The continuing fallout from the Supreme Court Roe v. Wade reversal is examined. The January 6 Committee announces new evidence requiring a special hearing tomorrow. U.S. Senate candidate and former North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Cheri Beasley discusses the Roe v. Wade decision and her campaign.
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: You heard her clapping and others. She made a reference to -- quote -- "white life."
Her office says she misspoke, but it touches, like so many of these issues, on what exactly it is people are cheering for. We wanted to show you that before the hour was up.
"THE REIDOUT WITH JOY REID" is up next.
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Tonight on THE REIDOUT:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I definitely believe this is not over. I do.
I think he just said the quiet part out loud.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: The "he" Vice President Harris refers to is, of course, Justice Clarence Thomas, who wants the court to take away more rights. It`s yet another example of how the cruelty is the point for Republicans, as the human suffering from the court`s decision is already becoming apparent.
Also tonight, the January 6 Committee`s news surprise, new evidence requiring a special hearing tomorrow.
But, first, over the weekend, thousands of people took to the streets to protest the Supreme Court`s draconian decision sweeping away the rights of millions of Americans. A new poll shows that a majority of Americans oppose the ruling.
Republicans know it`s extremely unpopular. So they`re now attempting to make the truly ludicrous claim that they are the party that cares about women, compassionate conservatism 2.0.
Here is conservative columnist Peggy Noonan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PEGGY NOONAN, CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST: Look, you know what the Republican Party should do now? It should use this victory, if you see it that way, to change itself and become a party that helps women.
NOONAN: Change its reputation and become a party that helps women and children, becomes responsible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Now, you know, it`s a bad idea when the entire panel cannot help but laugh out loud on live TV, because that claim, Republicans could possibly support women, right now, it falls apart immediately.
After South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem said, what, that she wants to help support mothers in her state, ABC`s Martha Raddatz cited a study showing that the 14 states with the most restrictive abortion laws also have the worst maternal and child health outcomes, with South Dakota, of course, being one of those states.
And here`s how Noem responded.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC NEWS: Do you mean when you say these mothers will never be alone?
GOV. KRISTI NOEM (R-SD): Well, I would say that the facts on the ground are that South Dakota is doing a lot to coordinate with nonprofits, with churches, and then also the state in a new way by launching this Web site and committing to in the legislative session to support these mothers is incredibly powerful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Ah, yes, yes, that`s right, that all the women in America need to feel supported by the government that now owns them is a Web site.
And while they`re hoping that they can get away with their fake support of women, they`re also tripling down on their Roe victory. Noem also said that she would like to ban medication abortion, which will likely be the next big legal battle, with Attorney General Merrick Garland saying the DOJ would fight any effort to restrict access to abortion pills.
Garland also stressed that patients must be free to travel to seek care, as Republicans and anti-abortion groups have been brainstorming ways to criminalize traveling across state lines for abortion for months.
But what Republicans really want is a nationwide abortion ban. And former Vice President Mike Pence is leading that charge, while Mitch McConnell said today, unlike what he said before that, well, he didn`t foresee a nationwide ban, literally, no one believes that, and he has said the opposite before.
Also, a right-wing group is currently pushing for model legislation that would go beyond punishing abortion providers, calling for the use of RICO laws against anyone with any involvement with someone accessing an abortion, such as offering telehealth appointments or mailing or transporting abortion pills across state lines or potentially even giving advice online about how to self-administer an abortion.
And despite Republicans going out of their way to claim that this is not about punishing women, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation has already suggested that women who have abortions should be committed to mandatory psychiatric custody. Off to the psych ward, they go.
And once all of our abortion rights are taken away, birth control and same- sex marriage are next, as Justice Clarence Thomas was pretty clear about it his concurring opinion last week.
So we should expect to hear many more Republican claims that they are really just here to support women. But voters need to listen to less of those meaningless platitudes and to more of what they`re actually planning to do.
With me now, Jason Johnson, professor of journalism and politics at Morgan State University and host of the Slate podcast "A Word With Jason Johnson," Melissa Murray, NYU law professor and an MSNBC legal analyst, and Anthea Butler, chair of the religious studies program -- the Religious Studies Department at the University of Pennsylvania.
Thank you all for being here.
