#125 - Greta Kemp Martin - The County Line

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Greta Kemp-Lartin here with us today on the county
line.
Greta, thank you so much, as Imentioned before coming on air,
for taking the time out here.
I'm glad you're out of your dayto spend this with us and
explain what it is you're tryingto do here with the run for the
Attorney General's office.
So let's just jump right intoit.
What are you currently doing,or what have you been doing

(00:43):
prior to running for office ofthe Attorney General?

Speaker 2 (00:48):
So I've been an attorney in Mississippi for
almost gosh I think I'm 14 yearsnow.
I started in private practice.
I worked with former SupremeCourt Justice Chuck McCrae in
private practice.
We handled a lot of civilrights cases, medical
malpractice, just almost, youknow, whatever would come
through the door type workrepresenting people across the

(01:10):
state.
And then for the last six yearsI have been the litigation
director for a group calledDisability Rights Mississippi
and what that is is theprotection and advocacy agency
for the state.
There's one in every state andterritory in the country and we
provide free advocacy and legalservices to Mississippians with

(01:32):
disabilities who are, you know,running into issues because of
their disability.
So it can be employmentdiscrimination, it can be
service animal violations, itcan be housing issues.
We handle advocacy and legalwork for them for free.

Speaker 1 (01:48):
Did you see yourself going into that space when you
were training and studying as anattorney?

Speaker 2 (01:58):
Well, I knew I wanted to represent people.
You know there's lots of waysyou can go about practicing law
after you get your bar licenseand all of them are noble
endeavors.
But I knew that I wanted torepresent people in courtrooms
and I wanted to be their voiceand I wanted to advocate for
them when they needed someone tospeak for them.
And I knew I wanted to be alitigator.

(02:20):
I knew I wanted to be in courtin front of judges and juries,
so it's been kind of the plan.
But I have really enjoyedfinding myself in the disability
rights space.
I don't know that I had plannedfor that, but that role popped
up and I was enjoying privatepractice.
But I really was happy to getinto a role that you know when

(02:45):
you're in private practice youdo have to look at things, like
you know bottom lines and youhave to look at what your return
on investment for cases are.
But in my disability rightsrole I'm really just able to
focus on the individual and onthe person because, like I said,
we work on a pro bono basis.
Any monies recovered godirectly to the client and it's

(03:06):
just been very rewarding to workin that nonprofit advocacy
space and I don't know that Iplanned for it, but I really
enjoy it.

Speaker 1 (03:14):
Well, it's definitely a anything.
In my view, serving thedisabled in our society is
obviously very necessary, butnoble at the same time, because
it's not for the faint of heart.
Regardless, you know, if we'retalking about a special
education teacher, someonethat's serving in the role that
you are, it's very noble for andcommendable for, people that do

(03:38):
choose and opt to serve thedisabled in our state.
So we really do appreciate that.
Moving into this, the hotseason of this race, I mean
we're getting, we're gettingdown to the nitty gritty.
It's almost election day.
We're less than a month out.
How are you and your teamfeeling right now as you make

(03:58):
your make your way across andthrough the state?
What is the pulse of the stateright now in regards to support
for your campaign?

Speaker 2 (04:07):
You know we're feeling good, we're feeling very
encouraged.
You know I have not in my time.
You know I'm a lifelongMississippian.
I've I've been a voter here for, for you know, 20 years.
This is the first time I haveever seen so many people so
engaged so early and reallypaying attention to these races.

(04:29):
Now obviously we have agubernatorial race and that has
been kind of the ground, thecrown jewel of this election
season so far.
People have paid, paidattention, but but what that
race has done has reallymotivated people to look into
the down ballot races and toreally get engaged.
We have, we've been across thestate.
We've almost made it to all 82counties.

(04:51):
We got a few more to go beforeelection day and we're just
getting a really strong messageof positivity and the belief
that we can make some changes onNovember 7th and I believe it's
possible.
I believe from the top down.
I think we're going to see whenwe wake up on November 8th.
We're going to see a leadershipthat is new and ready to get in

(05:12):
there and work forMississippians.

Speaker 1 (05:15):
So it sounds like you have seen great support, not
only for your campaign but thedemocratic up and down, the
democratic ticket.
What do you attribute that to?

Speaker 2 (05:29):
You know I'll be honest, I think Mississippians
are just sick and tired of beingsick and tired.
And look, I think this goesbeyond Republican and Democrat.
You know, obviously I'm theDemocratic candidate, but what
I'm seeing and it gives me alittle hope because I think this

(05:50):
is how we all should do it I'mseeing people who are looking to
vote for the person and notnecessarily the party.
I think they are seeing thatvoting along party lines is not
working in Mississippi.
It's just not.
We could list all the data andall the lists that we're at the
bottom of and all the reasonsthat Mississippians have been
failed, and I think it can beattributed to people voting

(06:13):
along party lines.
And so my hope is, and what I'mhearing along the trail, is that
folks are really trying to lookat the candidate and I really.
I think that's encouragingbecause you know I'm a Democrat,
but that doesn't solely defineme and I didn't jump into this
race for Democrats.
I jumped into this race forMississippians and I think what

(06:36):
I have been really shocked tofind is is, even in the most
conservative of areas, I'mfinding topics and concerns and
issues where me and people thatI might not otherwise agree with
we're finding common groundbecause we're really tired of
seeing Mississippi be 50th andeverything.

(06:56):
We want to see Mississippiimprove, and I think that's just
something we can all get onboard with, no matter the party.

Speaker 1 (07:04):
Yes, yes, one would hope so, and I've talked to
Shawasky Young, who has resignedfrom the campaign, as I
understand, but I would.
I posed similar questions tohim in regards to the Democratic
Party and how being associatedwith the Democratic Party in
Mississippi is a very is a tallhurdle to cross for to gain a

(07:30):
lot of voters over from whetherit be the Republican side or
more conservative side.
How have you tried to gain theattention of those potential
crossover voters that you'reultimately going to need to win?

Speaker 2 (07:45):
Yeah, I think again, I think it's really getting in
there and talking about thoseissues that cross party lines.
I mean you don't have to be aDemocrat, you don't have to be a
Republican to worry about thefact that we've got unchecked
corruption happening in thisstate.
Democrats are just as concernedabout that as Republicans.
In my opinion, from what I'mseeing on the trail, you also

(08:08):
get to cross party lines whenyou're talking about things like
supporting law enforcement.
That's just something that wecan all get on the same page
about.
You can also cross party linesand you find that Democrats and
Republicans are equally equallyworried about our health care
crisis.
Again, it's just finding commonground, issues where
Mississippians have beenrepeatedly underserved and

(08:29):
failed.
And then really, I'll tell you,what's winning people over for
us at least, is we're tellingthem what that plan is, what my
plan is when I get elected, onhow we're going to tackle each
of these issues.
We rolled out a verycomprehensive plan that we've
called our roadmap to restoringpublic integrity.
It covers about nine differentareas of places where I know

(08:51):
that I want to immediately getin and work on to expand and
improve the AG's office.
By no means is everything Iwant to do.
But it's areas where I thinkpeople, once they hear that and
once they see my plan and theyknow that I'm ready to work on
day one, I think it excitespeople, no matter their party,
and to see that is encouragingBecause I do have a plan and I

(09:16):
do want to put it to work forMississippians.
I just got to get elected first.

