tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC June 27, 2013 1:00am-2:01am PDT
>> don't give them too much credit. four of them were as unwilling to help gay and lesbians. >> yes. for one reason i'm grateful for it, it was consistent. justice kennedy voted with us on the colorado case, in the -- >> affirmative action, other things have -- >> former congressman barney frank. joy reid and kenji yoshino. the rachel maddow show starts right now. it's a good day to have a television show. >> you talking to barney frank and asking about the arc of bill clinton. >> i had totally forgotten that. it's amazing. >> thank you, chris, great show tonight. thanks to you at home for staying with us for the next hour. this law he said, tells same sex couples in all the world that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. this places same sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second tier marriage. this demeans the couple whose
moral and sexual choices the constitution protects and it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same sex couples. this law interferes with the equal dignity of same sex marriages. by treating those persons as if they are living in marriages less respected than others, this federal statute, this law is in violation of the fifth amendment. when the rulings come out like this in stacks of paper this deep, in small print and there's a bunch of dissents and the rulings are long and they all come out all at once, it can take a little time to comb through and find the best stuff. to find the bottom line of the rulings, the thumbs up or thumbs down, but also to find the best quotes. the process of figuring out what the supreme court has just done starts with this, starts with sprinting. the physical printed copies of the ruling are made available inside the court. and sometimes reporters themselves, but often interns for news agencies make sure
they're wearing their fast shoes and grab the physical printed out copy of the ruling and sprinted out to folks like pete williams. who knows what part of the ruling to flip to right away, to get to the bottom line, who wrote the argument, and who dissented and start looking for the best quotes. this may be a digital world, but the first word we all get about what just happened in the supreme court happens thanks to interns sprinting with paper, that is hot off the nonmetaphorical presses. this was the buzz feed showing the route at which the interns have to sprint from the supreme court. for today's ruling, though, the sprinting was not just in washington, d.c.. today the same ruling was also printed out as soon as it was posted online, handed to an intern here -- no, wrong clip,
here in an office near the corner of vz and broadway. and then gabe sprinted out on to the street and ran these five blocks up broadway in lower manhattan and ran up the steps of the building into federal immigration court and handed over the ruling while it was still hot from the printer he had taken it off five blocks south. and in so doing, by being that fast and making it there in time with the ruling in hand, gabe the intern handed over that ruling and in so doing he stopped the man you see on the right side of your screen here from being deported. his name is steven, he's legally married to the man you see on the left side of your screen, his husband sean. when steven ran into a visa snafu of some kind the fact that he was married to a u.s. citizen should have been enough for him not to be deported. but until gabe the intern sprinted into that courtroom today in lower manhattan with news of what had just happened at the supreme court in
washington, that immigration judge in new york was not allowed to consider steven to be a married man. his marriage was invisible to the court. and so steven was going to be deported until gabe the intern arrived with this in hand and steven's marriage with the delivery of this ruling became legally visible and his deportation was stopped. the doma project was helping steven and sean fight their case. that's the place where gabe interns, sean and steven's case is not at all over, it's not won and settled, the proceedings to deport steven stopped today at 10:30 a.m. want to see gabe the intern who's the hero here? god bless him. there's gabe. and god bless the sneakers that he wore to work today. there are not that many cases in a lifetime where a court ruling instantly changes the circumstances of thousands of people's lives. that very day, that very morning it happened, within 30 minutes.
that happened today. there are about 25,000 couples in analogous circumstances to steven and sean. those couples prospects and circumstances in terms of immigration changed dramatically today. their lives changed radically today. for american couples where one spouse is a member of the military. basic questions whether you can live on base, whether you can have health insurance. those prospects and circumstances changed dramatically today. in any case where the things you get because you're married redowned to you by the federal government, those material facts of life just changed. and some of it is going to be instant like stopping steven from getting deported today, because gabe the intern was fast enough. some of it is going to take a while to figure out. some discussion today that the social security administration may have a byzantine path of how to treat all americans now.