Jason, I found this really funny watching the various Republicans go on the various Sunday shows to say, oh, no, no, no, we really love women. We will have a Web site for them.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Politico talked to a bunch of political -- a bunch of their strategists, and one of them said the following: "This is not a conversation we want to have."
This is John Thomas, a Republican strategist who works on House campaigns across the country.
"We want to have a conversation with the economy. We want to have a conversation about Joe Biden, about pretty much anything else besides Roe. This is a losing issue for Republicans."
He`s right, correct?
JASON JOHNSON, MSNBC POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: It`s a losing issue for Republicans. It`s a winning issue for Democrats, if they actually use it.
JOHNSON: I can talk about this a very, very practical way heading into the fall.
You have an incoming school year this fall. You have people going off to college. You have students going back to high school. All of these things lead to increases in needs for prenatal care and health care and potentially abortions. Like, we could see additional waves of this problem, almost like we have seen with COVID, where it becomes all the more apparent as we head into Election Day.
The issue is whether or not, not just can the Democrats message on this, but can they convince people to do anything? I mean, look, the Republicans, it`s not just they have been saying they`re going to do this for 40 years. Once Texas passed a bounty law last year, that was the -- that was the sands in the hourglass.
That`s when the Democrats should have done something, and they haven`t done anything. So you have got to go out and say, look, the Republicans are wrong about this, and we have a set plan, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, we have a set plan of what we can do going forward if you give us your votes.
And that may be a way that they can -- the Democrats can really capitalize on what is basically a human rights tragedy that just occurred with an illegitimate and unelected court.
I mean, Melissa, the court seemed to know and not care that they were acting against the public will, right? They are obviously religious zealots. And they have decided this is their religious belief system and they`re going to impose it. They just did another case today where they`re like, oh, praying in school and making the kids in the -- in a classroom pray, perfectly fine, right?
So they -- we know where they`re coming from. But to make it very clear, 57 percent of people who are polled on this issue believe that the decision was politically motivated and not motivated by the law of the land; 56 percent have said that they are concerned that the decision could also jeopardize the rights to contraception, same-sex marriage, or same-sex relationships.
And half, 51 percent, say the decision will make them more likely to vote for a congressional candidate who would back a law that will restore the protections of Roe. So that is, in theory, as Jason said, good news for the Democrats.
But my question is, I get a lot of people asking, yes, but the Democrats have power now. Why aren`t they doing anything? And to Jason`s point, talk to me about sort of the parameters of, potentially legally, what the Justice Department could do and what the president could do, because there`s been a lot of talk about whether or not an executive order could impact this, whether or not the Department of Justice can enforce the ruling that they came out and said, no, it`s legal to have these drugs.
You can`t make them illegal in your state. Where does it -- where do we stand in terms of what these states are able to do with bans and what the Biden administration could do and the DOJ could legally do?
MELISSA MURRAY, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: There are two -- actually, two questions embedded in your question, Joy.
So one is, like, why does the Supreme Court insist on doing this, given that the majority of Americans disagree with this? And that`s simply, if you watch "The Real Housewives of Atlanta," this is a who going to check me, boo, moment. Who is going to check the Supreme Court?
Not Congress, which is gridlocked. Congress could take steps to strip the court of its jurisdiction. Congress, in tandem with the president, could take steps to expand the court. There aren`t the votes to do that right now, because the Democratic majority in the Senate is so tight.
So that then turns to, what are these two branches going to do independently? Obviously, there could be a federal effort to codify Roe`s protections and to statutory law, federal statute. That will not happen so long as there isn`t a broader Democratic majority in the Senate.
The president could take steps to pass an executive order to do this either through his emergency powers. But that really falls on shaky grounds, which we saw in the Trump administration, which we saw earlier, with those executive orders aimed at requiring certain workplaces to have vaccine and testing mandates under the OSHA statute.
And I think the real question for this administration is, if they push on this question of executive power, do they not only lose at the Supreme Court eventually, but, when they lose, they not only lose on this question of abortion, but the broader question of the administrative state and the government`s ability to regulate through administrative agencies more broadly?
So there`s a lot at stake here. And I think a lot of this comes down to, something has to be done, a symbolic grand gesture, if you will. But in the end, we can`t really rely on government to save us. We have to get out there. We have to vote. And we have to recognize that the Republicans have been disciplined on this. They have been voting.
They were losing, and they still came out.