Speaker 1 (09:21):
Are there any issues or cases that, in particular,
that Attorney General Fitch hasoverseen and produced a
narrative or a stance on thatyou oppose staunchly?
That would fall within theparameters of those, those
roadmap to recovery that youalluded to earlier.

Speaker 2 (09:45):
Well, I think you know, first and foremost it's
the first stop on our roadmap isher inactivity within the case
of regarding the TANF funds thathave been stolen from
Mississippians.
You know, I think that is onthe forefront of all
Mississippians' minds.
We've all heard about the BrettFavre, the Phil Bryant, the
monies that went to volleyballstadiums and personal trainers,

(10:08):
and what people find mostshocking is that our attorney
general has in no way beeninvolved in the investigation or
, you know, prosecution orworking to get that money back.
As a matter of fact, attorneyGeneral Fitch has not even made
a comment about it, and that'snot normal.
The attorney general should bewrapped around this scandal.

(10:31):
I tell people she should bewrapped around it and completely
involved in it from day one.
Our auditor gave her all theinformation they had back in
2021, and this was punnied toprivate firms at additional
costs to the taxpayers, and it'sstill, as we're sitting here
today, all that's out.
There is one civil case that youknow we've seen in the last two

(10:53):
weeks they're puntingdepositions down the road.
They're not even going to havea deposition before election day
, but your attorney general isnot involved in that civil case.
The state is being representedby private law firms that donate
to Tate Reeves and Lynn Fitch.
And Attorney General Fitch hasallowed Governor Reeves, who we
all know is entangled in thisnarrative whether he's guilty or

(11:18):
not, he's involved in it andshe's allowed him to call the
shots on this case, and that'sjust.
It's a dereliction of her duties.
So when you ask that question,that's the first big case that
comes to mind.
She should have her ownindependent investigations going
.
She should be telling thepublic that she's investigating.

(11:38):
She doesn't have to get intodetails, but she should be
letting Mississippians know thatshe's involved in this case and
that not only is she going toget involved in getting this
money back from Mississippians,but that she's going to
criminally prosecute those thathave stolen the money.
I mean, this is AG 101.
This is exactly what she shouldbe doing and she's been silent

(11:59):
for over two years.

Speaker 1 (12:02):
Yeah, it's not a good look for the Attorney General
to not be involved to someextent as a protagonist it's not
in any of the things to thelargest corruption case in the
state of Mississippi's history.
I mean, all I've seen mostlyare Shad White leading the
investigation, which I think hedoes a tremendous job uncovering

(12:23):
the things that he's uncoveredin just the short time that he's
been in the role that he's in.
But it does strike me as oddthat Attorney General Fitch has
not been involved to the extentthat you alluded to.
So that begs the question.
Why is that?
And I think we can all come toour own conclusions about that.

(12:47):
It's probably party cronypolitics, if I had to guess.
I mean, that's what it lookslike.
I'm still unclear on where theyare in the process of the case
In the investigation.
Where do they stand currently?

Speaker 2 (13:05):
So right now, there's one case that's being pursued
civilly.
It's the one that you all havebeen reading about in the news,
the one that they just requestedBrett Farve's deposition, which
has now been delayed untilDecember.
That case was brought by theDepartment of Human Services,
represented by a private firmcalled Jones Walker.
It's the private firm that Ijust alluded to that donates to

(13:28):
both Tate Reeves and LynnFitch's campaigns, and
historically, the Department ofHuman Services and any state
agency is typically representedby the Attorney General's office
.
As a matter of fact, I'm in alawsuit right now where I have
sued the Department ofCorrections and the AG's office
represents the Department ofCorrections.
That's just how this goes, andso that's the only active case

(13:52):
right now.
Now, obviously, we all know thatin recent history that folks
like Nancy and Zack New theyhave gotten criminally charged,
they are serving sentences, butthat to date is the only legal
action that has happened withregards to this scandal.

(14:14):
My question is, and what Iintend to look into if elected,
is we've all read the textmessages.
We've all seen that formerGovernor Phil Bryant has had
text messaging and has beeninvolved in the discussion of
this money.
We know we have now seen thatGovernor Reeves and his brother
has been heavily involved insome of the text messaging and

(14:38):
the information going back andforth.
And again, I don't expectGeneral Fitch to come out and do
a press conference and tellMississippians step by step what
her plan is, but my concern isthat she's been completely
silent and what that makes mebelieve is that there's no

(15:01):
investigation in place, there'sno involvement with the AG's
office, that she is punting thisall over to private law firms
to handle on her behalf.
And again, this is alladditional taxpayer dollars and
the fact that she has allowedGovernor Reeves to be so key in
the legal strategy of thesecases when he is clearly

(15:22):
involved somehow.
Now, again, I don't know howdeeply he's involved and that's
why it begs for an investigation, but someone whose brother has
been named as a potentialwitness has been seen to be
involved in these text messages.
You yourself, governor Reeves,have been involved.
You should not be involved indictating legal strategy.

(15:44):
He should recuse himself andallow the AG's office to handle
the legal strategy for this case.
And she, honestly, this hasjust shown a weak point for her
office, a weak point for her asAttorney General to allow this
to continue.

Speaker 1 (15:59):
I mean what would even be a reasonable response
from her office or any AttorneyGeneral's office if asked why
there is a lack of involvementin this case.

Speaker 2 (16:14):
You know, I sit and think about that, lee.
Honestly, what could they saythat would convince me that they
have in some way been involved?
And I just don't know thatthere is a response at this
point.
I mean, I think, even today, ifshe stepped out and she said
okay, we've decided to open upan investigation, we've decided
to do A, b and C.

(16:35):
I mean we're almost three yearsinto this thing.
I mean we're.
I mean, this was discovered in2020, late 2020, I think, is
when Auditor Shadwhite firstuncovered the start of this.
I think November 2021 is whenhe turned everything over to the
AG's office in hopes that therewould be some movement from

(16:57):
them.
Look, auditor White, it's nothis job to prosecute.
His job is to do exactly whathe did, which is turn over the
information to the agency whohas the law enforcement
abilities in this state.
And she has done nothing and Ithink, even if she came out
today and started, I think it'stoo little, too late.
I think she has smart, I thinkshe has, like, breached her

(17:22):
duties as attorney general, andI think it's time for somebody
that can step in and it's notscared to do what needs to be
done, because she has clearlyshown that she's not going to do
it, and even if she did ittoday, you know she's she's kind
of notorious for startingthings and there being no
adequate resolution.

Speaker 1 (17:42):
So, at the very base level for an attorney general's
office, for those who may not bevery astute in state politics
and the responsibilities ofexecutive offices, what is the
responsibility primarily of theattorney general?

