Transcript:
Daniella Gibbs Léger: Hey everyone, welcome back to “The Tent,” your place for politics, policy, and progress. I’m Daniella Gibbs Léger.
Colin Seeberger: And I’m Colin Seeberger. Daniella, Halloween is coming up. Do you—
Seeberger: —and your family have your costumes picked out?
Gibbs Léger: We do not do family costumes, Colin.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah, so my child has been saying for months that he wants to be Toad, like from Nintendo.
Seeberger: Oh, I love Toad.
Gibbs Léger: Right? And so I went out and got him a very adorable Toad costume, and then he looked at it, he was like, “Oh, I don’t know that I want to do this.” And I’m like, “Excuse me?”
Seeberger: Sir, that is not how this works.
Gibbs Léger: That’s not how this works at all. I was like, “You’re going to be Toad. You’re going to love it. And then we can discuss next year’s costume.”
Seeberger: It is the costume of the season.
Gibbs Léger: Exactly. Let’s go with it.
Seeberger: Well my daughter is going to be a mermaid—specifically, as she says, a mermaid in the “wah-wah.” So we are very much looking forward to Halloween. And also, we recently moved from a condo to a home, and so this is the first time that we’re really going to be handing out the candy and whatnot. So I’m very concerned about making sure that I get a good candy stash so we’re not handing out, like, you know.
Gibbs Léger: You don’t want to be talked about.
Seeberger: Yeah, we don’t want to hand out Nerds, OK? Nobody wants that.
Gibbs Léger: Wait, hold on. What’s with the Nerds slander? Nerds are great!
Gibbs Léger: You could say, like, Charleston Chew. We can agree that that is not a great candy. You’re like, “I don’t even know what that is.”
Seeberger: What is Charleston Chew?
Gibbs Léger: I just aged myself significantly.
Seeberger: Our listeners are getting a little secret.
Seeberger: Well we’ve got a few weeks left of planned trick-or-treating and all that good stuff, but I heard you had a great conversation this week.
Gibbs Léger: I did. I spoke to Dr. Gabrielle Goodrick, who runs a family planning practice in Arizona. And we talked about her state’s abortion ban, the impact these kinds of restrictions have on health care, and what it could mean for the upcoming election.
Seeberger: A really important conversation, and as you say, right as we’re entering the homestretch toward November 5. But first, we have to get to some news.
Gibbs Léger: We do, Colin. And let’s start with something that should have been front page news in major outlets, but for some reason it wasn’t.
Gibbs Léger: Yes. Just a couple of days ago, we learned even more details about how Donald Trump organized an alleged criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 election, despite knowing that he lost. The Supreme Court, as listeners may remember, recently ruled that presidents are immune from legal accountability for, quote, “official acts conducted while in office”—a dangerous and antidemocratic precedent, I might add.
So as a result, special counsel Jack Smith submitted a new filing to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan with more evidence showing why Trump’s attempts to overturn the election results were a private effort, not an official presidential act. The filing is over 165 pages long and notes that Trump, quote, “resorted to crimes to try to stay in office,” unquote.
Seeberger: I don’t even know where to begin. But yes, if you haven’t had a chance to read the filing yet, I highly recommend your listeners do so—especially because like you mentioned, the media seems to somehow be missing this story. James Fallows from The Atlantic actually did a side-by-side of the front pages of The New York Times the day Hillary Clinton’s personal emails were found on Anthony Weiner’s computer in 2016 and the day this new filing came out. The Clinton emails took up nearly the whole front page—above the fold, might I add—while special counsel Jack Smith’s case was just one tiny little column at the bottom of the front page.
And let’s be real: This is a serious problem. Just because we know some, not all, of the details around Trump’s efforts to overturn the last election doesn’t make special counsel Smith’s filing any less newsworthy.
Seeberger: I’d argue that with the 2024 election just a few weeks away and Trump and his new running mate, JD Vance, continuing to lie about the last election’s results and suggesting they may not respect this year’s election results if they lose, Jack Smith’s new findings are more relevant to the American people than ever.
So, where are the headlines? Trump is strategically trying to overwhelm us with lies and shiny bright objects. A few weeks ago it was eating cats and dogs. Now it is spewing lies about the federal government’s response to Hurricane Helene. And it’s also that the press doesn’t cover this damning evidence from the special counsel—or the profoundly unpopular and harmful plans that he’s touting. With less than 26 days left to go, the press cannot make the same mistakes that they made in 2016.
