MSNBC The Abrams Report - Transcript

MSNBC The Abrams Report - Transcript

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

ABRAMS: Hi, everyone. First up on the docket, a direct attack on Roe v. Wade is coming from the South Dakota legislature. The new bill, which outlaws abortion, makes no exceptions, not for a pregnancy caused by incest or rape. It would only be legal—the only exception if it would save the pregnant woman's life.

Doctors who perform abortions would—could face up to five years in prison. The bill passed the State Senate 23-12. It's expected to pass the House again and then go to Governor Mike Rounds' desk. The bill's sponsor says he thinks the antiabortion movement has momentum on its side and a—quote—"change in national policy on abortion is going to come in the not-too-distant future."

"My Take" (INAUDIBLE) the state lawmakers have got to know this bill effectively spits in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Not just because of Roe v. Wade, because the high court reaffirmed Roe when it revisited the abortion issue in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. A majority agreed that women have the right to have an abortion before the fetus is viable and to obtain an abortion without undue interference from the state.

So whatever you think of abortion, this law is almost an insult to the court. Republican Mike Rounds is the governor of South Dakota. He has not yet announced whether he'll sign this bill into law, and he joins me now by phone. Governor thanks a lot for coming on the program. We appreciate it.

Look, I know you've made it perfectly clear you support many abortion restrictions, but this is not an abortion restriction. This is outlawing it. I assume you've got to know that this wouldn't pass the court's test.

GOV. MIKE ROUNDS ®, SOUTH DAKOTA (via phone): I think most of the legislators that voted for this particular law expected to be enjoined immediately upon its effective date, which would be July 1. I think what they want to do is to send a message that says if the court is prepared to look at Roe v. Wade they will look at a whole host of different challenges.

Some will be limited in nature. Some of them would be very, very significant. This would be the most significant one, because it would be a direct frontal challenge to Roe v. Wade. I think they fully recognize that and they proposed this two years ago, as well.

There were some technical flaws in the bill that caused a—what we call a technical veto on my part, but philosophically I think the vast majority of the legislature truly believes that this is one approach that should be tried or at least be offered as an option for the new court to take a look at Roe v. Wade.

ABRAMS: But look, I mean every—sort of all the people on the right and I think all the people who are being honest about this during the confirmation hearings of Roberts and Alito pointed out that even if Roberts and Alito were to believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, there still wouldn't be enough votes on the court to overturn it. So is this just sort of a waste of time, symbolic procedure to say hey look everybody, here's what we believe?

ROUNDS: I know that there are a number of people within the pro-life community that believe that to be the case. Apparently among our legislators, there were enough of them out there that said look, what's wrong with taking a number of different approaches, including this all-out attack directly on Roe v. Wade.

ABRAMS: Do they have nothing better to do? I mean...

ROUNDS: Well actually during the 35-day session, which is all that they have this year, they worked their way through about 460-some bills or somewhere in that neighborhood, so they've got a lot of things on their plate. This is one of those items, which they have considered. I think they probably considered it before the 35-day legislature actually started.

But they look at it. They—every single bill has the opportunity in our state to be heard. It passes through a committee in the House...

ABRAMS: Yes.

ROUNDS: ... the full House, a committee in the Senate, the full Senate, and with a minor modification it's going back to the House. So there's apparently within our legislative body very strong support to overturn Roe v. Wade and they most certainly understand that there's a cost involved to it.

They're actually setting up a fund to help pay for the—not only the cost to the state for defending the law, but they also want to set up to have to pay for—we know that the folks who would challenge it would also be able to collect their attorney's fees and the legislature has gone so far as to suggest that there would be funds made available through donations that might even help to offset some of that.

ABRAMS: Yes. As you know, the legislature doesn't decide whether Roe v. Wade gets overturned or not, and as a result of that, and look, it's clear you're familiar with the law. You're familiar with the precedent on this. You can't sign this, right?

ROUNDS: Well one of the things that we do is before any bill gets to us, we do not decide and publicly discuss what our position would be on a specific bill...

ABRAMS: Give us a clue.

ROUNDS: Well, I am pro-life and I do know that my personal belief is that the best way to approach elimination of abortion is one step at a time. And I do think that this court will ultimately take apart Roe v. Wade one-step at a time. Personally, do I think that they're going to step in and do a frontal attack or accept a frontal attack? No, I don't. But there are a lot of people in South Dakota and across the nation that believe that it's worth a try.

ABRAMS: But that's—but again, that's a different issue. I mean see that issue to me is a completely separate issue, to say certain restrictions on abortion—because I think that there is a legitimate debate within the Supreme Court and in the nation about what restrictions should apply on abortion. But what troubles me about this is as you've pointed out this is not about restricting abortion. This is about banning it, and the court has said you can't do that.

ROUNDS: That's correct. But once again it's the court's interpretation of the Constitution.

ABRAMS: Yes.

ROUNDS: The last time I think that they actually looked at it was about 16 years ago (INAUDIBLE) be about 14 years ago if I'm not mistaken.

ABRAMS: Well there have been other cases since then...

ROUNDS: Yes. And once again, I think a number of the legislators have made it clear that this may very well go to an appellate court.

ABRAMS: Yes.

ROUNDS: The existing Roe v. Wade will be upheld; it will move to the next court. It will be upheld. And the only place that it could make an impact or go into effect is if the court at the time that this law were to reach it were to say first of all that they would even consider it, which is...

ABRAMS: Yes.

ROUNDS: ... to a lot of people highly unlikely.

ABRAMS: Yes and for that reason, I would say—I would think that you wouldn't sign this particular law, even if you do support certain restrictions on abortion. But we'll be watching, Governor, and we'll see what you do. And we thank you very much for taking the time to come on the program. We do appreciate it.

ROUNDS: Sure.

ABRAMS: All right. Joining me now to discuss, debate, Mathew Staver is president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel and Brigitte Amiri is staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project. Thanks to both of you for coming on the program.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11540924/