the federal law signed by bill clinton that bans the federal government from recognizing the marriages of same sex couples, that law is dead, it is unconstitutional, and now the federal government in its many iterations will recognize those marriages just like everybody els, it is as clear as day. it's right there on page 26. by treating those persons as if they are living in marriages less respected than others, this federal statute, this law is in violation of the fifth amendment. here's the rub, look at the very next line of the ruling. this opinion and its holdings are confined to those lawful marriages. those lawful marriages that already exist. so that means that every same sex couple who is married or who will be married in the dozen states that allow that now, they just had their lives changes dramatically, you now will have
all the rights straight couples get federally. that means social security and the military and all that. that said, if you live in a state that does not allow same sex marriage, even after these rulings today, you still cannot get married. this ruling does nothing for you. yet. today during msnbc's coverage of these rulings, chad griffin from the human rights campaign was asked, what he plans to do next, now that these cases have been won in washington. the doma case and the california prop 8 case. mr. griffin said he was going to go to california to celebrate in california, but then tomorrow he was going somewhere else to get back to work. >> it also says to that young person in hope, arkansas or altoona, pennsylvania, that marriage equality is coming to them very soon. this entire team is on our way to california to celebrate tonight and tomorrow morning i wake up and go to salt lake city
utah to a red state. >> to salt lake city? to utah. utah, where same sex marriage is most assuredly not legal. the reason you go there next, though, is because here's what's going to happen. some happy couple looks like sean and steven, maybe. some happy couple who's married in new york or married in iowa is going to get transferred to utah for work, and that couple with their kids, pay their taxes, own property together, whose lives are totally interwoven thanks to all the normal boring stuff that interweaves our lives. what happens when they get there, utah unmarries them? not here, it doesn't apply? you're married nationally, but you're not married in the state? how does that work? that does not work. and then this hypothetical couple arriving in utah and realizing this ridiculous situation, they will sue, they'll say, hey, we're not
looking for a fight here, this does not make sense. we cannot be legally married and not legally married at the same time. it can't be the federal government and the state we came from say we're legally married but now that we're here it doesn't count, it doesn't work. so they will sue. and you know what, they will win because of what happened today. it was ten years ago today the same justice who write today's opinion striking down doma wrote the decision in a case that declared sodomy laws to be unconstitutional. they wrote a dissent in the lawrence case that day, that has become legendary over time from the sheer level of rage. he ripped through bigamy,
incest, fornication, aside from the sheer pleasure of seeing him exclamation point himself through that very angry dissent, that very angry dissent ten years ago, did get one thing really really right. right there on page 15 of the angriest dissent of all time, he nailed it. he was furious about this, he said the texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are immoral and unacceptable. the bauers decision held that this was a legitimate state interest the court today reaches the opposite conclusion, the texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest. if moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is no legitimate state interest, what justification could there possibly be for denying the
benefits of marriage to homosexual couples? right. i think i feel differently about that than you do. but right. justice scalia raised this point in horror ten years ago, ten years ago today. on the last big gay rights case that had its majority opinion written by justice kennedy. he was saying, you realize this ruling means gay people are going to be able to get married, right? you realize that? yes, justice scalia, we realize that, and indeed justice kennedy today cited that ten-year-old ruling twice, when he wrote today that the federal government has to recognize all marriages that are recognized in the states, even if some of them have the gay. on this specific issue of utah, what happens now in states that do not recognize all marriages? everybody's been saying all day today that the court is essentially silent on utah. the court doesn't say anything about states where same sex marriage isn't legal. it's not really true. just like he did ten years ago, justice scalia is pounding his chest and raging into the night
angrily that his battle against gay rights is over, it's over, because of this latest ruling. when that hypothetical couple that moves to utah sues to try to even make utah recognize that their marriage -- that is recognized by the federal government should be recognized by utah too. when that happens, justice scalia says today's ruling is going to give them everything they need to win that case and make utah recognize same sex marriages as well. he said in his dissent today, the view that this court will take about state prohibition of same sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking in today's opinion. he quotes all the reasoning why the federal government has to recognize same sex marriages and then he says this, how easy it is, how inevitable to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same sex couples marital status. it is only a pretense that today's prohibition of laws excluding same sex marriage is confined to the federal
government. the other shoe will drop later, maybe next term. do you think he's right? he was right ten years ago today. he was right the last time. if today's rulings mean not just that marriage equality will be true again in california, and that 100 million americans will live in states that afford not just skim milk second class marriages but full class marriages even if you're gay, if it doesn't mean just that, but it also means beyond even those things, by the way, this also paves the way for all 50 states to recognize marriages equally, much to anton and scalia's horror? today is a bigger day than it seemed at first. chris perry and sandy styer were two of the named plaintiffs in the california case that was decided today alongside doma. watch how they put it.