Gibbs Léger: Exactly. And if the press isn’t paying attention to this case, I will be.
Gibbs Léger: But speaking of the press, Colin, I want to talk more about the beltway media’s meltdown over the past few days over who Vice President Harris has been interviewing with and who she has not been interviewing with.
Gibbs Léger: Exactly. Certain reporters have been breathlessly complaining that Vice President Harris hasn’t made herself as available to their outlets as they would like. But they couldn’t be more wrong. First of all, the vice president and her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz, are currently on a media sprint right now.
Just this week, Harris has done or is scheduled to do interviews with “60 Minutes,” “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” ABC’s “The View,” “Univision,” and more. Tim Walz recently did “Fox News Sunday” and is booked on the acclaimed podcast “SmartLess.”
And speaking of podcasts, Vice President Harris recently appeared on the second most popular podcast out there—the second most popular podcast out there—”Call Her Daddy.” It has more than 5 million downloads per week, is listened to primarily by women ages 18 to 24, and reaches a lot of people who don’t consider themselves political. Sounds like an important audience to me.
Gibbs Léger: Seventy percent of those who listen are women, 76 percent are under 35, 24 percent identify as Republican, and 20 percent identify as Independent. And it has a fairly even split across various regions across the country.
These are the exact type of people that the vice president should be identifying in this homestretch. And I got to be honest, the people who are reading Politico “Playbook” or turning into networks like CNN—they have probably already made up their minds about who they’re voting for.
Seeberger: Sure have, Daniella. You know, I think the folks saying Harris isn’t investing her resources in the right media hits are just completely off base. She’s meeting people where they’re at, not where the wonky nerds like us hang out. In fact, polling conducted actually earlier this year by NBC showed that about 40 percent of voters identified themselves as quote, “primarily digital news consumers.”
Another survey from Reuters found 41 percent of women and more than a third of men say they sometimes or often proactively avoid the news, hence why the vice president is working to actually get her message out to these specific voters through these nontraditional, less political outlets. It makes total sense.
That said, she’s also taking tough interviews—another thing setting her apart that the media is getting wrong. She was pressed for a number of specifics on her policies, both on “60 Minutes” this week, as well as in recent interviews with outlets like CBS, ABC, and CNN. She’s not shying away from answering the tough questions on the minds of American voters.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump is doing the exact opposite. He’ll only appear on Fox or Newsmax or other extreme, right-wing outlets like Ben Shapiro or doing chitchats with Elon Musk on X. He even turned down “60 Minutes” just last week, upending a time-honored tradition of candidate appearances on the show, after previously agreeing to sit for an interview. He can’t answer for his lies and failed record, and it seems he’s too chicken to debate Vice President Harris again.
So I’ll ask you: Who’s the one who’s shying away from the press here? Because, despite what the authors of Politico “Playbook” would have you think, it doesn’t seem to be Vice President Harris.
Gibbs Léger: That’s exactly right, Colin.
Seeberger: Well, that’s all the time we have for today. If there’s anything you’d like us to cover on the pod, hit us up on Twitter, Instagram, or Threads @TheTentPod. That’s @TheTentPod.
Gibbs Léger: And stick around for my interview with Dr. Gabrielle Goodrick in just a beat.
Gibbs Léger: Dr. Gabrielle Goodrich is the medical director and owner of Camelback Family Planning in Arizona, where she has been performing abortion and family care for 25 years. Since the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] decision, she’s shared on the importance of protecting reproductive rights in health care with outlets including NPR, The Washington Post, CBS, and more.
Dr. Goodrich, thank you so much for joining us on “The Tent.”
Dr. Gabrielle Goodrick: Thank you for having me.
Gibbs Léger: So I want to start off by talking about your personal professional experience as a provider: What changed for you when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and what have Arizona’s abortion restrictions done for your practice? And how do restrictive bans—like Arizona’s or the six-week one in Georgia that Georgia Supreme Court just reinstated—impact family planning and reproductive health care for providers like yourself?