Speaker 2 (18:03):
So the attorney general is what I like to say.
The best way to explain topeople is they are the chief
legal officer for the state ofMississippi.
They represent Mississippi inlawsuits and that can be both
defending and bringing lawsuits.
So you know, like I said,they're defending a lawsuit that
that my agency disabilityrights has against the

(18:25):
department of corrections.
So they represent Mississippiin that regard.
But they also seek outlitigation that might that you
know that might have beensubject Mississippians might
have been subject to harm.
So you see attorney generalsbringing lawsuits against big
pharma when there has beenindications that people in their
state have been harmed againstbig pharma.

(18:46):
You've seen attorney generalsacross the country may be
involved in things like opioidlitigation and that's a way that
AGs can bring money throughsettlements into the state to
help pay for things likehealthcare and anything else
that our state might need.
But the other thing that theattorney general does is, like I

(19:06):
said, they're the chief lawenforcement officer in the state
.
So they typically havedivisions in their office that
handle things like consumerlitigation, that handle things
like civil rights.
Lots of AGs across the countryhave fair labor divisions and
those are just specialized unitswhere the AG can bring in
advocates and attorneys tosupport people with special

(19:30):
interests.
So, like fair labor divisionswould help represent Mississippi
workers and employers acrossthe state.
Now, what we have seen in thelast four years with Linfidge is
very different than what wehave seen in previous AG
administrations.
So previous administrations,like Jim Hood and Mike Moore,

(19:51):
they had very robust consumerlitigation divisions, which
means they brought in things,like you know, like the Tibetans
tobacco litigation A lot ofyour listeners might be familiar
with that that was brought withMike Moore.
You know they've had veryrobust law enforcement support
units that allowed for lawenforcement training and support

(20:12):
and resources for our lawenforcement across the state.
But four years ago, in 2019,when Linfidge took over, it's no
secret that she decimated theadministration that Jim Hood had
built up and so she dissolved alot of those specialized units
and actually let go of quite afew of the employees that had

(20:33):
been there for decades under JimHood, and we just haven't seen
any significant divisions builtback up in her administration to
help with some of thespecialized needs of
Mississippians.

Speaker 1 (20:47):
Inevitably you know I was going to ask you about the
ruling on the overturning of RoeV Wade as a result of Dobbs and
Casey.
All right to overturn Casey aswell as Roe V.

Speaker 2 (21:02):
Wade Right.

Speaker 1 (21:05):
Do you agree with the ruling by the Supreme Court to
send the abortion issue back tothe states to be decided upon?

Speaker 2 (21:16):
No, I don't.
I don't agree with the Dobbsdecision.
It was one of the decidingfactors for me to run against
Linfidge there.
Of course there are many, butit was definitely one of the top
reasons.
I don't believe that that wasLinfidge's intent to use Dobbs

(21:37):
to return those policies back tothe states, and I think she has
shown in her actions since theoverturning of Roe that that was
not the intent.
But all that aside, I have mybeliefs about abortion.
I have my beliefs about Roeversus Wade and I'm not out here
trying to change anybody'sbeliefs about that.

(21:57):
What I want people to see ishow dangerous Dobbs is, separate
and apart from the issue ofabortion, and how dangerous it
is to healthcare decision making, because what Dobbs does and
I've read every letter of thatdecision what Dobbs does is it
allows any healthcare procedure,anything controversial that

(22:23):
could be birth control, thatcould be vaccines, anything that
might be deemed controversial.
We have now opened a door thatDobbs opened to bring the
government into those decisionmaking abilities.
And so what I have told peopleacross the state because it's a
very controversial topic and Iknow that is that.

(22:44):
Look, I firmly believe that youcan be pro-life and still be
anti-Dobbs.
You can be pro-life and believethat Dobbs went too far, and I
think it went too far.
I think it's a dangerous doorto open and I think there will
be repercussions.
And I think that if Lenfitchgets another four years, if Tate

(23:06):
Reeves gets another four years,we're going to see government
overreach into medical decisionmaking.

Speaker 1 (23:13):
Above and beyond abortion.

Speaker 2 (23:17):
Yes, absolutely.
So I mean it was just in June.
Well, it was just in June thatLen Fitz wrote, you know, in a
letter opposing a potentialHIPAA regulation edition that
she wants to be the ability totrack medical records across
state lines.
So that means she believes thatanybody in Mississippi who goes

(23:41):
outside of Mississippi to getany care that they cannot get in
this state, she wants to beable to track them across state
lines to find out where they'regetting it.
And she talks about abortion inthat letter.
But she also talks about someother things, and we know that
there are other things in thisstate that can be deemed
controversial.
We have a governor and anattorney general who won't even

(24:03):
say if they're going to opposerestrictions to birth control.
I mean, I really think thatwe've opened the door to a very
slippery slope with dogs and Ithink that we are seeing in some
of our sister states, some ofour neighboring states, like
Alabama, we are about to see acriminalization of women who
attempt to go out of the stateto get abortion care.

(24:25):
Now, you know, this is womenthat are traveling out of state
to go to where it's legal to getthe care that they need, and I
just think that it's governmentoverreach at its finest, and I
think you know if you're holdingyourself out to wanting limited
government.
I think the last place you wantthem is in your doctor's
offices or in your medicalrecords.

Speaker 1 (24:45):
So currently, the way it stands?
In Mississippi, as a result ofthe overturning of Roe v Wade,
we have an abortion ban acrossthe board, with the exception of
instances in which we save thelife of the mother or rapist, or
rape or incest.
Is that correct?

Speaker 2 (25:05):
Just rape?
There is no, there is noexception for incest, currently
in Mississippi, not specifically.

Speaker 1 (25:12):
Does that fit your, your mental framework for how
abortion should look, or theaccess to?

Speaker 2 (25:24):
So my concern with Mississippi's current policies
is that, I mean, I do personallybelieve they're too restrictive
.
That's me personally.
But I believe even if we'regoing to have restrictive
policies, like the 15 week man,and we're going to have those
exceptions, the exceptions needto be able to be utilized and
what we have right now areexceptions that doctors are

(25:47):
scared to even use because ofthe heavy potential for
criminalization in this state.
You know, I think the story outof Clark sale is one that keeps
reverberating in my mind thatthe 12 year old who was raped
and essentially you know as a 12year old does, did not share it

(26:09):
with anyone Was found to bepregnant.
Later Her OBGYN explained thatshe would fit within that
exception of rape, but theproblem was that the doctor
wasn't sure what the rapeexception, how to utilize it
right.
So does there need to besomeone charged?
Does there need to be a policereport?

(26:29):
Does there need to actually be,you know, someone arrested for
it to be?
You know, there's just so muchconfusion around the exceptions
and I can't even I mean, intalking with doctors, can't even
get into the confusion aroundthe life of the mother exception
.
So what does that mean?

