The Megyn Kelly Show - Hysteria Over Abortion Next Steps, and Personal Liberty, with Gov. Kristi Noem and Jim Geraghty | Ep. 346

Episode Date: June 28, 2022

Megyn Kelly is joined by Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota, author of "Not My First Rodeo," to talk about the true effect of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision on abortion rights in America, the antagonistic and one-sided way the media approaches issue, the on-demand culture in America today, the destructive tactics of Congress and D.C., how Noem kept South Dakota open during COVID, the pressure she and other officials felt during the pandemic, the gun compromise bill in the Senate, the religious liberty cases before the Supreme Court, 2024 aspirations, how the GOP should prepare for a Trump run, growing up and family, and more. Then, National Review's Jim Geraghty joins to discuss AOC's ridiculous proposal to build abortion clinics on "federal land," the idea that the left wants to impeach Supreme Court justices, the left's push to call the Supreme Court "illegitimate" now, the left and right wanting to make new laws, and more.Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest and provocative conversations. Hey, everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. The left in America is in full meltdown following the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe versus Wade, giving power back to the states to make their own decisions on it, just like they did for 185 years prior to Roe v. Wade, giving power back to the states to make their own decisions on it, just like they did for 185 years prior to Roe. One of the states at the heart of the story is South Dakota. When that decision came down, reversing Roe and Casey, almost all abortions became illegal in South Dakota, as they did in about a total of 13 states. And the number will climb because there are trigger provisions saying

in many, many other states that abortion will be outlawed there as well within 30 days or so. The governor of South Dakota, Kristi Noem, is unapologetically pro-life. She has repeatedly defended that position. And she is also widely considered a potential presidential candidate for 2024. And she is also widely considered a potential presidential candidate for 2024. And she is our guest today. Governor Noem, great to have you here. Congrats on your new book out today. Not my first rodeo.

Lessons from the Heartland. Excited for you. And it's nice to meet you. Nice to meet you too, Megan. Thank you so much for inviting me to be on with you today. I appreciate it. My pleasure. I think people who know you and like you are going to love the book. And I think people who are just wanting to know you better really will because you're very open to the book about

your hardships, your challenges, who you were as a person and a young woman before you ever thought about running for office. I have to tell you, my first takeaway when I read it was, I mean, I'm sure you've heard this, but it reminds me a little bit of like Yellowstone, the show Yellowstone, just kind of how you grew up. Yeah. People have said that before. They've said, is that governor and Yellowstone modeled after you? And I'm like, no, I'm pretty sure it's not, but it does. It was amazing to me the first few times I watched that show, how much of it felt like life in South Dakota. I mean, it really is good people work hard, uh, some of the same challenges, but not quite as much killing and probably not quite that much sex that they were having the first set or the first season. So I was going to say it was a, it's a good, we enjoy it. I assume your family wasn't running

around killing everybody. And, uh, yeah, the nakedness was a lot. It was a lot. All right. Well, we'll get in all that in a minute. But let's start with the news of the day before we go to your backstory and your book and so on. And that's, of course, what's happening in reaction to Roe versus Wade. Now, the left has taken this to so many catastrophic places. I mean, that you would really think that it's been outlawed in all 50 states under all circumstances. That's not the case. But as I said in the intro, you are unapologetically unapologetically pro-life and have had a provision in South Dakota saying as soon as they overturn Roe and Casey in your state, abortion will be banned in all cases except when necessary to save the life of the mother. So what say you to those who are now criticizing that as too narrow? What about rape and incest and too cold to the plight of, let's say, a young girl who finds herself the victim of incest and sadly pregnant thereafter? Well, the trigger law in South Dakota

was passed back in 2005. So it was quite a number of years ago. And what it said was that if Roe was ever overturned at the federal level, that in the state of South Dakota, all abortions would be illegal except to save the life of the mother. And so when that decision came down, that was immediately the law of the land in our state. And, you know, I think that what is important about that law is that it definitely does not prosecute mothers or women or punish them. It goes after doctors who knowingly break the law. So I'm sure there'll be continued debate over this, you know, rape and incest is something that a lot of people are talking about. And I can't even imagine, you know, the tragic situation so many women go through in those situations. It's just horrific. For me personally, I've just, I know the science of what happens at conception and technology has shown us so much more the last 10 or 15 years of what happens to babies in the womb and these tragedies.

I just believe the best option isn't to follow it up with another tragedy. And so, you know, I launched a website that talked about life. It was life.sd.gov that shows women and families that are in a crisis or in an unplanned pregnancy, all the resources that are available to come alongside them in that situation, financially, medical help, even connecting them with adoptive families, should they choose that route with their babies. But knowing that they're not alone is incredibly powerful when they get into a very, very difficult situation like that. And I think a lot of mental health counseling and those individuals who walk alongside them and support them in those situations is incredibly

important as well. But realistically, how many women in South Carolina will be affected by this? Because my my impression is amongst South Dakota, my impression is that in most of the states where we're going to see these bans kick in, there was like one abortion clinic anyway. Abortion wasn't very popular and it wasn't all that readily available. And there was already a political will to eliminate it, which is why the numbers were so low. So, I mean, I just I'm not sure I'm buying the left's narrative that just, you know, millions of women now won't be able to get abortions with it where they could have before this decision. What's it like in your state? Yeah, so we had one Planned

Parenthood facility in the state of South Dakota that was performing abortions, and it was very few. I mean, I think it was less than 12 a year. I mean, very, and they even brought a doctor in from out of state to perform those abortions. You know, one is too many in my book, but they actually stopped doing abortions about six weeks ago, I think in the state of South Dakota. And in anticipation of this decision, which we celebrated, we're glad that our state stands for life. I think it's going to be incredibly important, though, even in states like South Dakota, where policymakers and legislators and the fear tactics and the scare tactics that the left uses, they're effective. I mean, we've watched the last several years, the left and the media use fear to control people. And much of what I'm hearing, these extremists on the pro-abortion side, just isn't the truth. It isn't the truth that women lost healthcare. What it did is the Supreme Court decision put this power back to the states where it should be.

It fixed a wrong that happened almost 50 years ago. And now those decisions will be made closer to the people. That's the debate that we want to continue to have in South Dakota. And I think every state should start evaluating. Well, what's upsetting about the whole debate is that they won't let pro-life advocates, true pro-life advocates,

like we had Lila Rose on the program yesterday, who runs live action, you know, one of the best and biggest pro-life groups there is. She can't get on CNN. They don't want to put her on. They only want pro-choice advocates on. And therefore, young women really are led to believe that if they have an unplanned pregnancy, there's really only one realistic option. And that if they choose to have the baby and keep the baby or have the baby and want to give the baby up, it's going to be incredibly taxing and ruinous to their lives. Yeah, that's exactly it. And I did several national interviews on other networks the last couple of days. And it was interesting, the questions that I got asked, it was all about

denying women health care. if I no longer supported IVF, if I no longer supported contraception, all of those types of questions that are extremist views. Of course, no mention of the fact that many on the left and in the Democrat Party want abortion on demand, and that some parts of this country have embraced even killing babies after birth. And what is the difference here in how doctors look at these babies in the womb? If you talk to a doctor and they're doing surgery or medical procedures on babies in the womb, they are calling those babies patients. They have patients' rights throughout those procedures. So how do you give that individual, that baby in a womb, patients' rights and treat them as a patient

and then not call them a human being? You know, that's the hypocrisy that we're running into in this country and the conversation that needs to open the eyes of many of the people that are out there in the public. Right. Of course, that's exactly right. And then when those same anchors get a pro-choice governor on their shows, they don't ask them equally tough questions from the other side. Right. The media is very openly pro-choice and feels no obligation to even pretend otherwise. Yeah, I did a couple of Sunday morning shows and it was interesting. I got, Martha interrupted me over and over again. I actually had to say, listen, I am answering your questions. And then I would chatted with Margaret after that too. But what was interesting, they're both very confrontational, already had their minds made up. And then the next individuals that came

on to be interviewed after me is completely different conversation. They were normal human beings to them. So the antagonistic, unfair way that the media approaches this issue is, is designed to divide people and create more confusion. And I think that's incredibly unfortunate because that's not their job. Their job is to ask questions. I'll answer them. To me, it's actually kind of interesting because you would think that if you're going to be if you're going to work yourself up into a real lather, like an anger over this issue, it would be on the pro-life side. It would be on behalf of the babies.

You know, like I understand that a woman who does not want to carry a baby to term is in a very difficult position and is going to undergo considerable hardship. I get that. Never mind if she then keeps the baby. Right. But on the other side, we have real interests, too. And the later you get in the pregnancy, the more undeniable they become. And I just I don't even hear it being discussed. It's like the left is so sure that they're on the side of morality on this without paying one minute's notice to the fact that it no matter where you stand on this, abortion does stop at best for the other side of a potential life at best. Right.

