The Rehumanize Podcast

In this episode, Jack Champagne is joined by Democrats for Life chapter leader Kathy Kelly to discuss the changes made in the 2024 Democratic National Convention platform and what lies ahead for democrats who adhere to a Consistent Life Ethic. — Learn more about Rehumanize International and the CLE at rehumanizeintl.org.

In this episode, Rehumanize's executive director Jack Champagne and board member Michael J. discuss the changes made in the 2024 Republican National Convention platform and what lies ahead for conservatives who adhere to a Consistent Life Ethic. — The Vox article referenced by Michael: https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/2/3/14487208/pro-life-abortion-movement — Learn more about Rehumanize International and the CLE at rehumanizeintl.org.

In this episode, our host Emiliano is joined by Rehumanize founder Aimee Murphy to discuss a recent Alabama Supreme Court ruling and how pro-lifers should approach embryo destruction and IVF.   —   Learn more about our stance on human embryos: rehumanizeintl.org/embryos

Maria and Kristin discuss the US v. Handy trial, the incarceration of pro-life rescuers, and what they expect in the coming months. Follow Kristin's work at @KristinTurnerLife on Instagram and @KristinForLife on Twitter/X. — Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org.

Recorded live from the 2023 Rehumanize Conference: Having made the choice to place her son for adoption over 20 years ago, Marcia Lane-McGee knows the joy among the pain of a lifelong decision. She shares the five things we as pro-lifers need to know as we accompany women, understand the reality and the realness of making an adoption plan, and how the narrative falls short.   Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org.

This episode brings together Rehumanize founder Aimee Murphy and adoptee Sarah L. to discuss the intricacies of adoption and all it entails.   Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org.

Our hosts Herb Geraghty and Emiliano Vera are joined today by Allie Frazier, a pro-life activist from Ohio, to discuss the current push to amend the state's constitution.   Learn more about Rehumanize International at https://www.rehumanizeintl.org/.

Anastasia is an animal and human rights activist and board member of the Rainbow Pro-Life Alliance. They join our hosts in this episode to share about intersex conditions, what it's like being an LGBTQ+ pro-life activist, and more! Learn more about Rainbow Pro-Life Alliance at https://twitter.com/RainbowProLife, and follow Anastasia's work at https://www.instagram.com/anaxoxy_prolife/.   Learn more about Rehumanize International at https://www.rehumanizeintl.org/.  

Missy Martinez-Stone is the national leading expert in abortion facility closures. Missy began her pro-life career with Students for Life of America and became their National Field Director. She oversaw the growing team of Regional Coordinators and helped Students for Life cross the threshold by helping over 1,000 student groups. Missy has traveled the country working with young people, training and equipping them to be revolutionary pro-life activists. She's been featured in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Christian Broadcasting Network, and many other media outlets. In 2020, Missy helped incorporate Reprotection, a national pro-life watchdog group that investigates and shuts down abortion facilities that violate state health and medical codes. Reprotection has shut down two abortion facilities in the past two years, stopped three abortion facilities from opening, and has ongoing investigations in over 30 states. Learn more about Reprotection at www.reprotection.org.   Learn more about Rehumanize International at https://www.rehumanizeintl.org/.  

George White and his wife Charlene were shot multiple times and left for dead during an armed robbery at his place of business in Enterprise, Alabama, on February 27, 1985. George lived — his wife did not. Thus began a 7-year legal nightmare as George was charged, convicted, and ultimately exonerated of his wife's murder. This grisly experience led George to meet other murder victim family members, and he now works with Journey of Hope from Violence to Healing, a crime victim advocacy group that seeks to abolish the death penalty and replace it with effective, constructive solutions. Learn more about Journey of Hope at https://www.journeyofhope.org/.   Learn more about Rehumanize International at https://www.rehumanizeintl.org/.  

It's time for a crash course in the legal history of religious liberty! Can a "Satanic abortion ritual" trump pro-life legislation? How does religious liberty impact efforts to protect life in the womb? Kelsey Hazzard, founder of Secular Pro-Life, provides a valuable introduction to a new frontier in abortion litigation. Below are the legal opinions cited in the presentation. Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 250 (1993) Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) Jehovah's Witnesses in the State of Washington v. King County Hospital Unit No. 1 (Harborview), 278 F.Supp. 488 (W.D. Wash. 1967) In re Clark, 185 N.E.2d 128 (Ohio Ct. of C.P. 1962) Hoener v. Bertinato, 67 N.J.Super. 517 (1961) Learn more about Secular Pro-Life at secularprolife.org.   Transcript: Kelsey Hazzard: Hello everyone and welcome to Religious Liberty Justifications for Violence: a Legal Analysis. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Kelsey Hazard. I am the founder and president of Secular Pro-Life. SPL is an atheist led organization advancing secular arguments against abortion and uniting people of every faith and none to protect prenatal human beings. I'm really excited about this presentation. Although I am an atheist, I have always taken a strong academic interest in religion. My undergraduate majors were religious studies and psychology, and then I went to law school where I just devoured all things First Amendment. So I wanna thank Rehumanize International for giving me this wonderful opportunity to, to geek out with an audience. You have probably seen headlines about satanist groups and pro-abortion Jewish synagogues filing lawsuits against pro-life legislation planning that it violates their religious freedom. And maybe you've thought, well, that's ridiculous. You can't just kill somebody and say, Oh, but it's my religion. And if that was your reaction, Your intuition is correct. I am going to conclude that these lawsuits, these lawsuits ought to fail. But to discuss this issue intelligently beyond just our intuitive reactions requires understanding some key concepts of religious liberty law. So, this session is your crash course. I have five housekeeping matters before I begin. One, I have a lot of citations. You can find all of them in the most recent post at secular pro-life dot org slash blog. I've also dropped it in the chat, and if you're watching the later recording, there should be a link in the description. Two. A disclaimer. I am a attorney. I am not your attorney. This presentation is for general educational purposes only. It is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, you should contact a lawyer who's licensed in your jurisdiction to give you advice that's tailored to your situation. Number three, I realized that this conference attracts attendees. From around the world. In fact, I think I saw a poll earlier that about a quarter of you are from outside of the United States of America. I am focused here. This presentation is specifically about US law. Number four. If you have questions or comments, please put them in the Q and A tab. I'll circle back to them at the end if we have time. If you put them in the general chat tab, I might miss them. So please use that Q and A tab. Finally, number five. This session is going to touch on quite a few beliefs. Satanism Judaism, Native American Spirituality, Santeria, Evangelical Christianity, Jehovah's Witnesses. In the Immortal words of Stefan from Saturday Night Live, this club has everything. If you happen to belong to any of the religious communities I just mentioned, I apologize in advance for how cursory and surface level my comments are going. You could devote a lifetime of study to any one of the religions I mentioned, and many people have. We have 45 minutes. It is what it is. And I'm sorry. So all of those housekeeping matters are done. Let us dive in with a Native American church and the case of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon versus Smith. That's mouthful. We usually just say employment division versus Smith. Mr. Smith ingested peyote for sacramental purposes during a Native American ceremony. Somehow his employer, a drug rehab center, found out about that and fired him. He applied for state unemployment benefits and he was denied. Oregon's position was using hallucinogens is illegal in our state. You used them. There is no religious exception, so it's your own damn fault you lost your job. We're not paying you unemployment. Mr. Smith argued that this violated his first amendment right to free exercise of religion. The case went all the way to the us Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled against him. The court supported Oregon's position. Their reasoning, and I'm paraphrasing here, Was, what are you nuts? We can't start making religious exceptions to drug laws. Every heroin addict in the country is going to take advantage of that. Laws would mean absolutely nothing. It would be chaos . So he lost, he lost his case. And the legal standard that was announced in Smith was that if a generally applicable, incidentally burdens religious exercise that is not a First Amendment violation. The law will be upheld and the state does not have to create an exception or an accommodation for that religious person. So what does the Supreme Court mean by generally applicable law? The best way to illustrate that is with a counter. Let's talk about Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye versus city of Hialeah. I love this case, not just because it's fun to say, although it it definitely is Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye. I also just find it super interesting and my favorite law professor Douglas Laycock, happens to represent the church. So, first some background. This is where Santeria makes an appearance. And if your only familiarity with Santeria is the Sublime song, you have excellent musical taste. Don't practice Santeria ain't got no crystal ball — just don't pop a cap in Sancho, this is a consistent life ethic conference. By the way, I have no way of knowing if my stupid jokes are landing. So please, please be gentle. Santeria is most commonly practiced in Cuba. It arose from the interaction of African religions brought by enslaved people, and Catholicism brought by colonizers. When Cuban American refugees settled in South Florida, they brought Santeria with them. Santeria worship sometimes involves ritual animal sacrifice, which makes it a very foreign and objectionable, scenario to a white American audience. When a Santeria priest announced that he was opening the Church of the Lukumi Babalu in Hialeah, a Santeria congregation, it did not go over well. As the Supreme Court put it in its opinion, the prospect of a Santeria church in their midst was distressing to many members of the Hialeah community. And the announcement of the plans to open a santaria church in Hialeah prompted the city council to hold an emergency public session on June 9, 1987. That session and some later ones produced numerous resolutions and ordinances, which taken together prohibited the Santeria animal sacrifices. So this went up to the US Supreme Court. And the, the justice said the justices had no trouble figuring out that this was not a generally applicable law. It was a unanimous decision. The city argued, Hey, they we're just promoting animal welfare, and we have legitimate public health concerns as far as the animal remains go. But that was unconvincing because the ordinance. Were just riddled with exceptions for commercial meat production, for hunting, for pest control, and even for kosher slaughter. The court called it a religious gerrymander. I'll quote again from the opinion. The net result of the gerrymander is that few, if any, killings of animals are prohibited other than Santeria's s. Which is prescribed because it occurs during a ritual or ceremony, and its primary purpose is to make an offering to the Orishas, not food consumption. Indeed, careful drafting insured that although Santeria sacrifice is prohibited, killings that are no more necessary or humane in almost all other circumstances are unpunished. In other words, this law was discriminatory. And since the law was not generally applicable, The Smith's standard did not apply. Instead, the court used a much tougher standard, what we call strict scrutiny. There must be a compelling interest in support of the law, and the law must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest with the least religious burden possible. Remember that test: compelling interest, narrowly tailored. That's strict scrutiny. And there's a saying in the legal community: strict in theory, fatal in fact. Meaning hardly anything is going to pass the strict scrutiny test. Hialeah's anti sacrifice — anti sacrifice law, certainly did not, and the church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye emerged victorious. So at this point you might be wondering how this is relevant to anti-abortion laws. After all, we aren't targeting a particular religion. We didn't convene an emergency city — city council session to ban the satanic abortion ritual. We aren't trying to save only the babies conceived by mothers of a particular faith group. We wanna save as many babies as humanly possible. That's how pro-life laws are written. They're broad. They're generally applicable. Yes. Yes. That, that is right. However, The American public really did not like the outcome in Employment Division versus Smith. A lot of people on both sides of the aisle felt that Smith should have won that case, and it's not hard to see why. Right? He's a very sympathetic plaintiff. He wasn't hurting anybody. Native American use of peyote is thousands of years older than the United States itself. The war on drugs really has run a muck here. Why couldn't have Org — why couldn't Oregon have just made an exception for him? Don't we have freedom of religion in this country? And that was bipartisan sentiment at the time. So Congress passed a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. And what RFRA did was take that compelling interest, strict scrutiny test that was used in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye and say that's going to be the test for all religious freedom claims, including claims for an exception to a generally applicable law. Now, the federal RFRA only applies to federal laws, but almost half of the states enacted their own state level RFRA. That includes much of the south and also some deep blue New England states. The end result is that whether you are going to take more of a Smith approach or more of a church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye approach depends on where you live. I told you that RFRA was a bipartisan sentiment at the time. Not so much now. Over the years, increasingly high profile RFRA claims involve L G B T issues. For instance, conservative Christian florists seeking exceptions from anti-discrimination laws so that they can refuse to serve same sex weddings. RFRA itself didn't change, but it acquired this anti-gay connotation that left a lot of liberals with a sour taste in their mouths. And like so many other issues, opinions about RFRA grew more and more partisan, more and more polarized. And then the Supreme Court decided Burwell versus Hobby Lobby. This was a huge RFRA case. It was only eight years ago. It got a ton of press and I'm sure many of you already know all about it. But I'm gonna summarize it. So as part of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, whatever you wanna call it, I don't care. Employers of a certain size were required to provide contraceptives — coverage for various contraceptives with no copay. Hobby lobby did not object to most of the contraceptive methods on the list, but it identified four that it said weren't really contraceptives, that that was a misnomer. These were really abortifacients. They weren't preventing conception, they were preventing a newly conceived embryo from implanting. Hobby Lobby considered that to be an early abortion, and the company owners' Evangelical Christian faith would not allow them to be complicit in funding their employees abortions. Hobby Lobby brought a case under RFRA. The Supreme Court used that two part strict scrutiny test. Remember: compelling interest and narrowly tailored. The court assumed that the government does have a compelling interest in ensuring access to contraception. It was that second part of the test whether the law is narrowly tailored to advance the compelling interests by the least restrictive means, which is where the contraceptive mandate failed. And that was largely because a religious exception already exists. The Department of Health and Human Services, HHS had created an exception, had had given accommodations to churches and religious non-profits that had a problem with funding contraceptives. In those cases, the government covered the cost without the employer's involvement, thus advancing the compelling interest in contraceptive access without a religious burden. So the accommodation was obviously possible. It was being done. It's just that HHS would not extend that accommodation to Hobby Lobby on the ground that Hobby Lobby was a for profit company. A slim majority of the justices, five to four, said that under RFRA, that doesn't matter. For-profit or nonprofit status doesn't matter. So Hobby Lobby got its exception from the contraceptive mandate. The mandate itself was not struck down, by the way. It's still in effect, albeit with greater, broader, religious exceptions than HHS wanted. Women are still getting their pills. Sky didn't fall, but plenty of people were convinced that the sky was falling and RFRA took another hit in the court of public opinion. So the religious liberty challenges to pro-life laws that we're seeing today are largely RFRA lawsuits. When you read the press about them, the narrative is basically, Ha ha ha, conservatives we're using your religion law against you. Like it's some kind of Gotcha. Hopefully by virtue of this presentation, you understand why that take is ahistorical. But forget the press. Let's take a fair look at the lawsuits themselves, starting with the Satanists. First of all, to correct a myth, Satanists, do not literally worship Satan or even believe in the existence of Satan. Satanism is a naturalistic system, but you do not necessarily need a deity to qualify as a religion under the First Amendment. Sincerely held Moral beliefs will suffice. For purposes of today, satanism is a religion, and Satanists provide a useful public service, in my view, keeping local governments in compliance with the establishment clause. I see you've, put up a 10 Commandments monument. Where do we apply to erect our statue to Baphomet? It's those, it's those guys. You, you've seen the satanists. One of the better known Satanist communities is the Satanic Temple, which follows seven tenets. The first tenet is one should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with roots, in accordance with reason. Unfortunately, that noble tenant goes straight out the window when it comes to abortion. In that case, they emphasize the third tenet: one's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone. Classic sovereign zone. The Satanic abortion ritual involves reciting and contemplating that third tenet while getting an abortion. For the purpose of casting off guilt, shame, and mental discomfort that the satanist may be experiencing about the abortion. So the argument is not that abortion is a required part of Satanic practice. It's not like making a hodge. They're not sacrificing babies to earn points. That's not what's going on here. The argument is just that if a satanist is going to have abortion, this is the ritual that goes along with it. And by restricting abortion, you're also restricting the ritual. The Jewish lawsuits, by contrast, Argue that Jewish law actually requires abortion, at least in some circumstances. For instance, the complaint brought against Florida's 15 week ban, which is still pending. That complaint asserts that late term abortion is required under Jewish law, if necessary, to promote the woman's mental wellbeing, which obviously goes far beyond Florida's normal health of the mother exception. To be abundantly clear, that is not a universal interpretation of Jewish law. Those plaintiffs do not speak for all Jews. There are pro-life jews, and Jews are welcome at this conference. Let's assume that we are in a RFRA jurisdiction. If a state wants its pro-life laws to apply universally without granting an exception to anyone who claims a religious freedom to abort, remember what the state has to. One, the law is supported by a compelling interest. And two, the law is narrowly tailored to advance that compelling interest with the least possible burden to religious exercise. We all know what the compelling interest is. It's human life. The plaintiffs will say, Not to our religion, it's not. And I say, Bring on that debate. The science of life at fertilization is settled. And when you read the Dobbs opinion, I don't think you can escape the conclusion that the government now has a legally compelling interest in preventing abortions. Is there any way to promote that compelling interest without creating a religious clash? Not that I see. One day with the development of artificial, artificial wombs? Maybe. That, that would be great. But with current technology, no. So I believe that anti-abortion laws should survive a RFRA challenge. They survive strict scrutiny. The lawsuits will fail. But Kelsey, someone asks, What about strict in theory, fatal in fact? Thank you, person who has been paying attention. You should be skeptical. Can I point to any specific legal precedent that a state's interest in, in protecting human life, and in particular young human life, and preventing human death, can trump a religiously motivated medical decision? Well, folks, I promised you Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm a woman of my word. Several bible verses prohibit eating blood and instruct Israelites to remove blood from their meat. Jehovah's Witnesses interpret those versions to prohibit not only eating blood through the mouth and digestion, but any consumption of blood, including taking blood intravenously. They oppose blood transfusions on that religious ground. This belief is very sincerely held. Many Jehovah's Witnesses would rather die than accept a blood transfusion. Many have proved it. Normally, we trust parents to make medical decisions for their children, but when Jehovah's Witness parents refuse to allow life saving blood transfusions for their kids, authorities often intervene. And when that happens, the parents go to court demanding vindication of their religious liberty. There's whole line of cases about this going back decades. And most of them cite this powerful quote from the Supreme Court case of Prince versus Massachusetts. Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves, but it does not follow that they are free in identical circumstances to make martyrs of their children. Oddly enough, Prince didn't involve blood transfusion or any other life or death issue. Prince was about a Jehovah's Witness who had her daughter, selling religious pamphlets late at night in violation of a child labor law. But the Supreme Court's rhetorical flourish about making martyrs of your children made it clear how it would come down in a blood transfusion case. And courts across the country took that unsubtle hint. For example, a Washington Court rejected a Jehovah's Witness blood transfusion lawsuit on the compelling authority of Prince. An Ohio Court wrote, no longer can parents virtually exercise the power of life or death over their children. Nor may they abandon him, deny him proper parental care, neglect or refuse to provide him with proper and necessary subsistence education, medical or surgical care, or other care necessary for his health, morals, or wellbeing. And while they may, under certain circumstances, deprive him of his liberty or his property, under no circumstances, with or without due process, with or without religious sanction, are they free to deprive him of his life. That same court went on to say the parents in this case have a perfect right to worship as they please and believe what they please. They enjoy complete freedom of religion, but this right of theirs ends where somebody else's right begins. Their child is a human being in his own right with a soul and body of his own. He has rights of his own. The right to live and grow up without disfigurement. Okay. You're thinking those were all born children. Okay. Allow me to introduce you to the New Jersey case of Hoener versus Bertinato. Mr. And Mrs. Bertinato were Jehovah's Witnesses. Mrs. Bertinato was pregnant with her fourth child. This was an issue of RH incompatibility. I am not qualified to explain that in any detail, so I'll just quote the court. Her first child was born without the necessity of blood transfusions and is a normal child. This accords with the medical testimony at the hearing that the mother's RH blood condition adversely affects the second and subsequent children, but rarely is harmful for the harmful to the first born. Second child needed a blood transfusion immediately. The parents refused and the baby's doctors filed an emergency petition. The court briefly placed that baby in state custody just long enough to accomplish the blood transfusion. The child survived, and the child was returned to the parents. I'll quote again. Gloria Bertinato's third pregnancy resulted in a baby who also — excuse me. Gloria Bertinato's third pregnancy resulted in a baby who admittedly also needed a blood transfusion to save its life, but defendants again refused to permit this on religious grounds. No legal proceedings were instituted to compel the transfusion. The infant died. For baby number four, the county would not allow that tragedy to be repeated. They were ready. Officials filed their lawsuit before the child was born, to ensure that a blood transfusion could occur. The lawsuit, quote, charges that the defendants, by their refusal to authorize the transfusions, are endangering the life of the unborn child, and are therefore neglecting to provide it with proper protection, in violation of New Jersey law. The court acknowledged that the parents' religious objections were sincere. But the parents' constitutional freedom of religion, although accorded the greatest possible respect, must bend to the paramount interest of the state to act in order to preserve the welfare of a child and its right to survive. The court cited Prince and various other Jehovah's Witnesses blood transfusion cases, and then it asked, should the outcome be any different because this child is still in the womb? And the answer was a resounding no. This was pre-roe. So the court embraced the science and stated medical authority recognizes that an unborn child is a distinct biological entity from the time of conception, and many branches of the law afford the unborn child protection throughout the period of gestation. Of course, in the Dobbs era, that protection is finally being restored. A pro-abortion American is free to embrace a religious belief that human life does not begin at fertilization, but she is not free to make a martyr of her child. That concludes my prepared remarks. I appreciate your time, and I look forward to answering your questions. Um, Elizabeth asked, what was the name of this case? I don't know which case you're referring to. All of the cases are in that citation, that link I gave at the beginning. And you should be able to, hold on. Are you talking about the most recent case I was talked? The, the last case I mentioned, Hoener, H O E N E R, versus Bertinato was the case with the, the unborn child of Jehovah's Witness. Love all the jokes in geek. Thank you, . I, I know that we, we cover some dark topics at the Rehumanize Conference. I'm a big believer in, trying to lighten the mood. I don't see much in Q and A tab, so I'm just gonna scroll back through the chat tab. Let me see if there's anything here. , As a fellow lawyer, I feel that caveat to my core. Yes. Thank you, Leah. Um, Oh my God. . Sorry. The poor, poor dog. Okay. Jews have been pro-life for millennia, so Yeah. I, I agree. Joey. Thank you, joey, for rick rolling us . Okay. Um. Ben says, these seem like really strong precedents, especially because some of them are arguably about letting die rather than killing and are thus even stronger than what you'd need in the abortion case. Excellent point, Ben. Yes, I, I certainly, hope that the courts see it the same way. The, the downside to the Jehovahs Witness precedence is that they are older and they are not Supreme Court precedents. But as I mentioned, the, the Supreme Court precedent in Prince, although not about blood transfusions, has, has largely been, taken up in that line of cases. And I think it would, still function in the same way in the unlikely event that one of these religious freedom abortion cases makes its way all the way to our highest court. How would you summarize this to say 240 characters? Like to tweet at Catholics for Choice? You might need a thread , or you can just, link to the eventual video of this presentation. I believe Rehumanize is going to make this footage available, and then we'll get the closed captions going and put it up on YouTube, hopefully within the next few weeks. But yeah, more, more generally, I think, the, I don't know, maybe I should start tweeting at Catholics for Choice about this. What are you seeing in the legal field regarding RFRA changing its function post Roe? I don't know that it's really changing its function necessarily. So some of the plaintiffs, and particularly the satanist plaintiffs, I think are bringing these lawsuits, not solely because they're pro-abortion, although they are — I think they would also, as a, as a strategic matter, like to push on RFRA. I think I, and I think that's why we're seeing the press around it that we're seeing. This is like — even if they were to lose and they, they have to know that they're likely to lose, this is, this is a press thing and this is a, a matter of, trying to, get, get some more public opposition to RFRA. So. I, I don't, I haven't seen a whole lot of traction on that front. I haven't seen any legislatures, taking RFRA off their books, but you never know. . David asks, How long, how do you do your legal prep? Sorry, I'm struggling to read this because other things keep popping up. How do you do your legal research and how long does it take? Did you know most of these cases offhand or did you have to look them up? So I knew some of the big ones offhand. I knew. Employment Division v Smith. I knew Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye. I knew Prince vs. Massachusetts. I knew Hobby Lobby. You know, like I, I refreshed my memory by rereading those opinions, but I knew that that was where I needed to start. And then I did have to do some additional research, when it came to the, the pen — the pending lawsuits, and also the Jehovah's Witness line of cases. I, I, because I am a practicing attorney, I have access to Westlaw, which is the, legal database. That was very helpful. And, you know, also just, I, you know, I started by just doing a general search for law review articles about Jehovah's Witness of blood transfusion that compiled some of the cases. And that was, that was a good start. And I, was definitely working on this presentation as late as last night. So , I'm glad it came together. I am a better procrastinator. But that's, yeah, that's how it all happened. Let's see. Ben asks, Apart from law, what do you think about the ethical argument from religious freedom or religious pluralism, that being pro-life depends on controversial slash contested views about the grounds of personal identity and dignity. And so no one view should be legislated for by a pluralist society. The problem is that your, your law is going to pick a line. That's what laws do. If. That, that that argument, that poor pluralism argument treats birth like it's a neutral line. It's not. The, the law is gonna pick a line and every line is gonna offend somebody . That, that's just, that's just life in a democracy. So I don't, I don't find that argument particularly, persuasive from our loyal opposition. My, I would go a step farther and say that the only neutral way to go about this is to say that, you know, human rights begin when human life begins. And that that has to be defined in a scientific way, rather than a philosophical way because, there, there's, you know, you all of these, different guideposts that are being posed. Bear a lot of resemblance to ensoulment, which would be an establishment of religion. I hope that makes sense. , Given your rationale, how would any abortion be legal without demonstrating an exceptional need such as life of the mother? I, I do oppose abortion other than for the life of the mother. Mother, excuse me. Under Dobbs, the state, it, it is still a state by state thing. I'm getting into — the 14th Amendment argument is definitely beyond the scope of what I can do in the next nine minutes. But the, so, the idea is that you're, you know, the people of a state, through their legislatures, demonstrate what the interests of the state are. Right? So Florida or, you know, let's, you know, take, take like Alabama, right? Alabama has, an active, pretty, pretty strong anti-abortion legislation post Dobbs. That is an indication that the state of Alabama has a compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting human life. California obviously does not think that it has that compelling interest, so that — I, I don't know if I'm answering your question. But I, I hope, I hope that helps. How can interested people get involved with Secular Pro-life and what are your current needs? Yeah, definitely you can get involved in Secular Pro-life. We are always in need of volunteers. We, look for people to write guest pieces on our blog. We look for translators. We wanna get our message out in languages other than English. You can email me, info@secularprolife.org, or you can email our executive director Monica at Monica, secularprolife.org and, get connected to some volunteer opportunities that way. And you can also donate, via our website or our Facebook page. In Canada not long ago, an immigrant couple were convicted of the honor killing of their daughter. The couple sincerely believed that it was their moral duty to kill their daughter, but the majority in Canada, fortunately in the case of that issue, and unfortunately perhaps some other issues imposed their views on the minority. Sometimes it is good to impose views — not a question, a comment supporting something you said. I, yeah, that, that's an excellent example. I would stick with the Jehovah's witness example, just because it's a little less inflammatory. . I, I'm not in the habit of, comparing pro-choice people to supporters of honor killings if I don't have to. I think the Jehovah's Witness comparison is, more diplomatic and civil. But on principle, yes, you are correct. The the same reasons that, you shouldn't be able to, claim a religious exemption to commit an honor killing are, are the same reasons that you shouldn't be able to claim a religious exemption to have abortion. Um, Yeah, neutrality just seems impossible here. No neutrality when lives are on the line. Oh. Maria wrote, We will be publishing a handful of the session recordings on our YouTube in the coming weeks, but all attendees should have immediate access to all the recordings for rewatch and hopin on Monday, and that access will last for a full year. All right. Thank you. Maria. I don't. I'm, I'm guessing that's only for people who bought a ticket, though. I don't think Catholics for Choice bought a ticket. It's their loss. It's their loss. Okay, we've got about five more minutes together and I think I went through everybody's questions we might end earlier, which is, a secular miracle for a conference like this. I see Leah is on Team Westlaw. Yes, Westlaw all the way. I don't use Lexus. Never have. Um, oh. And Herb says, Thank you. All right. Herb, did you wanna come into the presentation and say anything? I was gonna do that, and then I just realized I'm in the same room as Kane who is on a panel right now, so nevermind. I'm leaving Yes, Secular Miracle would be a great band name, absolutely Ray. Hmm. Can you maybe conscience rights for physicians? Oh, can I comment on that? It's a big problem here in Canada. I unfortunately don't know much at all about Canadian law. I don't, to my knowledge, Canada doesn't have something like RFRA. So I am unfortunately not the person to ask. But, yeah, RFRA certainly can be used, for conscience protections in, in some situations. That wasn't within the scope of what I was researching, for this presentation, but I have seen that anecdotally. Um, the danger there, of course is that, you're treating, objection to abortion as inherently religious, which it isn't , but, Okay. Anything else? Always heard Canada is pretty bad for conference rights. Yeah. Yeah. That, that's what I've heard also. Oh, something in the Q and A. Thank you. What do you think of efforts to argue for pro-life conclusions within religions on specifically religious grounds? Eg. Do you think Catholic should be arguing against Catholic for Choice? Primarily just using general moral argument. To avoid creating the impression that it's really a religious issue, or do you think there's a role for intra religious debates to be more well religious? I, I think that if you are part of a religious community, and members of your community are out doing stupid things or unethical things, you should go get your guy. That's, I, I have no problem with you using a religious argument with someone that you know to be religious. Now if you're in a public Twitter argument with Catholics for Choice, then maybe consider that you're not so much trying to persuade them. You're trying to persuade the audience. So in that case you might take a more ve route, but yeah, individually, like in a one on one or small group setting, if you are speaking with co-religionists, I don't have a problem with you, using a religious argument. That's your business. I'm, I'm an atheist. That's, that's not my realm at all. So something came up in chat. Con — that's the problem we're having. Conscience is always being framed as religious, but conscience is not itself exclusive to religion. Yeah. And so that kind of gets back to my point earlier about, satanism being considered a religion. And you, you can see that also in, consci— conscientious objector rules for military, you do not have to be, religious to, to claim, an interest in pacifism. I read about a pastor who has a ministry flying women from places where abortion is illegal to get abortions legally. That's just gross. Okay. I think we are done. Thank you all so much for your time. I am going to maybe hang out a little bit at the Secular Pro-Life Expo booth if anybody wants to continue this conversation. And, yeah. Thank, thank you so much for, for dropping in. I really, and, and for, for asking such thoughtful questions.  