(26:50):
It's just way too broadlypresented for physicians to feel
comfortable enough utilizingthose exceptions, even when the
scenario would fit into thoseexceptions.
So look, you know I can't go inthere and I can't change jobs,
right, it's the law of the land,it is what it is.
So all I can do as attorneygeneral is ensure that women are

(27:16):
as protected as they can be,and the way I see women being
protected is knowing how theycan utilize those exceptions if
they are in the unfortunatesituation of needing them.
And so right now, I don't thinkthat we're there.
I think we have a failinghealthcare system where doctors,
when it comes to the situationsof pregnancy and abortion, I

(27:40):
think they are very gunshot.
Right now, I've talked todoctors who feel like they have
to pick up their phone and calltheir malpractice lawyer before
they can diagnose a woman whomight need an abortion for, you
know, because the pregnancy isgoing to risk their life.
I mean, I've had literalconversations with doctors like

(28:02):
that, and so I just thinkthere's not enough clarity
around these exceptions and ifyou're going to have restrictive
policies like that, you've gotto make it clear, and I think
there's room for more exceptions.
You mentioned incest.
I think there should be adirect exception for incest.
I just do, and I think there'sroom for other exceptions.
We've seen other exceptionswork in neighboring states.

Speaker 1 (28:25):
Yeah, unfortunately we do live in one of the states
who that has the highest, one ofthe highest rates of ancestral
relations, and so I think that'scommon sense to protect
particularly children from thoseinstances that we know are
occurring and will continue tooccur.
I think there should be someguardrails in place.

(28:47):
I agree with you there.
Can you help me clear up in mymind how we got from the 15 week
ban to now a total ban?
When did that?
When did that take place andhow?

Speaker 2 (29:03):
So well, you know, for many, many, many years,
Mississippi has attempted topass different types of bans on
abortion, which ultimately endedup in litigation and ultimately
, you know, tried to be pushedup to the Supreme Court.

(29:24):
And, to be honest, it just sohappened.
That was what was in place whenRoe fell.
Right, it was immediately.
It was immediately triggeredupon the fall of Roe.
You know, it's honestly, it'sjust what was in place when Roe
fell.
I mean, that's just, that'sessentially how we got here.

(29:47):
Over and over, we have seen thatpeople across the state believe
that our bans go too far.
I think it was 2011,.
The state overwhelminglyrefused a personhood amendment
to our Constitution.
We've seen time and time againthat these restrictive bans are

(30:08):
not popular, even withMississippians, and that, you
know, if we are going to havebans in place, we've seen
polling that showed thatMississippians believe there
should be significant exceptions.
So, honestly, we just got herebecause this is where we were
when Roe fell and you know, anylaw that would have been in

(30:29):
place when Roe fell would haveimmediately went into effect the
day that that happened.

Speaker 1 (30:34):
Is that?
Is that what's meant when it'sreferred to as a trigger law?

Speaker 2 (30:40):
Yes, yes.

Speaker 1 (30:42):
So that whenever that federal law overturned, that
whatever we've got in placeautomatically is implemented.
So but the Dobs case posed a 15week ban.
Is that correct?

Speaker 2 (31:00):
Yes, that's correct.

Speaker 1 (31:01):
Okay, and that's correct.
Excuse me, and that law, if Irecall correctly, as I was
following it, there were manydifferent iterations, not only
from Mississippi but othermajority pro life states, of a
bill that it seemed to me wasbeing created with the intention

(31:25):
of trying to overturn Roe vWade.
So you mentioning that that wasnot Fitch's intention with the
Dobs case, what do you believethe true intention on her part
was?

Speaker 2 (31:40):
So I mean, I'll be honest, I think the intention
was to push this really extremeagenda across the country.
Let me tell you why.
If you you know her position isthat she outwardly is that she
perceived the Dobs case toreturn these policies back to
the state.

(32:01):
But what we have seen since theDobs case came about is
Attorney General Fitch going tomultiple states where they have
tried to implement their ownpolicies, and we've seen her
participate in amicus briefs andlitigation opposing those
policies.

(32:21):
So if it's your main priority toreturn policies to the states,
why are you going to five or sixother states trying to get
involved in their policymaking?
And so to me it's her pushingan agenda above and beyond just
returning these policies to thestates.
Why are you spending taxpayerdollars going and worrying

(32:44):
yourself with Florida orVirginia or, you know, ohio or
Kansas?
Why are you using our taxpayerhours and your taxpayer dollars
to go and get involved in thepolicymaking of other states, if
it was your intent to give tomake this case the reason that
they get those policymakingabilities back?

(33:07):
And so I've never gotten a realexplanation or really seen an
explanation for that, but thatis certainly what she has spent
the last year doing, since Dobsis inserting herself into other
states policymaking when that isnot what she said.
The purpose of Dobs was.

Speaker 1 (33:27):
I see.
I see, when we look atconvicted felons returning home
after doing their time in prisonin the correctional system and
we look at their SecondAmendment rights and we look at
their voting rights, where doyou stand on giving convicted

(33:48):
felons either and or both ofthese rights back to them after
they've paid their debt tosociety, do you agree that they
should have them, or should wekeep it the way it is and have
them forego those rights?

Speaker 2 (34:03):
So you know I am 100% of the mind that if somebody
pays their debt to society, theyserve their sentence, that they
deserve to be able to come backinto their community as a
citizen and our rights as acitizen.
Second Amendment voting rights.
Those are precious rights.

(34:24):
You know the I've been prettyvocal about my position
regarding the lifetime felonyvoting ban being deemed
unconstitutional by the FifthCircuit.
I agree with that decision.
I disagree with General Fitch'sdecision to appeal that we

(34:44):
cannot expect individuals who'vebeen incarcerated to serve
their time to leave thatfacility, to come back into the
community.
If we continue their punishmentby taking away these rights,
then we are almost guaranteeingtheir return back into
incarceration.
We do not provide formerlyincarcerated people with enough

(35:08):
support already so to take awaytheir rights to allow them to
become full members of societyagain.
I just I don't agree with that.
We have to.
When people serve their timeand they want to come back out
into our communities, we have togive them every fighting chance
we can to come back and beproductive members of our
society.
We have one of the states withthe highest recidivism rates in

(35:33):
the nation and it's because wedo not provide enough supports
for people transitioning out ofthose roles.
And, you know, I just, I trulybelieve to take away someone's
constitutional rights on top ofthe fact that they've already
they're coming out into asociety, that's, that's, they're

(35:55):
already working 10 steps behindthe regular person.
We're just, we're just feelingour own re-incarceration rates.

Speaker 1 (36:03):
In my opinion, yeah, I think it's counterintuitive
and against our Christian ideals, largely in Mississippi, to
send somebody to prison and thenthey do their full time that
they were supposed to serve andthen they return to our
community and we do not allowthem to have every right or the

(36:27):
rights that every human beingshould have, especially since
they've done their, paid theirdebt to society.
I can't, I can't find them whatwe're saying about
rehabilitation in that way,because we're essentially saying
, yes, you did, you paid yourdebt to society, but you've
still got this lifetime ofalienation of rights hanging

(36:50):
over your head.
And I just think that's.
I think that's counterintuitiveand for many of the same
reasons that you outlined, as itstands right now, convicted
felons who go to prison and areand serve their time and come
back out into the communitycorrect me if I'm wrong, but

(37:10):
they cannot vote, nor can theybear arms, can they?