And the reality is it stops like life in process. Well, and it's interesting because this is the party and the extremists that embrace and preach equality, you know, all access to everything and treat everybody the same. And then they obviously don't. And it's only when it's convenient. And that's what I think is a little bit scary about our society today is it's an instant gratification society. It's a, it's a person that doesn't, it's a willing to even be inconvenienced by something. And this is much bigger issue than that, but that's what I I'm concerned about is the lack of value for a life. Um, it's evident when you see the violence on our streets, it's evident when you see it, um, you know, out there every day and day-to-day life, but when you wrap your arms around killing a baby and embrace it,

and then like the governor of New York did here by declaring that her state was going to be known as the place to come to get an abortion, boy, that's a legacy that I never want South Dakota to ever have. Right. Well, it's the same group that wasn't much for personal or bodily autonomy during COVID. And now, right. And then they, they cared so much about the value of one life during that,

but now the shoes on the other foot, what about the one life in the womb and what about right? Like they're not, now they're the message has flipped entirely. Yeah. And it was totally okay then for the government to mandate that you get a vaccine and it wasn't your body when it was dealing with getting the vaccine but now it is your body when it comes to even you know having another life live with inside you and and be born so that's that's the part that i hope people's eyes are open and i do think people are paying attention now more so than they did two or three

years ago you know covid did that for our country a lot of folks never engaged in government or politics suddenly lost their business or they lost their children's education because of some leader in some position that took away their freedom. So there are people paying attention that I hope have a new intelligent conversation about some of these policies and recognize the hypocrisy that the left is embracing. Well, and the truth is that abortions have gone way down in the country. They're still high. They're still high, but they've gone way down in this country versus where they were in the late 70s and the early 80s, in large part because of more information coming out and things like, you know, sonograms and ultrasounds where you can actually see what's inside of you and the access to birth control, which is just, you know, ubiquitous. Now, it's not hard to get birth control. And so there are things women and men can do to prevent themselves from getting in this

kind of a situation. And it's readily available. And it's actually at the point now where you can, you know, you can get something in your arm. You don't even have to think about it for months on end. That's right. And I think that it's very important that we who are pro-life truly be pro-life and stand and walk alongside that mother and answer their questions. So there's less fear in what will happen to me the next nine, 10 months as I carry this baby and what will happen if I decide to keep my baby, that we're there to answer those questions and make sure that they're not going to be alone. Well, I mean, it's hard, right?

As the state, there's only so much you can do. It's like, I think it's great that you have the website and I saw it and you're directing people to a lot of private services that will step in. And this is how it always was, right? Your church will help you. Your community group will help you. There's not that because people are like, well, what are you going to do? I've seen in some of your earlier, what are you, you know, you? You know, I mean, there's not that much the state itself can do. Well, what are your thoughts on it? Well, I talk to people, you know, quite often. Be careful what you ask the government to do for you. And every problem, the government's not the answer. There may be there's a role here. And I found that the last several years as governor, that I have an opportunity to connect people in a way that I maybe didn't before, make people aware of resources,

talk to an issue. And there's so many nonprofits, there's so many churches that want to be there. It's just getting them connected that we need to. There's already several programs out there that come through family services or child protective services, or even within the criminal justice system where we can make those connections. It's not necessarily starting a new program, but it's making sure that those connections are made so people have the answers when they need them. Oh, well, this reminds me of something I wanted to ask you, because now the new buzz is, what about establishing abortion clinics on federal land, like federal forests or even and I know you've

got, I think, nine tribes, you say in your book in South Dakota or Native American land. And we're later in the program to be joined by Jim Garrity of National Review, who points out they forgot to ask the Native American tribes whether that would be OK with them to have abortion clinics on Native American land with non Native Americans filing in, filing out. And I mean, land is something that's been big, a big, big part of your life, of your family business. So what do you make of this push now by the far left to have Joe Biden declare certain federal forests and so on are now going to be open ground for federal abortion clinics in states that have bans on abortion? Well, when it comes to federal lands, a lot of that is going to be funding for those types of

facilities on federal lands. And that's going to be up to Congress to make sure that they stop something like that. Although I have some enforcement jurisdiction and things like that on BLM land, which is Bureau of Land Management or Forest Service land. Our tribes are a very different story. Our tribes are sovereign nations. I have no jurisdiction on tribal lands, on reservations. So when it comes to law and order, when it comes to programs, when it comes to my interaction as a governor with a tribe, it's a government to government relationship. And I honor their sovereignty, which means they could set up these abortion clinics. There's not a whole lot that I could do as governor about that.

I mean, I wonder whether there's any appetite for that in the even this U.S. Congress, right? Because we've got the Hyde Amendment. They're not allowed to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. So how are they going to fund these clinics? I guess, you know, they're just going to have liberal activists who pay all the money to have these things pop up. And if we're doing it in federal forests, who's going to be responsible for getting the people in and getting the people out? Like the desperation here is palpable. But I also think there's a political manipulation here because people want to look like they're doing something. Yeah, they definitely do. It's an activism that's out there. What I would say is, you know, hopefully in a few months we have a new Congress

that starts having a more informed debate on what this issue is and really about what real health care for women is. So you were, I should remind the audience audience because you were in the state legislature in South Dakota. Then you went on to be a U.S. congressperson representing your state at the national level and then ran for governor and won. And that's the post you're in now. So you do know how Washington works. And you spent probably in your estimation too long inside the Beltway. I think it was six years. Was it six years? Eight. I know. Eight. Okay. Eight years. Yeah. So you understand how it works and understanding that. How are you seeing these hysterical reactions now to this decision? Because to me, it smacks of politics and not

necessarily a genuinely held belief. I'm sure AOC really is pro-choice, but there is zero chance of anybody impeaching any Supreme Court justice over this. But that's what she keeps saying over and over again. Yeah, it's interesting. That's one of the things I hated the most about Washington, D.C. It was a lot of talk and very little action. In fact, people ask me all the time why D.C. is so broken. And I would say it's because there's no rules. There's literally in the House of Representatives a rules committee where they go and make up a new rule for how they want to vote on the House floor that day. And I could have a bill in Washington and it may never get a hearing for 20 years. I could file the same bill, but it'll never get a hearing unless a chairman

decides they want to talk about that subject. And then if a bill passes a hearing, it may never even go to the House floor for a vote. The only. And it creates an emotion in the American public and in her constituents that again, get her reelected. It's not any way to run a government or a country. And that's why I was so happy to get back to South Dakota and really looked at what I was doing in Washington. I had the chance to work on tax reform, had the chance to work on National Defense Authorization Act, did a lot of good work, but was excited to come home and get the chance to be a CEO, to have an agenda, to get up every single day and make decisions that impacted our state. And then to continue to fight for and to defend our way of life. I hope that's Tulsi Gabbard's future, too. She was on the program last year and just talked about hating her time in D.C. and how she was this darling of the Democrats until they realized she's an independent thinker and then kind of got ousted by Nancy Pelosi from the in crowd. And really, she's not bitter, but she got it. She saw the message and feels, I think, similarly to the way you do now. Yeah, Tulsi is a good friend of mine. In fact,

when we were in Congress, we worked out in the mornings together and she's a wonderful person. I was just texting with her a day or two ago about potentially getting together and maybe doing some messaging together, just common sense. You know, here are people with very different backgrounds, but we're both women that care about this country and recognize that the extremes are not getting us anywhere we need to go to really securing our future. And what can we do to cooperate on some of these policies and really weigh in so that people sit up and pay attention and listen and become much more educated? If there's anything I've learned in public policy is that I couldn't just make decisions, that you have to go and explain why you made the decision that you made. During COVID,

I gave whole press conferences on just the authority I had as governor and the authority I did not have. I gave a whole press conference on just the constitution I had as governor and the authority I did not have. I gave a whole press conference on just the Constitution and what it meant and what it says governors should be doing, what the federal government should be doing. So the people of South Dakota really understood what I was doing and why I was doing it. I just don't think we do enough of that to really have a population in this country that understands really what the role of government should be in their life. I mean, the thought of you and Tulsi Gabbard on the same ticket together someday is too much to bear. That would be so amazing. It would be, A, the best looking ticket ever. And B, just the brainpower there, because obviously you're considerably farther to the

right than Tulsi is, but she's just a reasonable person. And she hasn't abandoned all of her democratic principles, but she's willing to compromise and willing to criticize her own side. And it would be exciting to see that happen in any shape or form. And I think both of us have some, have some scar tissue. You know, I've, I have, I've been beat up by the left for many years, but I've also been beat up by the right. And they can be just as vicious as anybody else. And they can use whatever talking point they want to to attack someone to try to take out their competition. I get it. It's politics, but it also makes you stronger. And I think Tulsi and I both know that very well.

Okay. I'm not going to get into that, but I do know what you're talking about. And just for the audience, I think this is the reference without naming names. There was this absurd rumor about you allegedly having an affair with a Trump staffer years ago, a couple of came out within the past year or two. And it was just out of nowhere, but that was from the right. And it was incredible because you're sitting governor. You've had a long marriage. You married Brian in like right after. Yeah. 30 years ago. And you're, I think you're a sitting governor. You've had a long marriage. You married Brian in like right after 30 years ago. And you're, I think you're a year younger than I am. I'm 51, you're 50. So you've been together with the same guy all this time. You had three wonderful children like out of the blue. And this is, of course they do do this. I'm sorry to get on my female soap

box, but they all, whenever there's a powerful woman, you can take it to the bank. There's going to be an attack on her. And they say it's either nuts or sluts. You're crazy or you're a slut. And they weren't able to say you were crazy. So they decided to go the other route. Yeah, absolutely. And I think they say the crazy too. They had the entire fight over girls sports that they came after me on as well.