From abortion to police brutality and the death penalty, Black Americans suffer disproportionate amounts of state-sanctioned lethal violence. This roundtable discussion from our 2022 Rehumanize Conference brings together Black activists who hold a Consistent Life Ethic to discuss the critical importance of challenging racial injustice as we advocate for human rights for all human beings.   Watch the video version of this session on our Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j91o_IL63Kw   Transcript: Herb Geraghty: So this session is titled Black Lives Matter from Conception to Natural Death. I am so grateful to be joined by these three individuals. I'm going to just briefly introduce each of our participants and then hand the conversation over to them. First, Jack Champagne is a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. He currently works as an educator in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He formerly worked for the Capital Habeas Unit of the Federal Public Defender's Office, the Innocence Project, the Project, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. He is also a staff writer for Rehumanize International. Cherilyn Holloway is the founder of Pro Black Pro-Life. She specializes in initiating tough conversations surrounding racial equity, including in the womb. She travels the country, educating her community about the negative messaging they receive regarding motherhood and the sanctity of life. Finally, Gloria Purvis is an author, commentator, and the host and executive producer of the Gloria Pur podcast. Through her media presence, she has been a strong Catholic voice for life issues, religious liberty, and racial justice. She has appeared in numerous media outlets, including The New York Times, the Washington Post, PBS News Hour, npr, Newsweek Live and she hosted Morning Glory, an international radio show. She recently debuted a video series entitled Racism, Human Dignity, and the Catholic Church through the Word on Fire. I. Again, I am so, so grateful for each of our participants. With that said, I am going to get out of here and give them the opportunity to discuss their work and tell us what Black Lives matter from conception to natural death means to you. Thank you all. Thank you.  Jack Champagne: Thank you, Herb.  Gloria Purvis: Jack, why don't you start us off.  Jack Champagne: Oh man, . I was, I'm, I'm a,  Cherilyn Holloway: I was gonna vote for Jack.  Yes. .  Jack Champagne: Ah, alright then. So yeah, I was, I was, I, I've spent most of my life kind of with the sort of mainstream understanding of, uh, of life issues, of kind of being, you know, kind of, not super, uh, decided on the issue. It was actually working at the capital habeas unit that I actually, developed a, I mean, you try working with condemned prisoners and not develop a healthy respect for human life. It's, you know, dealing with, you know, prisoners who do not have living victims and who are themselves usually scheduled to die at the hands of the state. Having to advocate for these people and, you know, if you don't have an opinion on the death penalty going in, you will definitely have one coming out. And, I mean, it, it's a, it's a powerful experience, you know, just looking at the conditions they live in, the legal issues, that, uh, that surround capital punishment, and, uh, you know, just working under, Marshall Diane, who I think is still working there, who was a, who was a very, you know, loud voice against the death penalty. Just kind of, just kind of, you know, uh, formed my thinking on that. And of course it's, you know, Uh, very short distance from there to, you know, you know, concern about the lives of the disabled and the unborn. And you know, that, that, that of course interacts with my, my perception of race, both as, uh, both as a black man and as somebody who was clientele was almost always black men as well. So, you know, that's, that's. Uh, you know, that's, that's, I I have a very tangible, you know, grasp on what that looks like for me. I don't know about the, I don't know about you, uh, you all, but that's kind of where I come from with it.  Gloria Purvis: Uh, you know, I, I think, I'm a child of south. I mean, I grew up in Charleston, South Carolina. Which is where the Civil War started. Long history of bad race relations, . Still, we have people having a love affair with the lost cause mythology that the South had race relations, uh, correct by subjugating black people and that we were happier with the way that it was and that they had it right in terms of human relations between men and women. Uh, right in terms of the race question, but it wasn't. And, this — growing up in that environment, but at the same time, growing up in a very strong black community, in that environment, in a strong black community of people who, despite all the obstacles were achievers, were people who created things within the black community. And so while I grew up down there, I also had an environment where black excellence was normal, was normative. And, encountering people there that thought that, you know, I shouldn't think so highly and be so sure of myself. And that was their problem, not mine, but at the same time also seeing the uneven application of law enforcement, the uneven application of good healthcare. You know what I mean? Things like that, that you just as a black person moving through the world is paying attention. You see these things. And then, as a person of faith, also as a person that, believed in the science, you know, and I studied biology, uh, I understood that the human person. It, you know, is a human person, is a human life, a member of the human family from that moment of conception. And it just made sense to me, that we'd wanna protect and defend that life from the moment of conception all the way through natural death. And it was inconsistent to me to, in, on the one hand, say, we wanna defend lives in this instance, and yet in another instance, get rid of that life it in as a means of empowering others. So it just seemed illogical to me, some positions that I've seen in different justice movements. So it made me question, well, what is justice really? And as a, a person of faith and studying with the Catholic church understands justice, being justice means every human person — life being, uh, gets what they, you know, they merit something their life merits, protection, nurturing, flourishing. And that's what each of us is entitled to. Whether we're, whether we're the condemned on death row, whether we're in the womb, whether we're on our deathbed as a sick person, our lives of worthy of protection. And, and, and now even I think people are struggling with the notion that the death penalty should be no more. You know, we, we have this idea that really is really vengeance if you ask me. It's not justice. This idea that, you know, people need to get what's coming to 'em in a negative way without ever looking, also, at the way racism influences how the death penalty, who gets the death penalty. How, someone's wealth or lack thereof, influences who gets the death penalty, influences who even gets arrested and prosecuted. So, uh, there's so much uneven in our legal system. I've learned to call it the legal system instead of the justice system. There's so much uneven in our legal system that, it, it, it really, in terms of fairness, makes no sense to have the death penalty. Not to mention that each and every person, no matter what they've done, has made the image and likeness of God and is worthy of dignity and respect. And we as believers, I'm speaking as myself, are called to respond differently to persons who have harmed the community. We want restorative justice, not, not vengeance. And I think that's a difficult thing for people, but we can get into that and, and all, uh, later, but just as a high level, that has influenced, you know, my views and understanding of the human person and, and the dignity and why their lives need to be respected and protected. Cherilyn Holloway: Yeah, that's, both of those are like, spot on. So I, got into this. I was a community outreach director for a pregnancy center. I had made two previous abortion choices and I came outta those really feeling duped. Like I wasn't given all my options. And had I been given all my options, I would've made different choices. And I didn't want another woman to have to go through that. I had no idea that there was like a pro-life, pro choice. I had no clue. I was completely ignorant. And even when I joined the first pregnancy center, it wasn't something that they talked about. Nobody ever talked about Roe versus Wade. Nobody ever talked about the March for Life. It was just kind of like hand to the plow. We're just helping women. And it wasn't until I moved back to Ohio. I'm originally from Oberlin, Ohio, where the college is, and I grew up just with this, bubble. And in the bubble we were all like working towards justice. And so , you know, racial justice, food equity, everything you could think of, you know, Oberlin College was a first college to openly accept gay and lesbian couples. It was before like, I don't know, there's a session earlier where someone was saying that like being trans really was, wasn't a big deal in the 2000s and now it's a big deal. Like that is, that was my world and. So I grew up in a very different community that was surrounded by all white rural communities that were extremely racist. And so it wasn't that we were going out somewhere far to do work. We were, had work to do right where we were in our county. And so I moved back to Oberlin. and, uh, became the executive director of my local pregnancy center. And that's where I learned about this pro-life, pro-choice, uh, overturning Roe versus Wade. But the biggest thing I learned about was the disparities of abortion in the black community. And I couldn't wrap — I'm very li I'm not very sensational. Like I'm not, nobody would describe me as sensitive. Nobody would describe me as overly emotional. I'm very logical, data driven, straight to the point. And to me it just, I couldn't figure out why the, why everyone didn't know this. Like why isn't this obvious to everyone else? Like, I know I'm not like crazy, but this is obvious. And so when I began to go to conferences and look around and see, you know, five to 10 people that look like me and wonder, and everyone's stopping me saying, Why isn't the black community enraged about the abortion numbers? And I'm like, Have you, I don't know. Like I'm trying to figure it out myself and like, Well, what can we do? And so then I started pushing back and asking, Well, what do you do for their other circumstances? Like what do you do to help them with the children that they already have? Like, what are you doing to help them find, you know, equitable jobs? Like how are you helping them in other ways? Like, what else are you doing aside from, you know, telling them that we're having too many abortions? and I've — I kept being met with the same response, which was, Oh, well we wanna keep to the main thing. The main thing. It doesn't really matter if the baby doesn't make it out the womb, but it does matter because unless you are pregnant, you're not really thinking about abortion. So it absolutely does matter. If we're not actually doing something in the community to help the lives that are earth side, then it does matter. And so there just became, Pretty obvious tension between me and, uh, some of my, uh, pro-life comrades , because I wasn't going to be the person who, who just stood and talked about, you know, racism and the abortion issue without tying everything else together. And that's how I began to reach my community, inadvertently just without knowing, just randomly talking to people at the barbershop in the grocery store and , uh, wherever I could, because I talked to people everywhere. Um right. And that led me to start Pro-Black Pro-life just to be able to have a place. Where people who thought like me, because I just like, I can't be the only one gonna keep me to have this place. And then I built it. People came . That was kind of my, uh, way into really thinking about how Black lives matter from womb to tomb and how to be able to communicate that to the greater black community.  Gloria Purvis: You, you know, Cherilyn. That question that you know, well, why aren't black people more outraged about abortion? I would hear a, a flavor of that just about everywhere I went. But it was asked in a way, like in some cases like, is your community stupid? You know? Right. It's so condescending. And so when I felt like it, 'cause a lot of times I was like, remain in your ignorance because I don't have the wherewithal right now emotionally to deal with this. But in, in cases where I felt that it was worth having the conversation, I help people understand that there's a difference between abortion and the kinds of racialized, other racialized violence that we experience. I said, So for example, abortion. An abortion is something somebody has to go out and get. I said, me walking through the street and getting cold jacked by the police, I have to do nothing except be me and move through the space. So in terms of, uh, actual threats, nobody's jumping out and putting an abortion on you per se, you know what I mean? Right. So in terms of actual threats, what I'm thinking about as I'm leaving out of the safety of my home are those things that I cannot control. So I cannot control being followed in the department store and having security called on me. I cannot control when the doctor is ignoring me. When I say I'm, I'm hurting, you know, I need help with this pain. I cannot control when, I come in for a job interview and although I'm qualified and my name hints my ethnicity, that I'm not given the job. But I can control whether or not, at least in some sense, of going to choose abortion. So the threats are perceived differently. You know, the existential threats are perceived differently. Even though our community is heavily targeted, uh, for abortion and heavily marketed to, for abortion and all that kind of stuff, it's just perceived as a different kind of threat. So while it's not that we're not outraged, it's just that we got a lot of other things we got like going on. We got a lot already going on. So it's not that we don't care, it's not that it's, it's frankly that the people asking question are so far removed and so uninvested in the black experience that they can't fathom that we move through the world differently than they do. Jack Champagne: Mm-hmm. . Yeah, I think, I think, I think Cherilyn gets at something. When she talks about how isolating it is to sort of be in the black community, but also be pro-life because you're kind of, you know, the, there's sort of some kind of, there's kind of a regulatory capture in black communities in which the most politically active of us also feel the need to go in, all in on being pro-abortion, because that's where the political allies are. And then on the flip side, you have, you know, pro-life movement, which is not, uh, not always responsive to black voices. And black voices are not always present, you know, and I had occasion to think about this, you know, when, uh, Kamala Harris, you know, had brought, brought those leaders together to talk about, you know, reproductive justice and how effectively they were able to, to, do the messaging on that as sort of a civil rights. Uh, sort of or group, you know, you had buy in from Al Sharpton, from Mark Morial of the Urban League, from the NAACP, from all of these groups, these big names, and it was, it was, and you know, it's stunning how easy it was and how effectively they had kind of, you know, seized on this black organizing tradition and had kind of made it into — you know, this is the natural continuity of, you know, this black organizing tradition and kind of how uncritically, you know, is kind of accepted in these communities. So, you know, that isolation, it does have real political results and, you know, we're seeing it become, you know, increasingly stark and, you know, sort of a post Dobbs reality where, you know, these sharp political lines are being drawn. Cherilyn Holloway: Yeah. And I think that, I mean, I, I feel like. We'd be remiss if we didn't address the fact that the idea of a black woman, woman, having the right to have an abortion really becomes a rights issue. It's a control issue of a right that she did not used to have. Mm-hmm. . And so we can't ignore that. Right? We can't ignore that. There was a time when black women were not in control of their bodies and were not in control of what, you know, when they had babies and how many they had, and their children were sold, you know, into, in being enslaved. We cannot ignore that. And so this, this idea, you know, overturning Roe and the Dobbs decision takes us back to to, you know, black women not being able to control their bodies is, is a very real fear for some black women. But, but on the flip side of that, on the flip side of that, there's a huge difference between women's rights and reproductive justice, right? And so what ends up happening is that the Women's Rights Movement does what the Women's Rights Movement does, right? It isolates black women. Because what women's rights are fighting for are very different than what black women are fighting for with reproductive justice, right? Black women are fighting for this idea, not just to have an abortion. The abortions like the caveat, like it's stuck on the end and doesn't actually make sense because all the other rights have to do with, maternal mortality, infant mortality, being able to take care of their children. Having healthy relationships, having healthy schools, healthy childcare, like all of those things are in the reproductive justice, like being able to have a good birth experience — and then abortion is like tacked on that, and it almost doesn't make any sense. Where, in the women's rights movement, it's solely about abortion. That's it. and what black women are saying, like our issues are more complex. And I feel like even on the pro-life side, that's what we're saying, right? We're saying, yes, we get it. We're pro-life, but our issues are more complex. If we cannot figure out why women are jumping in and go upstream and stop that, we're just gonna be steady pulling 'em off the river. And there is no, there is no relief when we're consistently pulling them out the river. We're not actually solving the problem. And for 50 years we have not actively solved this problem . And so now everyone's like, Oh, well, you know, what does post, you know, Dobbs look like? Well, it looks like what it should have looked like in 1973. Like, we should have been working to solve some of these systemic issues that Gloria just named in order to help women. If 70% of women, black women, are having abortions for financial reasons, and we're talking that they only need $20,000 more to, to make a choice, to say, to keep their baby. And I say only because I know that there are people who are donating $20,000 to pregnancy centers. Which they need to do. Don't stop doing that. But it's — there is no lack of funds in the pro-life movement.  Gloria Purvis: Okay. So couple things. I do think it's a temptation — and I think it's not, I think it's on purpose that, around abortion, it's always marketed to black women as if you're losing something. Oh, these rich white women can do it, and if you can't do it, therefore it's not equal. And I think that's the biggest bunch of hokey. Because frankly, the thing that we want that, that that white women take for granted, isn't abortion. We want safe and affordable housing, clean water, jobs for our spouses, a good education for our children. And I think it is an absolute insult that the thing that they're like, well, you can have this thing though. You can have abortion, and you should really be rallying for abortion because that makes you equal to these wealthy white women. I'm like, no it doesn't. All it does is remove our children from these substandard conditions, while we still remain in those substandard conditions. Let's remove the substandard conditions from our community. That is what we need to be focusing on. If you want equality for black women, for black men, for black families, for black children. And so it has just been. Just, I, I, it has just been shocking to me how much, how much energy and effort is put into abortion. I mean, I just saw a member of the Divine Nine say something positive about abortion. Kamala Harrison, I are both members of Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority. I'm hoping the sorority doesn't say anything along those lines, but they probably will, if they haven't already. So it is absolutely, like you say, Jack, going to all these large black organizations and getting their buy-in and getting them to send a message out to their membership. And I think we need to start speaking, you know, among our friends, among our families. So whoever wants to listen in our churches, our parishes, our sororities, fraternities, our fraternal groups, whatever, to challenge, you know, this notion that abortion is a good thing for the black community. I think we also need to understand the idea of rights. Rights cannot go contrary to the nature of a thing. And so for people to, at at least in my opinion, call abortion a right. I'm like, but that goes exactly against the nature of what it is to be female, to be able to conceive and bring life forward. So to me, to say that it's a right to terminate that pregnancy — as if our biology is some inherent injustice against being female. To me, it's very anti-woman. And it never allows us to have these broader conversations about what the economy, what our culture, what society needs to look like, to be more inclusive of women as we are. I mean, if, if the answer for every difficulty that we experience is, you know, get that abortion, that's gonna liberate you, that's gonna free you, you can go and achieve, you can make more money. Then we never really talk about the structures or the systems that hold us back from achieving and making money. And then one last thing I wanna say: when they do studies on who wants an abortion, it's typically those women or families making a combined income of more than a hundred thousand dollars a year. Those making less — like, let's say 40,000 or less — by and large want to keep their children. So abortion is even being marketed to the very communities, poor black women, as liberating with those poor black women do not want abortion. And then one lesson, I will say this: bell hooks, who died recently, talked about in the feminist movement, how black women's aims were very different from white women. They weren't pushing for abortion. But because white women carried the day, abortion became central to being feminist, to being liberated, but that is not at all what black women wanted. So yeah, I think we need to recapture what it means to, as black women, what, what, uh, equality and liberty really means. And I don't think, having the ability to end the lives of our children in the womb is the answer. Jack Champagne: We popped over to the Q and A real quick. There are two kind of related questions. I wanted to see what y'all thought about — uh, first one's anonymous. Uh, it says, As advocates for racial justice and people who have interacted with the pro-life movement, which is often tied to conservative circles, what are some strategies you might suggest for how we can push back against the racism that has grown so loud in the G O P and Trump movements. And then second one, uh, this is, uh, Miles Bedlan, I think. How can we make the pro-life movement appeal more to black Americans? I've noticed that the pro-life movement is overwhelmingly white.  Cherilyn Holloway: I'll do, I'll do the second question. Yeah.  