Speaker 2 (37:17):
So I think so.
There are certain felonies thatlift the lifetime, the voting
ban.
Now that doesn't change myposition, because we're talking
about one of those felonies islike writing a bad check.
I mean you can write a badcheck, go to jail, save your
time and come out and not beable to vote, and that is insane

(37:38):
to me.
So there are certain feloniesthat do equal a lifetime voting
ban, but not all.
They're not all crimes.

Speaker 1 (37:53):
Is there a correlation between what those
felonies are and the demographicof the people who commit those
felonies at the highest rate?
In other words, do you thinkthey're targeted to
disenfranchise a certain groupof people?

Speaker 2 (38:12):
I do, I do, I do, I do Because I mean you know, we
all see the data right.
We all know that, with regardsto incarceration rates, it is
overwhelmingly the blackcommunity that is affected.
And so you know as one I meanit doesn't take a lot to put two
and two together that thesetypes of laws are targeting that

(38:36):
population.
And again, you look at theincarceration rates and who is
being incarcerated, and then youlook at who these laws are.
You know what population theselaws affect, and so I do think
that they're targeted.
I mean, you know, had thislifetime felony voting ban, had

(38:58):
that unconstitution, that rulingby the Fifth Circuit, been
allowed to stay you're talkingabout two over 200,000 new
Mississippi voters that would beallowed to now vote, and
looking at the breakdown on thedemographics of that number, it
is overwhelmingly the blackcommunity.

Speaker 1 (39:21):
Yeah, I think that's an unfortunate consequence of
historical racial discrimination.
Now, whether or not it's beingupheld in current day and
current times for that purpose,or has it just been
grandfathered in, who knows butthe direct result is, you know,

(39:43):
we're getting a lot of peoplethat should be able to vote are
disenfranchised Again.
I think it's very simple,especially for people who are of
the Christian mindset whichmany voters in Mississippi claim
to be.
I mean, I think it's againstthat way of life and way of
thinking to have somebody paytheir debts to society but then

(40:06):
not regain full citizenship whenreturning back to the community
, and so I think those arethings that we have to look at
moving forward.
Now the firearms.
The Second Amendment rights.
All felons suffer from that ban, correct?
Or is it just certain feloniesin that regard too?

Speaker 2 (40:30):
I believe you're correct.
I think you're correct.

Speaker 1 (40:32):
And I think you know I think you could look at
certain criminals on acase-by-case basis and determine
whether or not they should beallowed to be a gun-toting
citizen when they return back tosociety.
As you know, we don't wantpeople who have committed
violent crimes to have easieraccess, but if someone has truly

(40:56):
exhibited rehabilitation andthey've done their time, then I
think they should have theirrights restored.
Do you think that we're gettingcloser to being able to see
that come to fruition?

Speaker 2 (41:11):
I hope so.
I mean, I think, look, I thinkthere are some common-sense gun
laws we can put into place toensure that guns do not get into
the wrong hands period.
I really do.
You know I think this is a verycommon misconception that
Democrats like myself areanti-Second Amendment.

(41:32):
I mean, I'm like my father'spolice officer.
I grew up with, you know, withlearning gun safety and you know
I believe in the SecondAmendment.
I'm a gun owner.
I mean, I get it, but I dothink there is a need for
common-sense gun laws, and it'sto keep guns out of the hands of
the individuals that you justhighlighted.

(41:53):
It's to ensure that guns don'tget into the hands of people
that are then going to, you know, go and commit mass shootings.
I mean that's what we want totry to make guns as safe as
possible, and I think I trulybelieve we're getting close to
that.
I really hope so, because thelevel of gun violence that we
are seeing across the nation isheartbreaking, and I think that

(42:17):
we are all closer than werealize we are on the Second
Amendment.
We just have to come togetherwith some more common-sense gun
safety laws.

Speaker 1 (42:28):
What are some of the biggest talking points?
Political talking points thatin Mississippi, running as a
Democrat, you have to, or youfeel that you have to, skirt the
national political ideology, soto speak, Is guns sounds like
guns is probably one of thosetopics.

Speaker 2 (42:50):
Well, you know guns.
Guns is definitely one of those.
For sure, you know we do haveto.
I do feel, as a Democrat, that Ihave to really reiterate my
support of the law enforcementcommunity.
You know that has been a verytouchy subject over the last few
years, and rightly so.

(43:10):
We've had some very horrifichistorical incidents happen
between the community and policeofficers.
But I'm the daughter of apolice officer, I'm the
granddaughter of two policeofficers.
My uncle was a police officer.
You know I come from a very lawenforcement rich family and so
I understand the need, thedelicate balance that you have

(43:34):
to play as a Democrat betweenbeing an ally for law
enforcement, which I am, butalso knowing that we still have
incidents like what occurred inRankin County in the last you
know year with the Rankin CountyGoon Squad.
That requires some significantoversight and some immediate
action.
And, look, I think it's adelicate balance but it's one

(43:56):
that someone who is familiarwith the law enforcement
community can manage.
So I do feel like I have toapproach that narrative a little
different, just given the factthat there's a narrative out
there that Democrats areanti-police, which is not true.
But you know the abortion topicthat you and I just discussed.

(44:19):
I do have to watch my approachwith that because I know that
it's a controversial subject and, like I said before, I'm not
out here to change anybody'smind about abortion, because
nobody's going to change my mind.
I just want people to look atit from a bird's eye view, like
I said, looking at it at whatdobs can affect outside of the

(44:40):
abortion issue.
But you know, those are justsome topics that we have to
really just have a conversationwith voters and we have to let
them know that we are actuallycloser to common ground than
most people would think if wejust have a conversation.
And you don't immediately say,oh well, she's a Democrat, she's

(45:00):
anti-police, she's anti-gun,which is not true.
But once we have a conversationand we see that we can meet in
the middle a little bit closerthan we thought, but I've really
enjoyed having thoseconversations with voters.

Speaker 1 (45:15):
I can imagine it being very eye-opening for the
voters.
Obviously, you know where youstand in relation to the
National Democratic Party as faras where you fall on that
political spectrum.
But for many people whoprobably call themselves
Republicans and I had this sameconversation with Shawasky
although you carry the D in theblue, it doesn't necessarily

(45:37):
mean you check the Democratictalking points all the way down
the ballot.
You know you y'all haveexpressed that although you may
be with the Democratic Party,you do have beliefs and ideals
down the ticket that you differfrom the National Party on.
And I think, speaking as avoter and as a member of the

(46:00):
community, that's refreshing,because you know I'm 30 and for
my entire life the polarizationhas been there for the most part
Ever since I can rememberpaying attention to politics,
starting in, you know, when Iwas 14, 15, 15 years ago
watching Bill O'Reilly on FoxNews.
The polarization has been theresince day one, and well, for me

(46:25):
at least, following politics.
So my point is is that people,particularly of my generation,
have become just accustomed tovoting for an R or a D as
opposed to getting to know theindividual and where the
individual themselves stand oncertain issues.
And so that's why I say it'srefreshing to hear y'all speak

(46:48):
the way you do, and I recognizethere's.
You know Mississippi's a uniquestate.
The demographics are unique.
We've got the highestpercentage of African Americans
of any state in the union andyou know that in and of itself
poses a different course, so tospeak, as opposed to someone

(47:09):
running for Attorney General in,say, kansas.
You know where it's lily white.
Now I wouldn't.
I wouldn't change the makeup ofMississippi for anything.
I think our best days by farare still ahead of us in the not
too distant future.
Why do you think we votelargely in Mississippi on racial

(47:31):
lines?