And now they've just been a constant attack of FOIA requests in our state, creating scandals out of nothing that don't even exist. So listen, this is war and they will, they've gone after my children. They attacked my, the first year and a half that I was a governor, they went after my daughter. And then when they couldn't destroy her, they went after my older daughter and caused her to lose her entire business over something that was completely false accusations, but started enough controversy that it affected her business and she had to completely change careers. So of course they would try to destroy me, then my children, and now they've gone after my husband and myself. And it's, it's, it's difficult. I'd say it's probably hardest on the family when someone's serving in this job. But I think it also makes you stronger. It's something that, you know, we we try to get through it and not I we honestly don't even read the press that much anymore. I have my staff tell me what I need to know, but stay off the social media comments and a lot of those articles because just so much of it, I don't even recognize as reality.

Well, you're grounded. I mean, that's what comes from growing up in South Dakota and on a ranch, a farm, having the parents that you had. Not everybody's that way. And one of the interesting things in your book is how you talk about how you could see the sort of the light corrupting people in Congress, like the need to be interesting to reporters or like the confusion that the press's interest in you is about you, right? As opposed to like, what's important here is my relationship with my constituents, not my relationship with a reporter from the Washington Post. And just how it reminded me of, forgive me for quoting Michael Avenatti, but when he was like, he was either being sentenced or something, he was like, I got too close to the sun. And I know it made me laugh, but it's kind of what you're talking about.

Yeah. I've heard that a couple of times about a few members of Congress too. Well, he flew too close to the sun, but no, it's true. And I think I was very grateful. You know, my, my husband and I did something when I got elected to Congress, because it was, you know, when I ran for Congress, it was because people kept asking me to, and it wasn't something we really desired to do for two years. People kept trying to recruit us. And finally I said to my husband, maybe we just run. And if we lose, they'll leave us alone. And, and got into this race that was one of the top five races in the nation in 2010. It was very difficult. And it was against a blue dog Democrat that had a 70% approval rating. I mean, it was rough, but you know, when we got there and ended

up, I, I got one and ended up in DC. We said, you know, let's come up with some rules, you know, cause we had little kids and I was going to be gone a lot. And it was that when I was home, we were all going to be together. The kids were not going to be going to sleepovers. They weren't going to be going off and doing different things on weekends. Our family had to be together. And the one, uh, you know, exchange that we had with the kids was that you could bring as many friends with us as you wanted to. So often I was showing up at chamber of commerce dinners or meetings with seven, eight kids with me. I was a little bit of a circus, but, you know, doing that and having some of those groundings and family, I think really helped build a stronger family for us so that these

firestorms we've seen since COVID that have landed on our family, you know, makes us get through those a little bit better and understand really what this political world is about. Was that the race against the blue dog Democrat, the woman who went to Georgetown law? Yep, absolutely. Yeah, it was. I love that piece of your story because you read about how like, I can't remember where you went to college, forgive me, but it wasn't exactly like Ivy League. I can say that because I went to Syracuse, same. Yeah, It all wound up fine in the end. But you had that bit of insecurity like, oh God, she's got this great pedigree and mine maybe doesn't look the same. But you had a different pedigree that mattered more, that worked better. Yeah, I felt very outmatched in that race. This was a lawyer who was like a national

debate champion, went to Georgetown Law, was very accomplished, very well-spoken and polished. I was a farmer. I was a farmer who had had to drop out of college when my dad was killed, took over our businesses. In fact, while during that campaign, I was already taking classes to get my degree again, 15 years later, I finished my degree from South Dakota State University the first year I was in Congress. So, you know, it was a very delayed process. But and I felt like I was did not have the same pedigree, but continue to talk about what mattered to the people of South Dakota. And they gave me a chance. It worked. But I, I find that inspirational and I want people to remember

that because in today's day and age, even with our university system as messed up as it is and corruptive on politics as it is, you can succeed very well in life. You can do better than the people who are graduating from Harvard and Yale. If you stay in touch with the right values, the right people, and you work hard. And I feel like you're an example of that. I say this almost every day to somebody. I say, listen, the world will tell you that your education is the most important thing in the world. That you're, you know, but for me, your education is important. Your experience is important. But what moves the world is relationships. It is relationships. The person

that you might meet at that meeting you go to might end up being your next business partner. The person that may be your professor at that university could be your mentor that ends up changing your life forever, being your recommendation for that next big job that you want. So I tell everybody, especially those that are in high school, college and young starting their careers, that, that the most important thing is relationships. So slow down, take the time to talk to people that you walk by every day or that you're sitting next to in a meeting or, or some committee that you're serving on, because those could be the people that really help you make the connections that

develop your career or give you a better quality of life. I love hearing that because having spent much of my adult life in Manhattan, it's like you spend the time speaking to the person who's next to you on the subway or in the restaurant. You're going to get a very different look than you probably get in South Dakota. That's true. That's very true. Point well taken, though. Very different. All right. There's so much more to go over. Governor Noem has been a big spokesperson for freedoms when it First Rodeo, Lessons from the Heartland.

I love the title. This is a personal story, but my assistant, Abby, who's been with me for over 12 years now, one time she had to deal with this photographer. I don't remember if it was like it's one of those big women's magazines. And they they wanted me to get my picture taken by this guy, this French photographer. So we did. And Abby had to deal with him on the pictures. And oh, I know what it was. We wanted to use one of the pictures like on Twitter. And so she said she said she's younger. She's a lot younger. She's only 35 now. Anyway, she sent him a note saying something like, could we use the picture on Twitter? You know, what can we do to make that happen?

And he wrote her back, this French guy. And he wrote, dear, my first rodeo. No, you may not use the picture. Oh, my goodness. I've been laughing about it ever since. But I get the reference and I love it. Oh, awesome. I love it.

Well, you know, it's interesting when you write a book, you know, it's so long ago that you start the process. And for a long time, the book didn't have a title and you kind of struggle with that. But this title fit, Not My First Rodeo, because I think a lot of people first heard my name during COVID. You know, that's when Rachel Maddow and Elizabeth Warren and were attacking me night after night on the national news for the decisions that I was making in South Dakota, calling me reckless and irresponsible and dangerous. So, but you know,

most people think, well, that's, she's, you know, she's new. We've never heard of her before. Who is this governor? She, she's not very tough. She's not strong. But this isn't my first rodeo. I think that when people learn a little bit about my backstory, the things that I've done, the challenges we've faced and how we've gotten through them, I think they'll realize that my background's very unique. It's different. But I also think it prepared me pretty well to go through something like we've seen in the challenges since I've been governor. You were doing things very differently during COVID. And I mean, I was loving it as somebody who is much more of a hard libertarian on the COVID policies. And I mean, as soon as April, you know, the whole thing went down in March, you had opened South Dakota back up and really weren't requiring any mandates on South Dakotans.

And you write in the book that this was a matter of what you call first principles. This wasn't sort of coming to a crisis and shooting from the hip. It kind of went back to just your overall philosophy of what it means to govern. Explain that. Well, it came down to the fact that, you know, I wanted to do my job, but not more than what my job was. So, you know, I think I did what every other governor did. We all studied the virus. We listened to what was happening when it was developing overseas, when it came to the states and started to hit other states. We all looked at the data and the numbers, talked to our health officials. I just think I took it a step further. I spent a lot of time with my general counsel and I spent a lot of time with constitutional attorneys trying to figure out what really was my job as governor, what authority I had, but then also what authority

I didn't have. I just believe that when you have a leader overstep that authority in a time of crisis, that's when you break the country. And so South Dakota was the only state that never once closed a single business. I didn't even define what an essential business was because I don't believe the government has the authority to tell you your business is an essential. We didn't mandate anything. I just believed that if I stood up in front of my people and told them I was going to trust them and give them all the information that I had, I would let them use personal responsibility to make the best decisions for their families and their businesses. And overwhelmingly, people got it and they did it and they appreciated it. We did incredible things in South Dakota that, you know, that still any other state,

you know, just didn't seem or trust their people enough to do. So even in states that today you hear Republicans and conservatives bragging about in Florida and Texas and how free they are, well, they closed beaches, they closed businesses. South Dakota never did any of that because we truly believed we just, the government doesn't have that kind of authority in your life. Hmm. So do you, was somebody like Ron DeSantis more of a COVID hawk than you? I wouldn't say a COVID hawk. I would just say we made different decisions, very different decisions. And, and I think that, you know, what we did in South Dakota, you know, I had one governor from a different state at a, I came to help him in his reelection

this year. And he did a fundraiser with a couple of hundred people in his home state. And he stood up in front of that whole crowd. And he said, the reason I asked Christie to come here is because when she was the only one who refused to close her state down, he said, it gave all of us as Republican governors cover. It gave us cover because she was the crazy one. And we all could let up on our mandates, then we could all say, Oh, well, Christie's doing it, somebody else's doing it. So we can do this now, too. And I that was the most open and honest, I'd ever heard another governor say, because it's a very lonely job. Every governor went through challenges. You know, I had fantastic health officials, we talked all the time, I spent a lot of time managing other leaders in my state and talking to them. I mean, it took a lot. So every governor had a different situation, but

I appreciated the fact that he was so honest that he just said, when you did that, when you stood there and refused, it gave us cover to start making the same decisions. And he said, that made all the difference in the world. Well, you didn't get drunk on power either. Didn't you quickly give up your emergency powers. I mean, you weren't reveling in your newfound king or queendom like some of these other governors. Yeah, we did. And when President Trump talked about the virus and having two weeks, you know, we everybody does an emergency declaration because that's what you have to do in order to have federal resources come into your state and help if necessary. But and if you remember, in every state, they were telling people that they were going to lose hundreds and we called it our back to business plan. And we were, we never did shut anything down. We never mandated anything. We gave suggestions to people

and helped facilitate different things, but even large events like the Sturgis motorcycle bike rally or the celebration we had at Mount Rushmore, we just believed that people still needed to make their own decisions on where they were. The bike rally. The MSNBC lost its mind over that. And, you know, kept waiting for the massive COVID outbreak, which didn't come, just like it didn't come after the NFL opened up the huge stadiums and 40,000 people were next to each other, you know, outside. And still the left told us this was going to be the next super spreader, all of them.