MURRAY: When the court had David Souter and Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O`Connor, people who were wobbly on some of these core conservative issues, that didn`t stop conservatives from coming out to vote.
They knew they would eventually get what they wanted. And now they have.
REID: You`re absolutely right. And thank you for saying that, because I think that is the difference between voters on the right and voters on the left.
Voters on the right never give up. They don`t get tired. Decade after decade, they lost and lost and lost, until they won. And they, in the process, Anthea, took over statehouses, state senates, and governorship, so that they are positioned to now take ownership of about half the women in this country.
About 48 percent of the women now live in red states. So you`re talking about the fact that those state legislatures, at least according to the Supreme Court, the women in those states are their property, and they can do whatever they want.
And so now it`s about trying to convince voters, you`re going to need to switch those people out and vote in prosecutors who won`t prosecute you, and state reps and state senators who won`t destroy you, and governors who won`t veto your rights.
And so it`s like -it`s a complicated argument, which is added to the religious argument. And you write a lot about religion and the far right wing of the church, Mike Pence, who kind of sees himself as sort of the head of that church on Earth, other than Trump, he`s written this.
He said -- or he said this: "Now that Roe vs. Wade has been consigned to the ash heap of history, a new arena in the cause of life has emerged. And it is incumbent on all who cherish the sanctity of life to resolve that we will take the defense of the unborn and support of women in crisis pregnancy centers to every state in America. Having been given the second chance for life, we must not rest. We will not relent until the sanctity of life is restored to the center of American life," blah, blah, blah, blah.
He`s making it very clear. And Mitch McConnell -- I don`t care what he said today -- has said in the past that, if they get the Senate, they`re going to have to please the far right base of the Republican Party by giving them the next thing they want, which is a contraceptive ban, bans on gay marriage, and they`re going to want a national abortion ban, right?
ANTHEA BUTLER, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Exactly.
I think what everybody needs to understand this two things right now. One is -- I want to come back to the vote thing in a minute, but you`re not going to be able to vote your way out of this. It`s going to take a little bit more than voting to get out of this situation. That`s number one.
Number two is, this has been a long game. I said it on Twitter back when this first came -- announced back in May, that this has been going on since the 1970s, even before the 1970s. This is a project. And the project has been done lockstep with both Republicans and conservative Christians, both evangelicalism and Catholics.
And so you have to understand that you are reading right now a juggernaut. Nobody believed that this could happen. And it has happened. And so what Mike Pence is doing is just picking up the ball where the ball is going to eventually go anyway, which is, we want to get this across the nation.
We want to make sure that other laws get codified, which is what Alito said. And this is all on a religious basis.
But let me make this clear. Religion is just a shield for the power grab. For many people who are in the pews, yes, they believe that they are pro- life and that you should be taking care of a child right from conception forward.
But for the people who are moving this who are political, they know that this is a motivational tool for their voters to come out. And what are Democrats going to motivate people with right now?
You cannot do this, you cannot see change until the Democrats understand that they need to mobilize their voters just as much as Republicans mobilize their religious voters.
REID: Well, indeed.
And mobilize them by making it very clear who you`re facing.
I want to play Mary Miller. Mary Miller, she`s an Illinois representative. And this is how she celebrated the victory of Roe being overturned this weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STATE REP. MARY MILLER (R-IL): President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: There was one lady in the back who looked down, like, what?
And, of course, her team tried to take it back. But, I mean, this is the lady who said Hitler said some things that were right and had some good points, and whose husband is a 3 Percenter. She has a 3 Percenter sticker on her truck that was parked in the parking lot at the time she said it.
Kind of hard to -- the reality is, can Democrats make the case that we`re dealing with religious extremism here in a coherent way, so that voters understand exactly what they`re facing?
BUTLER: Well, they need to talk to people like me first, and that hasn`t happened as much as it could have.
But I also think that part of this is of a set piece. It`s not just about Roe v. Wade. It`s about 1/6 too. You had religious extremism at the insurrection at the Capitol. This is all together.
And until people really understand that you have to talk about religion and politics together, and not just think people are being stupid because they believe in this, but actually understanding that this is an organizational tool for them to destroy part of American democracy, destroy the rights of women and destroy the rights of people who need to have chances that they actually want to put their theocratic God over...
BUTLER: ... when you understand that...
BUTLER: ... then do you understand how this needs to be.