>> we believed from the very beginning that the importance of this case was to send a message to the children of this country, that you are just as good as everybody else, no matter who you love, no matter who your parents love, and today we can go back to california and say to our own children, all four of our boys, your family is just as good as everybody else's family. we love you as much as anybody else's parents love their kids and we're going to be equal. >> we thank the justices for letting us get married in california, that's not enough, it's got to go nationwide and we can't wait for that day. it's not just about us, it's about kids in the south, it's about kids in texas, and it's about kids everywhere, and we really really want to take this fight all the way and get equality for everyone. >> everyone in this entire country. it's about kids in the south, kids in texas. not just theoretically in the future, that's what this ruling today is about as well.
with this decision, the courts have allowed the desires of the adults to trump the needs of children. every child deserves a mommy and a daddy, and with this decision they undercut the needs of our children. [ cheers and applause ] >> republican congressmen trying to make it seem like bad news drowned out by the screams of approval and claps for the plaintiffs in the case coming down the front steps of the supreme court. joining us now are chris perry and sandy speer who challenged and helped defeat prop 8 in the
supreme court today for their own sake and the sake of their four kids, they already made it back to the west coast with the celebration of what they accomplished. congratulations, and thanks for being with us. >> thank you, rachel. >> i'm kind of amazed you can hear me. can you tell me what's going on there in west hollywood? >> there's a lot of celebrating here in west hollywood, from what we understand, it's happening all over california. we just got back from washington, d.c., and the supreme court, and to tell you the truth, we've just seen something here that has made us feel happier and prouder than we ever could. >> my inappropriate question to you was going to be if you are totally fried about this experience or if you are capable of being happy about what happened today? >> we're very happy. we have the marriage equality in california and the federal
recognition for every american for same sex marriage. we feel victorious this evening, it's a tremendous day for us, our families, it's a tremendous day for our country and certainly for california. >> sandy, am i right you are originally from iowa? >> i am. >> iowa started to recognize same sex marriage four years ago. you have the fight in iowa, you have the fight in california, two very different states, does that give you any feeling or insight as to what the rest of the fight is going to be? >> i have to say being a native iowa an. i can't help but notice when i go back to iowa, things seem fine, iowa's going along just fine i think iowa is a great example of how people who are conservative in nature and
pragmatic can see that the most important thing about marriage equality is the key word, equality. iowa ans believe in equality, and californians have equality too. i hope this important thing can be rolled out to the rest of the country as soon as possible. >> chris, i know you two first got married in 2004, when san francisco started giving licenses to same sex couples. how did it change your life and your life with your boys for you two to be married, and does that change again now with the doma case meaning you will have federal rights as well. >> it changed everything, rachel. someone who came out when they were 18 years old and have been out for 30 years, i never let myself want to be married. i never understood how powerful that would be to me personally or sandy and i. after having been married in 2004, i feel like it does
something for us that no other institution can do. it delivers more benefits, more security, more perm nance and more protection than any other institution in the united states. and it's why we fought so hard, not for ourselves as much as for our own children and everybody else's children who may themselves be gay or have gay parents or just know someone that is, and they can treat other people with dignity and respect because frankly when the country comes together around something that we agree on, we do great things and i really feel like what happened today, the supreme court helped california come together again after having been divided for a long time. >> sandy and kris plaintiffs who helped defeat prop 8 today and made a big personal sacrifice deciding to fight this rather than just hope for it. thank you for your activism and congratulations, save it, enjoy it. >> thank you. >> thank you.
>> with this moment on msnbc today where the president called the two women who we just spoke with, called sandy and kris and the other plaintiffs from prop 8, they called them on someone's iphone outside the supreme court, they took president obama's call live on tv. it was amazing. but did you hear what happened when president obama called the other plaintiff in the other case today? she is 84 years old, did you hear what she said to him when he called her? hold on, that's coming.
we were apparently at the apartment of roberta caplin who had been edye windsor's lawyer. they were waiting to hear what the ruling in the case was going to be, the case of an 84-year-old woman suing the government because they socked her with a huge tax when thea died as if thea and edye had been strangers to each other instead of a couple.
then they heard they won the case. president obama called to say congratulations and edye got on the phone and said, hello, who am i talking to? oh, barack obama i want to thank you, i think your coming out for us made such a difference throughout the country. later they went down to the lgbt community center and took questions. >> we're here, if thea were here, what would she be thinking right now? >> you did it, honey. >> are you sure you'd win when you were waiting for the rule something. >> now, when we were waiting for the ruling, no, no. i prepared three speeches. i didn't allow myself to assume we'd win, okay? that's an intriguing -- i thought we had every right to win i thought our arguments were sound and everyone else's were insane.