Gloria Purvis: You know, sometimes I'm, sometimes I'm like, I really think some that's gonna be something that, white pro-lifers need to take up. I really am not interested in, to tell you the truth, I'm really not interested with the limited energy I have and having to fight the obvious racism. Right? And quite frankly, the people who are prone to those kinds of behaviors or coded, coded language, probably can't hear me when I talk to them about why something is racist or inappropriate. But they probably could hear, uh, their fellow white pro-lifers explaining or calling out why something is racist or dehumanizing to black people. And so I'm gonna really invite all my white pro-lifers to, to take up that, to take on that calling something out directly and helping people recognize that something's racist. Because I'm finding that unless the slur, a racial slur is used, people cannot recognize that something is racist. And I'm like, you know, there's a lot of coded language. There's a lot of — people know not to just come out with racial slurs, but they still can be very racist in their language and the way in which they address certain things. So, white pro-lifers, call 'em out, and also make room for black pro-lifers to come and just speak and be a part of the movement. Invite us to come and talk at your conventions, your meetings and things like that. If you want us to be more included and at the same time, call out, you know, these racist talking points that you see sometimes in the movement. Cherilyn Holloway: Oh, well I'm gonna tell you right now, like, don't invite me unless you're ready to burn it down. Like, if you're not ready, don't invite me, because I'm, I'm just, I'm gonna say what I wanna say and it may upset some people, and that's just the way it is. So, if you're not ready to restart, uh, or if you haven't recently restarted, you know, and I 100% agree with, like, I don't have the bandwidth. Like I, I don't, like, I spent a couple years very early on answering these questions and my final answer was — a very sweet southern white woman stopped me at a conference and said, how do we reach the black community? And I said, Let us do it. Like each state, like state, like if you're not there, like, that doesn't mean like there shouldn't be services or things like that, but we don't trust you. Yeah, like we do not trust, you know, the G O P, the Trumpist movements, we don't trust, you know — we don't trust it. And so, you know, I picked the name Pro Black, Pro-Life for a reason. Because I was done, but I felt like I wanted to still own the pro-life where like — you're not, I'm pro-life. You're not going to convince me to call myself something else. Like it is what it is, but I'm womb to tomb. I'm gonna tell you what it means to me and like it'll love it. Like it doesn't matter. It's not gonna change the way I feel. And so the pro-life movement itself is not going, we're not going to be able to make a mass appeal. What we, what we're gonna need to do is be more present, and seen, so that people who are sitting in the closet with their pro-life views, that they feel like they're, they're consistent, but everything around them is inconsistent, right? So like here, we all have a consistent life ethic. This — we know this exists, but people don't know this exists. And so when I talk to people, you know about being pro-life or about the womb, or about. They all say the same thing. I just went to a doctor and she goes, and she goes, Well, what do you do? And I told her what I did and she goes — It's just her and I there. And she's like, I'm pro-life too. I'm like, Why are we whispering? Because, right. It's just me and you. Right. But the idea was, she was like, But I don't wanna tell somebody else what not to do. And I told her, it's not about telling somebody else what to do, but people need to know. So when people know better, they do better. And most of the people in the black community, not the people that we see, you know, at these large national conventions, not, these are the people that I'm talking to. Most people in my church and in my community don't know the truth about abortion. They don't. They think that it's legal, so it must be okay. And so we just need to continue to speak the truth. You know, if you're gonna platform someone, you know, a black, you know, a black speaker, don't ask 'em what they're gonna say. Like, listen to a couple of their stuff. Ask 'em to come and let them have at it. Like, don't always tell people like, If you're gonna raise some money, don't ask me. Because I can't promise you people are gonna give. Gloria Purvis: Cherilyn let me ask you something because I think the name Pro-Black is in the name Pro-Black Pro-Life — putting Pro-Black right there. I think it sends a message because there are. Prominent black voices in the conservative pro-life movement who are def — definitely anti-black. I mean, I'm thinking of one woman in particular who I will not name because I feel like I'd conjur the devil if I ever mentioned the name. But, so anti-black in the things that she says and I'm like, how do people, in the pro-life movement, listen to this person and not hear the odious anti-gospel message in what she says. And I've come to recognize because they have not unlearned the racist conditioning that they've been exposed to just by mere fact of being born and going through the educational system or even entertainment, uh, system in the United States that has definite, uh, programming around blackness that seems to reinforce a criminality. A promiscuousness, an ignorance, a laziness, an untrustworthiness, just everything negative that you could think of, is out there. And so there hasn't been this unlearning and with people like this particular person and, and there are many of them, smaller level, you know, I, I can think of a number of people trying to, go for her crown, but they cater to that, those kind of, talking points about this inherent brokenness in black culture and which, you know, tries to imply there is something inherently criminal and broken in us, which is just nonsense. And so I will say, yeah, have the black person come speak, but please do check to make sure they're not reiterating a bunch of anti-black talking points, because we don't need more of that. No, you know, it, it doesn't, it, it does nothing to help the movement and it certainly says to other black people, other healthy, normal black people out there that they are not welcome.  Cherilyn Holloway: Yeah. And, and, and people, like the person you speak of, they're not talking to the black community. That is something that I often have to talk about in trainings and what I'm speaking is that they're, they're, they, they're saying that that's who they're talking to, but we're not listening to them. Right. So they're not. They're talking to you, like, they're talking to a white, conservative audience saying what the white, conservative audience wishes they could say to black people. But at the end of the day, ain't nobody saying that to black people. Cause black people ain't listening. Right. So Jack, do you have anything to say? I was gonna go to more questions cause I think we have 10 minutes.  Jack Champagne: So, so I'm very much in the Cherilyn Holloway school of Prepare To Get Your Feelings Hurt. , I'm gonna, I'm gonna answer it like this because it also tangentially answers Ben Conroy's question, which is that, you know, I was born Jackson, Mississippi, Heart of the Beast. Did a lot of work in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, you know. Things that black people care about, voting rights, uh, rights for convicted felons, rights for housing. I see never one pro-life person involved with any of that. There are more black people in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana than there are anywhere else in the country. And I didn't see one black person involved with any, you know, any pro-life, anything. And I didn't see any outreach from pro-life people to any of these groups. All of my volunteers were, you know, working for democrat, governors, governor candidates, pro — pro-choice people, you know, those are the people who were asking me to speak at events. Those are the people who are asking me, how can I help? Those who are people — you know, fundamentally it's a problem that conservative, uh, a lot of pro-life people, they fundamentally don't respect black voices and they don't care about black issues. And that is, that is probably the most fundamental problem. There's no, you know, magic tool. There's no, there's no way to speak about these issues. Sometimes it's just caring. Sometimes it's just caring about, uh, helping people that can't help you. You know, we shouldn't, we shouldn't really be having a conversation about how we convince, can convince pro-life people to care more about racial justice — that should just be an inherent part of their calculus. But it's not because they're not pro-life. They're anti-abortion. And some of them are self-conscious about that. Some of them were like, I don't wanna be pro-life, I just want to be anti-abortion. And you know, because it requires them to do it, requires them to do things that don't directly benefit themselves and instead benefit a community that they don't care about and can't get anything from. And, you know, you can't tell me. You cannot tell me you are working in some of the only counties in the country that have a majority black population and you can't find any black people that agree with you? Give me a break. Like that is not, That is, That is a, Wow. That is, That is, That requires such an instrumental view of black people. That, you know, it, it kind of makes you tell on yourself like, Oh yeah, they might agree with me on abortion, but they might be too militant. They might be, they might care too much about racism. You know, they might not talk about it in a way that, you might, you. You, you might, you might offend my audience and things like that, right? So, you know, you need to, you need to, you need to step, basically what you need is you need to step outside of this, this paradigm in which, "I will only care about black people if they can help me. I go, I can only care about black people if they're not too extreme." You know that, this is why, you know, we get anti-black, black people that are so highly valued in the movement because that's all the only voices that the movement values. And will tolerate.  Gloria Purvis: Exactly. And will tolerate. So. Well, you know, Jack, you made me actually think of a time that I went to Community Action Arkansas and there was a bunch of black people that I was down there with, and we were talking about the upcoming election. And this was before Trump. And the issue of abortion came up, and every single one of those persons that I spoke to was pro-life, but they also told me their experience of going down to — I don't know how they did the primaries or something, you had to vote by party or whatnot — so they had to go down where all the Republicans were, and the open hostility that they experienced from these white Republicans when they went over there to vote pro-life made them say, "They don't want us here." And so, they have no interest in our thriving as a community. And so their actual experience of the so-called pro-life movement in their state when it came time to exercise their right to vote, was that it was very much anti-black. And they didn't see, so, they don't vote Republican because of their particular experience of that party in their local experience, and what their party locally has done or not done, you know, for or against the black community. And so while they are pro-life, they cannot vote locally with the Republicans who are so called the party of life because of their overt racism. Mm-hmm. , so you know. I, I, So at the same time, and I get it, I was like, Hey, I'm not telling you to go vote with people who'd, you know, just as soon slit your throat or hang you up from a tree. You know, in reality, while they may say they're pro-life, they're not really talking about your lives in the womb. When they're saying that they're pro-life, That's not their vision of being pro-life. So maybe that's the reality for quite a number of folks. So.  Jack Champagne: Yeah, I mean, we, we, what we, what we want is, It's relatively simple. It's if you can be a pro-life candidate and have a stance against racism that is not limited or qualified, you're golden. You — there's no one — there's no one else like you in the country. Yeah. And it's so easy and people stumble on it so much, and I simply don't understand it.  Gloria Purvis: Can we, I see one question. Cheryl, did you wanna say something else?  Cherilyn Holloway: Yeah, I was gonna read a question. Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. So Lisa Stiller said, How do you answer people that say reversal of Roe negatively impacts BIPOC communities the most? So my first response is always, Why? Why does it negatively impact — and they're gonna always say the thing. Same thing, right? Poverty. So we don't have an abortion issue. We have a poverty issue. Mm-hmm. . And so if you want to not negatively impact the black community, help them get outta poverty. Mm-hmm.  Gloria Purvis: and Lisa, please remind them. Killing the poor does not solve poverty. Never. Okay. And that's what what they're saying, you know, is the solution to poverty for these BIPOC communities is to eliminate their children. Again, eliminating children from a substandard condition instead of eliminating the sub standard conditions from the community. Cherilyn Holloway: ,  yeah, this is another good one. That I may have an answer to. I don't know. What are some things you've seen well-intentioned activists do in an attempt to be pro-black that have been unhelpful? Oh, so a big one for me. This is a huge pet peeve for me and I hate to say that like I was inadvertently a part of it. Like I didn't know I was beginning my years, you guys. So this is like a pass. This is my pass. I don't like it when people take sayings and, change them to fit what they want. I forget what the word is. There's like a word for this,  Gloria Purvis: Appropriation? Is that it?  Cherilyn Holloway: Like Black Lives Matter, right? Right. So when black activists take that and they put like pre-born in front of it or all, or like when someone does that, and I feel like that is well intentioned. I get it. I get the intention, but the saying Black Lives Matter is true. There's nothing wrong with that saying, right? And I feel like if you're saying Black Lives Matter as someone who's pro-life, you should mean from womb to tomb. So it, it, it, uh, irritates me or agitates me or aggravates me. Like it won't send me like off the rock or when people do that, like when there are activists that take things like that and that's just an example, but I've taken other things with other, like it picking up other issues and tried to like formulate them into. Gloria Purvis: Oh, conflating them? Cherilyn Holloway: Yes, Conflate. Thank you . Gloria Purvis: You're welcome. Yeah. I don't know if I've ever seen anybody be attempt to really be pro black. I mean, I just remember there was a big brouhaha about a, pro-life organization on their — was it their Instagram? Around the time of the George Floyd murder, for some reason they put up this unhelpful thing that more black children die in the womb than they do in police custody. Cherilyn Holloway: They're more safe. They're more safe in police custody.  Gloria Purvis: Oh, they're safer. I mean, what, how — Just yeah, as if they were trying to, redirect the conversation — again, we can walk and chew gum. And also why, why the need to have to downplay our real suffering? And the real threats to our lives by, uh, from, unjust policing, you know, and to try to say, Oh, no, no, no. You don't have time to be, You're safe actually. You're safer in police hands than you are as a black child of woman. Please shut up. That it was not only unhelpful, it was, it was, it, it was so insensitive. Was very insensitive. It was so insensitive. And I think there was another, one last instance that I'm sure you all aware of is there was a well known pro-life activist on Twitter that. Jumped into Bishop Talbot Swan's Twitter feed to tell him that he was a problem with the black community and, and that he was, you know, all this stuff on abortion, which clearly the person had no idea that Bishop Talbot Swan is a member of Church of God in Christ, which is like one of the largest black Christian denominations that is pro-life. Yep. And, and, and that Bishop Swan had actually written an open letter to Hillary Clinton, challenging her on her abortion support and its negative impact on the black community. But this very well known pro-life white activist just, I guess, felt that she needed to help him understand that the real racism. Because that's the words she used, that the real racism was an abortion or something like that. I can't remember what it was, but the, the idea that she was gonna tell this man, this civil rights activist, this pro-life, uh, bishop from the Church of God in Christ, that she knew better what the real racism was than he did as a black man moving through this earth. For the number of years that he did. It was clearly, I guess supposed to be pro-black because she's gonna educate about real racism. But it was just very, ignorant and, tone deaf and condescending.  Jack Champagne: Yeah, I mean, I can virtually guarantee you that just living as a black person in America makes you more of an expert on racism than just about anybody on the planet. You know, it, it's one of those things where if you feel the need to redirect discussion about issues that directly affect black communities to abortion. What you're saying is that you don't actually care about black lives. You care about this issue and you want to use that in order to draw attention to the issue you do care about. And you have to be very, you know, you need to be cognizant of the fact that that's what you're doing — intentionally or not, that's what you're doing. And you know, that is very off putting that, that's something,  Gloria Purvis: Well, it, it shows a sense of entitlement that you feel entitled to — that we don't have the agency to decide what we wanna discuss, uh, at a particular time and place. I had a girlfriend that was at, talking about racism and, uh, someone jumped up in the q and a and said, Well, why aren't you talking about abortion? Da da, da, da, as if we were not entitled to discuss racism at that time. You know, somehow we should not be concerned about racism, as it demonstrates itself through, uh, abuses in the legal system, through abuses and policing and whatnot — that over and above all else, we had to only always and everywhere discuss abortion. And it is so, uh, to me, indicative of that person's, like you said, Jack, lack of respect for us and also doesn't — don't respect that we have our own minds and we can decide what it is that we wanna talk about at any time. Uh, and we can decide what we wanna focus our conversation on a particular moment. It doesn't mean, uh, we will never address abortion. It means right now this is what we wanna talk about. And if you can't handle that, or you can't participate or listen quietly, please go. Leave. We, we don't need you to be a part of it. We certainly don't need you trying to deflect, you know, from it. Mm-hmm. .  Jack Champagne: Yeah. Oh, we just got the five minute warning.  Cherilyn Holloway: Okay. It's two minutes. It was two minutes. Two minute. Okay. There aren't, I think Aimee asked about books. One is Killing the Black Body. It used to be up there. It's up here and I can't remember who it's by. Killing the Black Body is a good one about reproductive justice and the history of black women and their bodies.  Gloria Purvis: Was that Harriet Washington? Oh, I'm thinking Medical Apartheid. Go ahead. Apartheid — oh, Dorothy Roberts. Killing the Black Body by Dorothy Roberts. Yeah.  Cherilyn Holloway: And the other one I would highly recommend is, So You Wanna Talk About Race, which is by, uh, Ijeoma Oluo. And that one is just really, really good. It's an easy read, like easy by, not a lot of tension, but a lot of like, true fact. I ha— I have eight kids. Like it just.  Gloria Purvis: That's gonna happen.  Cherilyn Holloway: Wouldn't be a live from me without a child showing up.  Gloria Purvis: When I mention Medical Apartheid, I will tell you how Washington is very much pro-choice for abortion. But just in terms of, getting some history of the abuses of the black body in the United States, Medical Apartheid by Harriet Washington was a, was a good read. But with warning, she is very much pro-abortion, pro-choice. And that kind of comes across. Maybe right before we go, if I, I wanna ask each of you maybe, what is the one thing I think that still gives you hope, in discussing racial justice?  Cherilyn Holloway: Go ahead, Jack. Jack Champagne: Well, when I, when I, was, uh, when I was, uh, when I was watching, John Lewis's, uh, funeral, uh, a couple years ago, I was, uh, I was with my grandfather. And He, he, he leaned over and told me and, uh, asked me: do you know anything he did while he was in Congress? And that was very funny to me. But I always thought that, you know, I always, you know, I always think to myself, it's kind of nice that my grandfather who was born in like 1927 is able to take something like that for granted. and, you know, it is, it is, which is to say that, you know, there's a lot of work to do, but we still have accomplished a lot in a relatively short amount of time. In about less than the eighth of the time that we've been here in this country. We've accomplished a lot and, uh, you know, being able to, uh, share that moment with my grandfather. Is a, is a, is a very nice experience. So, uh, I look forward to being able to, you know, uh, look at an all black Supreme Court with my grandsons. So.  Gloria Purvis: Hey. Hmm.  Cherilyn Holloway: Uh, I think the thing that gives me hope is, is people. I, you know, like I said, what I, what I know most is that people who live their everyday lives who don't think about the abortion issue, or even like the racism issue all the time like I do, are always open to these conversations and always seem like they just learned something. Like, there's always like a light bulb moment, like, Oh, I never thought about that. And so it's, you know, my hope is in the, that I'm like planting ideas in people's heads and concepts and things for them to continuously think about as they see the news stream, you know, going across. Is, is why I feel like I, I'm always hopeful it, you know, not what I see on the news, not where I see the media focusing attention, not where I see any of these, but the everyday people I talk to, that literally, have these light bulb moments. That's what continues to give me hope.  Gloria Purvis: I would say what gives me hope is the prevalence of these kinds of conversations that are happening now. The fact that I've, you know, I'm able to have this conversation with both of you, to me, is — it gives me hope because it signals two things or three things, maybe. A, we exist. B, we can be in community. And three, we can use the microphone that's not controlled by major media to still get our messaging out. To be able to use the current technology now to give another narrative about pro-life and pro black from the womb to the tomb. And so I hope that the, the three of us together can at some point do this again on a larger stage for more people. So that gives me hope.  Cherilyn Holloway: Thank you everybody.  Gloria Purvis: Thank you.  Herb Geraghty: Thank you. Thank you three. So, so, so, so, so much for this, uh, for this round table discussion. We are so grateful. I know that the chat has been very active and very grateful for your perspective. This was wonderful. Thank you so much. We are now going into our break. We will reconvene in the sessions at 7:15 Eastern. Thank you all.