REID: Jason, I mean, when the lady says it`s a victory for white life, it feels like it`s an easy target. But I`m not sure Democrats would even play that game. I`m not sure the Democrats would even hit her or hit the Republicans on that.
Republicans would play that over and over and over again, and never let Democrats forget it.
JOHNSON: Look -- look, Joe Biden saying they`re going to put you back and change and you ain`t black ended up on TV for 48 -- 48 weeks, months, or whatever it is. But, of course, the Democrats are going to be too weak to handle this.
Look, here`s the thing. Joy, I have one slight disagreement here. I don`t think the Democrats need to convince the American people that this is a theocratic power grab. They need to convince their own party, because they seem to be the only people...
JOHNSON: ... who don`t understand how dangerous this is.
You have got all sorts of people, black, white, gay, straight, Muslim, Christian, you have got people of all kinds across America marching everywhere from the Capitol Building to in the Target parking lot. Everybody out here living a real American life knows we`re in danger.
I don`t think Chuck Schumer gets it. I don`t think that Joe Manchin gets it. I don`t think sometimes that Nancy Pelosi truly understands. And I definitely don`t think Joe Biden does.
They need to figure out how much danger they`re in, so they can actually serve the constituents to put them in office to solve some of these problems.
REID: You know what would help? If the vice president of the United States could go on and do an interview on CNN and just say, yes, we think that they should get rid of the filibuster and do something to secure voting rights and get rid of...
REID: And codify Roe. Like, that would have been the easy go. But the administration is the administration.
Jason Johnson. Melissa Murray, Anthea Butler.
Up next on THE REIDOUT: Women are already suffering the consequences of the Supreme Court decision, while facing enormous new threats to their privacy.
Plus, today`s big surprise from the January 6 Committee.
THE REIDOUT continues after this.
REID: The Supreme Court`s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has already led to chaos and confusion for individuals seeking to obtain abortion care.
In the aftermath of Friday`s ruling, it is now banned or effectively banned in at least 11 states with trigger laws or preexisting bans. On Friday, patients in many of the affected states learned of the change in real time. And staff were forced to turn away desperate patients already in the waiting room. Some patients cried and begged for help.
The director of one clinic, the Alabama Women`s Center in Huntsville, spoke to NBC News` Blayne Alexander.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was heartbreaking. The women, the emotions that they were going through was just -- it went down -- it went down to my soul.
It was everything from people that were upset, angry, people breaking down crying, people in disbelief, people trying to focus and figure out -- started getting on the phone, figure out where they can go from here. It was just a raw, broad spectrum of emotions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Meanwhile, legal battles over laws in some states are ongoing.
Today, judges temporarily blocked enforcement of trigger laws in Utah and Louisiana, allowing services to resume, at least for now. Also today, Texas abortion providers sued to block enforcement of that state`s trigger ban, expected to take place -- take effect 30 days after the High Court`s ruling. A hearing is scheduled for tomorrow
And joining me now, Andrea Ferrigno, corporate vice president of Whole Woman`s Health.
And thank you, Miss Ferrigno. Thank you for being here.
And I know that Whole Woman`s Health has clinics around the country. Talk to me about what we`re hearing. I mean, just what I`m reading just in some states, "The Texas Tribune" saying everything has stopped. Abortion care has completely ceased at Whole Woman`s Health, your four -- your company`s four locations in Texas and Austin, Fort Worth, McAllen, and McKinney.
There`s just eight abortion clinics in Minnesota at all. And they`re struggling to meet the state demand. And I know that Whole Woman operates there as well. Tell me what`s going on.
ANDREA FERRIGNO, CORPORATE VICE PRESIDENT, WHOLE WOMAN`S HEALTH: Yes, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you.
It is incredibly devastating. We -- as soon as the decision was issued, Ken Paxton ratified the decision by saying that abortion was illegal in Texas, which forced us to close our clinics. There are currently no abortion providers in Texas offering appointments.
We are still open. We want to help our patients get the care they need. We have been talking to our patients about where they can find services, helping them with logistical arrangements. We have a program called the Wayfinder Program that basically does exactly that, which is help patients get to where they need to go to get the services that their state has eradicated in their home -- in their home community.
REID: I mean, the law -- the drive to do that, assuming somebody can get a ride at all, if you`re in Texas, you have to drive 542 miles if there are no abortion clinics in the state. In Mississippi, it`s 495 miles. In Louisiana, it`s the most of all, 666 miles.