Speaker 2 (47:36):
Oh, you know that's a .
That's a great question.
I really believe that.
You know it's.
It's really hard, and this iswhere our campaign has struggled
as well.
It's really hard to getmessages out into those rural
communities.
Right, it's been a struggle tous to make sure that our

(48:01):
campaign and our message andwhat we, our platform, gets out
to those rural communities.
And, of course, thosecommunities are predominantly
our black communities.
And I think you know it's reallyeasy to divert to what you know
, right, I think that's why somany people look for that D and
so many people look for that R,because at the end of the day,

(48:26):
it's almost safe to them, it'salmost like a comfort to vote
for what they are accustomed to.
You know, I think they want tosee the state do better, but
there we have some voters thatare afraid of what change might
bring, because they've becomeaccustomed to.
Mississippi is just, you know,you said it it's a very

(48:46):
different state.
It's.
You know, people love the slowpace here.
They love, you know, that are.
We have small communities thatcome together and work together
in those times of need, and Ithink there's a demographic of
voters and I think there's it'sblack, it's white.
It's just it's it's just thisgroup of voters that they will

(49:08):
only vote for what they know,because they feel like it's safe
.
And while they want Mississippito do better, they're scared of
what change might come and willit change our state and make it
unrecognizable to us.
And you know, talking to peopleacross the state, you know it's
very clear that Mississippianswant to move forward and they

(49:28):
want to be better.
And I agree with you.
I know our best days are aheadof us, but they're also scared
that their way of life might bechanged right, their slow pace,
their, you know, you know justneighborly hospitality state
kind of community.
And and I don't think they haveto be worried about that I
don't think we have to changethe, the community based way of

(49:53):
life that we have in in order toget better, to get better
healthcare, to get bettereducation, to get better
infrastructure.
I think that would only improveupon the, the, the community we
have in this state.
I really, I really do.

Speaker 1 (50:10):
So you're going to have to inevitably get some
crossovers from the Republicanor independent sex of the voting
block right.
Now it seems to me, when tryingto woo those voters, if you will
, the president and the mediamakes that very difficult for

(50:30):
you to be able to differentiateyourself from what these
Republican voters are watchingon television.
And you've outlined, you know,a couple of couple of ways that
you can differentiate yourselfand I believe that you can have.
You have you found it difficultto reach these people and

(50:51):
actually reach them in a formatin which they are hearing you?

Speaker 2 (50:59):
Um, you know, we've been very intentional to try to
reach that group of voters, um,you know, at the end of the day,
there are going to be somepeople that are going to hear
our message and it's not they'regoing to vote the way they're
going to vote.
I mean that's it's a deep corebelief for them.

(51:20):
It's not about the candidate,it's about the party.
They don't trust Joe Biden,they don't trust Democrats, um,
and they have translated thatinto their state politics and,
and, look, that is their right,and I understand that, um, but
I'll tell you, uh, you know,going back to what I said before
about how this election justhas felt different, um, that it

(51:43):
has felt like more people areengaged in actually looking at
the candidate and actuallytrying to, to, to look past the
party, into what the candidate'sposition is, what their plan is
.
And, look, I can attribute someof that to Brandon Presley,
right?
I mean, brandon has come in, um,as a Democrat, um, as a

(52:05):
conservative Democrat.
Um, brandon and I don't agreeon everything.
I mean no two people ever willbut, um, but we agree more than
we disagree and I like hisvision for Mississippi and he
has been able to really helpbring in those moderate
Republicans and thoseindependence, and I think he has

(52:25):
shown them that you can.
You can have a Democraticcandidate.
That is the preferable choiceright, that you can really just
look at the candidate, look attheir plan, look at what they
want to do for Mississippi and,and, and I think, look, I think,
he has motivated people to dothat down ballot.
I really do, I, we, we areseeing more and more moderate

(52:46):
Republicans and independencereach out to our campaign and
resonate with our message and Ican, I think I can attribute
that to Mississippians wantingchange, but also, uh, just this
dynamic movement that Presleyreally engaged voters very early
and started, you know, havingpeople pay attention to politics

(53:07):
earlier than I've ever seenpeople pay attention.

Speaker 1 (53:10):
Yeah, I think that that's healthy to have the
people along all along thepolitical spectrum tuning into
the candidates of either partyfor the with the intention of
getting to know the candidate,as opposed to just voting for
the party.
I think that also is stemmingfrom what we're seeing at the
national stage, with peoplerecognizing that at this point,

(53:33):
joe Biden is not even a shell ofhimself, excuse me and
recognizing that, um, he's not.
He's, he's not in control,which no president is solely in
control.
I recognize that, but he's noteven in control of his own
faculties at this point, andthat that's obvious.

(53:55):
So people are asking thequestion all right, well, if
he's not capable, then who'sreally thinking this thing?
Who's pulling the strings here?
And so I think that's leading alot of people to look into
different candidates,particularly RFK Jr.
If RFK Jr was on the Democraticticket, I mean, I lean

(54:15):
conservative but I love what RFKJr saying, but it seems to me
the Democrats have boxed him outof even trying to make a run on
the Democratic ticket.
Um, so I think that's anothercomponent that's contributing to
the to the voter at the statelevel really doing more research
on the candidate than normal isbecause they're starting to

(54:38):
recognize, um, that everythingmay not be as it seems if you
just vote for the party blindlyRight.

Speaker 2 (54:46):
And you know it's also been very helpful when I,
when, when, when nationalpolitics come into the, the
narrative when we're out on thecampaign trail is, you know I'll
be on it.
I'm focused on Mississippi.
Um, that's that's my focus.
And and to to pay any attentionto the, the shenanigans that
are going on in Washington this,this a year, out from a

(55:09):
presidential election, whilewhile we're just trying to get
our state organized and in order, um, you know I can't, I can't
do it, you know I just I justhave to be like you know, right
now we're focused on Mississippiand moving Mississippi forward
and, um, you know, once we getthat shake, shake, doubt on
November 7th, we'll we'll focuson what's happened nationally,
because it's it's you mean,you're right, it's crazy and um,

(55:32):
but but we have plenty to worryabout right here in Mississippi
.
And and getting everything, um,you know, moving forward and
and I am confident we can dothat on November 7th.

Speaker 1 (55:44):
I saw where they recently rolled on an appeal for
the treatment of the mentallyill.
I believe the federalgovernment sued the state of
Mississippi and now it's comeout.
Originally it was ruled thatMississippi was mistreating the
mentally ill in our state andnow it was, and then it was

(56:04):
appealed and now it's come backand overturned.
Am I right on on that?

Speaker 2 (56:10):
You are, you are.
What was the?

Speaker 1 (56:11):
basis of that case, and it was like 20 years long,
wasn't it, or something crazylike that.

Speaker 2 (56:16):
Yes, it was crazy.
So, um, what a lot of peopledon't know is that before the
government, before the UnitedStates, filed suit, they issued
a findings letter to the stateof Mississippi 10 years before
they filed a lawsuit.
So they gave Mississippi 10years to work on their mental
health care system and theircommunity based services.

(56:37):
And it's all centered around acase, a pretty famous case,
called Olmstead, and Olmsteadbasically said that the states
have to have a plan that bothprovides mental health care
services to, um you know, itscitizens, but also has community
based services, so that, um,the whole idea is to move

(56:58):
towards, um, not um, notimmediately institutionalizing
everyone with mental healthissues, right, that allows them
to live in the communities butalso receive, commie and get
community based services.
And what the government found,well over 10 years before they
filed a lawsuit, is thatMississippi did not have an

(57:18):
Olmstead plan.
They were failing, uh, patientsof mental, of our mental health
care system, and they we didnot have appropriate community
based systems in place toservice.
I said we were, we were heavilyrelying on institutions in this
state.
Um, obviously, there was atrial, um, the state lost and
the ultimate result of that isthat a special master was then

(57:40):
appointed to help Mississippidevelop a plan, an Olmstead plan
, that would help improve ourdepartment of mental health care
services, as well as improveour community based services.
Now, um, everything was goingswimmingly until the AG decided
that that just this was too much.
They didn't want the federalgovernment in here telling them
what to do, and so they appealedit, and it has ultimately been

(58:03):
overruled by the fifth circuit.
So, um, you know, I don't knowwhere this leaves us with mental
health care systems.
Um, uh, as as an attorney in thedisability community, I will
tell you that the court got thisright that Mississippi is
failing people when it comes tomental health care services,
especially in the community.

(58:24):
We heavily rely oninstitutionalizing people that
could probably be livingsuccessfully in their community
if they had the supports intheir like, in their local
communities, to help them.
Um, and I think that the stateshould have allowed the federal
government to continue workingon this plan.
Um, like I said, before theyever filed suit, the federal

(58:47):
government gave them 10 years adecade to fix this before they
filed a lawsuit, and Mississippicontinued to ignore it, and so
a lawsuit was filed because theydidn't step in and they didn't
fix what was identified as asbeing a failure.
So, you know, I don't know wherethis goes now.
Um, it's something that I'mwatching closely, not just as,

(59:10):
hopefully, the future attorneygeneral, but also as a
disability rights advocate andattorney, um, but you know, the
one chance that we had to getsomeone in here to help us fix
our mental health care system isnow gone, and it's gone because
of Lynn Fitch and her office.
So, um, again, I'm not surewhere it goes from here, um, but

(59:32):
, but improvement is needed.

Speaker 1 (59:35):
So where?
Where are we dropping the ballthe most specifically?
If you can be a little bit morespecific about where we are
failing the mentally ill in ourstate?

Speaker 2 (59:48):
So I think number one is the lack of appropriate
community services.
Like I said, we have people.
Our gut check reaction formentally ill individuals is to
put them in an institution,stick them in there and forget
about them.
Um, and there are some peoplewho are experiencing mental

(01:00:08):
health issues that that that'snecessary.
But there are also some peoplethat if they had the appropriate
community services in theircounties, in these rural
counties that have no communityhealth care services, they could
live in their own homes, theycould work in jobs if they had
those community resources intheir area.

(01:00:29):
Um, and we just lack that.
We do not have appropriatecommunity services across uh,
across the state, but it it'sstrongly um deficit in the Delta
, um, in these rural areas ofMississippi, where you know it's
.
It's no coincidence.
This is also where ourhealthcare is failing Um, so it

(01:00:51):
goes hand in hand with ourhealthcare crisis.
I mean, we're seeing that as aresult of our failing um
hospitals.
I mean, even places like StDominic's have had to shut down
their mental health careservices because they're not
getting adequate funding, andthat's one of the biggest
hospitals in Mississippi.
So you can imagine thecommunity resources in Issaquena
County um are are flailing aswell.

(01:01:13):
So, uh, you know, it's just thatcommunity centered piece that
we're.
We are truly failingMississippians and and, as a
result, we're shipping morepeople to places like state
hospital and, and you know, eastMississippi State Hospital,
we're putting them in theselong-term care facilities and,
um, you know, clogging up our,our systems in those in those

(01:01:36):
institutions for people thatreally need it.
Um, and it's just creating thisever consistent backlog.
Um, so, you know, I would saymy, and from my viewpoint, the
number one problem is the lackof community services.
Um that was one of the mainpoints of the trial.

Speaker 1 (01:01:56):
So we've.
I hear Republican legislators,particularly around session time
at the beginning of the year,into the spring, they tout the
rainy day fund and Mississippi'sin the best economic shape that
it's ever been in, and I don'tdoubt that.
I don't doubt that we've gotmore savings than we've ever had
.
I don't doubt that we're makingmore money than we've ever made

(01:02:16):
.
We should be.
That's how it should be.
I mean, we're coming from thebottom, so we should see very
rapid growth.
Um, however, when I get to ascenario like this and we look
at this lack of communityservices for these people
related to this lawsuit, I thenasked myself where are our
priorities?
Again, we claim to be these,these Christian, you know, have

(01:02:38):
these Christian ideals, uh, inMississippi and in the Bible
belt, yet we still have a lot ofpeople in our state who don't
have the community resources andservices that you're speaking
of, and it just makes me wonderwhat do we, you know, if we're
just going to sit on all of thatfunding or all of that money
and not even try to attempt toaddress something that the

(01:03:00):
federal government has told usfor 20 years that we need to
address, uh, then I, you know,I'm at a loss for words.
I don't really know how to umcompartmentalize that in my
brain.
Um now looking at, you know,looking at the Amazon antitrust

(01:03:22):
suit.
Are you familiar?

Speaker 2 (01:03:26):
I believe so.
Yes, so the federal yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:03:30):
The federal government has brought suit
against Amazon, um the FTC,because of antitrust behavior
and basically harming consumersby higher prices.
Uh, I'd know, when Jim hood wasin office, I think, he went
after Google and was was quitesuccessful.

(01:03:51):
Uh, ultimately, and whatever itwas that he was doing with
Google, and it was that anantitrust situation too, or uh,
like monopoly on the searchengine or something.

Speaker 2 (01:04:02):
Yes, yes, it was so these are these types.

Speaker 1 (01:04:06):
Are these type cases that you foresee yourself being
particularly abreast on whenbecoming AG?
Is this something that's onyour radar when it comes to
monopolistic activities and howthat impacts the state of
Mississippi?
Are those are those issues thatthat you're going to be on top
of when in office?

Speaker 2 (01:04:26):
Yes, I, I absolutely, Um, I also, um, am aware just
just through the legal communitythat our current attorney
general has been presentedseveral lawsuits not necessarily
antitrust, but some massivelitigation that has affected
Mississippians that she hasturned away.
Um, you know, I won't get intothe details I don't know if

(01:04:49):
those lawyers would want me to,because they presented, uh, you
know, they presented to the AGand got rejected.
So I'm sure they're hopefulthat one day they might have
those cases picked up.
But but I think, lookingforward to any litigation that
Mississippi can get involved in,that will do two things One,
improve the lives ofMississippians and make it a

(01:05:09):
safer and healthier state tolive in.
And to bring any monies intothe state that will help build
up that rainy day fund, build upthose savings so that we can,
uh, you know, funnel that moneyinto things like mental health,
community services and, um,paying for things that the state
needs.
That would be my, my two mainfocuses to get involved in any

(01:05:31):
litigation, like the antitrustsuit and any other, you know,
mass tort litigation.

Speaker 1 (01:05:38):
So the attorney general sounds to me like it's
not a obviously doesn't make law, it's not a legislator, it is
the the.
The role is to enforce anddetermine constitutionality
ultimately Is that, is that safeto say?
Okay, so when we're looking atthe recent case with the mayor

(01:06:11):
of Madison as it pertains to thecongressional districts and the
elimination of the initiativeprocess in the state of
Mississippi, Is thereinvolvement on the AGs?
Should there be involvement onthe AGs part as it pertains to
that case?
If there is, I'm unaware.

Speaker 2 (01:06:34):
So there's not right now, but here's where I think
the AGs should get involved incases like that.
I think that when there issomething like the ballot
initiative process that's beingquestioned I think another good
example is the HB 1020, the billthat was passed regarding the
appointment of judges, thecreation of the special capital

(01:06:57):
improvement district.
When there are laws that comethrough like that that are
getting challenged in court, Ido believe there is a role for
the attorney general to step inwith an opinion, with an
advisory piece to talk about theconstitutionality and the
legality of these laws that arebeing created.

(01:07:20):
I think that ultimately, itwould save Mississippi a ton of
money and a ton of timelitigating some of these laws if
the AG just provided someadvisory piece as this
legislation is being passed.
Like you know, for examplelet's say I was attorney general

(01:07:42):
when something like HB 1020 wascoming through a session I
think there should have been anAG opinion advising the
legislature that there is a veryunconstitutional piece of this
legislation that will likelyresult in litigation.
I just believe that that isbeing a good advisor to the

(01:08:02):
state of Mississippi to keepyour eye on legislation that
might cause the state someheartburn.
I mean just, you know, hey,heads up lawmakers, because not
all of your lawmakers areattorneys.
The vast majority of them arenot.
You know, hey, lawmakers, youare probably fixing to
intertwine us in years oflitigation because you've taken

(01:08:24):
away the ballot process oryou've decided that you want to
appoint judges for this newdistrict.
So I do think there is a rolefor the AG in advising our
lawmakers on constitutionalityand legality of the laws they're
creating.
And I think you know thatdoesn't mean they're going to
listen to the AG, right, I meanthat, but at least you have done

(01:08:45):
your due diligence as the chieflegal officer for the state by
telling lawmakers you may bestepping into some mud here.
We may have some problems.

Speaker 1 (01:08:54):
Do you believe it to be unconstitutional to deny
transgender minors that sufferfrom, or that are diagnosed with
, gender dysphoria?

Speaker 2 (01:09:09):
So unconstitutional?
I'm going to say maybe, buthere's where.
Here's my position on that.
I have to trust mamas anddaddies.
I have to trust doctors.
I think that this has been anissue that has been inflated by

(01:09:31):
people who are trying to pulltheir own issues out of focus.
If that makes sense, I thinkthis is a.
I don't think this is an issuein Mississippi and if it was,
I'm not the person to tell amother or a father or a doctor

(01:09:51):
what their patient needs.
I would not want anyone tellingme anything about my children.
I just don't believe that thegovernment like I said, even
with the abortion issue, I don'tbelieve the government has a
say in people's decisions, andthat includes gender affirming
care.
If a doctor has diagnosed itand the mother and the father

(01:10:11):
know the risks and they haveinformed consent, I'm not
somebody to tell a parent how todiagnose and treat their
children.

Speaker 1 (01:10:24):
Does it worry you as a mother and as a person aside
from attorney general, that thiscould be a fad that young
people are becoming, that arejumping on board with the fad to
get attention, unknowing tothem what the consequences can
be down the road, and thatparents some of these parents

(01:10:47):
that are allowing their childrento do this are also utilizing
it in the way of as an attentiongrab?
And I don't know it doesn't thewhole thing that the whole
concept doesn't make sense to me, much less having a doctor
diagnose and ultimately carryout the care?
But does it worry you that thismay be something that

(01:11:09):
ultimately does come toMississippi and takes a hold of
our young people, as it has inother parts of our country?

Speaker 2 (01:11:20):
It doesn't.
Again, there are so manybarriers that one would have to
get through for this to occur.
If you're asking me, if mychild came to me and wanted to
seek this type of care, after adiscussion with me and her

(01:11:43):
father, and then we go to adoctor, I just don't, it doesn't
concern me, because I cannotsee doctors just blatantly
diagnosing this type of care fora fad, right?
I just don't.
I trust doctors, I trust mydoctor.
I would trust that if I took mychild to a doctor and my child

(01:12:07):
was interested in some type ofgender affirming care, that the
doctor would tell me no, I mean,you know what I'm saying.
I just I trust that doctors arethe barrier when the care is
not needed and I just don't.
That's just not a concern that Ihave as a parent.
I trust that I can make themedical decisions for my

(01:12:29):
children, that my husband and Iand their mother and their
stepfather I mean my childrenare co-parented by four parents.
I would trust that we could allmake the decisions and then we
would go at the advice ofdoctors, not politicians.
You know, I'm just I'm not inthe business of giving people
medical advice or advising themon how to care for their

(01:12:52):
children and I honestly, tateReeves and Lynn Fitch are the
last people I would want givingme medical advice for me or my
children.
So I just trust parents and Itrust doctors that the people
that are getting that care arethe people that need that care.

Speaker 1 (01:13:09):
You're at a Kent Martin.
You have been stellar on theCounty line.
Once again, I appreciate youtaking the time out of your day
to speak with me in the Countyline congregation and I will now
turn it over to you foranything else you'd like to tell
the listeners.

Speaker 2 (01:13:27):
All I can say.
We are 21 days out fromelection and this is an
important.
This is an important electionand no matter how you choose to
vote, I just ask that you vote.
Mississippi has hadhistorically low turnout voting
for the past few elections andwe hope to see a heavy turnout

(01:13:49):
on November 7th.
And, of course, just want toplug.
My website is GretaforAgycomand would love to have anyone
volunteer help us out up untilelection day, and I just
appreciate you letting me comeon and chat with you today.

Speaker 1 (01:14:03):
Any time, any time.
I appreciate you sticking yourneck out there and putting
yourself on the line, and yourfamily in the public eye, to try
to better the state ofMississippi.
I truly do find thatcommendable and we will put all
of your information in ourepisode notes for those of y'all
listening.
Y'all can find all of Greta'sinformation on the notes of this

(01:14:26):
episode.
So, greta, thank you very much,and to the County Line
congregation, we love y'allPeace.

All Episodes

#125 - Greta Kemp Martin

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}#125 - Greta Kemp Martin