In this episode, Herb and Emiliano are joined by the founder of Rehumanize International, Aimee Murphy, who has just released a book with New City Press! Titled Rehumanize: A Vision to Secure Human Rights for All, this book includes a digestible yet systematic analysis of the ethics, history, and public policy surrounding modern issues of dehumanization and the Consistent Life Ethic. Learn more: rehumanizeintl.org/book-tour-2022

In this episode, our hosts Herb and Emiliano are joined by Serena Dyksen, who underwent an abortion after being sexually assaulted at 13. Now the founder of an abortion recovery ministry called She Found His Grace, Serena shares her story to bring hope and healing to others.   Learn more about She Found His Grace at shefoundhisgrace.org.   Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org.

To commemorate International Day in Support of Victims of Torture on June 26, our hosts Herb and Emiliano are joined by James Yee, a former Muslim chaplain to the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility.    Learn about Rehumanize International's stance on torture at rehumanizeintl.org/torture.

In this episode, our hosts Herb and Emiliano chat with Emily Albrecht of Equal Rights Institute to discuss the nation's reaction to the Dobbs v. Jackson leak and how pro-lifers can compassionately respond to misinformation.     Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org.   #ProLife #DobbsVJackson #RoeVWade   —

In this episode, our hosts Herb Geraghty and Emiliano Vera talk through their initial reactions to the leak of the Supreme Court's draft opinion on the Dobbs v. Jackson case.   AUTOMATED TRANSCRIPT: [00:00:00] Emiliano Vera: All right, everybody. Welcome back to the Rehumanize podcast.  [00:00:05] Herb Geraghty: It's happening! Roe v. Wade is coming down, or at least it looks like it. No guests today. Just going to be me and Emiliano. I'm Herb here as always. We have a lot to talk about when was the last time we recorded?  [00:00:19] Emiliano Vera: I think it was before I went on Easter break. Yeah, we're right after I came back. I don't know. I have no conception of time anymore. [00:00:30] Herb Geraghty: That's all right. But yeah, no, the, there obviously there's been a whole lot happening in the whole world, but I think the biggest piece of news is the leaked draft of the Dobbs decision by Politico, like two weeks ago. I time has been totally at a standstill for me since that's happened. I have, I have no idea how long it's been. I think it's been about two weeks since recording, since we have been recording this. And yeah, so, I mean, if you somehow follow Rehumanize and haven't heard there's been a draft of what looks to be the Supreme court's decision, the majority opinion. In the Dobbs V Jackson case, which for a while we've been saying has the potential to overturn Roe V. Wade. And the majority of justice says as of May 2nd have ruled in favor of overturning Roe and upholding the 15 week ban.  [00:01:29] Emiliano Vera: Have you read the the opinion and it's a super majority, right? It was six three, not five, four, right.  [00:01:36] Herb Geraghty: I  wait, I'm pulling it up now because I couldn't, I couldn't remember who, who signed onto it. No, as of the, the leak, it was only Thomas Gor Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett and Alito Roberts hadn't signed on, but it wasn't, we, we still don't know. We only have the draft of the opinion. Right. I don't know if he is. Concurring or joining a dissenting or doing something else that's funky, or if he just hasn't decided yet, and he's going to sign on to the majority. Obviously it wasn't supposed to come out. And so we we don't exactly know. We know that the justices can change their mind up until the day that it's released, that this was supposed to be sort of a long process of editing these drafts. So we, we have no reason to believe that the final that what has been published is the total final draft. But if it is what is going to be released as the official opinion, it rocks to answer your question. Yes. I read most of it. I'm not a legal scholar, but luckily my girlfriend is a law student then. And she has read the entire document and the, that first night that it really, it was released. She read the entire thing and was pulling out important quotes for me. And so that was extremely helpful to understand exactly what was going on because I read the Politico argument and basically the, the messages, the Roe V. Wade was egregiously wrong from the start and it's coming down. And this 15 week ban is constitutional which of course will open the gates to banning abortion in other ways and earlier in gestation because we no longer have the the precedent of Roe upholding the imaginary constitutional right to abortion. But yes, I've read most of it. But a lot of the kind of footnotes I'm like, this is all legal jargon. I don't fully need to understand because I'm not a constitutional lawyer. But yeah, what I've read, I like I'm excited. It seems good.  [00:03:40] Emiliano Vera: Yeah. I read probably like 20 pages of it. And like on Facebook and kind of like the, the week afterwards or not just Facebook, I'm not really on Facebook a lot. And the social media is there were like some, several kinds of like pro-choice people citing some of the, the language is used in decisions as kind of like apocalyptic. Like a harbinger of what's to come for other rights, like that were established by privacy's. So either LGBT rights or, or rights to birth control or something like that like things established by Griswold and other cases what do you make of those kind of interpretations that like, oh, the, this, this document that came out are setting up to just like knocked down like a whole other slew of anything that has to do with privacy is going to get overturned now. [00:04:49] Herb Geraghty: Yeah. So I think that. I when I first saw kind of the uproar about that from a lot of pundits I was also concerned because at that point I hadn't read the decision yet that the actual Monday night I I happen to already be in DC for other events. And so when it was released, the people I was with and some other people from rehumanize and partner organizations were outside the court within the hour demonstrating. And by the time we were there, I think the article came out at like eight 30 and we were there by nine 30 and there was already hundreds of people demonstrating almost all. Pro-abortion. I think that a lot of people just heard the news and immediately wanted to protest. And the pro-life movement had not come together yet. So it, it really was just kind of us out there at the Supreme court. And so I, I did not have time that night to actually read the opinion. And so that next day I also saw a lot of that, like Alito is coming for all of our rights there it's, it's not just abortion that we know there is no right to an abortion. There's no right to take the life of another human being. However, because of the sort of political movement that has championed the rights of the unborn I think people had some legitimate concerns about other rights that some people claim did build off of decisions like Griswold and Roe and Casey. And so like at rehumanize international, we don't really take official positions on things outside of issues of aggressive violence. And so. You know, in our capacity as an organization, we don't really take strong positions on things like birth control or LGBT privacy rights to yeah. Just don't hurt people. But as an individual, you know, I have political positions outside of the, the mission of rehumanize international. And so I was concerned about the, kind of the, the claims that the draft decision seems to be gearing up to come after other rights particularly LGBT rights that were determined in like Lawrence and Obergefell in terms of like, you know, same-sex sexual relationships and marriage. And so I think like if I spent a couple hours being like, oh no, should I be concerned about this opinion? Like, should, should I actually, you know, Advocate, you know, there's not much to do for the Supreme court. They're not there, they're an unelected body. So you just kind of have to hope that they do what you want. But I did share those concerns, but once I actually read most of the opinion I it's, it's hard for me to really see it that way that the Supreme court is coming after other privacy rights. I mean, in a leader's opinion  [00:07:35] Emiliano Vera: seemed like very, very like specific about like Roe vs Wade and abortion. [00:07:45] Herb Geraghty: Yeah. I mean, let me pull up some of it, because I think that Alito in the draft goes out of his way to be very, very explicit that this is only about abortion. In his discussion of privacy rights. Let me pull up the quote. Here it is, this was from the opinion. Roe's defenders characterize the abortion, right? As similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters, such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but a portion is fundamentally different as both Roe and Casey acknowledge because it destroys what those decision called fetal human life and what the law. Now, before us referring to the Mississippi law describes as an unborn human beings. At further distinguishing abortion from same-sex marriage. Alito says none of the other decisions cited by Rohan Casey involved, the critical moral question posed by abortion. And then he goes on to say that therefore, these are unrelated and do not take what we are saying about there not being a privacy, right. To dismember a baby to mean that other privacy rights are non-existent. In general, I mean, I'm not a constitutional layer. I know that a lot of people have, you know, even like LGBT affirming or LGBT people have sort of said like actually these decisions that we have, like trying to base them on the privacy, right. That were established in decisions like RO are actually not great legal precedent anyway, because a lot of these privacy rights always said like this doesn't it. Maybe I support the ruling, like plenty for 50 years pro abortion I'm pro choice legal scholars have been saying like, no, I think abortion should be legal, but the constitutional  [00:09:30] Emiliano Vera: thing, like a bad, badly determined decision. [00:09:35] Herb Geraghty: Exactly. And people, you know, sort of on all sides of the issue, I've said similar things about . And so I think that it Alito comes from a particular position on you know, LGBT marriage rights that I would, I would probably disagree with him on. However, when the court looks at previous court decisions to determine precedent, what they're looking at is what's actually written in the opinion, not, oh, well, what did Sam Alito think at the time that he was writing this? And the language in this draft decision is explicit that this is referring to abortion because it is distinct from other privacy rights, whether you believe in these privacy rights that they are found in the constitution or not, or if they're just good in and of themselves, and they're not explicitly in the constitution or they are or whatever. I think it's important to note that it is very different. Then, then these other rights, because they have the question of this unborn human being. I think that these past couple of weeks, since the decision has leaked, I I've seen from pundits and the media and, you know, people on social media, a lot of fear-mongering about different things. I think that this kind of LGBT rights has been one that that's been particularly effective in scaring people about this draft decision. I think also you know, misinformation about miscarriage and particular like miscarriage management procedures, and it may be necessary. Topic pregnancies, things that people do have, I think, legitimate fears about. Because they've been told by the media and by the abortion industrial complex that pro-life Americans are trying to criminalize things like miscarriage and treatment for ectopic pregnancies, which is just not true. I think every, every once in a while there like a fringe legislator that doesn't know what he's doing, there was one in Ohio once that that it made it into a bill that treatment for epileptic pregnancy, though, it wouldn't be illegal. Like it said something like, ideally this would be the, the embryo would be reimplanted in the womb, which at this point there's not really the medical technology for that to happen. Anyway. So the only treatment for atopic pregnancy includes ending the life or the, or the child's life ending as a result in order to save the life of the mother. I have never met a pro-life person who actually opposes that. I've never met a pro-life person who opposes DNCs for miscarriages, for children who have already died. However, we see this fear-mongering and propaganda from a lot of people in the media and the abortion industrial complex in order to intimidate people into thinking that the status quo is kind of this neutral. Human centered way of legislating abortion. But the reality is that the status quo is egregious. We in this country, we have two over 2000, about 2,500 individual children being killed every day by abortion. Like this, it is extremist. We have abortion post viability in many states in this country, totally legal with, you know, not even talking about like medically indicated ones where, you know, the, the woman's health may be in danger or the child may,  [00:13:10] Emiliano Vera: which we know the majority of post viability abortions are elective and not done to save the life of the mother or because of fetal non compatibility with life or something like that. [00:13:21] Herb Geraghty: Yeah. I think that basically these past couple of weeks have been an exercise for me, sort of in on the front lines, talking to people. Outside the court protests and on social media and speaking to the media, it's really just been an exercise in correcting a lot of misinformation. I mean, plenty of people still believe that overturning Roe will make abortion illegal. Like that's, that's just not true. It will. It will send me a shoe back to the states and legislators will be able to listen to their constituents who want abortion to be illegal in those states and legislate accordingly. Although we know that the, the abortion issue will still be extremely important in, in many states that that seemed to be signaling that they not only are going to continue to have sort of extremist post viability abortion laws. But they're actually trying to become sanctuary cities for abortion, where they are putting taxpayer money into getting people from other states into their states in order to get abortions there. And so I, the people I think on both sides, there's just not a lot of clarity about exactly what this decision means. If it, if it even comes down, if it comes down in this way we've seen the pro-abortion movement trying to actively intimidate the justices into changing their minds. We've seen you know, through protests, including outside the homes of these justices explicitly telling them, you know, we're not going to accept this decision. You need to change your mind. I'm hopeful that, you know, Alito and Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett and the rest of them aren't successfully intimidated. And I, I don't think they will be But I think that it's important right now that we, as pro-lifers push back against that narrative that we show the reality of the pro-life movement, which was, which is that we are a movement that exists to protect human rights and to serve pregnant people. And in particular, low income women who face you know, difficult pregnancy circumstances and, and make it clear that we are standing with them, that, you know, the abortion industrial complex for years has pushed this narrative that abortion is needed, that violence is needed in order to have equality or liberation or As Yellen recently said, you know, it needed for the economy, which is truly shocking, which is like, that's some  [00:15:58] Emiliano Vera: evil capitalist propaganda. [00:16:03] Herb Geraghty: Yeah.  [00:16:03] Emiliano Vera: It's wild. To me, just the blatant illiteracy in the general public about what abortion laws in the United States actually are compared to abortion laws in the entire rest of the world, including you know, the established social democracies of Western Europe, like a country, for example, like Sweden, where abortion is a permitted. Up to the first. I can't remember if it's 12 or 14 weeks, but like throughout Europe there are limits on on abortion that are less than the law that is being challenged in the Supreme court from Mississippi. So like, you can talk about the differences in like access, for example, where in the United States you have to pay for abortions out of pocket. Except for in the largest states that commit the most abortions like California and New York that are covered by Medicare. And in which case it is socializing. You don't have to pay out of pocket if you are under a certain income level. But for most of Europe, most of the world The the week limits on abortion are already much, like, much more than any type of limits are tolerated at all in the United States without having like a massive up a massive uproar about it. [00:17:49] Herb Geraghty: Yeah. I think that if the majority of EU countries in particular, 12 weeks as the limit for elective abortion,  [00:17:56] Emiliano Vera: yes. I saw somebody somebody who I, I like and follow on Twitter said something a while ago about, oh, Greece is a really interesting example that it's a, a socially conservative religious country where abortion is legal and publicly funded and then asterisk up to 12 weeks. And I was like, you realize that the Mississippi law puts a 15. Week limit on abortion, right? Like there's just a complete disconnect from reality of what abortion law currently is in the United States, a complete disconnect from reality about what overturning Roe would actually do, which once again, would not make abortion illegal in the United States. It would return to the status quo that it was before 1973, where the states could it like through their own democratic legislatures decide themselves, you know, before an unelected body of nine male justices decided that Nope, this is just the law now. In the article that I'm writing for rehumanize right now, I also point out that the legalization of abortion. Pretty closely followed the urban uprisings of the sixties in the civil rights movement. And like the, the debate out of New York especially is pretty like blatant they're like, yeah, we hope that we'll be able to reduce the amount of births on do you unwed mothers and two people on welfare. And then like other than states like New York and California the other states that were taking out borrow or that were taking up the liberalization of abortion law before Roe was decided, were the states in the south that were in the process of basically getting reprimanded for their sterilization laws that were horrible and Found to be illegal and basically just replacing sterilization laws with abortion. So it was not like a bunch of liberal states. It was Republican California, Republican New York and the south that were the states that were liberalizing abortion before Roe just came in and did everything, you know, funded the entire  [00:20:15] Herb Geraghty: point about that we all know that the sort of rise of the abortion movement was very much led by the leaders in the eugenics movement in the, in the, at that time. And I think that the, that point you made about, you know, reducing, you know, it was clear, it was clearly racial and it was clearly able to rest. But I think the, the, the class-based nature of it too is so important. Like you said, like, We want to limit the amount of people on welfare and their ability to continue having children, because that is more children that need state support. And I think that we talk about that as, you know, as kind of a memory of the past that now the abortion rights movement has really situated itself on the left and as a movement, you know, for social justice and for women's rights. And for health, health care justice which is, you know, to us or appalled by, because we know that abortion is, is an act of violence. And so it doesn't really make sense in that context. But they sort of no longer lead with eugenics first. Rhetoric. However, in these past couple of weeks, when I have been talking to people, I've seen the  [00:21:34] Emiliano Vera: eugenic rhetoric pop out on social media and just like in comments  [00:21:40] Herb Geraghty: and I, and I, I'm not great at the, at the discourse on social media. I have. A difficult time talking to people behind a screen, because I think that it's just not my calling. I'm much better at face-to-face conversation. And I, because I think that it's happened multiple times because when we were out there in front of the court, about half the time, you know, people really came up to us and they saw our signs with secular pro-life messaging and consistent life ethic messaging and you know, sort of liberal leaning or left leaning pro-life messaging. And they came up to us and they were really surprised and interested, actually interested in what we have to say. And so I think that for a lot of people, their guard was down a little bit when they were discussing this. And I heard so many people explicitly say, you know, bring up things like, well, our tax dollars are going to have to pay for all of these children born. If abortion is illegal and  [00:22:39] Emiliano Vera: they should have been doing that.  [00:22:41] Herb Geraghty: Well, so my thing Emiliano is that what, when they would say that almost every time, I would say. Do you really mean, do you really mean that? Do you really have a problem with poor people having more children? And they would sort of think about it for a moment and then, and then say, oh, no, no, no. Not if they want to, I don't mind if my tax dollars are paying for, you know, things like WIC and good programs that help you know, mothers and children and low-income families. However, in the back of their mind, they've sort of been told that that's one of the reasons that they need abortion. And I think that, or that we need abortion as a country. More particularly usually that poor women need abortion. But I think that it's interesting that that messaging is more subliminal now and that most of the people who are using it, I don't think actually mean it. I think that most of these people are actually sort of liberal minded and they, they, they are not. They are not actual eugenicists, but they have that sort of implicit bias against poor people having children that, that they haven't sufficiently unlearned yet. Because that eugenic rhetoric isn't at the forefront of the movement because they know it's embarrassing and they know it's something that they, you know, the leaders of the movement know that they need to hide it behind the euphemism of choice. [00:24:06] Emiliano Vera: Well, and I think you see lots of middle-aged and older people still using that, like more readily using that rhetoric because that was the rhetoric until probably like, like the early two thousands like that they, they didn't catch on to like, oh, maybe we're being a little bit too racist too, obviously racist and classist in our messaging until like probably. I mean, the, the, the coalition and that formed of the democratic party of being like, like liberal international capitalists with like some select human rights groups or like kind of issue based groups like that. Wasn't that wasn't and kind of like leaving unions and workers in the dust, like that wasn't really fully complete until the late nineties or early two thousands. So like the, just the material conditions for that coalition, where they would have to change their rhetoric to not be explicitly racist or eugenicist, like wasn't there until relatively recently. [00:25:27] Herb Geraghty: So, what have you felt like has been your experience sort of in your kind of personal life and in an online with the reaction to this decision? I guess both from pro-abortion people in your life and from pro-life people?  [00:25:45] Emiliano Vera: So I have been kind of a reticent to comment directly on, I mean, the, my, most of my interactions now with Americans are on social media. So I've been kind of cautious to say anything directly on social media, because I've been like, who is everyone is just kind of just blatantly repeating misinformation right now. And should I wait to let people be less mad for a little bit? Or like, does it like, you know, there are studies on this where, you know, responding to factually incorrect information with factually correct information to somebody who is just mad about something doesn't correct them. And so I've just kind of been watching and on the one hand, very, very proud of not just rehumanize and other kind of consistent life ethic groups, but also like even a lot of the more conservative pro-life groups that I, you know, agree with on abortion, but, you know, might not agree with on a lot of other things. I've been very encouraged by a lot of their statements. And I rehumanize signed on to a letter that was promoted by a whole huge spectrum of pro-life groups. You know, saying if, if Roe is overturned in abortion at some point does become illegal again that we do not want to see like women charged for crimes. And so I think that has been the,  [00:27:41] Herb Geraghty: and the people charged for crimes. There are people who have abortions charged for crimes. If a woman is an abortionist then she should be charged with the crime of.  [00:27:50] Emiliano Vera: So exactly. So, so pregnant, pregnant people who choose to have an abortion to acquire an abortion it should not be the ones who are facing the legal penalties of it. And just kind of general, very strong reaffirmations of, you know, love them both. We're here for the woman and the child and counteracting a lot of the very kind of negative and hysterical misinformation that is being promoted by the other side. And then there's, then there's the other side, you know, I running a lot of leftist circles and things like that, that To see them kind of promoting this, the type of classes and racist propaganda that is justifiable when talking about abortion and completely against everything that they stand for, everything every other time has just been very annoying discouraging. For me, especially since I gave up social media for lent, and this is like the first thing that happens, like right after I get back onto social media. And I'm like oh, I don't want to, I don't want to see you guys. But yeah just kind of a lot of nervous waiting, I guess for me.  [00:29:02] Herb Geraghty: Yeah, I'll agree. I think that I have pretty impressed with the kind of traditional mainstream pro-life movement in this moment. I think that there could be a tendency. Among some people or groups to want to take this moment to kind of gloat because the reality is like, we want, like, we're, we're winning. It looks like we're about, we're about to have a major victory in terms of the amount of organizing and work that has gone into, you know, creating a reality where this could be possible  [00:29:37] Emiliano Vera: it is an undeniably good thing. And I do think there is absolutely room for, you know, healthy celebration. Yeah, exactly.  [00:29:45] Herb Geraghty: I think I've seen that I've seen a healthy celebration and I haven't seen, and I've seen from most pro-life organizations and leaders. Really taking this moment to lead with compassion. And I appreciate that because I think that like we've been talking about right now, misinformation and, and really disinformation about what it will look like in a post Roe America is rampant. And I think that there are a lot of fears. I think that there's a lot of fear mongering going on. And as a result, a lot of. People in this country who have the capacity to get pregnant are scared when they're being told by people who they look up to that if you have a miscarriage, you could go to jail or that perhaps certain procedures like DNE for miscarriage or DNC for a miscarriage could be could be criminalized and therefore unavailable. And so you might die of sepsis for, you know, the, the crime of, of your child dying a natural death before they're born. And I think that I, I have been impressed with pro-life leaders, sort of calmly being able to respond to this information, this misinformation and show them that no, that's not what we're doing. I think that this letter that I am proud to have signed onto from national right to life, but very explicitly says not only. Do we not want laws that criminalize people for their pregnancy outcomes? We not only do we just hope that's not the case, but we, as pro-life leaders are going to work to ensure that is not the case. You know, we have connections with anti-abortion legislators and we're willing to hold their feet to the fire to ensure that our values of truly loving them, both aren't ignored in favor of sort of retributive prosecutorial mindset of just wanting to punish people who are in desperate situations and feel like abortion is their only option or people who have the, you know, the horrible, unfortunate reality of, of a miscarriage. And I think that I have been excited to be able to work with a diverse coalition of pro-life people from, you know, all different sorts of backgrounds and across the entire political spectrum, who've been able to come together and say, no, this work isn't over all row does let's turn it back to the states. And so of course the work isn't over because there's going to be plenty of states where abortion will still be legal and pre-born children will not be protected. So we're going to need to continue to work on making legislative change, but also our work isn't over because half of what the pro-life movement does, isn't legislative at all. It's about serving pregnant people in our communities and serving young families and young, pregnant uh, young young parenting people young parents, so that they don't feel like abortion as their only option. And I think that the pro-life movement has been doing that over these past few weeks, you know, This decision hasn't even been final yet. But you know, throughout this time there's still people in our communities who need our support. And so throughout all this time, pregnancy centers have still been operating. Maternity homes have still been operating. We've seen, I've been out on the sidewalk in front of abortion clinics, doing the regular sidewalk outreach that I do, and that I encourage everyone to do. If you have an abortion clinic in your community, which you likely do if you live in the United States that you know, this work is, is still needed, regardless of if the decision comes out the way we want it to, or not like the, the, the goal of actually making abortion unthinkable is something that is serious to pro-life leaders and pro-life community members. And I think that I have. Heartened to see that that work hasn't been just totally forgotten because we've had the, we've had this victory, or it appears as though we're about to have a victory within the next two months.  [00:33:56] Emiliano Vera: I think just as the pro-life movement has gotten more internationalized and less focused on just the United States. Especially with in the wake of some pretty devastating losses in Ireland, across Latin America. I think they're like the experiences of leaders there who were like, oh, we. Waited until way too late to start organizing this and assuming that just because the law was on our side, then we didn't have to have a mass movement behind us. And so I think there is definitely some good promise, I think in the reaction of pro-life organizations across the spectrum to the leak that, oh, like even if we like, quote unquote win in this, this time, like, that doesn't mean that we're just gonna, you know, pack it up anymore. Because one legislatively there's still other there's still other battles to fight across like literally every 50 states. But yeah, that there are social aspects to the pro-life work that's still need to be done and still people that still needs to be advocated. And I think, yeah, that's kind of what caught lat America by surprise is just that, you know, all you need is a majority of judges. One time basically to, to implement abortion laws and it, if you're not ready for it, then you're going to get taken off guard and organizing after the fact is too late. [00:35:32] Herb Geraghty: Yeah. Yup. And I mean, in terms of our work, not being done, just look at the mission of rehumanize even if the decision came down and abortion was illegal across the United States you know, there, there of course would be all of that work of still supporting pregnant people in our community. But our work as a consistent life ethic movement, like that's only one issue to tick off the list. We still have war and the death penalty and police brutality and torture and euthanasia and all forms of violent discrimination and abuse. So I think, I think that this continues to be a moment of celebration while, and a moment of optimistic celebration, because we're hopeful that the decision will come out sooner than later. Probably around June, the end of June. But you know, The, the moment of celebration really can only be a short moment before we get back to work. I know, you know, even at the Rehumanize team were sort of planning out our summer and this Dobbs decision being up in the air makes planning things hard because we know that if the decision does come out on a random Monday, we're going to need to mobilize immediately and get all of our supporters out there to continue representing and doing this work and demonstrating for, you know, for the unborn and for this movement. But we also have plenty of other stuff that we're doing this summer. Even outside of abortion, we have two anti-war conferences that we are you know, partnering with and, and and participating in, we have an anti-death penalty week of action. That's going to be if Roe V Wade gets, or if the Dobbs decision gets decided at the end of June, when we think it will be. That next day, I'm going to start the an anti-death penalty week of action which is going to be a total whirlwind because I'm sure that things will be very busy and picking up after the Dobbs decision does finally come out. So all of us to say that there, there just is so much work to be done on all of these issues. And so yes, take this moment to celebrate, but more importantly, figure out what it is that you can be doing within this movement or within other movements or within your own community to serve the needs that, that aren't being met. And to advocate for justice, for, to advocate for justice and for human rights for all human beings. Yeah.  [00:38:02] Emiliano Vera: So you've been doing a lot of the. Talking to the media talking to counter protestors, or I don't know, maybe you guys are considered the counter protesters. What what, how do you talk to people? This is something that I'm usually great at, but I have found myself, like, not like, I, I don't think that I would be able to, I feel like I won't be able to help the narrative very much right now while it feels so heated in charge. But then I asked myself, you know, we'll ever be able to say anything again, because like, it's always going to be human in charge now during this entire battle. So like for, I, I think it's going to be very uncomfortable for especially people in. Either more liberal or leftist pro-life groups or in the consistent life ethic. Where probably like we have a lot, like the majority of our friends are, you know, other liberal leftist people who are pro-choice like what do we do? How do we, how do we like bring this up? When it's so just heated, but also just filled with disinformation.  [00:39:25] Herb Geraghty: Yeah. So I think it depends heavily on context. I think that I have been having a lot of very sort of high conflict conversations lately because I've been out, you know, doing this kind of rehumanizing discourse with the people who are passionate enough to show up to a protest. For abortion. And so I think that those conversations are going to be a lot different than people then conversations with people who you might have already in your life. So I can say for the conversations that I've had, it's been really important to take our breath and to actually listen to what the other side is saying. I think that I have had people come up to me and, you know, sort of come up to me. And some of the people in our team who have been, you know, holding signs and demonstrating in these, these moments of more calm during protests, or even after protests when things are dying down and come up and say, Hey, I really just want to talk. I want to hear your perspective. And then they ask me. You know, well, why are you against abortion? And I begin speaking and I say, well, so I believe that it should be illegal to kill human beings. And the scientific consensus is that, and then I can't even begin to sort of, you know, make my argument for why I'm anti-abortion, which, you know, if you want, the, the totality of you can go to rehumanizeintl.org/abortion.  But essentially that, you know, the scientific community is out of consensus. We see that the unborn is undeniably a human being. They are living their whole, they are genetically distinct, and I believe it should be illegal to kill human beings. And I see abortion as, you know, a part of that. And so it should be illegal. And that, you know, there's a lot of other nuances that you need to have in the conversation, but that's kind of my, my main pitch that I make to start the conversation. But I have found that in, in probably most of the conversations that I've had, I'm not even able to get. A fifth word in my main argument before, you know, the person who approached me to have a conversation sort of snaps back and starts yelling at me. What about rape? What about miscarriage? What about this? You think women should go to jail? You think this, you, Donald Trump said this, your movements as this sort of like a lot of, you know, just sudden reactions that I think are caused by pain and fear because of, you know, the misinformation and the perception that they have of the pro-life movement. And so it's been really important for me to, to really not kind of snap back in the way that might be natural to me. When someone is lying about me to my face saying that I've voted for Donald Trump and I support all these policies that I don't support and that I, that I do there. And then I, yada yada. You know, it's easy for me to want to say, no, I didn't shut up. You're wrong. But I've had to remind myself that these people often are coming from a place of fear and have a really serious distrust for the pro-life movement. And so I think that listening to their concerns and affirming their concerns has been important in this moment. You know, for the people who I tell you, the criminalization of miscarriage has come up in 100% of the conversations that I've had with people on the ground. And so I don't know if that's actually reflective of this wider moment, but I think that it's really been telling to me. And I, I think I sort of have seen pro-life people online respond to that kind of thing with like an eye roll emoji, like, oh, come on, no one wants to criminalize miscarriage, like, you know, kind of diminishing their concerns and talking over them. And I, and I believe, you know, that's just not a very nice way to communicate with people, but it's also less effective because I, I have had these conversations where, you know, if someone tells me, I am really concerned that I'm going to have a miscarriage and then not be able to, you know, have that child removed in a DNC procedure or, you know, whatever needs to be done, or I'm going to have enough topic pregnancy, and it's going to be illegal for me to it's going to be illegal to get treatment for that, which will lead to my death. Like that is a real fear that a lot of women have. Based on the misinformation that they've been fed from the, the abortion industrial complex and from the media on this. And so I think that hearing them out and actually listening to them and sort of nodding along and making it clear, like, yeah, no, that, that is really scary. I'm really sorry that, that, that you're afraid of that. And then once they, you know, sort of tire themselves out at yelling at you from yelling at you about that responding, can I let you know, like ask, actually asking them, can I let you know what I think about that? And actually what the laws that have been proposed and what the trigger laws that are already on the books that are going to go into effect once Roe is overturned. Can I tell you what those actually say? I hear that you're very scared and I want to let you know that we in the pro-life. I don't want that and that our legislators don't want that. And that if there ever are legislators who are working to do things like criminalized treatment of atopic pregnancies or miscarriage management, that we will be with you, and that we are with you in saying absolutely not, we never want a person to go to jail for experiencing the loss of their child, whether it's through, you know, an atopic pregnancy that needs to be at ended or through a natural miscarriage or through, you know, one of those other thing procedures that can be called abortions by certain medical companies. But when we're talking, when the pro-life movement is talking about abortion, we're talking about elective abortions in which we are intentionally ending the life of a living human child.  [00:45:31] Emiliano Vera: The the, the, the term in romance languages to just be like a lot clearer. So it's in Spanish and French. It's a voluntary interruption of pregnancy. Wow.  [00:45:45] Herb Geraghty: That is mine because that is the heart of yeah. In  [00:45:50] Emiliano Vera: In Spanish, aborto means and any, any like premature ending of a pregnancy, natural or unnatural. So like the the, the legal language and like the, the language that is officially used, I think lots of times, actually more in Europe than in Latin America where like American influence has allowed, like the word just aborted the abortion to like be the, the main word. And then also like with all of the confusions that come along with it, because abortion, abortion means everything rather than. Or it's like it's equivalent in French, which is like what the laws actually say, but like that. And like it uses the, the the abbreviation IBE and like that I feel just linguistically it gives a lot more clarity about, you know, what the, what the actual procedure that we are discussing is.  [00:46:50] Herb Geraghty: Yeah. Yeah, because that is, I think these linguistic differentiation. Are extremely important and often overlooked by pro-life people. Because I think that I know people who have had a natural miscarriage and then they are totally just served and upset to find that when they get a bill back from the hospital, it says that they had an abortion because technically speaking for a lot of insurance companies and in the medical field, natural miscarriages are spontaneous abortions. And then the, the kind of natural stigma that is attached to abortion. And of course there should be a stigma against abortion because it is an act of violence. That stigma is carried over to women who have natural miscarriages which there should be no stigma about like, that's just a horrible, natural death and, you know, we mourn with them. And so I think that. The abortion industry and the sort of pundits who push pro-abortion rhetoric, they intentionally take that confusion and that unfortunate linguistic situation where there isn't a clear word for elective abortion, for a reason not to save the life of the mother and that the pop culture pop in pop culture. We mainly just call that abortion. They take that and they intentionally stoke that fear and try to push the narrative that pro-life people want to criminalize things like treatment for ectopic pregnancy, and miscarriage or stillbirth. And I think that, you know, to finish my earlier thought, what is important right now is correcting that misinformation. But doing so in a compassionate way that recognizes. Yeah. If you believe that people are trying to criminalize miscarriage, that is really scary. I can understand why you are screaming at me right now. And you're so upset with me if you really think that's what I believe. Let me demonstrate to you how that isn't true. And let me commit to you that I'm on your side when it comes to this issue. And that I am going as a pro-life leader, I am going to work to ensure that no legislator thinks that it is ever appropriate to criminalize these pregnancy outcomes. And so I think that that has been really important, like getting past that, those, those initial fears and reservations about overturning Roe V Wade, before I can really actually talk about my position on abortion, which of course is that it is an act of violence and that it should be illegal. But you have to be able to get people to that place where they are ready for, you know, the kind of difficult work of re-examining, you know, your deeply held political views on, on this issue. And you need to get them to trust you that you, you know, you are not this caricature of, you know, the, the evil right-wing legislator in Texas who just wants to send women to jail for having abortions or for having miscarriages or for you know, whatever. I think that this moment for me has really been about deescalating, a lot of conversations and reminding myself and honestly reminding them sometimes like that. We're all just people here that I have a particular political position and. Particular political position. I do not think that you are evil for supporting abortion. I think that most people who support abortion deeply care about the rights of women and people who can get pregnant and that they are concerned for their wellbeing. And I think that most of them haven't considered enough about the rights of the unborn child. And I think that our work is often, you know, educating them about the science of embryology and fetal development and the reality of what takes place during an abortion procedure and the horror that takes place during that act of violence. But you know, making it clear to them that I don't think that they're stupid or evil for disagreeing with me on this. I think it's likely that they may be misinformed and that they may be repeating misinformation and correcting it when necessary. But that I think that we should be able to come together and find common ground. I mean, things like how to better support pregnant and parenting people, whether or not abortion is illegal. And, and those sort of, you know, public policies as well as private charity and the different work that needs to be done in order to create a culture of life where regardless of if abortion is legal or not, people are supported in their pregnancies and in their choice to, to choose life. And I think that highlighting common ground and working with people to, to really rehumanize this discourse and to rehumanize, you know, people on the other side of the aisle, whether that is, you know, the pro-abortion person or their perception of us as pro-life people has been the primary goal. I think that I haven't had a lot of really strong. Pro-life conversions in this moment because tensions are so high. However I have, and I, and I've seen my team members who are out in, you know, even better at me, even better than me doing this discourse talking to these people and I'm seeing them plant seeds that at least can sort of give people a little bit of ease that we are not slipping into some sort of Handmaid's tale, dystopia, where you know, women are going to be oppressed and you know, all of our privacy rights and all of our rights are under attack that the people standing on the other side of the issue than you, if you're a pro-abortion person. Our justice minded. They're deeply concerned about the rights of children and they are also deeply concerned about the wellbeing and welfare of their parents. And, and looking for those places where we can come together and support people. Again, and I keep saying sort of like, regardless of if abortion is on the table or not, because whether or not abortion is legal, those needs are still going to be there. And I think that we need to pro-life people, especially recommit ourselves in this moment to the service that we already do for people in those difficult pregnancy circumstances.  [00:53:39] Emiliano Vera: Yeah. And also like. It's frustrating to me because I think this could be, and you know, we're doing the work, you're doing the work more on the ground than I am. I'm just sitting at my computer and writing blog posts. I keep, I keep mentioning this, but everybody watch out for my upcoming thorough economic analysis of the function of abortion to the capitalist class and how it relates to the racist policies of incarceration and defunding of the welfare state after the 1970s. But like this, the thing that frustrates me is that this could be a moment to discuss, you know, if the media wanted to be honest, how you know, like, what is it, 70% of people They always say that two thirds of people want a row to be upheld. They don't say that, you know, when you actually explain the trimester system, like two thirds of people support putting a limit on abortion to the end of the first trimester and that's which Roe prevents explicitly for those of you don't, who don't know Roe makes abortion effectively legal out all well low-brow and then Casey effectively makes abortion legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Definitely up until the end of the second trimester. And then after that basically state by state. And so that, that is like wild. Out of step with public opinion which generally sees like even people who consider themselves just kind of, I would say like naturally you're apolitical pro-choice of like, ah, we shouldn't mess with people too much. The end of the first trimester is where people tend to draw the line of when it's permissible to have abortion, which is also incidentally the line that most European countries draw. So like rather than like allowing us to have a a discourse in which we acknowledged, like the broad overlap like let's say like two-thirds of what we're saying. Like most people agree on it's just like this hyper partisan, like narrowing in, on a very tiny. Minority of cases and a very tiny minority of what people think is allowable and permissible. You had a much more hopeful wrapping up to this than I did  [00:56:20] Herb Geraghty: now. It's like, I, I mean, I think the whole thing is hopeful. I think that, like right now, we're kind of, you know, it's, it's easy to kind of get in the weeds of exactly what next steps are, but this is a very hopeful moment. Like I think that life wins. I think that, you know, I'm never going to forget. Being, I was in an Airbnb with a bunch of pro-life friends already. And we were actually making signs or a different thing, a different pro-life event that we were planning that had to be canceled. And I guess, postponed because then the decision was leaked and suddenly we had to respond to that instead. But you know, being surrounded by, you know, this community of pro-lifers, you know, I was with people, someone was as young as I think, 20 years old. And then there was also a 16 year old that joined us later that night. And then as old as someone who I believe was like 74 and then, you know, just seeing this totally diverse group of people come together. When I think I was the first person to get the news, cause Maria Oswalt who is just chronically online sent me the link cause she saw it immediately and sent it to me. And so I read it and I think I read it and I didn't really understand it until I was like halfway through the article exactly what the implications of this were. And so I said it out loud and then sent it to everyone in the room and we all silently read the article for you know, about five minutes. And then we were like, okay, so we got to get to the court. And so I think like since then I really have been in that. Kind of moment of, again, celebration and joy and jubilation that finally, it looks like we're going to see some justice for the 63 million plus children who have been killed by the abortion regime in this country. And so I think that, you know, as we're going, as I've said, and we're going to have to keep saying and doing the work is not done. But this is certainly a moment of incredible joy and hope. And I am excited to, to be a part of it with all of my, all of my friends and all of the people in my life who have, you know, like, you know, Mike who was there and was in the seventies who have been working on this, some of them for like 50 years to see this moment and to be there and, you know, like I'm on the bandwagon or I've only been in the movement for like six years and I, I get to be on the winning side. So that rocks. But to, to be with this community of justice minded, human centered human rights, activists who are seeing a victory. I mean, it's, it, it is a moment of extreme joy and extreme hope. And you know, of course the work doesn't end here and we, and we need to continue this fight in, you know, on many fronts, but overall optimism, joy, et cetera. So that's a, that's a happy thought to end this episode of the Rehumanize podcast on I hope that we get it edited and out in time before Roe actually does come down. Because again, we don't exactly know when that's gonna happen. Which is such an interesting policy about like the Supreme court just refuses to let us know when they release their, their decisions. But my guess is it's going to be in late June. Other people feel differently, but that I'm, I'm pretty sure it's going to be in late June. So don't quote me on that, but I will, we'll see, I guess,  [00:59:48] Emiliano Vera: amen. A woman in any of them. I I'm a yeah, well, let's see. What's going on. Let's see what is going on by the time this podcast comes out because who knows? I am just very, very grateful in this moment to Be really, it seems like on the, on the right side of history like fighting for adjust, cause that looks like it's going to win. Which is like not always a, it's a really weird, really weird spot to be in sometimes when you usually see yourself, like on the losing side, lots of times. And it's, it's cool to not just be, you know, like treading water or, you know, trying to swim upstream, but actually going with the current of history. So yeah. Any other, any other thoughts before we close up?  [01:00:49] Herb Geraghty: I don't think so. I think I'm exhausted. I think that I need a day or two, cause I really, we have been going nonstop since this decision has come out. And so I'm excited to see. To take a break, to take a breath, to look at a lot of the, the work that we've put out to find all of the interviews that I did outside the court that I that I haven't seen yet and compile them and to then just sort of get back to the work that we, that we already have been doing. I know you say you're working on your article for life matters journal and the Rehumanize blogs. So hopefully that'll be out soon and I'm excited to see that. I'm also just excited to, to recommit myself to the other issues. I think that in these past few weeks, this news has been so huge and so abortion has been front and center in my mind. But during this time there's been one execution and there has been one scheduled execution that. Today as of recording was stayed. And so I think that, you know, this work of the consistent life ethic movement is is ongoing and we don't really have time to take a break or get distracted by just one of these issues because you know, the rest of the world is still moving. And there are, there's work to be done on all of the many fronts that we that we see as consistent life ethic activists. And so my, my next step, and the next thing I'm doing is I'm editing an article about the death penalty. 'cause that's, that's the second thing on my mind after abortion. And then I'm sure there's going to be some horrible news about euthanasia or  [01:02:24] Emiliano Vera: and invite in Yemen. Sorry. Biden does reinvaded Somalia as well today, so,  [01:02:29] Herb Geraghty: okay. I haven't been on Twitter and the flowers, so I didn't even know that. And so I'm sure we're going to have to respond to that ongoing violence in Ukraine and NATO expansion and all of these things that we are deeply concerned about. And so. But it is nice to have  [01:02:45] Emiliano Vera: a win on like the thing that's just like the biggest numerically.  [01:02:48] Herb Geraghty: That's true. It's very nice. It's nice to have a wind period where see, you know, like you said, oh, Biden invaded another country that I didn't even hear about because I,  [01:02:58] Emiliano Vera: for all of the listeners who are not fans of Trump, I, I, including me just yeah. Point out that Biden reinvented a country that Trump pulled out from. So there is our little dose of late, late capitalist contradiction today.  [01:03:15] Herb Geraghty: Thank you, Emiliano. So I think with that, I think it's clear that we have a bunch of work to do so we should sign off from the Rehumanize podcast and then go get to that work. Let's go do the work. All right. We're taking. Take a nap and then do the work. All right. Thank you everyone for listening. Peace.