If you`re in Florida, you have to drive 575 miles. How are women supposed to get to a clinic that`s out of state?
FERRIGNO: It`s incredibly difficult.
And what we`re going to see is that a small percentage of people will be able to make the travels necessary. The rest of the community is probably going to be forced into unwanted pregnancies, forced into parenthood. It is very difficult to arrange travel, not only within the state, but outside of the state. Texas is very vast. It`s very difficult to travel.
And we also need to take in consideration there are a lot of immigration restrictions for people that are working and living in South Texas that have to consider those limitations as well with internal immigration checkpoints that may keep them from being able to leave their communities to get basic health care.
REID: You know, during the Trump administration, when the administration`s official policy was to separate mothers from their children, sometimes even breast-feeding babies, we did hear a lot of reports, including from ACLU -- from the ACLU of some predation, some predatory behavior toward those children and trying to pull them into adoption, and put them up for adoption, and maybe pull them into that system.
Are you concerned that might happen again, that if women are being forced en masse in a place like Texas, or a place like Florida, Louisiana, into unwanted pregnancies that they will be preyed upon by for-profit adoption agencies, who want to take those children and give them to families who are claiming there is not a sufficient supply of infants, as Amy Coney Barrett said during the arguments in the Supreme Court?
FERRIGNO: I am very concerned about all the consequences that the impact of this law is going to -- is going to take place.
We`re talking about not only forcing people into parenthood, but -- and being preyed on, just like you explained, but also with the maternal health rates and maternal mortality rates in Texas that are already incredibly alarming. All of those things are of great concern for our communities as well.
REID: Oh, there`s no doubt that women are going to die. Maternal health rates are terrible in the United States for women of color, for black and brown women.
Let`s talk about another thing, because this is another thing that we`re concerned about. There are these crisis pregnancy centers that compete with entities like Whole Woman`s Health. But they`re not providing abortion services. They`re actually trying to get women to not do abortions.
There have been stories and concerns that they may be pulling data from these women, taking information from them, that could then be used to try to prosecute women in places like Texas. Do you have concerns about that? And have you heard any sort of horror stories along those lines?
FERRIGNO: I am concerned.
And I have -- we have been dealing with this -- these issues for a long time. These crisis pregnancy centers basically lie to people. They lie to patients. They discard them. They offer free services by people that are not necessarily trained or professional health care providers. They lie to patients about the length of their pregnancies and provide a lot of misinformation an ongoing basis to keep them from being able to access the services they are looking for and they need.
And so I think that this -- they`re always finding new, creative ways to lie to our patients and to cause harm.
REID: Let me ask you this.
I mean, Whole Woman`s Health, for those who the name sounds familiar, Whole Woman`s Health was actually the litigant in a case called Whole Woman`s Health vs. Hellerstedt. And this is in 2016.
It was actually one of the cases that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, which has been reaffirmed over and over and over again since 1970 -- it was first done in 1973. I just want to get just you, as a provider and somebody who represents Whole Woman`s Health, just how did you feel at the moment that you heard that abortion had been overturned?
And isn`t ironic? Today is actually the anniversary of the Whole Woman`s Health vs. Hellerstedt victory.
And it was completely devastating. Not surprising. I think that, over the last 10 months, we have seen the many opportunities the Supreme Court had to intervene in Texas, and they didn`t. And so there`s a message there in their inaction. I think then, furthermore, with the leaked opinion, we kind of saw the writing on the wall and knew that this was not going to be a good decision.
And I think some of us, being naive, still hoped and still believed. Those of us that are immigrants that left our country to come to the United States for a better, brighter future did not ever expect this was going to happen here.
And so to see -- to see it, it was almost unbelievable. And even though we were prepared, we have seen the consequences. We have seen the actions. I know that I was still holding out for hope, and was incredibly devastated and disappointed.
Yes, unfortunately, I think that it was not surprising at all. It was definitely not surprising. But, like yourself, I am the daughter of immigrants, and the thought that the United States would be a country where there`s less religious freedom and where there`s religious rule, minority religious rule, at that, I think is going to be shocking to a lot of people around the world.
We`re going to see -- they`re going to see America in a whole new light, and not in a good way.
Andrea Ferrigno, thank you very much. Thank you for all you do.