Can I ask you, though, something? So I've never been to South Dakota, but we do go out to Montana all of them. Can I ask you though something? So I've never been to South Dakota, but we do go to Montana all the time. And so I feel like it's probably similar. And one of the things I love about going up to that region of the country is it's so very different from where I've lived my life, New York State and the past 20 plus years, New York City. And I wonder whether I don't want to insult my home state, but I wonder whether you like the New York City residents. They were terrified. They there are so many of them in particular on the left. I have to be honest, but not all. A lot of a lot of lefties kind of crossed over to independence as a result of the hysteria who were like if they had a governor like you, they would have cried in their soup every night. They needed direction. You know, they they didn't feel qualified to handle this without a governor or a government bureaucrat telling them how to do it. You got to Montana. It's like I always tell this example. Let's just give it one small thing like New York guns. Oh, my God, no guns.

And you go to Montana. They're like, would you like to put a bullet on your cowboy hat that you can wear on this horse for a really rough ride that you don't even have to have a real helmet for? And no, you don't need to sign a waiver. It's just a different life. Yeah, it is. But I would also say that there was a lot of scared people in South Dakota, too. And that's when I talk about, you know, managing other leaders. We had I had a lot of mayors that wanted to shut their cities

down, a lot of county commissioners that felt, and they all wanted me to make that decision. So they didn't have to. So, you know, as soon as I would get off a conference call with other governors, I would, you know, get on a call with mayors, or then I would have a call with, you know, legislators or, and then if I had one mayor that was unsteady, I would say, listen, I hear you want to close your city down. Tell me what your cases are. Let's talk through the numbers. Okay. What do you anticipate that there'll be in two weeks? Okay. So it's going to get worse. I get it. So how long do you think people can stay locked in their homes? And if you let these people, if you lock them in their homes today and it gets worse

and there's more cases and you decide to let them out because people don't have the capacity to stay there, I will blow you up. I will have a press conference and I will tell the world how irresponsible you were. So just know that you and I are going to have a very public fight over what you did. And, and I said, so let's do this. Let's turn off the TV. I will call you in the morning. We'll talk again. And let's just for right now decide that we're going to wait 12 hours and we'll talk in the morning. And that's, that's what we did the whole time with different leaders and different people that were feeling incredible pressure they'd never felt before. And I think that is the stuff that people just don't know. They don't know that all that was going on or that we as governors were calling each other all the time and talking over, you know, what we were doing, resources, how we get enough masks or different medical supplies that we needed.

So people, if you give them some, you just don't give them instruction and give them direction without mandating it. You know, that's that's what I think. New York Governor Kathy Hochul wasn't on your list after she took over for Cuomo. Her little vaccinated necklace. She went a different way. And a lot of New Yorkers are still paying the price. All right, let me shift gears because I have so many things I want to hit with you. Guns, as I mentioned, New York State, not so pro-gun in its politics, but just got dealt a blow by the U.S. Supreme Court in a decision that I think was

rightly decided, where two guys from my hometowns, upstate New York people, went in there and said, if this is a right, if I have a Second Amendment right to carry a gun, why do I have to jump through 40,000 hoops and convince some town bureaucrat that I deserve to carry one when I want to go out? And, you know, you've created more of a privilege around this. What I believe is a constitutional right. And the Supreme Court said you're 100 percent right. And in a 63 decision ruled that you can't in New York cannot do this. And about eight other states now are going to have to relax their permitting requirements and not require you to show a special need in order to exercise your right. So your thoughts on where we stand now in the wake of Uvalde and the Buffalo

shooting. And now we have this bipartisan legislation, which, you know, I got to tell you, as somebody who I'm not, I'm not pro second amendment, I'm not anti second amendment, you know, whatever, I'm not really into it the way a lot of people are. It sounds kind of reasonable to me. I'm like, okay, greater background checks for the 18 year olds. That, that, that makes sense. More money for mental health. That makes sense. So what's wrong with that law? Well, I would just say it comes down to your constitutional right. And that is, I think it's been a great week for the Constitution. I think the Supreme Court has made several decisions here that back up,

you know, what our founders gave us and what kind of liberty they intended for us to live with. So in South Dakota, you know, we, constitutional carry was the very first bill I signed into law. The previous governor had vetoed it a couple of times. And I was very firm in the belief that I did believe it was a also these red flag laws don't offer due process and and that is something that that we at the beginning of this country guaranteed every single citizen that lives here so i you know every time we start talking about guns we're just not having an honest conversation about what's going on in a lot of these tragedies the honest conversation is is what's the one consistent theme in these tragedies that happen? And it is children or young individuals that did not have a parent or a family member that was a big part of their lives that was taking care of them. health issue. They were ignored. They were overlooked and society has chosen instead to allow them to be pushed to the wayside until a tragedy happened, until they took that anger out or that, that sickness, that addiction really was perpetuated in a way like we've seen in so many of

these tragic situations. So we just got to start being really honest about it. Is, is there an effect that our society is having on our young people? Is drugs and addiction changing their brain chemistry and causing instability? Is the lack of a family and support system affecting our children? What does Hollywood and movies do with the violence that's perpetuated on screen that they surround themselves due to their perception of reality and what's acceptable and what's not these video games. You know, how, if you, if you take God completely out of someone's life and replace it with these kinds of graphic images, does that change how they look at other people around them? And that's the reality of what I think is changing in our culture. It's a lack of value for human life and the inability to go and

walk alongside people that are really struggling with trauma or with a mental issue. And we're just not willing to extend ourselves enough to really get to the root of the issue. So we can keep talking about guns and passing more gun laws. The fact of the matter is, is that the states that have the most gun restrictions in them are often those that have the highest crime rates as well. So like New York, how do we think that's going to fix everything? I just don't think New York, New York state has a ton of gun laws on the books. And that's where the Buffalo shooting happened. I will say the one thing about the new gun law that I liked was the ability, the potential ability to look at a, like an 18 yearold applying for a permit

to look into whatever mental health crisis was on his record. Right now that's been inaccessible unless it crossed over into the criminal arena. And if I understand what they're doing, what they're proposing with this, it would allow more access into that before the permit's granted.

That could potentially help. I don't know, but I feel like there's a profile of the shooters. It doesn't always line up, but there's a profile. There's a profile. But I would just say we have to go a little bit deeper than what the surface is, and that we need to ensure that a fair and just, equitable criminal justice system is still in place in the United United States and that we are giving due process to every single person before we take away their constitutional rights. Yeah. I mean, the mental health problem and of course, this new bill has money for mental health, but we're not going to solve much until we get really honest about, I think, the need to take away certain people's civil liberties, like when it comes to commitment.

I mean, I think what you red flag in a class who's an obvious future school shooter who's making open threats about a mass shooting. In my view, that person needs to be mandatorily committed for two weeks until we get a full evaluation. And I know that people say on the left in particular, no, no, you know, you can't manage really. Yes, yes, we can. That's that's for my civil liberties and your civil liberties and our children's civil liberties. People who are an open threat should have to lose their freedoms for a short stint until we can figure out whether they're trustworthy as members of society. in many places of this country is, you know, you're not allowed to just start making threats against people like that. So many times, though, we've heard people have made threats many times before and been on the radar of law enforcement and nobody's done anything about it. They've

ignored it. Exactly. Or then, you know, you get a situation down in Uvalde where they do something about it and then law enforcement does absolutely nothing. And that whole thing is just too stomach turning. Oh, gosh, that's just I mean, that makes you sick. Right. I can't. I mean, that whole thing is just too stomach turning. Oh, gosh. I mean, that makes you sick. Right. I mean, when I was in Italy and I found out that that door was open the whole time, I just got back from vacation. The door was open the whole time. All I had to do was turn the knob to get in there and start saving lives. It's just, all right, let me pause it there. I'll squeeze in a quick break. We'll come back. I want to talk about faith, the effect it's had on your life, the Supreme Court decision, renewing a commitment to religious liberty in this country, a great opinion by Justice Gorsuch, and the background, the fascinating background of Governor Christine Hill. One of the things that you learned growing up in South Dakota was the importance of faith. And you write that if the church doors were open, your family was there.

