comcast, GM, CVS.

Congresswoman Moore, if there was a boycott, if there was social media attention, if there was a national campaign to call these kinds of sponsors and say, hey, you shouldn`t be giving money to politicians who support this kind of law, does that really have much of an impact on sitting politicians anymore?

Are some of these people so in the tank on this sort of MAGA belief and repressing women that, even if they lost money, it wouldn`t matter?

[18:10:00]

MOORE: Well, thanks for asking that question, Jason.

But I do think money has too much influence in politics. But, that being said, I do think that many of these political action committees really reflect the perspective and the views of the workers in those companies.

And as has been indicated, 80 percent of Americans don`t believe in taking a woman`s right to choose away. And they certainly don`t believe in taking us back to a time when women are going for unsafe procedures, coat hangers, and they certainly -- and I don`t know, Jason, why you`re so reluctant to compare it maybe to the Taliban or something else.

I mean, I think it`s so hypocritical to talk about how much you love children, and you support women and women`s rights, to really arm these vigilantes in the street and offer them $10,000 to hobble a woman`s ability to seek medical care, and just willy-nilly anybody on the street.

I mean, this is barbaric in many ways. It`s reminiscent of what we were taught happened during so-called caveman days.

JOHNSON: Right.

MOORE: And so I don`t know why you`re so reluctant to call the thing a thing.

(CROSSTALK)

MOORE: And -- go on.

JOHNSON: Well, trust me, trust me, oh, no, this is a thing. I want to be clear.

I think I think it`s important. One, for lack of a better word, the Taliban is actually a bit more efficient in all of their terribleness.

But, also, I think it`s important that we center the people who are actually causing damage to women. And I think, sometimes, the tendency to automatically throw that onto sort of Islamic communities leads to a kind of racism and bigotry we don`t want. This is right here in the heart of Texas where we have people doing this.

It doesn`t require sort of going across the world.

But with that in mind, I want to play some sound real quick from Governor Abbott today talking about how he feels or how he feels about his abortion law.

And, Wendy Davis, I want your thoughts on the other side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Why force a rape or incest victim to carry a pregnancy to term?

ABBOTT: It doesn`t require that at all, because, obviously, it provides at least six weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion.

Goal number one in the state of Texas is to eliminate rape, so that no woman, no person will be a victim of rape.

But in, in addition to that, we do want to make sure that we provide support for those who are victims of rape.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNSON: Wendy Davis, is that just absolute gobbledygook? Or is it garbage? Or is it trash? Which one is it?

DAVIS: It`s offensive, it`s absurd.

And it`s so incredibly offensive, Jason, because most people do not realize that they are pregnant until later in pregnancies beyond six weeks. And let`s face it. So many people who are victimized by rape and incest are very young, afraid to come forward.

And now we have created a situation where they are going to be tasked with carrying to term the result of a violent assault on their bodies, while at the same time proclaiming to be the party of individual liberties and freedoms.

And I hope we can do everything possible to make Republicans pay for this extreme overreach at the ballot box in the midterm election cycle.

JOHNSON: I think that`s a very, very key point. It`s very clear that Republicans went after voting rights, then went after a woman`s right to choose, because they wanted to make sure that they wouldn`t face consequences at the ballot box.

Professor Murray, one of the things that`s been brought up about this new abortion law, besides how restrictive it is, besides how ignorant it is, is this idea of bounties and civil suits, and the idea that, if you drive someone to get an abortion, that you could be sued.

How might something like this actually be enforced? And if I were to drive a friend to get an abortion, and someone sued me, would I then get a public defender? Like, how does this bounty system even work in Texas?

MURRAY: Well, to be clear, the whole point of this private enforcement mechanism, Jason, was to avoid federal court review.

Typically, when abortion laws are passed -- and lots of states have tried to pass these heartbeat bills -- they are generally lawsuits filed against the state actor who`s charged with enforcing the law, usually the attorney general or a department of health.

And when that happens, you can sue that state official. And, typically, a federal court will enjoin it, prevent it from going into effect. But, as I said before, the name of the game here is to actually allow the law to go into effect, so you can hobble abortion access, and it will never come back, even if it is later invalidated, this law.

What they have done here is, they have actually prohibited the state from enforcing this law entirely, and instead have deputized individual Texans to bring private causes of actions, civil suits against their neighbors who provide abortions or who -- quote, unquote -- "aid or abet" someone in seeking and obtaining an abortion.

[18:15:17]

So, that could be the Lyft driver. It could be the person who waits for you to drive you home after the clinic. It could be someone in California who donates to The Lilith Fund, an abortion fund.

JOHNSON: Right.

MURRAY: So, we actually don`t know. There are lots of constitutional issues embedded in this.

But that wasn`t the point. The point was to get this law on the ground and in effect in Texas, and they succeeded. And they brought abortion access to its knees in Texas.

JOHNSON: Congresswoman Gwen Moore, Wendy Davis and Professor Melissa Murray, thank you so much. I cannot think of a better panel to start us off today. Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source