And still ahead: Democratic leaders are shouting it from the rooftops. Women`s reproductive rights are on the ballot this November. U.S. Senate candidate and former North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Cheri Beasley joins me next.
We`re back in a sec.
REID: The abortion death rattle sweeping through the South just got a lot louder and scarier.
In most states in the region, abortion is either banned or soon to be illegal. But in some states, like North Carolina, access to abortion remains. The battleground state is an outlier in the South, for other reasons too. It has a Democratic governor, as well as Obamacare. It`s one of the only states in the south without a draconian voter restriction law, for now.
The legislature there is controlled by Republicans, but there`s not enough of them to override vetoes from the Democratic governor, which is why voting for those state level offices is that much more important.
North Carolina is one of the last states in the south to protect a woman`s right to an abortion. And that could all change come November, when voters decide whether to remain this great outlier or to march toward Mississippi, where abortion will be illegal in just 10 days.
Joining me now is Cheri Beasley, a former North Carolina Supreme Court justice -- Supreme Court chief justice, now the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in that state.
Thank you for being here, Justice Beasley.
And I think North Carolina is a really interesting cautionary tale, right, in a good way, in the sense that North Carolina was the last to go in terms of Republicans taking over the whole South and taking over state legislatures and governorships. But now Democrats have a foothold in terms of the governorship.
So they have been able to beat back a lot of the worst things Republicans could do. For you, how important is it to communicate that to voters in other states? Because there are three other states where that`s happened too, Kentucky, Louisiana, same thing. They have got Obamacare, they have got health care, because they have been able to hold on to some power.
Is that communicated to the average voter in those states?
CHERI BEASLEY (D), NORTH CAROLINA SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: You know, I would just -- and thank you, Joy.
I -- it`s good to be here. I know it is so important that we focus on these Senate races. It is so important that we have senators in the Senate who are -- who are committed to fighting for the people of North Carolina and upholding the rule of law and the Constitution for this country.
And so I do think that people, certainly in North Carolina, appreciate the magnitude of this election. And I certainly know that this court`s recent opinion helped to highlight the magnitude.
REID: But, I mean -- and I know you`re running for the United States Senate, and I`m going to get to that. I just want to pivot to that in one second.
But I just want to go back, because you were state Supreme Court justice. You won statewide already, which is why it`s clear that you can win statewide, because you were elected chief justice. People need to understand, you were an elected chief justice in a state with an elected governor that is a Democrat.
So people understand in North Carolina that they can elect Republican -- Democrats to statewide office. But do you think that the party has been good at explaining to people that down ballot from chief justice and governor, those state reps and state senators, the power they have to now literally decide what women can do with their bodies?
Do you think the party has communicated that?
BEASLEY: You know, it is so important that all of us understand that we need to elect people in the Senate, in the Statehouse, in our local government who are committed to protecting a woman`s right to reproductive decisions about her own health without government interference.
And we know that politicians, to include my opponent, Ted Budd, are trying to take this right away. The court`s decision is certainly very disappointing. But these elections are important. And I really do think that people in North Carolina understand the magnitude of all of these elections.
REID: Let`s talk about the -- your opponent.
Televisions in your state, North Carolina, they actually made a decision that was actually quite unusual to take down an attack ad against you from Ted Budd, because the ad treated you the same way that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was treated by Republicans in her confirmation hearing, making some really salacious, disgusting attacks upon you, and trying to use that same sort of groomer kind of thing.
Do -- you`re not -- so you`re not running against, like, a regular old Republican. You`re running against a full MAGA Republican. How has that played out in terms of when voters are talking to you? Do you feel little bit that kind of extreme MAGA-ism is working in a state like North Carolina?
BEASLEY: You know, I am very thankful that many of the TV stations did take down the ad. The NRSC has vowed to spend millions of dollars against me in this election to distort my judicial record, and I have been a judge for over 20 years.
And they don`t spend that kind of money unless they know that they can lose and that we can win. And so what we know is that people are so tired of this petty partisan politics. They want to know that the next senator is going to fight for the issues that people care about.
People need access to good, quality health care, good-paying jobs, a strong economy, and so much more. And they really are disinterested in this kind of misrepresentation and really distortion and demagoguery. It is just horrible.
REID: Let me ask you.
If you are elected, would you support getting rid of the filibuster in order to codify Roe vs. Wade as law and pass voting rights?