Goodrick: Abortion bans put politicians in the exam room with patients and their physicians. It essentially hijacks health care—hijacks essential health care that keeps people that can get pregnant healthy. It reduces maternal mortality, infant mortality. These bans increase that—as we’ve seen internationally and now, unfortunately, in states that have bans—terrible increases in pregnancy complications, women not getting care in hospitals with pregnancy complications.
We’ve had abortion bans in Arizona for over 30 years—different restrictions, all kinds of regulations that make it very difficult for people to access abortion care in our state. And obviously we’ve seen that around the country. So bans in general have no place in the medical care of people. Simply that.
Gibbs Léger: So let’s talk about that. Let’s talk about the ways in which these abortion bans complicate certain types of medical care from a legal standpoint. What are the challenges that medical providers are facing in determining what kind of care they can and cannot give?
Goodrick: Again, you have politicians who have an agenda not to help women or improve the health of women and infants, but basically politicians interfering in medical care in ways that affect women—doctors can’t do their job. I mean, when you have to think about the legal ramifications of care that you’re providing to someone, it is detrimental to people’s health.
And again, these bans—as I’ve seen over 20 years in Arizona and then the Dobbs decision at a terrible time where we had complete bans and now we have a gestational ban for over two years here in Arizona—has harmed so many women. I mean, I can’t even tell you. It’s weekly or practically daily that I see patients struggling to get the care that they need.
Gibbs Léger: So your state is set to vote on a ballot measure next month to enshrine abortion rights into state law. What do you think the importance of such a measure is, and do you see support for it on the ground in Arizona? And why do you think similar ballot measures have passed so overwhelmingly in other states?
Goodrick: Ballot measures put the vote to the people, and the people of Arizona and other states firmly support abortion rights, reproductive freedom for people that can get pregnant. Over 90 percent of Arizonans are supportive of abortion provision in our state. And the referendum that we have has been needed for years.
It is the protection that puts it in our Constitution that people that can get pregnant have bodily autonomy, and it’s essential. The whims of politicians—every legislative session depending on whose agenda we’re dealing with, who’s writing the bills—I mean, it’s up and down. It’s been like a roller coaster for the last two years. Plus, before that, every six months or a year we had new regulations we had to figure out, patients had to navigate.
So having this in our constitution is essential, and I see tremendous support for it. And I have incredible optimism that this is going to pass, and this is going to help protect women, and we’re going to get what we’ve needed for the last 20 years, which is stable, no interference with the government in terms of abortion care.
Anti[-abortion] people constantly say, “Oh, this is about the safety of women, and we have to protect women from this.” Abortion is one of the safest, most common procedures done in the United States and around the world. It is, I think, 15 times safer than having a child. I mean, we don’t need politicians to tell us what to make safe. It’s been safe.
So it’s essential. And around the country, these referendums are going to pass because overwhelmingly, people—Republicans, Democrats, it’s across party lines—believe that people who can get pregnant should have bodily autonomy.
Gibbs Léger: That 90 percent number is astounding.
Gibbs Léger: Anti-abortion extremists are trying to create confusion about their stances on everything from national abortion bans to IVF [in vitro fertilization]. Despite the confusion he sows, Trump’s abortion bans have resulted in preventable deaths, like we discussed, in states like Georgia. And while he likes to call himself a, quote, “champion of IVF,” Republicans have tried to outlaw the procedure in states like Alabama, and at the national level, have blocked bills time and time again that would have protected access to it.
So why are these leaders saying one thing and then doing another? And in contrast, what does it look like to be a real champion for reproductive rights?
Goodrick: Well, Republican candidates and Donald Trump lie. They are completely anti-abortion. They are doing whatever they have to say to backtrack because they know they’re not going to win with that extreme position.
And so they’re just simply being politicians. They’re backtracking. They’re lying. We know their agenda. It’s ridiculous. And things that they say—all I can say is they’re just completely lying because they need the votes, and they don’t want to appear as extreme as they have.
And you can look at quotes from JD Vance or Trump in the past. I mean, Trump is a man who’s proud and takes responsibility and claims he’s responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade. This is not a moderate position. So whatever they’re saying is simply false and lies, and it’s to get votes. They’ll do whatever they can because they know their position is not viable anymore. They can’t play that game. People aren’t going to fall for it.
And a champion of reproductive rights is Kamala Harris. She has been to our state multiple times as vice president, before she was running for the presidency, of reproductive rights. She has come here and spoke about abortion, saying the word “abortion,” which—a lot of politicians can’t even do that.