  In this episode, our hosts Herb Geraghty and Emiliano Vera are joined by Mayra Rodriguez, the former director of 3 Planned Parenthood clinics who was Planned Parenthood's 2016 Employee of the Year and courageously blew the whistle, winning a 2019 wrongful termination lawsuit against the abortion giant.   Tune in on Spotify, iTunes, or from our website at http://rehumanizeintl.org/podcast.   Follow Mayra's work: https://www.instagram.com/therealmayra.rodriguez/  

In this episode, our hosts Herb Geraghty and Emiliano Vera are joined by the founders of Rehumanize DMV (DC/Maryland Virginia), Savannah and Ryan, to discuss their experience launching a Rehumanize chapter in the middle of the pandemic.   Follow Rehumanize DMV on all social media platforms at @RehumanizeDMV. Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org.

(CLE = Consistent Life Ethic) In this episode, our hosts Herb and Emiliano are joined by Phil Eddy, who is a member of the Rehumanize International board. Together, they have a wide-ranging chat about the death penalty, imperialism, news about abortion, and more.    —   Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org.

Terrisa Bukovinac returns to the podcast to introduce her new organization, the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising.   —   Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org.

In this episode, our hosts Herb and Emiliano are joined by David Swanson of World BEYOND War to reflect on the aftermath of 9/11 and the war on terror. _ Follow World BEYOND War at https://worldbeyondwar.org/. — Find more info about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org.

In this episode, hosts Herb Geraghty and Emiliano Vera are joined by the founder of Rehumanize International, Aimee Murphy, to celebrate the organization's tenth anniversary. They reminisce over the last decade of Rehumanize's existence and chat about their hopes for the future. — Learn more about Rehumanize International: www.rehumanizeintl.org.    

In this episode, hosts Herb Geraghty and Emiliano Vera are joined by Kristin Turner — Executive Director of Pro-Life San Francisco and environmental and animal rights activist — to talk about the intersection between the Consistent Life Ethic movement and the fight against climate change. — Follow Kristin's work at Pro-Life San Francisco, Sunrise Redding, and Take Feminism Back. — Learn more about Rehumanize International: www.rehumanizeintl.org.    

In this special Pride Month episode, our co-hosts Herb and Emiliano are joined by Sarah Terzo of PLAGAL, the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians. Follow PLAGAL on social media, and stay updated on Sarah's work by joining her mailing list at https://subscribepage.com/sarahterzo. — Learn more about Rehumanize International: www.rehumanizeintl.org.

In this episode, Herb and Emiliano are joined by Greta Zarro, organizing director for World Beyond War. Rehumanize International is an affiliate of World Beyond War and a sponsor of their 2021 virtual conference.   Sign up for #NoWar2021: https://nowar2021.worldbeyondwar.org/   Learn more about Rehumanize International: www.rehumanizeintl.org.

This is the first episode with our new co-host: Rehumanize board member Emiliano Vera! Emiliano and Herb are joined in this episode by Xavier Bisits, Vice President of Democrats for Life of America; they discuss the challenges and benefits of running for office as a Consistent Life Ethic candidate. — Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org!

In this episode, Herb is joined by Shareef Cousin of Witness to Innocence to discuss his experience on Louisiana's death row. Shareef was framed for murder and sentenced to death at just sixteen years old.  — Intro/outro music: "Belize," by Monty Datta. https://montydatta.bandcamp.com/track/belize  — Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org!

In this episode, Herb is joined by Hannah Cox, National Manager of Conservatives Concerned about the Death Penalty, to discuss the various flaws in the death penalty system that have led many conservatives to work for its abolition. Tune in on Spotify, iTunes, or from our website at http://rehumanizeintl.org/podcast. —  Intro/outro music: "Belize," by Monty Datta. https://montydatta.bandcamp.com/track/belize  — Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org!   —   Transcription: Maria Oswalt: Hello and welcome to Episode 15 of the Rehumanize podcast. Herb Geraghty: Hello and welcome to the Rehumanize podcast. I am joined today by Hannah Cox, who works with conservatives concerned about the death penalty. Herb Geraghty: Her work has led to the repeal of the death penalty in two states while supporting dozens of Republican lawmakers to sponsor repeal bills across the country. Herb Geraghty: I am excited for Hannah to join us because as with every issue within the consistent life ethic that Rehumanize works on, people oppose the death penalty for a lot of different reasons. And I feel like to me at least, the arguments that conservatives concerned about the death penalty bring to the table are actually some of the strongest. So welcome, Hannah. Hannah Cox: Thanks so much for having me. Herb Geraghty: So I guess my first question is just simply, why should conservatives be concerned about the death penalty? Hannah Cox: Well, like you mentioned, there's just so many problems with it, so I'm often asked, what's the number one issue? What's the number one problem with it that's making people change their mind on the right? And I don't think it's truly any different than the issues that are presented on the left, honestly. I just think that for a long time, people weren't being presented with the information about how the system functioned, and so there were a lot of people that sort of had a knee jerk reaction to the death penalty. There were many people, and I used to be one of them, who thought that it was needed, that it deterred crime, that it was something murder victims' family members would want, that it saved money. And none of those things are actually correct. But as a whole, it just took a bit of time to really get that data, get those stories in front of people. And usually when we do, we see a lot of people pretty quickly move away from supporting it. So, you know, the same old issues come up. Hannah Cox: Of course, I think the innocence problems in the system get a lot of people's attention. As we've moved more into the age of information, people have become more aware of just how frequently we're finding wrongful convictions in the system. And I think they're starting to recognize that when we do find them, it's usually not the result of the system working. Hannah Cox: It's not the result of the government catching its own errors. It's actually usually thanks to the pro bono work of outside groups like the Innocence Project coming in and combing back over these cases. And it's quite hard to overturn a wrongful conviction. So I think that, in and of itself, is enough for a lot of people to turn their back on it. We've had one person exonerated for every nine executions in this country. That's terrifying. That's a lot of wrongful convictions. We know, with that rate, we execute innocent people every year. Every year there's a new case that comes up in the states where most people believe the person to be killed is innocent. And we see a lot of those go through. And so I think that's probably the biggest issue. But there's just so many problems with it that kind of move on down from there, whether you're getting into how much it costs, the lack of a deterrent effect, the opportunity cost where we're wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on the system across the country every year when it doesn't work--it doesn't provide a deterrent. It doesn't provide the services the victims and their families largely need. And so that's an opportunity cost. That's money that we're spending that should be redirected toward things that actually would prevent violence, towards solving more crime, which we still do a very bad job at, or towards giving victims the services that they actually need to find healing and to begin to repair their lives. Herb Geraghty: I think something that's so important about the work that you guys do, other than just sort of getting the information out there, is working with lawmakers in sort of red states that I think a lot of people outside of the movement might assume would all be, you know, pro death penalty [and] tough on crime in the strongest ways possible. But you guys have made a lot of headway in the state legislatures, where it really matters. Hannah Cox: Yeah, we've found incredible success in the past couple of years. I think politics flows downstream from culture. And so when you really start seeing the large number of Republicans that we work with sponsoring bills to get rid of the death penalty, I think that shows you where the culture is on this issue. And we're really kind of hitting a crescendo effect at the moment. We've had, I think, 10 or 11 states in the past year that have had close to 60 Republican lawmakers signed on as sponsors to repeal the death penalty. And, of course, hundreds of others have voted in favor of those bills on the right. And so not only are Republicans opposed to the death penalty in large numbers at this point, but they're actually the ones really championing and leading at many of the state legislatures and doing so successfully. They were the difference makers in the New Hampshire campaign two years ago. They were the difference makers in the Colorado campaign this year. We've been successful two years in a row now at overturning the death penalty. And we have every reason to anticipate that trend will continue in the next year with either Wyoming or Ohio. Hannah Cox: And so there's a lot of exciting stuff happening at the state level. Herb Geraghty: So I think I want to talk about, sort of, the reasons that you think conservatives might support the death penalty, and why they shouldn't. Because I think to me, the one that I hear a lot from people who maybe haven't been exposed to all the research is that it should save money. That by killing people, we're not paying to keep them in prison forever, and so it saves money to just kill them and move on with it. But I've seen data that suggests that's not true. Hannah Cox: Yeah, nothing could actually be further from the truth, but it certainly is an old stereotype. And I think, again, it's largely held by people who just haven't actually been that close to the system. They haven't really done any research into the policy. You know, unlike some more complicated policies that people maybe refrain from having an opinion on when they know they don't have enough information, the death penalty can be a very emotional issue for people. And so it's one that I think a lot of people maybe have a knee jerk reaction to, make assumptions about, and they don't actually go do their due diligence and actually look into the system to see if they know what they're talking about or to see if their assumptions are actually true. And what I found when I was in that position and actually did start looking in and checking myself, was that I was really wrong about a lot of the ideas I had and assumptions I had made about the system, one of them being that it was cheaper. We know that the death penalty is the most expensive part of our justice system on a per offender basis. I think that's actually pretty commonly known, that the death penalty is drastically more expensive than other punishments. Hannah Cox: But people always make the mistake of assuming that that is because it takes too long to carry out. And that's frequently what you'll hear defenders of it say. That's not at all accurate, actually. If you look at it, the main cause, the main driver of those costs is the trial itself, where 70 percent of the additional costs of the death penalty are incurred. That means even if a jury is presented with a death penalty trial and votes for a sentence less than death, which they do more times than not by the way, that taxpayers are still paying a good bit more to have a death penalty trial than they would to have a life in prison without parole case. Now, if you really think about it, if you step aside and put down your presumptions and think about this, why would it cost so much more to have a death penalty than life in prison without parole? If the cause was that it takes too long and it's because we're incarcerating these people for so long, then life in prison without parole would be about equal, because those are people that spend the rest of their lives in prison. Hannah Cox: But instead, we see the death penalty is about a million dollars more on average than a life in prison without parole case. And so, again, that comes back to the trial: how much more we spend bringing these cases forward. They're just not really worth it. And again, I think the worst part is not only is that fiscally responsible, but it's actually negligence. It's something that makes our communities less safe, because we're spending those excess millions of dollars on a system that fails. It doesn't work to deter crime. It will never work to deter crime. We know from research and from psychologists that the actual deterrent to crime is the assurance that someone will get caught. We only solve about 60 percent of homicides on average in this country. We're really bad at solving crimes. It's even worse for lesser offenses. And so the the actual odds are right now, if you commit a crime, your odds of getting away with it are actually pretty good. And I would argue in large part, that's because of the money we waste on security theater like the death penalty, instead of going out and actually spending those resources to stop crime or to prevent violence in the first place. Herb Geraghty: I really like that--that framing of the death penalty as security theater. I don't think I've ever heard that before, but I think that's really accurate. It's sort of done for the peace of mind of the general public in some ways. Herb Geraghty: And it's not--it's not deterring crime. Can you talk a little bit more about that? Because I think that that is a pretty common misconception, I guess, that I--if I wanted to kill someone, well, I don't want to be killed, and so maybe I won't go do that. Like, it seems sort of common sense that it would be, you know, a deterrent effect to have a death penalty. But you say research says that's not accurate? Hannah Cox: Research does not show that that is true whatsoever. And in fact, we find that regions that do not have the death penalty or that do away with it tend to actually stay about even in their crime rates or even see a decrease in crime rates, whereas regions that do continue to use it--which is very few places in this country at this point, we only have about 10 states that are actively still doing this--they tend to have much higher rates of violent crime. Hannah Cox: So I would say there's actually even a correlation in the other end that would indicate the death penalty contributes to higher rates of crime. Because, again, it's an opportunity cost: we're not spending those dollars on smart public policies, on things that actually work. And there's a good number of people that want to keep digging their head in the sand and do this, because I think it feels easy to them, right? The death penalty is an easy answer to violence. It doesn't take much nuance. It doesn't really take understanding trauma or science or violence. You don't have to do the messy work of getting in and trying to repair people. You don't have to really dig in and start dealing with the pain that so many find. What you'll find is those who commit crimes were usually first victims themselves; they're often victims of really traumatic experiences before the cycle of violence repeats itself in their lives and they end up being offenders. And so there's--there's some really messy work that I think needs to be done if we really want to understand violence in order to prevent it. And there are things we could be doing, but they're not simple solutions. They take more effort, they take more intelligence, they take more nuance and thought and planning and preparation. And I think that to some extent, there's a lot of people who really just don't want to do that work, and they want easy solutions. The death penalty feels good. It feels like vengeance. It feels like justice. It seems like this is a simple solution. It's not. It's something that continues to actually, I think, contribute to the root causes of crime, which again, are largely trauma. It creates new victims and other family members who lose a loved one. Hannah Cox: It often amplifies the pain of the victim's family members themselves, which is why we see so many of them turn out to work against it and work to get rid of the death penalty. Because it's something that exacerbates their pain and really pushes them through a cycle of the system, for decades at times, instead of giving them the resources they might need to actually begin to rebuild their lives. And so it's something that just compounds trauma, compounds violence and pain and the effects of it and actually makes it worse. So it's not something that we really see providing any actual benefit. But again, I think it's something that, for some, feels easy, feels good. And so they, again, have kind of an emotional knee-jerk reaction to it and support it. But I want to circle back to the fact that I just don't think that's most people these days. I think it used to be. But these days what we find is that there are a lot of people, especially on the right, who have become aware of the need for criminal justice reform in general and, especially once they become aware of the flaws in the justice system, don't think that the system should be able to carry out matters of life and death. And so we find we actually have a lot of support for getting rid of it. And for those who maybe aren't as up to speed on the policy itself and on how it works, typically within a couple minutes of talking to them about all of this data, I'll see a lot of people change their minds pretty quickly. They'll say, "Oh, I didn't know that. OK, I guess I'm OK if it goes away in that case, let's try something better." Herb Geraghty: Yeah. I think the death penalty is really one of those issues that, once you just get the data, it's a lot--it's a lot harder to keep supporting it. Which I think is good that we're on the right side of the issue, I guess. Herb Geraghty: Another thing that I read about on your website that I really--I really liked was the idea that when it comes to the death penalty, justice is not blind and that fairness is a moving target. Can you talk a little bit about what you mean by that when you talk about it? Hannah Cox: Yeah, well, we see that there is really stark disproportionality in the death penalty and how it's allocated. We see that only about two percent of counties bring the majority of death penalty cases. To date, all executions since reinstatement have come from less than 16 percent of the nation's counties. And so while a lot of people think that there is a difference in the level of criminality committed for people to get the death penalty, they think that these people are somehow more violent or what they did is more heinous than others in the prison population, that actually isn't the case. That actually isn't really how we determine who gets the death penalty. You'll find if you start digging into the cases of those on death row versus those in the life in prison without parole or sometimes even just general sentencing, that oftentimes you'll see very similar-looking cases. And it really just comes down to one county aggressively pushing for the death penalty and others don't. And so really, we see the number one driver of who gets it comes down to the location where the crime was committed. And that's true across every state in this country. So that's pretty arbitrary. That's actually partially why it was banned in the 1970s at the the US Supreme Court level: they proved that it was so arbitrary and so racially biased that it violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. They didn't find that it violated the "cruel" aspect of the Eighth Amendment but [rather] the "unusual" aspect of the Eighth Amendment, because it was so arbitrarily allocated that it was as random as being struck by lightning. And so they overturned it for a period of a couple years. Hannah Cox: And then states basically added some mitigating factors and some aggravating factors that were supposed to try to put barriers up to ensure that it was only for the worst of the worst, and that we weren't racially biased in how we allocated it, and that we were making sure we didn't have so many wrongful convictions. But we--you know, we did that in the late 1970s, early 1980s. And so we've got a lot of data, a decade's worth of data now, to look at how that's worked. And we see that it operates in the exact same manner. It's still really based on where the crime was committed, and the next [strongest] determining factors are the race of the defendant and the race of the victim. And we see both of those play really significant parts in who gets it [and] who doesn't. And then, of course, there's a lot of socioeconomic bias overlap within that as well. Basically, if you're somebody who can afford a private attorney, a good defense, the likelihood that you're going to get the death penalty is really, really low. Hannah Cox: We don't see people of means--even of moderate means--as a whole on death row. And the number one combination of people across this country on death row are black defendants who had a white victim in the case. Even though we know that most crime, most homicides are carried out by people known to the victim. Most people live in socioeconomic racial bubbles in this country, and so of course you see the data shows that numbers of white on white crimes are higher, black on black crimes are higher. You don't have as many crimes that are across different races. And yet that's the leading cause of people on death row. Herb Geraghty: Wow. I think--I don't know, I just find that statistic one of the most shocking, I guess. I think I know that within the criminal justice system, there are racial biases. Herb Geraghty: I think that it's pretty hard to find people now who won't admit to at least some racial bias within, you know, policing and prisons and sentencing and everything like that. But I think the stat about it being a white victim making a difference is really jarring to me. Hannah Cox: Yeah, there's something really creepy about it, right? It feels very sinister. And I think so often when we talk about the systemic racism in the justice system, people who aren't as familiar with the system, who don't really understand its intricacies as well, they assume what we mean by that is, like, there's people plotting in a room to make the system racist. That's not how it actually gets put into place. Instead, we had a lot of laws that were put into place for hundreds of years in this country that were racist. And just because we had the Civil Rights Act of 1960 doesn't mean that all those laws are just eradicated from our books. And so you still have a lot of laws that were intended to have racial disparities and their implications and that still produces racial disparities and their implications. As one example, we just saw the Supreme Court this year--this year!-- overturn laws in Louisiana and Oregon that allowed for non-unanimous juries. We have transcripts from when those laws were put into place where they basically were advocating at the state level to water down the votes of black people on juries when they had to start including them after the civil war ended. And so those things were still around. When you have non-unanimous juries, you might have two black people on a jury and ten white people, and we say these two votes don't count. And we just watered down the votes of black juries who might have voted for more lenient sentences for people of color. Hannah Cox: We continue to see black men sentenced with all white juries in this country. And so there's subliminal biases, right? There's subconscious bias that enters that equation. There's the implication of the laws. And all of it contributes to the system that continues to be much more punitive towards people of color, much more likely to arrest people of color, much more likely to wrongfully convict people of color, to sentence people for the same crime much more harshly if they are black than if they are white. On and on and on it goes. But I do think of all of the racial disparities we see in the data throughout the justice system, the one that really--it just feels so icky to me is around victims. When we see how we decide what victims get what attention, which victims' cases we decide are worth an excess million to pursue a death penalty case for, and which ones we might not even solve--you know, go back to that 60 percent homicide clearance rate. That means 40 percent of victims, on average, get absolutely no justice, no closure, nothing whatsoever. And I think that there is a subconscious bias in how we allocate our resources to victims in this country, in which victims get more attention, which victims we think need to absolutely make sure we solve those cases, and in which ones we say, "All right, this one has to go to the death penalty trial." And consistently we see that it is for white victims that we put precedence. Herb Geraghty: Yeah. And to be clear, when we're talking about this, we're not saying that--I don't know... I feel like--I don't think that seeking the death penalty is somehow more just to a victim or a victim's family. But it's more just those biases that I think clearly exist that lead to that disparity, especially when, as you've said, the cross-racial homicide rate is very low. Herb Geraghty: And so the fact that it's, you know, offenders--or accused offenders--that have a white victim, is so just very jarring. Herb Geraghty: And I really like the language that you guys use on your website about justice should be blind. Herb Geraghty: We sort of have these ideas of a government who is just and a justice system that applies these laws equally. Hannah Cox: Yeah. I think that's absolutely right. And without a doubt, we fail to do that. Herb Geraghty: And I think the last thing I want to talk about is the idea of the death penalty as, for the families of the victim, that it is the only real way to provide closure in the case of a homicide. Hannah Cox: Yeah, I mean, I think there's this perception by defenders of the death penalty that this is something that, largely, victims' family members want. And we often see, especially lawmakers who are arguing in defense of keeping it, say that this is for the victims. Right? "We're doing this for the victims." You even saw US Attorney General Barr and Trump try to say that when they resumed federal executions, even while the victims in these cases have been advocating against it and asking them to stop. There's something really gross about it that happens in that way. I see that repeat itself throughout general assemblies. I know this year in Colorado, where we were ultimately successful in overturning the death penalty, we had a murder victim's coalition, a family member coalition, that was showing up that had three or four dozen people in it, tons and tons of people that were there. They were holding press conferences. They were meeting with lawmakers, and the lawmakers who were determined to vote to keep the death penalty, wouldn't meet with those people. Wouldn't come to their press conferences. Wouldn't sit down with them. But then had the gall to get up on the floor and say that they were voting to keep this penalty for the victims. And they used them as scapegoats. And I think it's really gross. So I don't ever want to do the opposite and speak for victims' family members. They're not a monolith. Certainly there are some victims' family members who support keeping the death penalty. Hannah Cox: But I will say that in the legislatures where I've been, when we're working on repeal campaigns, they usually are about one to thirty-six against keeping it. So I think that as a whole, we see a lot larger number of victims' family members really show up and advocate getting rid of it, versus the other way around where we see victims really show up and want to keep it and say this is something that has helped them. So as a whole, I think it makes sense when you, when you really work around the system, you see how families get brought in and out of court for decades. They have to go back and forth. They're constantly having to relive the worst moment of their life. Many of them have a problem with the death penalty from the beginning. And the prosecutors and police don't respect them or their wishes and pursue it anyways. So that's quite traumatic. We see that these millions of dollars get wasted on pursuing this death penalty instead of actually giving them resources that they need, whether that be counseling, whether that be assistance with child care if they've just lost a spouse, whether that be relocation help if they're in a dangerous situation or area. There's a lot of things that they actually say they could use or need when they have experienced crime that we don't do for victims and their family members because we're wasting so much money on security theater. Herb Geraghty: And so I think my only question left is, what do we do? How do we get involved? As you said, public opinion really has shifted. It's more common to oppose the death penalty than to support it. Yet we still have, I think, over half the states have the death penalty at least on the books. So what do we do to create the culture that we need to abolish it? Hannah Cox: Yeah. Well, I think so much of it is just going and doing the work of talking to others in your world about the problems with it. I think we have to really move the culture in order to get to a place where then the politics, the legislature follows through. And so in some states we're further ahead than others. And some states there's still a lot of work left to do to talk to Republicans and Libertarians and others on the right. And even those on the left; there's an assumption that everybody on the left is in favor of getting rid of it, and that's actually not even true itself. We need to continue working across both sides of the aisles just to get this information in front of people, let them know the flaws with the system. I think it's always good for people to contact their local state House and state Senate members and let them know what they want to see happen on this. And those are really the best ways you can effect change. Herb Geraghty: Great, how can we follow Conservatives Concerned? Hannah Cox: Yeah. Conservatives Concerned is under our acronym on Twitter, which is CCATDP. We're on Facebook @Conservatives Concerned. Our website is ConservativesConcerned.org. And so those are three really great places to connect with us. Herb Geraghty: Ok, great. Well, thank you so much for coming on the podcast, Hannah. Do you have anything else you want to promote or share a final message? Hannah Cox: I think that's it. Thanks so much for having me. Herb Geraghty: Well, thank you so much. Maria Oswalt: Thanks for tuning in to the Rehumanize podcast. To learn more, check out our website at rehumanizeintl.org or follow us on social media @rehumanizeintl.  