i lucked out when robbie walked into my life. robbie kaplan says as martin luther king before her there is no wrong time to seek justice, and we won all the way. thank you from the bottom of my heart, robbie kaplan and your partners for making this all possible. >> with us now is robbie kaplan. thank you for being with us. >> it's a pleasure. i'm going to ask you the same question i asked sandy and kris a moment ago, are you too fried to have human emotions at this point in the. >> i'm not yet too fried. i'm about as psyched as i could possibly be right now. >> let me ask you about the point edye made today. you took this case at a time when strategically a lot of
other people thought she was not the right case, this was not the right vehicle. why did you know to take it? >> i think there's so much about this case that tells a story about what was so long and i'm so glad to say this, what was so wrong with section three of doma. the idea that someone would have to pay a huge tax simply because they were gay, which is what the estate tax was here, every american understands what it's like to pay a tax. this was a tax on being gay. edye's age, the 44 years of their relationship together. the fact that she nursed thea through ms, by the time they got married, thea could only lift a finger because of the paralysis of the disease. any one of us would be so lucky to have a spouse like edye windsor and all of us understand that. >> strategically, thinking about what the court might have done today, there was a discussion that they could rule against gay rights, if they were going to have a positive pro gay rights ruling, they might do it on equal protection grounds saying
you shouldn't discriminate against gay people because they're gay, or it may happen on a states rights grounds. there was reference to states rights, to federalism. that was referenced in the ruling, it seems like it wasn't the main thrust of the ruling, is that right? >> i agree. this committee did what we have to do, and one of the things that we said that was so pernicious about doma, and showed what was really at stake, it was a statute about denigrating gay people, it was the first time ever, in our country's history, where the federal government failed to respect the marriage laws of the state. and that that fact showed what was really going on here, it wasn't about anything other than treating gay couples differently because they were gay. thank god the court understood that. >> justice scalia responded to
that point by saying, well, if you can't say that -- you can't have laws just because you don't like gay people, then we're really in trouble, and this means the states are not going to be allowed to decide that marriage equality doesn't apply in their state. this means that it's going to be struck down in utah and alabama. he was horrified by this prospect. i'm less horrified by the prospect, but i think he might be right, do you agree with him? >> i'm less horrified by that prospect. and he was right about lawrence, in the lawrence case you pointed out earlier, in predicting what happened today. >> do you think he is? >> i mean, if -- hypothetical case, you have a couple married in new york, moves to utah, has federal recognition and no longer state recognition. they sue. the ground that was laid today in this ruling seems to me to lay a fertile ground for their case striking down a ban on same sex marriage. >> i agree. just as kenny talked about the dignity of gay people, the dignity of their marriages and the constitutional right of gay people just like any other americans to have their marriages respected under the law. i agree with you that the same logic and same principles should apply. >> in terms of what happens
next, those fights are not going to happen both in litigation and political fights. in every state of the country where there is a gay marriage ban, there's a teenie tiny grassroots program trying to overturn it. do you feel like the political momentum and the legal momentum intersect, that we end up in a different place because of legal cases like we won today? >> absolutely. i think even if you look at our case, it was air combination of both the law and the courts winning the case, but remember when we filed our case, new york had not yet passed its statute to allow same sex couples get married. that law was passed while we filed our case. nine states permitted gay couples to marry, today 12 states plus california plus the district of columbia. >> what are you going to do next? >> edye is the grand marshall of
the gay pride parade here in new york, and it's going to be one big celebration. >> not a supreme court litigator before this time, edye's personal lawyer who took this all the way. thank you for being here. >> thank you, it was a pleasure. to capture people's attention and imagination in the middle of this news cycle with the back to back whoppers of the supreme court to be the news with all this other stuff going on, you have to stand for 13 hours straight and not take a break. that incredible story is next. [ female announcer ] now you can apply sunblock
the new texas abortion ban, it was a struggle to report on it well on the national level. the video we have was a raw feed provided by the legislature itself and it was a terrible feed. even on sunday when the sponsor started going off about rape being no problem because a rape kit can clean her out. even with that amazingness on tape still the tape itself is terrible. it's hard to make a state story into a national story unless you have a good visual way to tell it. with this texas case that was not the case until -- we were covering the story for days with difficulty until the texas tribune set up a crystal clear live stream of the proceedings. by now, most people who would be concerned if 80% of the texas abortion clinics were closed, most of them are aware of the