I mean, she is our champion. I don’t think we’ve had a candidate that we’ve all felt so strongly about—even other candidates that were pro-choice. She embodies it. We believe her. We trust her. We know she’s going to protect our bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom.
Gibbs Léger: You’ve spoken up about the importance of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as well in your work, especially in making certain forms of reproductive health care like birth control and IUDs more affordable and accessible.
What would a total repeal of the ACA—as Donald Trump has long fought for—mean for you, your peers, and your patients, especially if there was no plan to replace it?
Goodrick: There are so many aspects of the Affordable Care Act that help people. If we didn’t have that, millions and millions of people would be without insurance. The key things about the Affordable Care Act is you can get insurance with preexisting conditions. It also equated premiums for men and women. Before, women had higher premiums, OK? So they made that equal. And the other thing is including preventative medicine: covered—100 percent—without going to a patients’ deductible.
So, whereas before, my patients either couldn’t get insurance or had insurance with high deductibles and couldn’t afford long-term, reversible contraceptive, now, it doesn’t go to deductible. I mean, that is crucial for patients. They’re not going to have a $1,500 bill for getting an IUD or an implant. So we can provide those services—which, more reliable birth control and contraceptive means fewer unplanned pregnancies, women having control over their fertility, having access to birth control, and other types of essential health care that they need.
So he has no plan in place of this, and that is so dangerous to even think about reversing. It has helped so many people. So yes.
Gibbs Léger: You know, we’ve talked a bit about what it’s been like for you as a provider since the fall of Roe, but I want to end on a personal note, if I may. What has it been like for you sharing your story with the media? Have you received any backlash from anti-abortion extremists? Or have you seen support from your community kind of outweigh that? How has it been?
Goodrick: You know, I have been outspoken for many years—probably over 10 years. And obviously with the Dobbs decision, much more attention on abortion bans and restrictions and the effects it has on people.
But I have been public for years, and I have not had any backlash. I’ve been very lucky. I speak my mind. I feel like someone needs to speak up for the patients that we see every day and express the fact that these bans are harmful and they harm women every day all over the country, and we can see it now much more.
Well, it’s just become where we talked, “Oh, this could happen. This happens internationally.” Now we’re looking at it and saying, “Oh, this is happening in Texas or Georgia,” and we can see the harm. And so I have to continue to speak my truth, and luckily, I think a majority of people really do trust what I say and believe what I say. And so I don’t engage the antis in any way.
Gibbs Léger: Well, Dr. Goodrick, I want to thank you for all of the work that you’re doing on the ground and on the airwaves and really shedding important light from the provider’s perspective about what these harmful bans do. And I want to thank you for coming on “The Tent.”
Goodrick: Thank you so much for having me.
Gibbs Léger: Well folks, that’s going to do it for us today. As always, please go back and check out previous episodes. Before we go, Colin, we got to talk about some football!
Gibbs Léger: It was a good college football weekend for you, wasn’t it?
Seeberger: It was the best. I mean, not just did UT [University of Texas] win, but it was an incredible Saturday of football. You had three teams in the top 10 all ended up losing, including Alabama to Vanderbilt in what was just—
Seeberger: —an epic game. I’m not sure if you caught the post-game celebration—
Gibbs Léger: No, I didn’t.
Seeberger: —from Vanderbilt, but it was wild.
You also had Michigan go down. Tennessee lost. So it’s really scrambling the playing field for the last half of the season here. And Texas, I’m locking in. We’ve got to take on the OU [University of Oklahoma] and the Sooners this weekend, and then we’re playing Georgia next week, so it’s going to be a very intense couple of weeks of football.
Gibbs Léger: Yes, indeed. Well it was also a good weekend for our professional teams. Well, maybe better for my team than your team.
Seeberger: I mean, we’ll take a win, to be sure.
Seeberger: But it was—I’m just—this season. Folks, the Cowboys—they’re kind of doing the worst of all worlds, where it’s like they’re pulling out a W, but it’s terrible football.
Seeberger: They’re just barely getting by the skin of their teeth. And so we’re not going to get like a top draft pick.
Seeberger: We’re not going to get a new coach halfway through the season. We’re just going to get by, get through—
Gibbs Léger: You’re going to muddle along.