BEASLEY: Joy, the first thing I know we absolutely must do is to focus on these elections in November.
It is imperative that we make sure that we have a Senate that will fight hard to support women`s reproductive health. It`s a constitutional right. I have been a judge for over 20 years and the chief justice of the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
And I know, as do so many of us, that Roe determined the constitutional right for a woman to make this own very private right for her personal decisions without government interference. And so it`s important that we have a Senate.
Now, if we get to that place and after the election, and it is important that we lift the filibuster, so that we can move forward on legislation that the people of North Carolina and the majority of Americans really want to have pushed through the Senate.
REID: Thank you for being specific, because I think that`s the thing that is sort of frustrating to people about politics, is that politicians are not specific. And, sometimes, they overpromise and then underdeliver.
But if you`re saying that you would be willing to set aside the -- to add to the vote to set aside the filibuster to pass a codification of Roe and to pass voting rights, I think that`s important for people to know.
Last thing is, do you communicate when you`re talking to folks out there that, if Republicans take over the United States Senate, if you are not elected, and if Raphael Warnock is not reelected, and Democrats don`t get 52 to 54 votes, do you tell folks out there that are voting, by the way, they`re going to pass a national abortion ban?
BEASLEY: You know, what I tell them is that -- and especially now that we have seen this gut punch of an opinion from the United States Supreme Court, which this is the first time in our nation`s history that a constitutional right has been taken away.
What I tell them is that this is horrible precedent. And we have a whole lot at risk. Rights are at risk. Civil rights are at risk. And all of us need to feel a sense of urgency around this election. And we must be engaged in this election. And so many of these issues that impact the people in North Carolina are not partisan.
The access to health care, needing to have prescription drugs lowered, these are not partisan issues. And people in North Carolina need somebody who`s going to fight for them, stand for what`s right and lead courageously in the Senate to represent the people of this great state.
REID: United States Senate candidate Cheri Beasley, who was the chief justice in that state, one of the most important races, because it is a tossup. This is a woman who can actually win statewide.
So, please pay attention to this race, everybody.
Thank you so much, ma`am. Really appreciate you being here.
And coming up next: The January 6 Committee announces a surprise hearing for tomorrow.
Stay with us.
REID: In a surprise announcement, the January 6 Committee said today that it will hold a hearing tomorrow, after previously saying that the next hearing would come in July.
The committee says the 1:00 p.m. hearing will -- quote -- "present recently obtained evidence and include new witness testimony."
There`s been no word on what that evidence is or who in fact will be testifying. But what we do know is that, for the committee to turn around a hearing so quickly, the evidence and testimony must be highly compelling. Why else would the committee`s nine members return from their districts, rather than just wait until after the July 4 recess?
Joining me now is Hugo Lowell, congressional reporter for "The Guardian."
And, Hugo, is there any kind of hint at all what kind of witness this is? Is it a -- potentially someone from the Trump -- from the administration, one of the attorneys? Any kind of clues whatsoever?
HUGO LOWELL, "THE GUARDIAN": I think we have more information right now as to who it`s not going to be, as opposed to who it is going to be.
And -- but you can do a sort of process of elimination a little bit. So, according to my sourcing and my reporting, Most Brooks, the congressman from Alabama, is not expected to testify before the committee publicly tomorrow, nor is Pat Cipollone, the former White House counsel. We don`t think that former Vice President Pence is going to testify.
And so that kind of narrows down the list of people that could make an appearance tomorrow. But the one thing we do know, right, that, based on the notice, it`s an emergency hearing. As you said, they are convening this hearing, with members flying back in a bit of an emergency, which suggests to me that they`re really concerned about two things.
First of all, they`re concerned about potential leaks about what could come in the hearing or what kind of -- if it`s like video footage or it`s some sort of footage.
The other thing they`re worried about is potentially that, if the name of the person who`s testifying leaks, then Trump or his allies might get to that witness. They might kind of try and obstruct their testimony in some way. And they really want to protect against that. So I think that`s as much information we can concretely say we have now.
REID: Now, you said that it is definitely not Mo Brooks.
But there were other members of Congress who also reportedly at least raised the pardon question. We haven`t seen a member of Congress testify yet, but I just want to play some of the members who allegedly did ask for pardons. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER AIDE TO MARK MEADOWS: Mr. Gaetz had reached out to me to ask if he could have a meeting with Mr. Meadows about receiving a presidential pardon.