And so you grew up an observant Christian. And I understand, you know, continue to have that faith in your life. So I'm going to guess that the two religious freedom cases just decided by the U.S. Supreme Court were welcome in your view. There was one saying public funds given to students in Maine who needed to find schooling could be used on schools that provided religious education. And then the big one came out on Monday involving Coach Kennedy, who we actually had on this program not long ago, who just wanted to pray at the 50-yard line after the games and didn't say anybody else had to come join him. But a lot of the students were faithful as well and went and did it. And the school fired him. They fired him. And the Supreme Court in a six to three decision said, no, you violated his free speech rights and you violated his religious

freedom rights, saying in part in a decision written by Justice Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, learning how to tolerate speech or prayer of all kinds is part of learning how to live in a plural, pluralistic society. A trait of character essential to a tolerant citizenry and went on to say respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse republic. How about that? It's a powerful statement. I love that opinion that he brought forward just because it's the clarity that we need in this country right now of what was guaranteed by us in the United States of America. So those decisions were very, very important. And we have a lot of people that get confused about the role of faith and government and government and faith and schools and how that interaction happens. And in fact, even in South Dakota this year, I brought a bill that would

have put a moment of silence into a school day. It would have been a moment every day where a student had an opportunity to have either a prayer if they wanted to pray to whoever they would like to, or a moment of silence or just a quiet time. But it was to clearly draw a line in the sand that praying is allowed in our schools, that it is facilitated, that every teacher, every administrator, every person in the state would know that that is something that you have a right to do. And it was killed by Republicans. That bill was killed by Republicans because they did not feel it would be something that the school should have to worry about. They didn't want the controversy of it. And so this type of decision brings clarity to so many people about the fact that faith is to be protected from the government. It's not to protect our government

from our faith and our religion. That this is one thing that people could use some direction from. And I'm so thankful for the Supreme Court making a decision that truly sends that message to the country. Yes, and I appreciate your effort to do that because we are in a situation now as mothers,

as people who have kids in the school system, where kids have you're not even allowed to mention God or religion unless it's in a way that's disparaging. That'll pass. And yet we're supposed we're called bigots if we object to, you know, the LGBTQ pride parade with kink being shoved down in our faces left and right. So we don't want our kids to see that. But if we try to mention anything about God, especially in the school setting, even if it's neutral, you know, like like you're doing a moment of silence where you can think about God or just meditative about your life and its meaning. That's not allowed. Yeah, well, it was interesting because many of these Republicans said, well, this isn't

a problem in South Dakota yet. And I thought, why do we have to constantly it has been an issue now since legislative session got out in a couple of school districts. And what's interesting to me is, is, is as leaders, you should lead, be clear and bring clarity when you can, especially in our school districts, which right now are kind of a war zone for people that have other agendas and other opinions and trying to indoctrinate certain beliefs on our children. So it's interesting to me that the people that get confused on religion in schools and government, I'm hopeful that we can bring more clarity with decisions like this so that in our schools, our kids feel the freedom that if they want to stop for a minute by their

locker and have a quick prayer with a friend, they can do that. That's that's either as a Republican presidential candidate in 2024 or potentially as a running mate to a man we all know very well. He was running a real estate business and he was president from 2016 to 2020. You know, I honestly don't know. That's, you know, people ask it a lot. So obviously I've had to think about it a bit, but it's just not something that's in my plans. I'm running for reelection this year in South Dakota.

I'm hoping that people will trust me to lead for another four years as governor. Beyond that, I think anybody who's making plans just maybe doesn't understand the volatility of this political environment that we're in. And I'm always a little leery, Megan, of people who dream of being president of the United States. I think these people that grow up and plan it for years and years probably should never be president of the United States. They more than likely want

to do it for the wrong reasons. I think it's probably time in this country we have a reluctant president again, because those are the ones that truly take the job seriously, recognize the challenges of it. And the reality is we start looking take the job seriously, recognize the challenges of it. And the reality is we start looking at the Republican primary. There's probably going to be 48 different people running in that primary. You know, there's a lot of people who are saying they want to be president of the United States. I'm just not convinced that it has to be me. Well, especially if Trump doesn't run. If Trump runs, a lot of people will decide not to do it. But if he doesn't run, yeah, it's going to be a wide open field.

And if he does run, it seems pretty clear he's not running with Mike Pence. And then there will be a new right. Then there will be a new spot open for somebody else. Somebody who has they I know they've heard they called you the female Trump. So it could be you. He you know, I I dearly love the guy. He let me do my job as governor and he helped me, you know, when I was in Congress with tax reform, he was passionate and truly did some big things in this country. So I appreciate his policies and

what he did. I'd love to have him back, especially compared to who we have in the White House today. You know, the fact is, right now, I don't think anybody can beat him in a primary. So if he does run, you know, he's going to have to figure out how he wins a general election. And I think the way to do that, because right now it would be difficult, it'd be a challenge. I think he has got to put together a team that gives people confidence in the fact that he's got the right people together that are going to fix the country, put it right the ship. He's got to announce who his attorney general would be. During that campaign, he'd have to say who his secretary of state would be, who his vice president would be. That would be something that would reassure and unite a lot of Republicans.

I think Republicans really got to get it together and grow up a little bit, too, because they're all just trying to pretend that that he's not going to run or hope for it and make no plans. We've got to figure out how do we put a strategy together to really win because our country is counting on it more than ever. Yeah. And it's it's dicey with Trump, right? It's like he's obviously got a huge swath of support in the Republican Party, but he's also such a divisive figure that cuts both ways. I don't you know, for me as a journalist, it's easy because I get to watch and report on it and eat the popcorn while you guys duke it out. But I know it's for people who are diehard Republicans. They worry and the Democrats and they're worried about our country, too. I mean,

four more years of Biden. I like I'm not sure if it keeps going in this direction, what's going to be left? All right. Let me shift gears because enough about politics. I like I'm not sure if it keeps going in this direction, what's going to be left? All right, let me shift gears because enough about politics. I want to talk about you and the Snow Queen. How did that happen? This is the year was 1990. Is that the year? I want to talk about the term. Oh, my goodness. Yes, I do. I'm I'm a shallow person. I love the big hair. Pretty successful. People don't know that much. Oh, yep. There we are.

From your book. What year was this? So that was 1990 in South Dakota, especially back then. And when you were a senior in high school, most of the girls competed in the Snow Queen contest, which really was a local area contest where you gave interviews and speeches. And they chose one to go on to the state competition. And through that, you got scholarships. At that time, they gave a car, other items. And then you traveled throughout the Midwest or the country being an ambassador for your state to different festivals and different gatherings or whatever. So I did that with all my friends when I was a senior in high school, won the local contest and then went to the state contest with 52 other young women.

And yeah, very interesting experience because I, you know, if you remember, I was a ranch girl, a farm. In fact, when I won the state competition, the headline and all the newspapers was farm girl wins snow queen. It was like everybody that thought, um, wow, this is different. So, um, but it was very good for me. You know, it's interesting. You go back that far and to, to know that much about my state travel and get to be an ambassador for it, you know, it really was a great opportunity for me to- Well, a new car doesn't suck either. Oh no, you know, you would have loved it. It was a black Trans Am with the sunroof,

but on the side of it, it had huge gold letters that said 1990 South Dakota Snow Queen on it. No way. That's the car I took to college. Imagine me pulling onto campus with this car that had big gold lettering on it. It was, yeah, it was fantastic. And I was in the dorm with the entire football team. So, you know, I didn't get any teasing whatsoever. Oh, please. They would have done anything for there not to be a Brian Noam already in your life. Oh, that's true. You know, it's interesting. I totaled out that car, too. So that was the last

year they gave a car to the Snow Queen. So sad. Well, I laughed in your book you were talking about when you first ran for office and the biggest controversy you faced was you had some speeding tickets. Oh, now it all makes sense now. I mean, they're going to give you trans am at you know age 19 you're going to drive it fast that's that's what's the point of having it if you're not going to do that well i yeah i had a dad that was like you get to where you're going fast and get back here with those parts for that tractor or hurry up and go get this and don't make me wait you know that was how we were raised so and if we got speeding tickets we paid them and kept going. But yeah, that was, that was, I don't, let's not revisit. That's a stupid controversy, but whatever. I just

thought when I seen the Trans Am that that brings it all together. But I do want to talk about, talk to you about your dad, because that was one of the saddest and sweetest parts of your book. And I have to say, I can relate. I can relate. I lost my own dad when he was 45. Yourer couldn't be turned on to save him after having gotten sucked in because it would have ensured his death. And you write in the book something to the effect of, I was sitting there in the hospital waiting to hear if they could have revived him. In the same hospital you were supposed to be late that same night for birthing classes for your child with whom you were eight months pregnant. And instead they came in and told you there was, there was nothing they could do and that he was

gone. You were in, you would, you were in sort of a fight with him over something silly. And Christy, I sit the exact same thing happened with me. You know, I was only 15, but I lost my dad that night and sudden heart attack in our case and was in a fight with him over something stupid. And it's just one of those things where you know they would never want you or me to be walking around feeling guilt or anything other than their love for us thereafter. But you're only human. Yeah. Yeah. That's the one thing I wish I could tell people is that you're not ever

guaranteed another day. You're not guaranteed. You're going to see these people again. We have enough tragedies in our family and in our country that, that that's the reality. And, and sometimes you watch people just throw people away in their lives that, that, you know, is unnecessary. So I, I talk a little bit in the book about having him be gone. And, um, just the fact that I wish I hadn't complained so much when he asked me to do stuff, I wish I would have sat down and visited more when I had the chance to, he, he always hurt. He is his back hurt so bad. He was always in pain because he worked so hard and he used to ask us to rub his feet at night. And I just remember thinking, I wish that I just, you know, would have not once, you know, tried to sneak upstairs without