action, the news and the drama that the texas tribune helped to show the world with that camera and their reporting. wendy davis announced she was going to filibuster the abortion ban about that meant she would have to talk about the abortion bill without stopping, without sitting, without a bathroom break, eating or drinking, without violating any of the arcane rules of the texas state senate and she set out to do it for 13 hours. she did it for hours and hours and hours. wendy davis alone, sort of. there were thousands of supporters streaming into the capitol all day long. there were wrong lines to get in -- long lines to see her. starting at 11:00 a.m., things went smoothly about halfway
through her planned filibuster, she was challenged by one of her republican colleagues, he accused her of going off topic. the lieutenant governor presiding over the chamber at that time agreed with the republican senator and wendy davis had strike one against her. an hour later they did it again. when a fellow democrat asked for some of her testimony to be repeated. a fellow senator helped her put on a back brace. republicans objected to that. that was strike two, she can only have three of these things go against her before it kills her filibuster. she already had two strikes of the three she's allotted with five more hours still to go. it's basically zero margin for error under a micro scope of a room full of adversaries. even the president of the united
states was watching according to twitter. and then there was strike three. >> your point of order is well taken and is sustained. the chair -- >> republican senator jumped out of her seat to accuse wendy davis of going off topic when she talked about the financial effects of a previous anti-abortion bill in texas. cue the freakout, in the gallery and rotunda. the spectators shouting shame on you, shame on you, let her speak. they know this is strike three, this could stop the whole thing. people started yelling wendy, wendy. all heard loud and clear in the senate chamber. but it was three strikes. three strikes against her and wendy davis and the democrats seemed like they were out on a technicality, two hours short of the time they needed to run out in order to kill the bill. except how do you defeat a
technicality? democrats started lining up and asking parliamentary questions of the presiding officer. one democrat who had been absent from the senate, while she was planning her father's funeral, she asked, what happened while i was gone. >> parliamentary inquiry, since i was not able to be here on the floor, since i was at my father's funeral, i ask that you please let me know, what were the three motions or what were the three points of order so that i may understand. i was not here, and i do not know and i was not looking online because i was at my father's funeral. would the chair please advise me. >> i was dealing with the fact that my father was just killed in a car crash, could you please fill me in as to what happened. meanwhile, the throngs of democratic supporters remained. the democrats stalled with questions about procedure, until
11:45 p.m. local time, at that point they are 15 minutes away from the finish line, with everything on the line, and tension running very high, and the same democratic senator leticia, who had been absent for her father's funeral, she rose to make the final parliamentary inquiry, and with time winding down, this proved to be the game changer, watch. >> mr. president, parliamentary inquiry. >> state your inquiry. >> at what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over the male colleagues in the room? [ cheers and applause ] >> the cheers started, they did not stop. from that moment forward, it was sort of pandemonium. the gallery in a steady roar that did not stop. making just auditory chaos. and the republicans tried and failed to restore order for the
next 14 minutes as the clock wound down toward the midnight deadline. in minutes the session was going to be over and the anti-abortion bill would be blocked. it was not over yet. presiding republicans amid energy tried to call a final vote on the passage of the bill anyway. >> the secretary will call the roll. >> campbell, corona, davis. [ cheers ] >> duncan. ellis. [ cheers ] >> members, we are in the middle of a vote. the secretary has polled the vote. >> sailor, ureske,.
>> if we can have order in the chamber so that the members can properly cast the vote. >> i'm trying to do it. >> the cheering continued all the way to midnight. and therefore into the new day a and past the deadline. the cheering crowd and the democrats had run out the clock, simply by bamboozling the republicans. now, republicans who had held wendy davis to the pixels of the law, down to the point where they wouldn't allow anybody to help her fasten her back brace, after the midnight end of the legislative session, would they do that? [ cheers ]
>> rodriguez, rodriguez -- >> mr. president, what time does the session end? midnight, can't take the vote after midnight. there is no session. >> the clock has struck midnight. thanks to the cheers and jeers of the people at the capitol and the republicans not knowing how to respond, the yelling in the room and the chaos with the republicans not being able to get it together it did prevent the republicans from killing the filibuster effort. the democrats won, except for the electronic vote after midnight that happened in the earliest morning moments of june 26th, the electronic record suddenly flipped to show the
vote happened on the 25th. it was reported so wendy davis, and her supporters had won, the democrats had lost. that was not true, not only had wendy davis won but everybody had seen it either in person or somewhere on an electronic device elsewhere in america. thank you, texas tribune. and so the record was corrected and at 3:00 in the morning, the lieutenant governor of the state of texas who had resisted wendy davis closed this chapter of political history. >> members, regrettably, the constitutional time for the first called session of the 83rd legislature has expired. senate bill five cannot be signed in the presence of the senate at this time. and therefore cannot be enrolled. it has been fun but see you soon.