QUESTION: Did they all contact you?
HUTCHINSON: Not all of them, but several of them did.
QUESTION: So you mentioned Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Brooks.
HUTCHINSON: Mr. Biggs did. Mr. Jordan talked about congressional pardons, but he never asked me for one. Mr. Gohmert asked for one as well.
Mr. Perry asked for a pardon too. I`m sorry.
QUESTION: Mr. Perry? Did he talk to you directly?
HUTCHINSON: Yes, he did.
QUESTION: Did Marjorie Taylor Greene contact you?
HUTCHINSON: No, she`d didn`t contact me about it. I heard that she had asked White House Counsel`s Office for a pardon from Mr. Philbin. But I didn`t frequently communicate with Ms. Greene.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: If you think about who could be scrambled quickly to potentially testify and who hasn`t testified as yet, you do have multiple members of Congress, including the congressman who recommended Jeffrey Clark, to become the new head of the Department of Justice.
Is there a sense, just from your reporting, at least sort of the way that the Hill is vibing, that the idea here could be that the reason for concern with security is that a member of Congress is somehow -- somehow implicated in the testimony tomorrow?
LOWELL: I don`t know if we can read that much into it right now.
It`s -- I think it`s still very fluid. I think the committee is trying to establish exactly what it wants to run through tomorrow. The fact that a member of Congress is testifying is possible. I think the most likely person to have testified is probably going to have been Mo Brooks, but he tells me tonight that he does not expect to testify tomorrow.
LOWELL: I think the vibe on the Hill is really looking towards the documentary film that has emerged in recent days, Alex Holder, the British -- the British filmmaker, that unprecedented access to Trump and his kids.
And one thing that the committee is very focused on is a number of phone calls that took place before the election, the night of the first debate, because the filmmaker managed to capture on camera -- and I can break some news here -- Eric Trump on the phone with a person that is unidentified talking about how they should vote.
And he specifically said -- quote -- "Hopefully, you`re voting in Florida, as opposed to another state that you have mentioned."
So it`s not quite clear what`s going on with that conversation. But the committee is very focused on this event that happened at the Trump National Hotel on the 29th of September, so we might see more of that tomorrow.
The other thing that broke today is that John Eastman`s phone, another person that could be of very great interest here, that his phone was seized by federal agents. Do you have any updates on that?
LOWELL: It was a really interesting seizure, right, because Eastman, in his filings said, it was FBI agents, six FBI agents came and seized his phone. And they produced a warrant eventually, and they made him unlock his phone.
It`s not exactly clear the circumstances that were surrounding that, but I think it`s interesting that they served a warrant through the auspices of the DOJ Office of Inspector General. That`s really interesting. And it points to more of an internal probe, because we know the DOJ has been investigating Trump`s corruption of the Justice Department around trying to overturn the 2020 election.
So, it may suggest an investigation into that. It may be criminal. It may not be criminal. Eastman may be a target. He may be a fact witness. It`s not clear. But the fact that it comes from the OIG is very interesting.
REID: Very interesting, indeed.
Hugo Lowell, thank you very much. Really appreciate you.
And up next: Pride celebrations this year took place under a big dark cloud cast by the conservative Supreme Court majority`s ruling on women`s reproductive rights. And LGBTQ freedoms, well, are they next?
We will be back after this.
REID: Over the weekend, New York City held one of the largest Pride Month celebrations in the country.
Not surprisingly, many participants channeled outrage over the Supreme Court`s decision on Roe v. Wade, a decision that imperils freedoms not just for women, but also for the LGBTQ community.
Let`s take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MARCHER: Everyone says, in America, you`re free, you`re free. And it`s like, no, we take one step forward and two steps back.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everybody, please scream for Planned Parenthood!
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
UNIDENTIFIED MARCHER: Like, I`m trans. When am I no longer going to be able to exist in this country as a fully realized person?
Or am I going to have to hide back in the closet?
MARCHERS: We won`t back down! We won`t back down! We won`t back down! We won`t back down!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: And that is tonight`s REIDOUT.
Be sure to join us tomorrow night on THE REIDOUT for the latest on the surprise January 6 hearing that was just announced today, followed at 8:00 p.m. Eastern by our January 6 recap show.
"ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts now.