Seeberger: —muddle along, and get into next year when Mike McCarthy will no longer be our coach. And, that’s what happens.
Gibbs Léger: But Jerry Jones will still be your owner.
Seeberger: OK, not to talk about the real problem.
Gibbs Léger: OK, I’m just saying. Look, I totally feel you because Daniel Jones has actually been putting up some good statistical numbers, but he’s not it. I’m sorry, he’s not. And I don’t think the Giants are going to ever be better than just an OK team.
Gibbs Léger: But they played really well without their No. 1 offensive star weapon.
Gibbs Léger: Exactly, and our defense is gelling. So, I don’t know. It’s going to be a disappointing season again because we’re just—we’re not great. We’re just somewhere in the middle. And it pains me so much that the Washington team appears to be so decent.
Seeberger: God, they’re good.
Gibbs Léger: No, I said decent.
Seeberger: Daniella, give props.
Gibbs Léger: We almost beat them. So no, they’re decent, OK? But I want to talk about the Jets for a minute—
Gibbs Léger: —who fired their coach, Robert Saleh. And—is this the second year or third year?
Gibbs Léger: OK. So they’re two and three.
Gibbs Léger: So are we. Not a terrible record.
Gibbs Léger: Now, yes, they have Aaron Rodgers, who just came off of missing an entire season and who’s like 40.
Gibbs Léger: I’m not sure what they expected. I’m really shocked that they fired him. Like, I’m really, really surprised.
Seeberger: It seemed like it was very quick and came out of nowhere—
Seeberger: —especially so early into the season.
Seeberger: I mean, a lot of teams get off on the wrong foot and takes a few weeks to really kind of reposition some things, right?
Seeberger: And figure out your playbook.
Seeberger: So yeah, not totally unheard of for a team to have a relatively rough start, but like two and three?
Gibbs Léger: Right. That’s not the worst, by far. So something else is going on there.
Gibbs Léger: I don’t know what’s up with the owner and his feelings about the coach, but I don’t know. I have not seen anything online other than people are like, “What?”
Gibbs Léger: Doesn’t make any sense. Anyway, as the football world turns.
Seeberger: Well, to talk about a tristate area team, also need to give some props to the New York Mets who not only clinched a postseason berth last Monday, went on to win the first round, and are now up 2-1 against the Philadelphia Phillies.
By the time our listeners hear the pod, they will have either beat the Phillies in game four or be headed toward game five. But, I mean, the Mets literally came out of nowhere.
Seeberger: When July started, they were not supposed to be anywhere close to the postseason. And now, they may be headed toward the league championship—is huge.
Gibbs Léger: Knocking on the door. It is very huge. In case our listeners don’t know, I did grow up a Mets fan. They still hold a very soft spot in my heart. I do love the Nationals. I mean, I lived here, I went to the first Nationals game. I can’t help it.
Seeberger: I’m learning lots of Daniella facts today.
Gibbs Léger: I know. My brother has basically disowned me when it comes to baseball.
Gibbs Léger: He still calls me a traitor. And I get it because they’re in the same division, so like, how could you? And for a while, I was rooting for both. And now I root for the Nats when they play the Mets—shh, don’t tell my brother. But I’m very, very happy about this development. So, that’s all good to me.
Seeberger: We will take the W’s when we can get them.
Gibbs Léger: Exactly. All right folks, take care of yourselves, and just want to give a special mention to those folks who are both recovering from Hurricane Helene and who are now literally battening down the hatches for Hurricane Milton. I hope that everybody is someplace safe. And, really, everyone in that region are in our thoughts and prayers, and just hope for a storm that—hopefully it weakens more than people think.
Gibbs Léger: Yeah. All right, folks. Take care. We’ll talk to you next week.
“The Tent” is a podcast from the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It’s hosted by me, Daniella Gibbs Léger, and co-hosted by Colin Seeberger. Erin Phillips is our lead producer. Kelly McCoy is our supervising producer. Mishka Espey is our booking producer. Muggs Leone is our digital producer. Hai Phan, Matthew Gossage, Olivia Mowry, and Toni Pandolfo are our video team.
Views expressed by guests of “The Tent” are their own, and interviews are not endorsements of a guest’s perspectives. You can find us on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcasts.