woman who is here without any parental guidance or a relative to walk her through this process. it is not a legitimate question? as i said, texas has a pretty strong consent law. this young woman got a judicial bypass. i understand that scott lloyd really does want to put abortion on trial here. but the courts have not sided with him in this case. i think that he needs to stop bullying these young women to make his point. shannon: he certainly does not describe it that way but we appreciate your viewpoint. thank you for joining us tonight. we know this case is far from over. texas attorney general ken paxton, concerned that the federal court ruling could pave the way for his state to become a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants seeking abortions, paid for mostly by taxpayers. good to have you with us, general. thank you. shannon: i want to ask you something. it went through very quickly a number of different levels, the d.c. circuit, just below the supreme court, for people
there are key points. obviously people are fascinated with the documentary and audio recorded here. let s look at the issue of wire tapping laws and how this would be applied in this case. in california, good morning, tamron. good morning. in california as in florida, it is a two party consent law. in this case the defense attorneys can make adequate claim he did not know he was being taped, did not consent to being taped, they may have an argument where it might not be admissible. he is in the bathroom muttering to himself. he thought the interview was over. there might be an argument to be made there to keep it out. as you put it he was muttering to himself, do you believe his attorneys might try to explain it all away as he is an older man now, in there rambling, not necessarily confessing to the crimes. right. it wasn t like he was responding to anyone else and you always heard the old adage, it is okay
present in this case. in a normal sexual abuse case, the statute at that time when this happened was six years. she s 28 now. so the statute of limitations criminally probably expired two years ago. the california legislator has tried to change this retroactively. the a pellet courts have so much said no you can t do that. i want to throw in one thing. my quick research has disclosed in this which i find to be kind of shocking. the only person who could be prosecuted? this case appears to be the victim at this point because under california law it s illegal to tape record another person. they have an eves dropping law called the two party consent law. both parties have to consent to the eves dropping. she would not be prosecuted but
against people who may take them on with video. well, you know, they re recording us. they re videotaping us. they have dashboard cams and now they re carrying video cameras on our uniforms and in kansas there is a sheriff s office they re using cameras on their uniform. the san jose police department, they re using it and in california you have a two-party consent law. so, i mean, we record them. it s a first amendment right to document, observe what police officers doing. they have an expectation of privacy in public while they re doing their public duties. it s not really a question. all right, carlos miller, we greatly appreciate it. we ll continue t follow this story from both sides of the debate on this one. thank you. well, the senate is poised to finally pass the bill extending jobless benefits. plus, we ll talk with a ceo of one company that claims that they won t lay off employees, despite the downturn in our economy. how is it possible that they can