him seeing me. So I didn't have to rub his feet for him. So he would feel better. You know, that's the kind of stuff that you just don't realize you're missing out on until they're already gone. It was very difficult because he was such a larger than life person. And I'm sure your dad was like this to you too. Your whole life as a young girl revolves kind of around your dad. And when all of a sudden they're gone, you can't even imagine what the next 24 hours is going to look like, much less the rest of your life. And you found these tapes where, in addition to talking a lot about corn, he talked about

you. He talked about you and your siblings and talked about how tough you were, how he could see that you were such a tough kid. And I, that must've been so comforting in a way. It's just sort of a, a way of shoring you up from beyond, I think. Well, you know, my dad wasn't a talker. He was a doer. And so it was, it took me probably five or six months before I could clean out his pickup. You know, farmers and ranchers live in their pickup, everything. And, you know, you just, everything he, that was important was in his pickup. And it took me a long time to go clean out his pickup after he passed away. But when I did, I opened up the council and there was dozens of these little, you know, dictation tapes in there and a little tape recorder that, you know, doctors talked into back then. And it was his voice and it was just just him talking. I had been running the farm, then a very

large operational, a lot of people working for me, a lot of men working for me that were middle aged that didn't want to be working for a 22 year old, pregnant lady or lady with a brand new baby and getting challenged on every decision I was making. And here on these tapes, was every answer I could have ever wanted. What soil type was the best for what crop, what to do with cattle, what to do if we ever got into financial trouble. And then some of these tapes were years and years old. In fact, he'd moved them from pickup to pickup. And when he'd gotten a new pickup, he just moved them. And there was a tape in there almost 10 years old where he talked about us kids, what he thought our strengths were, what our weaknesses were. And it was just amazing because this is not something

my dad rarely said, you know, I love you much less talked about us. And it was, that was when I knew everything was going to be okay. I thought if God loves me this much, that he literally gave me all the answers that I needed in his own voice, then we're going to be fine. And I think that was the first night that I finally could sleep because I felt the peace that I knew we were going to be okay. I can't imagine that find and that feeling. I mean, I can remember my own case. This is 1985 when my dad died and just re-listening over and over to his voice on the answering machine tape. I remember doing that, just playing the answering machine, you know, you've reached the Kelly's. That sort of a treasure trove that there is some divine intervention

there. And I couldn't help, of course, but think, my God, if he could see you now, he would be so proud of you. I mean, it makes me root for you. It makes me so glad you wrote the book and so glad that you decided to lead, you know, notwithstanding the many challenges thrown your way. Well, I mean, I appreciate it. Sometimes I think he might think I'm kind of crazy, but I think that, um, yeah, he was pretty incredible. And my mom is probably the only woman in the world that could have been married to him because all he did was work all the time. I remember her, you know, as we were going out the door to work all the time, her shoving food in our pockets and here, just eat this on the way to the field and, you know, facilitating everything and taking care of everybody. It was really unique. But you know what? We were together. And that's what I think so many families don't make a understanding that, as Ronald Reagan said, government is not the solution to our problems. It tends more often to be the source of them. You read the book and you get to understand a lot about how you handled COVID and who you are as a woman, as a wife, as a mother, as a leader.

And I think this book is going to become very relevant over the next year as the end of the lead up to 2024. Good luck with it. Thank you so much for coming on. Loved visiting with you, Megan. I just think the world of you. So yeah, anytime. Let's stay in touch. Okay, absolutely. And don't forget, the new book is called Not My First Rodeo. You will enjoy it cover to cover just as I did. The madness over the Roe versus Wade decision continues. AOC and other liberal politicians have suggested, as I mentioned in our interview with Governor Noem, using federal land to build new abortion clinics in red states. Hmm. Is that a rational solution? Joining me now to discuss is senior political correspondent at National Review and co-host of the Three Martini Lunch

podcast, which sounds like a great idea, Jim Garrity. Welcome back to the show, Jim. Good to have you. Megan, it's good to be back. And thanks very much for having me. My pleasure. I'm glad we got this in right under under the wire on that three martini lunch. So AOC, I think we've got this on tape. Do we have this on tape team? She talks about crisis of legitimacy. And then, yes, not nine. This is her proposal. One of the things that we know, too, is that there are also actions at President Biden's disposal that he can mobilize. I'll start with the babiest of the babiest of the baby steps. Open abortion clinics on federal lands in West Cape right now. Right now. Okay. She's a congressional Kardashian. That's what AOC is, right? I've heard you guys talk about it. I've heard my friends over in commentary talk about it. She's using congressional Kardashian. That's what AOC is, right? I've heard you guys talk about it. I've

heard my friends over in commentary talk about it. She's using this as a platform to advance her own personal brand, like an influencer. And so nobody should be listening to AOC, but they do. They stood, they cheered. And more and more people think this is a good idea, Jim, that we should just start building abortion clinics in our forests, in our Native American tribal land, and so on? What say you? I was going to say, Megan, I try to avoid excessive name calling. I don't think you can easily dismiss people as being stupid. Oftentimes, they have knowledge you just don't know about or just don't see. But my colleague, Kevin Williamson, is fond of saying every answer looks simple when you don't know the first thing about the subject.

And if you think that, oh, we'll just open up abortion clinics on federal land in red states. And you characterize that, as you said, as the babiest of the babiest of the baby steps. By the way, I'm just going to pause for the irony that in a discussion about terminating pregnancies, her preferred metaphor is baby steps. There's a whole bunch of legal, financial, and logistical challenges to what she envisions here. And she didn't go into a lot of specifics. Her colleague over in the Senate, Elizabeth Warren, did openly say, why not at national parks? So next time you're taking the camper into Yosemite or Grand Tetons or one of these other great national parks in the West, wouldn't you love to see an abortion clinic right there by the entrance? Somehow, I think

there are even going to be a bunch of pro-choice folks who are like, no, that's not where I want them. That's not a good idea. But let's begin with first and foremost, could you legally do this? The Hyde Amendment is still in effect in the most current spending bills that have been passed by Congress. Democrats always say they're going to repeal it or not put it into legislation. Republicans always say, oh, yes, you will. Otherwise, you won't get our votes for passage. And it has been in every spending bill going back for many, many, many years. Could Democrats someday pass a spending bill that did not include it? I suppose, theoretically, that could happen. I think it's pretty likely that we're going to see some changes coming to Congress coming in

November. So they probably would have, if they're going to do this, they'd have to do this before January, presumably. But let's say, okay, they decide to do this. Then there's the question of where do you get the money to build all these abortion clinics? Now, obviously, Congress could then do this. I'm sure you'd see a filibuster. Of course, you would see a massive effort against this from Republicans in Congress and even those few remaining pro-life Democrats. There aren't a lot of them. There's just a handful, but they would probably have some problems with this. But let's see, because the idea, this wouldn't just be permitting abortion. This would be using taxpayer dollars to build abortion clinics in these states that have already chosen to ban or

effectively ban abortion. But let's say they can get the votes for both of those. Let's assume that they managed to overcome this. Let's say they suspend the filibuster. Because indeed, there are Democrats who are saying, this is when we need to suspend the filibuster and only require 50 votes to pass legislation. Now, you may have noticed the Senate is 50-50. Joe Manchin is resolutely opposed to this.

Let's say they managed to change his mind. They get a mind control ray, whatever they do to overcome that particular division. It is a decent chance Republicans will take control of the Senate. Now, most people could see the potential long-term drawbacks. Oh, by the way, everything you can pass through legislation could presumably be then undone by a Republican Congress. Yes, Biden would veto it. We'd have to see how the votes shook out and stuff like that, but that would be another challenge. But let's say, okay, you got the funding, you've got all that stuff. Many people have probably noticed that national parks or stretches of land that are controlled by the US Federal Government's Bureau of Land Management, they're kind of out in the middle of nowhere. They are big, open, empty stretches. Oh, by the way, I've heard one of the proposals of military bases.