>> 16 hours after it began, the democrats' filibuster worked. and the loud support of the people, the hundreds of texans in that gallery worked. republicans set out to use the special rules of the special senate section to try and pass this abortion ban. and democrats responded, too, and the democrats won. and wendy davis is a household name now. and then a few hours ago, governor rick perry announced he would just call another session, another 30-day special session so the republicans can try to pass this abortion bill, starting monday all over again. but this time, the looming power of texas' democratic progressive future is suddenly way less theoretical than it used to be.
>> hold your applause. first, i love you guys. okay? >> we love you too, wendy. [ applause ] >> so the lieutenant governor has agreed that sb 5 is dead. [ cheers ] >> the official vote, which was recorded at 12:03. this has got to continue, because we have started something here that they can't stop. we have more fights ahead. >> that was cecile richards, head of planned parenthood, standing at the rotunda announcing to the crowd earlier that they had won their fight.
i should tell you cecile richards is the daughter of legendary governor ann richards. to the assembled mass of people, look at that, who gathered at the state capitol to make that filibuster stick. joining us now is a very tired cecile richards. have you slept at all? >> no, but that is okay. i am running on adrenalin. >> is that what it felt like? >> absolutely. there were folks obviously there on the senate floor, but thousands of people outside in the rotunda filling the capitol. and it was amazing, absolutely amazing, i have never seen anything like it in my history of organizing or as a texan. >> are you more excited, more surprised to see it happening in texas or in other states? or is texas due for this? >> i think it was due, i think finally the pot boiled over,
after all the attacks on women, shutting down planned parenthood, ending women's access to birth control and other services. you know, rick perry vetoing the equal pay act, i think it was finally the last straw for folks. and we literally saw people come out in droves, men, women, of all ages from all parts of the state. and then of course, the added thing which you covered earlier is more than 175,000 people were watching a live stream at midnight. >> all over the country. >> it was amazing. >> you know, the vote is not close on these things, when the votes finally do happen both in the senate and assembly, the republican side of these things win handily, because the partisan balance there in the legislature is very republican. but seeing that happen, and thousands of people and seeing all the national support for this, texas democrats taking a
stand it is hard to see how the pressure doesn't ultimately have to reach down to eventually democratic gains in the state, is there a reason this doesn't happen? >> one is, of course, redistricting has been so gerrymandered, they won't get a fair shot, and wendy davis has been their number one target and obviously for a good reason. she is an extraordinary senator. so i think that that is one piece of it. but the other is, texas is trending a different way. i mean, you look at young people, latinos, women, they do not support the agenda of rick perry and his legislature. and i think when we saw this kind of activity and the enthusiasm of folks and their activism, all this did was put accelerant on it. >> seeing the big organizing effort there in the democratic party, the organizing, specifically on the abortion bill, obviously it would have a huge effect.
governor perry has called for a second session, do you think it will be possible to stop it in a second session? >> look, this bill is so extreme they couldn't pass it in the regular session, right? so then he had to call a second session, they gerry-rigged it, still could not get it passed on the floor. now he is calling for another session just for the political position of passing the bill that is not supported by the people of texas. i don't know what will happen ultimately, but i can tell you every person will be back with ten more people. >> it will be the same strategy. >> absolutely. >> cecile richards, planned parenthood, just jetting in from texas after a very long night. just a remarkable scene there. this is a huge organizing coup for you. thank you. >> thank you for covering it. i appreciate it. >> all right, cecile richards, head of planned parenthood. i got to tell you, days like
this in the news are energizing, but i'm not sure how many i can take in a row. so here is hope for a real boring day tomorrow. hoping for a boring day tomorrow. "first look" is up next. good thursday morning. right now on "first look" -- tears and jeers, proponents of same-sex marriage celebrate the supreme court's rulings with only 30% of states recognizing same-sex marriage the battle has just begun. life and death. texas executes its 500th prisoner. a huge day and a major witness at the george zimmerman murder trial. plus, how the fallout from paula deen's is affecting