And if you think the Pentagon is in a bad mood now, imagine the day you tell them, hey, you know all those secure facilities you have out there? Now you've got to open up the gates so we can put abortion clinics right by there. I guess getting into Area 51 was pretty challenging beforehand. This would be probably even tougher. But hey, let's decide to go with this. The irony is, is that if you do this in these jarred chunks of federal lands that are out in the middle of nowhere, it's really not a convenient location for all the people who are going to be wanting to go and have abortions. They're generally a long drive out in the middle of nowhere. So none of this really makes that much, you know, like again, much says you cannot characterize this as the babiest of the babiest of the baby steps. If I were, I'm, I think of myself as a pretty darn

pro-life guy, but if I were doing this, I'd be like, okay, abortion pills will be much tougher to regulate and much tougher to restrict in states like this. There's been talk about opening abortion clinics on the state, right by the state lines, within pro-choice states. That all seems like a much more plausible scenario than any of this idea of, oh, we're just going to open up abortion clinics on federal lands. The notion of like, oh, Yosemite, oh, and abortions too. Oh, we'll just, we'll put it all travel bingo. Yeah. I just kind of, you know, you could just kind of picture somebody. This is one of those proposals that is not going to get out of that first meeting. You're just going to the first time they unveil blueprints and, you know, you have

that lovely vista and the welcome to Yosemite sign and abortion second turn on the left. Not happening. Now, speaking of moronic ideas that are not going anywhere there and we're still on AOC, but she's not the only one suggesting that these justices need to be impeached. OK, in particular, the one she claims lied in the course of their confirmation hearings or private meetings with senators. In particular, there's an allegation that Kavanaugh may have representing something to Susan Collins along the lines of I will never, ever reverse Roe. I call bullshit. There's no way he said that. And Gorsuch, too. They gave assurances that they recognize Roe as a precedent and Casey as a precedent enforcing precedent. That's not a promise. event, this is sort of a fun exercise because you impeach a Supreme Court justice by getting a majority vote in the House, and then you have to get two thirds of the Senate to actually convict. It's the same with the president. So the Democrats control the House. So let's see them do it. Let's I hope they do it. Let's see how that works out for them. Let's see if AOC can get her

colleagues in the Democrat controlled House to impeach these sitting Supreme Court justices and see how that affects their midterm chances. What do you think of it? One of the great ironies, by the way, is that I think the proposals to expand the size of the Supreme Court are a terrible idea. I guess they're not directly unconstitutional, but certainly they're against the American political legal tradition. Certainly the reaction to FDR indicates that even lots of folks who are generally aligned with, you know, Democratic presidents think this is a bad. I think this is a bad idea. But that would theoretically change the dynamic on the court in the future. At this point, you're kind of like it's kind of like, you know, shutting the barn door after the horse have left. If you decide, well, they've made these decisions, so now we're going to get rid of them. That's how, that's, that'll show

Clarence Thomas, you know. But then the second thing about, you know, could you get the votes? Again, this is not a vote that a lot of Democrats who are in swing districts or swing states are going to want to take right before the November elections. As I noted, the, you know, the majority, there are only 50 Democrats in the Senate right now. You would not come anywhere near 67. And I think that was kind of one of the arguments going around about the past impeachments of President Trump is if you know it's not going to succeed and you know you're not going to come, like if you had 62, 63, 64, maybe you think that during the trial you'll be able to change somebody's mind.

But when you know that not a single Republican senator, not, I'd be very surprised to see Collins vote to impeach Clarence Thomas. I'd be surprised to see Murkowski. There's no way Mitt Romney's going to do it. This is doom from the start. So maybe you could see Democrats saying, oh, we'll do this right before November. This will rally our base or something like that. But I, you know, the odds of that succeeding are exceptionally likely because, you know, you probably filled in, filled up your tank recently. You've shopped for groceries lately.

None of these issues have gone away in the aftermath of this Supreme Court decision. And while I think, you know, there probably will be some progressive grassroots who are galvanized by all this, I think all in all,

this is still going to be a midterm election cycle that is heavily dominated by economic issues. I think you're right. We're dealing with just the immediate aftermath of the decision. Now, I will say the media is going to be very anti this decision and they're going to highlight all the heartstring stories and continue pushing like these heartless Republicans and state after state. But I just don't think that this is an issue that affects that many voters, that it's going to

change what we both think is the likely scenario in these midterms, which is the Democrats losing a lot of seats and the Republicans taking back control, certainly of the House and maybe also the Senate. But speaking of the Senate, we hear this more and more. We heard it from Elizabeth Warren. We've heard it from several now on the left talking about this is no longer a legitimate court. OK, they've lost all their legitimacy because they've issued a decision she doesn't like. Here it is.

We have the sound. This court has lost legitimacy. They have burned whatever legitimacy they may still have had after their gun decision, after their voting decision, after their union decision. They just took the last of it and set a torch to it with the Roe versus Wade opinion. And I'm taking my ball and I'm going home. So what do you make of this crisis of legitimacy that we're hearing? You know, it was funny. It was a friend's thread on Twitter pointed out just how long it's been since Republicans had a

victory that Democrats accepted as legitimate. When you look, think, you know, I'm old enough, I will reveal, you can probably tell from that gray hair there, old enough to remember 1988, I was not old enough to vote, but George H.W. Bush winning that election over Mike Dukakis was really the last time you saw Democrats arguing that Republicans had legitimately won the election, that they had not cheated, that the Democrat hadn't really been won, that there was some sort of nefarious tricks or skullduggery that had taken away a legitimate Democratic victory. 1992, Bill Clinton won. 96, Bill Clinton won. And then in 2000, look, I will grant you, the 2000 election coming down to

Florida and coming down to a 537 vote margin in a state with, I think, like 6 million votes cast, that's a really unusual set of circumstances. However, you could not do a recount of four gore-heavy counties and not do the same kind of hand recount in other counties. Supreme Court made the decision based on the law that it was. But then you had four years of selected, not elected. George W. Bush gets reelected in 2004. And a bunch of us thought, OK, well, at least this one they won't. No, no, no. At that point, they had all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories of the die-bold election machines and how people had cast ballots for John Kerry, but the machines had changed them to George Bush. Now, this seemed nonsensical at

the time. Some people then started adopting, this turned into this bizarrely common theory that I voted for this guy, but trust me, I saw the machine change my vote for the other. It couldn't possibly be that your finger was in the wrong spot on the touchscreen. No, no, no, it couldn't be something as simple as that. It's got to be some sort of nefarious hacking of the machines, etc., etc. Obama wins 2008. Obama wins 2012. I don't remember many Republicans saying, you know, that massive margin over John McCain, that was all Venezuelan voters. That was all Chinese bamboo in the Arizona ballot. You know, like most, Obama kicked McCain's butt. It wasn't what Republicans wanted to see, but that was legitimate how it shook out. Similarly against Mitt Romney, because Mitt Romney kept running around saying these crazy things like Russia being our preeminent geopolitical foe and that

all the spending would get us in trouble someday, all kinds of crazy stuff that the Americans just didn't want to have anything to do with. And then you get to, look, 2016, Donald Trump wins. It shocked a lot of people. He did not win the popular vote, but, you know, that and $2.90 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you get some sort of consolation prize for winning the popular vote or anything like that. Trump wins. But then you saw, you know, the violence at his inauguration and just this general sense

that Trump had somehow not been legitimately elected. And even if people did vote for him, they only did so because they were brainwashed by Russian ads on Facebook. Oh, by the way, those Facebook ads were run against deliberately targeted demographics that were very conservative. Megan, do you know how many people who describe themselves as very conservative who were eager to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016? I'm going to guess they're pretty few and far between. Yeah, in the end. So my friend just kind of observed that like every Republican victory of the past 20 some years, maybe going up on 30 years, has been deemed illegitimate by a lot of Democrats on the left. And so one, it makes it kind of, you know, if you are right of center, one of the things, I was observing someone, I don't say you can't enjoy it, but every victory you achieve comes with these arguments of it's not real.

It's not legitimate. It's not, it's only because of this, you know, nefarious die-bold machines or Russian hackers or stuff like this. Well, 2020, for anybody who's listening, Biden won. Biden won fair and square by a large enough margin. I did not like Pennsylvania choosing to count ballots that did not have a date on them or their absentee ballots sent in through the mail. But the number of ballots that were of that were not a large enough margin to explain Biden's margin in the state of Pennsylvania. Oh, by the way, it wasn't like Florida where it came down to one state. You'd have to point to like four or five states to flip them back to Trump to say that Trump legitimately won. But for the first time, Republicans adopted this

same strategy of you didn't really win. Your win's not legitimate. Your win is you cheated. It's not real. My guy really won and he's not taking the oath of office, because you guys were so nefarious. And I do think that is destructive to our republic. I do think that is destructive to our sense of being one nation, and agreeing to operate under the principles and laws laid out under the Constitution. Alas, so when people say, you know, the, you know, when the Elizabeth Warrens of the world run around saying the Supreme Court is not legitimate, it's building upon arguing Donald Trump wasn't legitimate and George W. Bush wasn't legitimate. And every other argument is not legitimate. Legitimate does not mean popular. The IRS has legitimate authority to audit you and to check to make sure you're paying enough of your taxes.

I don't like the IRS. Please don't audit me, IRS, if you're watching this. But nonetheless, they have every bit of legal authority. Legitimacy means was it done under the procedures and rules that were set out ahead of time? The Supreme Court, every one of those guys got more than 50 votes to get elected, to be confirmed to the court. Every one of them was nominated by a duly elected Republican president. And one of the things that's really

bizarre is you see people arguing, well, George W. Bush doesn't count because he didn't win the popular vote. Right. And in 2000, he did in 2004 and he nominated Roberts and Alito in 2005 and in 2006. So even by this crazy standard that certain, but I should point out, you don't really see liberal law professors or democratic lawmakers putting forth this argument. It's usually the idiotic progressive yokels on Twitter, the ones who really haven't done much thinking about this. But then the next argument is that, you know, well, if your Supreme Court picks really shouldn't count if you didn't win a majority of the popular vote. I would urge people to go back and check the election results of 1992 and 1996, because Bill Clinton only won about 43% off the top of

my head in, 41% maybe in, in 92, and he won 49% in 1996. So Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, by that standard, shouldn't be considered legitimate Supreme Court. We can play these dumb games, too, if you want to get if you want to play them. They're dumb games. If you get nominated, if you get confirmed by more than 50 votes in the Senate, you're a Supreme Court justice, whether you like it or not. And that's, you know, legitimacy has turned into a new synonym for I don't like this. They're in a panic because they've never seen a court like this. I've never seen a court like this. I was listening to Andy McCarthy's podcast with Rich the other day, and he was saying, I've never seen a court like this. And for those of us who are more conservative

in terms of our judicial philosophies, I certainly am on that list. This is wonderful. It's wonderful to finally see more originalistsists or you can call it textualists, but more right leaning ideological in their judicial philosophy justices dominating the Supreme Court. through policies that they couldn't get at the legislative level through the majorities that they've had at the Supreme Court level. And they're in a panic, a full-blown panic now that they realize, for now at least, those days are over. Yeah, conceivably. Could we see justices retire? God forbid, could we see justices pass away? Yeah, that's a possibility. And maybe you'll see a different dynamic on the court in some years to come. But at least for now, there are at least five and on, you know, what I would consider good days, six votes for a general, you know, there are different terms for it. Originalist, strict constructionist, good. It's kind of the way conservatives, our kind of judges, the way most

conservatives put it. One of the things that, and you're right, I think folks on the left have gotten used to having every institution from academia to Hollywood to media, big corporations, sooner or later, they can exert enough pressure and push those institutions to the left. I think one of my distinguished colleagues, Jay Nordlinger, said, every institution that is not explicitly conservative gradually drifts to the left over the course of its existence. A whole bunch of nonprofit institutions have ended up becoming more explicitly political and to the left, even before kind of the woke movement of the Supreme Court, the very existence of a role of an institution that can look at what the legislative branch has done or the legislative branch of states and can look at what the executive branch or the executive branch of states have done and say, you know what? I know this was popular. I know you guys liked doing this. Maybe people, maybe lots of people liked it. But we've looked at this law and we've looked at the Constitution and we have determined this law does not adhere and in fact violates the Constitution. And then you don't get to have this law.

This law is officially repealed. No ifs, ands, or buts. And one of the more bizarre moments of last week was seeing New York Governor Kathy Hockle basically sounding like she intended to appeal the Supreme Court decision. There's nothing higher. There's nowhere the place to go. There is no do not ask to collect $200. You know, it's over there. And then you saw the likes of Keith Olbermann, who I hope, desperately hope, gets the help he needs. And some friend will say to him, Keith, you really need to put down the phone. Who is basically, you and what army? You will never,

you know, I'm sure he declared the Supreme Court justices, the worst people in the world. But just Maxine Waters, too. We're not going to follow. And by the way, if you think you intimidate black women, what? Wait, how did race get what? OK, you are going to follow. Sorry, but you're following this bizarre sense of, well, we're really mad about this Supreme Court decision. Ergo, we don't have to follow it. No, that is the path to anarchy. Because the moment you start saying, okay, well, adherence to Supreme Court decisions is optional.

You basically destroy the rule of law in this country. This turns into, well, we turn into a you-can't-make-me country. And I think that is a road that leads down the line to secession and ultimately the end of the United States of America. We don't want the role of the Supreme Court. You don't have to like every decision, but you have to accept it. You have to respect it. You have to say, all right, I'm going to rewrite my law. I'm going to try to make, I'm going to look at this decision. I'm going to try to get the same kind of effect, but still have it inconsistent with the Constitution. Oh, by the way, if anybody thinks that abortion should be a constitutional right, we have an amendment process. You could put that in there. For everybody who thinks the

Second Amendment is no longer worthy in this era, that it's become a threat in this era, you can try to repeal the Second Amendment. You could hear my laughing because, yeah, it's not going to fly. You're not going laughing because, yeah, it's not going to fly. It's not going to you're not going to you're not going to win that argument. You're not going to get a lot of states to do that. But you go ahead and you try that. And the thing is, if you're if the policy you want violates the Constitution, you can't have it. I've had this argument with foreigners sometimes and they kind of feel like, well, yes, they

don't they're not British, but it's always something. Well, well, why? Why not? Because the constitution gets the final say. Now you have the ability to alter the constitution. It's not easy. The founders did not want us changing the constitution willy-nilly. And what a whole bunch of folks on the left became accustomed to was this process of not having to change the constitution, but to actually say, well, the constitution says we can't ban guns, but we in the District of Columbia think people shouldn't have them. So we're going to do that until the Heller decision comes along and Supreme Court says, well, actually, no. That's them trying to take

away the rights that are in there. But on the other side, it's, well, OK, so we can't get a constitutional amendment saying that you have a right to abortion, but it's already in there. It's in there. It's living. It's breathing. It's expansive. I could see it. Can't you see it? Sure. There it is. Emanating from a penumbra, as it was famously written. The moment I heard that, now look, I'm not a lawyer. I didn't go to law school. I'm not going to pretend to be the most sophisticated guy in the world. But the moment you look at Supreme Court justices saying like, look, okay, it's not in there, but it emanates like a mist from a penumbra. Penumbra is like a membrane. And so you're looking at it and you're like, are you on LSD? Are you having some sort of spirit walking vision in the process in which you're coming up with this? If it's in the constitution, it's in the

constitution. If it's not in the constitution, it's not in the constitution it's not in the constitution and i think the probably the strongest argument uh for the the pro-choice crowd so say the constitution is um is is quiet on this that there is nothing uh that that says much about states one way or the other i but i think the definition yeah life liberty suit of happiness if you have that right to life the question is okay murder a crime. When do you define personhood? When do you find human? That's the heart of this. I mean, the right to life is in there, at least the right to not be deprived of it without due process, which is not afforded to anybody who is unborn. That's that's the policy that they've pursued so far.

But let me ask you this, because this is turning into a political thing where there's a push by some on the left to make a national law ensuring a right, a federal right to abortion. We've seen many on the left say that's what they need to do at the congressional level. And then you've got Republicans like Mike Pence out there saying we need a law the other way, outlawing abortion in all 50 states. Now, I would say to you as a lawyer, I don't think they have the right to legislate this. I don't I think they're done. Congress cannot legislate this. And but I but as a political analyst, let me ask you, should they? Because to your point about how control of Congress, which is parties, it doesn't stay in the one. Like, why would the Democrats who I get it, they only have half a loaf right now. You know, they had the full loaf before. Now they have half a loaf. Why would they risk that half a loaf? Why would they put a, you know, accept

that Congress can legislate this when they know that the Republicans will take control of Congress and the White House again at the same time? And there could be the will to impose the Mike Pence rule as opposed to the Elizabeth Warren AOC rule. Well, the first thing, Megan, is that let's face it, if long-term thinking was one of their strengths, they probably wouldn't be in this mess to begin with. So seeing around the corner or the ramifications of their actions really has never been their strong suit. And so I'm sure some of them are thinking, why start now? But as your general sense of, is this a good idea? Actually, no, I think the Supreme Court in this decision knew what they were doing. And in fact, the part of it, you know, going back to Roe v. Wade in 1973, there are always parts of the country that were going to say, okay, we do not have a lot morally equivalent to murder, we're fine with this. And there are always parts of the country which, no, no, no, this is basically, the state

has legalized a form of murder. I am perfectly comfortable living in a country where different states have different rules for this. We have different rules, states have different rules on all kinds of things. And my attitude is that this is federalism. The states are supposed to be the laboratories of democracy. And oh, by the way, I think it's entirely possible that some states will enact a sweeping ban of abortion and live with it for two years, four years, six years, some period of time and decide, oh, we don't like this. This is leading to some negative outcomes. We are seeing back alley abortions or something like that, or the existence of abortion clinics on state lines have made this moot or something. I don't know what's going to happen. But I think part of the

thing is that you are allowed to live with the changes of the laws you enact, and then you see what happens. And then you're allowed to go back and adjust your laws later on. It's possible that certain states that are currently very permissive of abortion, have very little restrictions, may look at the experiences of other states that are enacting these bans, not seeing a disaster and saying, oh, wait, okay, maybe we do want to enact a ban on partial birth abortion. Maybe we do want to enact parental notification for minors or some other things like that. This is what states are supposed to be allowed to do. And oh, by the way, if you think, and the idea of, oh, we need federal legislation having one uniform abortion policy across all 50 states. Look,

if you think the country is divided now, if you think our political tensions, our social tensions, our ideological and cultural tensions are really bad now, try having a Republican Congress enact an abortion ban in California and New York, or try having a Democratic Congress and president enact a requirement of taxpayer funding of abortion throughout the South and Midwest. This is basically pouring gasoline on a fire. We've already been through one civil war in this country. Part of being in a constitutional republic made up of 50 states is you have to allow other people in other states enact the laws they want. And maybe you think they're terrible laws. Maybe you think they're absolutely terrible. But you know what? You only live in one place in this country at one time. You try to pass the laws in

your state that you think are right and see how things work out that way. Anyway, that's my sales pitch for federalism. Nobody seems to want it these days. Don't move there. I accept your sales pitch. You've won. Congratulations. Jim Garrity, it's always fun talking to you. My only lamentation about today is I did not get to talk about what happened down in Texas. We'll save that for tomorrow. It's an important story with these migrants coming across thanks to our open borders. And there are real consequences to these decisions and other subject that Jim's always great on. But we'll put a pin in that till the next time. Thank you for being here. Thank you, Megan. Tomorrow, very happy that Andrew Klavan of The Daily Wire is back with us. He was so good the

last time he was on. And Stephen Miller, the one, Red Steez from Twitter, not the guy who worked for Trump, who we also like. And you're going to love him. Very clever, very interesting. See you then. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.