In this episode, Herb Geraghty is joined by Nick Reynosa of SERNOW (The Society for Ethical Research Now), an organization working to expose the injustice happening at the University of California San Francisco. —  Intro/outro music: "Belize," by Monty Datta. https://montydatta.bandcamp.com/track/belize  — Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org! — Transcription: Maria Oswalt: Hello and welcome to Episode 14 of the Rehumanize podcast.   [Music plays]   Herb Geraghty: Hello and welcome to the Rehumanize Podcast. Today I am being joined by Nick Renosa who is the Director of Public policy of the Society For Ethical Research or SERNOW. Their mission is to document, expose, and mobilize against unethical fetal organ harvesting.  We're going to talk a little bit about exactly what that means and the work that the Society For Ethical Research is doing to stop it. So welcome Nick.    Nick Reynosa: Thank you for having me, Herb.   Herb Geraghty: So the focus of the SERNOW campaign has really been on the medical research going on at the University of California San Francisco.  Over the past year I've been down to UCSF a couple times to help raise awareness about this issue and I think the attention on it is only growing so I think it's really important that you're here today to tell our listeners about it.  But before we get into it, I don't usually do this, but I do wanna give a quick warning that what we're gonna talk about gets pretty dark.  It's the Rehumanize Podcast we deal with Consistent Life Ethic issues, but um so nothing's ever cheery, but this particularly for me at least I think is sort of another level at some points.  So I just want to throw that warning out there that this episode might be a little more disturbing than uh past episodes.  So Nick, can you tell us what is going on at UCSF?   Nick Reynosa: So just briefly going over UCSF fetal harvesting program: UCSF is, you know, the abortion-training capital of the world. It is also a leader in pro-abortion legislative advocacy, and it's an essential link in the supply chain for human fetal organs and experimentation and a lot of this information has been uncovered through the brave work of David Daleiden; our group, Society For Ethical Research is partnering with Pro Life San Francisco and Survivors LA to, you know, be a nonviolent active--you know--citizen activism in the Bay Area to document and expose these human rights violations and call for more ethical alternatives. And the procedures that are done at UCSF are definitely among the most extreme abortion procedures in the world. And definitely, you know, you talk about “rehumanizing”, this is the highest level of dehumanization of the unborn I've seen and I've been doing pro life work about ten years.  And so, today we're just gonna talk about the work that we've done, the pressure that we've put on them, and also the procedures themselves and how they may violate federal law, and also sort of the ethical implications with the scientific community and with covid and other things--all of the different things that are entailed in fetal tissue research.   Herb Geraghty: Okay, so I have a hard time even talking about this. I think with a lot of sort of pro-life work that I end up doing, it's easy to sort of, I guess, think of it in as like a philosophical point that like especially when you're talking about embryos who obviously are human beings, then they deserve human rights, it's sort of easy to not really think of them as persons even though we know that they are and they deserve rights.  That's not what we're talking about. This, when we say fetal organ harvesting and this unethical research, were not talking about, like, embryonic stem cell research which I think is a lot of people's first impression.  These are--I think, Nick-- usually viable children, Right?   Nick Reynosa: Uh, a great many of them. The weeks--usually are between 18-24 weeks. Anything above 21 weeks would be viable, so I think it's definitely fair to say a great many of them, and we have, at least (and this is a very conservative number) at least 288 victims in that age range, just from the contracts that we've discovered through the great work of like Robert Burg. He's kind of piecemeal found these contracts, and we've kind of extrapolated the number 288. So definitely dozens, possibly hundreds, of viable fetuses in that age range. And you know it's interesting-- you're vegan, Herb, and I think a lot of people who, you know, care for animals as well, it's the reality of the violence that, you know, brings them to care. And when we talk about these late term procedures it's sort of, like, distinguishing--you said, between the philosophical and the embryonic to this real flesh and blood violent act and that, I think, that's why this is such a hard topic to talk about.   Herb Geraghty: Yeah, yeah I know, I think--I just, I know that late term abortion (or we're not supposed to call it; later abortion, post-viability abortion) is less common and I think that's like a talking point that you hear a lot, that it's only X percent of abortions in the US; but when you look at, you know, an ultrasound of a child at 21 weeks or 24 weeks, that looks like a person. They really don't look that far off from what we look like when we're born, especially because some of them are born and are human beings given the right to life by the state at that point. And it's just-- I don't know. I think for me late term abortion, it just, it's so hard to think about because I think it's easy to dehumanize someone who doesn't really look like what your idea of a human is. But the people doing this, they know. They can see their face and that's so upsetting for me. But the other thing that I wanted to ask about: something that SERNOW talks about a lot (and I know I've done a lot of work with Terrisa Bukovinac, with Pro-Life San Francisco) is this idea that there are children not just being killed in the elective abortion procedures, then being used for medical research; that there's a possibility, and probability, that some of them are being born alive.   Nick Reynosa: Definitely. You see, the thing is that a traditional later term abortion is very violent, very traumatic dismemberment and such things like that digoxin which is a toxic substance. It's very similar to potassium chloride, which is actually used in lethal injections of inmates. So that gives you an idea of the level of toxicity of the substance. But anyway, in order to have pristine tissue, the doctors have to get more creative with these procedures, and there are 2 main procedures. There's a live dismemberment or D&E, which is where the extremities are removed, and then you have an intact abdomen, which is then dissected afterwards. And then you also have a procedure known as en vivo, which means “in the living”, which was actually invented at the University of Pittsburgh. (So we have this sort of macabre connection to San Francisco and Pittsburgh with this, unfortunately.) But these procedures allow the procedure to be less traumatic physically on the body, and it makes it more suitable for experimentation later. But the problem is, because it's less traumatic, it reduces the certainty of fetal demise. This is why many professional abortionists view these procedures as sort of beyond the pale and far too risky, and they'll refuse to do them. And this is the same thing with staff and patients. There was one medical journal that I read talking about how over 90 percent of patients wanted assurence of fetal demise, and many physicians and staff agreed because the idea of a born alive or a live birth during an abortion would be traumatic for the doctor, for the staff, for the patient. So even in the abortion community these are considered extreme procedures, and according to the Society For Family Planning, up to 50 percent of the time these children are born alive. And if they are not given care, that would be a violation of federal law. And that's why we're seeking transparency, because if we know that there's been, for example, 288 victims, we don't have any transparency as to the number that were born alive or the care that they received or did not receive. And the lack of reporting is a crime--not just the denial of care, but the lack of reporting as well. So these are all goals that we're working towards to try to have more transparency and accountability at UCSF.     Herb Geraghty: Mmhm. I think that that statistic, when I first heard it, I immediately didn't believe it: that up to 50 percent of the time, these infants could be being born alive and then dissected for medical research. And I remember I think Terrisa first posted something about that or told me that. And I immediately assumed, I think, “oh Society For Family Planning, what is that, some kind of pro-life group?” that that's where the stat is coming from (not that, I think, you know, pro-life groups are making up stats; but things can look a little different.) So I immediately went to their website and it's [a] pro-abortion [group]. There were studies on there that were like the harm that the lack of access to abortion causes, you know, this is not some sort of like right-wing conspiracy to accuse doctors of killing actual infants. This is happening, and it's not even that controversial. The doctors are just like “yeah, that's what happens”--which to me is insane, that that's going on and that this isn't a national conversation.   Nick Reynosa: Well, I think there are three parts to that, Herb. The first part that people need to understand, is that in order for a typical abortion to be successful, there has to be some kind of damage done to the fetus; usually through like the digoxin, or through blood loss, or organ damage, or something like that. But especially with the en vivo procedure, there's really no blood loss, there's no digoxin. So the only thing that would really cause fetal demise is just the fact that it's a very young fetus. So especially for the ones that are over 21 weeks, they're coming out of the birth canal, they haven't really experienced any trauma, so if they're old enough, that's why the numbers are so high.  Another issue is--and I think in the movie Gosnell it really touches on this well--you have a certain percentage of abortionists who are practicing what I would call ‘civil disobedience' where there are abortion regulations on the books. For example, like the “guarantee of care for infants born alive”, where they feel that those laws are immoral, and they're deliberately, as Gosnell said, you know, disobeying those laws intentionally. And then, thirdly, you have pro-abortion politicians who look the other way; and not to go easy on the Republicans either, because they haven't been super strong in enforcement either when they've had the opportunity. But you factor those three things together and it makes sense how those  horrible things can happen. And I think regardless of whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, if the law states that they are to be given care, then whether you're pro-choice or pro-life is irrelevant. You follow the law or you pay the consequences.   Herb Geraghty: Yeah, I remember this kind of discourse came up a lot back in 2019, when the Republicans were really pushing for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which basically, I think, was an extension of the current laws on the book that say: these children born alive during abortions deserve healthcare, and they should be treated as any other child born at that gestational age. But with this law they were attempting to, sort of, give that teeth and make it more enforceable and prevent situations like what we're talking about. And I just remember thinking that the friends that I have, the colleagues that I have, who genuinely believe that “healthcare is a human right” and say that kind of thing, and say, you know, “everyone deserves healthcare.” And then they are willing to just exclude this group of people who are born alive during abortions and just, like, at best they can be ignored and they can die on their own; at worst we're going to dismember them and use their body parts for medical research.  And it's just so unfortunate like for me, as someone who does believe healthcare is a right, I'm an advocate for that sort of outside my work with Rehumanize International; to see this group of people just completely denied even stuff like comfort care, and instead are being dissected alive. This issue--I just, sometimes with a lot of anti-abortion stuff, I think that--I get concerned that I am losing my mind, like I--I must be wrong. Like there's no way I live in a society where, routinely, completely legally, children are just being killed. And about half the country is fine with that. And our politicians are doing almost nothing to stop it. And the ones who are doing something to stop it are just talking about, you know, defunding it. And I feel like I must be wrong; like maybe, pro-choice people have to be right. But then I look at the evidence that's right in front of me, and it's like no. This is happening; and it's not on the news every night. Like maybe Tucker Carlson will run a segment on abortion every 6 months and that's the best we can ask for and I just don't understand why I…   Nick Reynosa: Well I think there's several factors. We live in a… I often think about the Milgram Experiment where fake doctors told people to shock people, so we obviously defer a lot to scientific experts. And in a lot of ways that's good, but the thing is, unfortunately, the stuff we see at UCSF is just part of a long history of bad ethics and science. I can think of the Mengele experiments, the Tuskegee Airmen experiments, experiments against the mentally handicapped, and so forth. Basically what it is, is when you have people that are otherized, or made less than--whether it's Jewish people or African American people or handicapped people or whatever the case may be, in this case, the unborn--the typical standards of ethics are reduced. And also I think sometimes in this search for the greater good or what have you that scientists, engineers, you know, I live in Silicon Valley and sometimes they say move fast and break things. Well, just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should.  And when we look at  sort of like the gold-standard of scientific ethics, there's been pushback from the scientific community about these basic protections for patients. And that just reminds me that we constantly have to aspire for our science to be better and push our scientists to be better and respect their knowledge, but they're not perfect. Just because you wear a white coat or a black coat or a blue coat, violence is violence, bad ethics is bad ethics.  I think if we take that principle we can do better. And you know just briefly you were talking about the extremism.  I think about other issues, sometimes, where the smallest, most common sense regulation is seen as tantamount to a full abolition. You know, like, if we oppose these procedures somehow that can amount to The Handmaid's Tale.  It's not a really logical, rational discourse, and I don't think these people are being fair or intellectually honest, because abortion rights in America would not change drastically if these procedures stopped. But a lot of time it's framed in that way because any kind of anything less than full cartes blanche is seen as tantamount to The Handmaids Tale or something. I don't think we're going to get very far if that's the level of discourse that we're having.   Herb Geraghty: Well, I think that from the pro-choice side, I think that almost has to be the level of discourse. Because when we start to say okay, a viable child, someone who is now 24 weeks old, well they deserve rights, why doesn't that make sense for a 21 week old or a 20 week old. And then you just become pro-life, which is what I'm hoping they do.  But what you were saying about the history of sort of medical experimentation I think really holds true. And it is important to know that throughout history, especially when you think of things like gynecology and reproductive healthcare, the really sordid and just racist history of a lot of that in the US, really just like extensive abuse of black women's bodies, to sort of make medical advancements is something that this sort of reminds me of in some ways. But it makes me think, you know, we're not against medical advancement.  I want, you know, cures for the diseases that they're working on and I want to improve our ability to help people with disabilities and all of these other things.  We're just saying that there are other means that you can go about this with.   Nick Reynosa: Absolutely. And, you know, especially the topic on everyone's mind now is Covid-19 and I was thinking about the relevance of our work as far as, they were talking about the different Covid vaccines that were coming out. And some were positively sourced through fetal cells, and some were not. And I'm 100 percent pro-vaccines as long as they're ethically sourced. And the concern that I had was for your average person that's not like us, like we're deeply invested in the pro-life movement, if someone came to them and said I can give you your normal life back if you take this vaccine that was possibly sourced with fetal cells.  The average person probably isn't going to care.  They're just gonna go “give me my normal life back.”  But the thing is that's why, if we were able to completely ban fetal experimentation, we wouldn't be put in these possibly difficult situations,  Thankfully, we do have ethically sourced Covid vaccines and I would totally recommend that everyone take those ethically sourced vaccines. But I'm just concerned that we're not always going to be that fortunat,  and I don't wanna ever be put in a situation where normal people have to make that very difficult decision. And we're very pro-healthcare, we're very pro-science.  The Trump Administration has given 20 million dollars to ethical alternatives which was something to the effect of 10 times greater than the current amount for that particular [project which] they cancelled, which was like 2 million dollars.     Herb Geraghty: And that project you're talking about was the one that required the 2 …   Nick Reynosa: Yes, that was the UCSF contract, correct.  To be clear: there are, I believe, over 100 fetal programs throughout the country with funding of the NH $115 million, but when the Trump administration cancelled that particular one at UCSF, citing lack of transparency and safeguards and so forth, they replaced it with a 20 million dollar fund. But I think those who are experts in those alternatives, they use something called pluripotent cells which are adult stem cells which have the advantage of also having the flexibility of fetal cells; because one of the things that scientists like about fetal cells is they're very malleable, so if you can have adult stem cells that have malleability, then you kind of get the best of both worlds. So that's an experiment that they're working on, but I totally agree with what you said.  We're totally pro-progress but we don't take a utilitarian approach on this.  It's not like you only have to abort this many fetuses to save this many people, because if you use that kind of logic to justify 100 people, 1000 people, 1000000 people it never ends.  But if you have a principle that the patient is paramount and the patient is not there to serve others, then you abolish that type of experimentation and you don't use that utilitarian approach.   Herb Geraghty: And I mean sort of as a catch-all I'm quick to say I oppose fetal organ harvesting, but that's not entirely true.  I'm not against medical research on cadavers who have died of natural causes.  I know people who've donated the remains of their child after miscarriage to medical research and I'm not opposed to that.  I think what's important to make clear is that these are elective abortions, and as a result, because Trump did cancel one contract, there's still many [experiments being done] and a lot that are privately funded. And I'm sure Joe Biden does not have the same qualms about fetal tissue research that I do. So we'll see what his funding looks like, but that is essentially creating a monetary demand for elective abortion.   Nick Reynosa: Well, particularly when you think about the parameters specifically that UCSF mentions in their contract. You know, they want fetuses of a certain gestational age, they want fetuses that are not the result of sexual violence, they want fetuses with no abnormalities. So not only does that take [away] many of the pro-choice talking points, like sexual assault or fetal abnormalities or things like that, but it also creates--let's say you're a woman who's planning to have a normal first trimester abortion, but they need candidates for these second trimester abortions (and I'm not saying that I have any evidence that any one particular woman did this) but I'm saying that, in order to meet those parameters, you have to have women that are far along, like I said 18 to 24 weeks, that they haven't resulted from sexual violence and they have no fetal abnormalities. So that sort of narrows that group. And so if you're looking for candidates, that could create an incentive to extend the pregnancy to do that. And also by wanting the procedure to be a certain way, some doctors have brought up the fact that there are ethical concerns, because the patient should be the one that's wanting this procedure a certain way, not the doctor. Because the doctor may have an incentive to extend the pregnancy to have that particular time frame.  That could create an incentive as well, so I totally agree with that.   Herb Geraghty: Yeah. There's also the, I'm not sure if there's evidence of UCSF doctors doing this, but I remember what came out in the tapes that David Daleiden released in the undercover footage at Planned Parenthood at least, there was evidence of someone claiming at least that they were altering the type of procedure that they're doing, in order to get these contracts, to be able to use the tissue more effectively for medical research. And that I believe is illegal, right?   Nick Reynosa: Absolutely, especially when you talk about the en vivo abortion. When you look at just a picture of the abortions that were banned through the Partial Birth Abortion Act, and when you look at a picture of the en vivo abortion, they're extremely similar, to the point where just the manner in which the fetus exits could make the procedure illegal. David Daleiden talks about this; and if that is the case then it is a violation of law, yeah.  That's why oversight, or lack thereof, is so important because we can't trust the industry to follow these regulations. We can't trust the honesty or transparency, so we can't trust the media--because it's only independent outlets that are reporting this. Occasionally Tucker Carlson will, but it's pretty limited. But yes, I do agree that the procedures could be altered and that that would be illegal.   Herb Geraghty: Another thing that I wanted to talk about that I've learned recently related to this topic too is, what exact types of research is being done or what the exact projects are? I know one at least was a sort of human mouse experiment.  I don't fully understand it.  Could you just explain what that is?  I've seen pictures and they're horrific, especially as someone who is vegan. And I organized around, when I was in college, stopping the violence against mice in Pitt's research labs and the pictures of that upset me outside of the abortion question.   Nick Reynosa: So I'm not a scientist, so this is the highschool version of this. But essentially what they do is, some of the main organs that they harvest are the thymus and the liver. And a lot of the research they do is related to immunotherapy, because they're trying to do things for HIV [or similar conditions], so the immune system is of great interest to them.  So by injecting the human organ tissues into the mice, what they're attempting to do is to give the mice an immune system comparable to the human immune system.  Therefore they can experiment on the mice to see the reaction of different immunotherapy situations, and that would help them theoretically with HIV or other things like that. But the thing that's so horrific about it is, in order for the liver tissue or the thymus tissue to be suitable to be injected into the mice, it has to be of top grade, and it has to be as normal as possible. So--and I mean we've all seen the movies where someone dies and they put in on ice and it goes on a helicopter and they try to transplant-- and it's very similar with fetal tissue research, because you're talking about, in one instance the language was a maximum of six hours between removal from the fetus and the use. Because they want that tissue to be brand new fresh. And so to give you a perspective on that, at Zuckerberg General Hospital, in San Francisco, these abortion procedures take place in the building called 6G and literally I would say probably like 300 yards away is the fetal experimentation lab.  It's like a 5 to 10 minute walk away.  Just one building over.  And that's how fresh this tissue is sometimes. And so I'm just trying to give people a perspective on--give them, like, a real-world picture of how this is literally a dissected organ out of a fresh cadaver into a living mice, within hours sometimes.   Herb Geraghty: Yeah, while the mother, the patient, is still in recovery for it.  I just find that so, I don't know, traumatic to think about, sort of going through the very invasive procedure of a late-term abortion. Especially when, like this, where no fetucide is used. And then sort of as you are recovering your, parts of your child are being injected into mice in order to create these humanized mice, to then torture the mice through cruel experimentation. And that's why I gave the warning on this episode that this is gonna be a little dark because I just don't--I feel like my brain doesn't even comprehend that there are people who go into work everyday, and do this for a living and that in many cases our tax dollars are paying for it with grants; and probably even more so, there are private businesses that are looking to profit off this once the research is complete.    Nick Reynosa: Definitely, you know, I often think we think of--I've heard the saying like “the comfortable pro-choice view” that kind of doesn't acknowledge the violence of abortion and doesn't acknowledge the humanity of the fetus, but I do think there's sort of a “comfortable pro-life view” and I really appreciate you talking about this topic, Herb, because not everyone does.  This is definitely a more advanced topic, it's much grittier, it's much more honest. And I think that there are people out there that are very well-intentioned, good-hearted, and they're pro-life but they haven't--this is the worst of the worst, and they may not have sort of encountered that yet or been exposed to it.  I think all aspects of the pro-life movement are important, and none of it should be ignored, but I definitely think for people who are wanting to learn more about the movement, extreme examples like this are also important to talk about because you're going in eyes wide open.  You're understanding the levels of dehumanization in our country, how bad it can get if it's not addressed. I think those are all important things.   Herb Geraghty: Yeah. I mean, I also I think and I hope that for the sort of “comfortable pro-choice person”, often I think they're like many Americans. They don't like abortion but they think it might be necessary, and they don't like late-term abortion. And when I look at this issue I hope, at least, that this is a potential olive branch to that sort of mushy middle who [say things like] “I'm personally pro-life and I would never get an abortion but I understand why other people might need it.” And the pictures of these babies, the actual victims, or just a fetus through an ultrasound at 24 weeks--it's very hard, in my opinion, to deny their humanity unless you are about to profit off of it.  And I just hope that this potentially could be one of those issues that could bring people on board, at least closer to the pro-life side than the sort of just blind trust in the abortion-industrial-complex that [thinks] whatever they're doing is probably fine, Gosnell was just a one-off extreme case and no one else is like that.  That's what I hope, at least, when we're trying to talk about this issue: that it can be sort of a radicalizing moment for pro-choice people who think that abortion is just, sort of, I don't know, “getting rid of some tissue.”   Nick Reynosa: A couple of things to add to that. You know, any way you slice it, it's pretty politically easy, I think, to achieve this. Because if you look at the numbers, the majority of women independents, Democrats, oppose these late-term procedures. And that's just procedures in general, not specifically extreme, extreme late-term procedures. And then also, internationally these procedures are like--even when compared to most of Western Europe, where abortions are much, the term of the pregnancies are [restricted at a] much lower date. And so I think--and also, too, the abortion extremism in the Democratic party has cost them a lot of votes from people that would otherwise vote for them, and I think that would be a great olive branch to them.  Say, “hey, we're reasonable people, we can still generally support abortion rights, but not this extremism.” And so, I agree that for people who are willing to be intellectually honest about it, there could be some progress there. And maybe, if they come to reject the abortion lobbyists, and come to more of an international center like where Europe is, or where most American voters are at in their opinions on this.   Herb Geraghty: Yeah. And I guess to me, when I think of that kind of thing with a lot of abortion legislation, there is so much diversity of thought within this country about exactly what they want abortion legislation to look like.  A lot of people want it to be legal, but with some regulation, and that is so not represented at all in the modern Democratic party. And the reason why is pretty obvious: it's that who's funding the modern Democratic party is Planned Parenthood, it's NARAL, it's Emily's List. It's these groups that exist to either provide or promote legal abortion. And so I think to make any sort of these incremental gains to save lives of unborn children we really need a groundswell of support from people all over the political spectrum, people all socio-economic groups, we need everyone on board saying: “hey, even outside of my opinion whether I'm pro-life or pro-choice, this extremism has got to go.” Because otherwise there's no incentive for politicians to care about it enough to try to change these laws or to enforce the laws that are already in place.  I think that's where the work of SERNOW really lies: in education about it, making sure that people know about this, and have an opinion on it.  It can't just be something that no one knows about because it happens behind several layers of hospital doors, and no one talks about it because it's not a popular topic.   Nick Reynosa: I have a couple of things to say about that. Number one is sort of a silver lining in the Democrats winning. I mean obviously from the pro-life point of view there's some obvious complications in that, but one thing I took away from that was Kamala Harris, of all the 24 people that ran for president, she was by far the one most closely associated with the whole David Daleiden situation and UCSF and all those associated issues. I think it's completely fair to say that, of all the Democrats who ran, Kamala Harris had the most extreme abortion record of any of them. And I'm not just saying that because she's now VP-Elect, or because I work for SERNOW I just think that's objectively true and that thing of--   Herb Geraghty: I mean, the thing about Kamala Harris that I think you're about to say is, not only is she pro-abortion, she is like, anti-pro-lifer. She has targeted us, specifically David.  It's scary.   Nick Reynosa: And that's why David's fight, which continues--and it's important to remember that I don't, we don't, work for David directly but we do build on his brave work, and the discussion on banning fetal, unethical fetal experimentation, he's been the root and branch of that. And any success that we have is because of him and his great work. But I think it's so symbolic, because the outcome of David‘s case is symbolic, as far as we have Kamala Harris on one side, who persecuted David and supported UCSF and supported Planned Parenthood in their breaking of the law, and did not protect David's freedom of speech, and journalistic rights and so forth--but we want to see that through.  Sarah now wants to see that through, and see David vindicated, because it would be America saying that Kamala Harris's behavior was uncalled-for and we aspire to do better. It's not even about a pro-choice or pro-life thing. It's about freedom of speech, it's about journalistic rights, it's about her integrity as a prosecutor, and fairness, and all of those issues. And now that Kamala Harris is center stage, that can be a great talking point for our cause, and something to rally around David as we expose Kamala Harris's extremism. And that's something I look forward to doing in the future.   Herb Geraghty: So I guess my only question left, then, is how can the listeners get involved?  What can the Rehumanize fans and colleagues do to work on this issue?    Nick Reynosa: Well, I think there are a couple of things.  On a local level, there are over 170 fetal [experimentation] programs, so you can go on the NIH site and look at funding to particular universities. Find out if your local university is involved with any kind of fetal experimentation.  You know, one of the hardest things about this job is just how difficult it is to have a clear understanding of it.  A lot of what I learned about this, I learned from Robert Burr who's just been tireless in his efforts, and he just piecemealed together this information. And not everyone has the time that Robert or I have to do that, and I just want to make sure that people have more transparency, so looking into local universities would be a great start. And if they're interested in helping us more generally, we've been working on different legislation.  There is HR 573, which was the Integrity in Research Act, which was looking to abolish unethical fetal experimentation throughout the US. And then there was also, like you were saying, HR 962 which was the add on to the Born Alive Infant Protection Survivor's Act. And if they want to help us more directly, in December on December 19th, SERNOW will be back in San Francisco at Zuckerberg protesting, and will also be at the Walk for For Life in San Francisco.  I believe it's January 23rd.  Those are all ways they can come out and help us.  If someone has more time because of COVID and they're interested in an internship, they could go to survivors.la and apply and they could get connected.  We have a lot of people that come for a couple months out to the Bay Area and help whenever, and that's actually currently on hold because we're getting another group of young people, but when that starts again it will be up in San Francisco. There will probably be a house, and there will be free room and board and such for the interns.  Definitely contact Jeff at survivors.la for that. I really appreciate your time, Herb, and all of the great work that Rehumanize does. Especially you guys are sort of unorthodox, like kind of a more holistic, kind of like left-wing kind of group so that's…   Herb Geraghty:  Ughh I hate when people say we're left-wing.  I'm conservative.   Nick Reynosa: No, I'm sorry, Herb but you know what I mean.   Herb Geraghty: No, I understand.  We're a little different.  The fact that we have left-wingers on staff and sort of our orbit, makes us different enough.   Nick Reynosa: Yeah, so that's important to have that voice. And I appreciate your friendship and all of the work you do, and I hope to come back sometime later and give you lots of great updates about what we're doing.   Herb Geraghty: Absolutely.  Last thing, what is the website and social media so we can follow the work of SERNOW?   Nick Reynosa: So there's survivors.la which is like the parent organization and then there's also SERNOW which is sernow.org and then on social media it's The Society For Ethical Research on Facebook and then on Instagram and Twitter it's @s.e.r.org   Herb Geraghty: Well, sounds great. Thank you so much for coming on Nick. I hope you have a great night.   Nick Reynosa: Thank you. Appreciate it. Take care.   [Music plays]   Maria Oswalt: Thanks for tuning in to the Rehumanize Podcast.  To learn more, check out our website at rehumanizeintl.org or follow us on social media @rehumanizeintl

In this episode, Herb is joined by Abraham Bonowitz, Director of Death Penalty Action. Abraham has been one of the leading organizers in the death penalty abolition movement since he changed his mind on the issue in the late 1980s. He and Herb discuss the current state of the death penalty in the United States and ways to get involved in the effort to abolish it.   —    Intro/outro music: "Belize," by Monty Datta. https://montydatta.bandcamp.com/track/belize    —   Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org!

Do pro-life laws lower the abortion rate? In this episode, statistician Dr. Michael New shares his insight.   —    Intro/outro music: "Belize," by Monty Datta. https://montydatta.bandcamp.com/track/belize    —   Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org!

In this episode, Herb is joined by Cherilyn Holloway, the founder of Pro-Black Pro-Life, to discuss ways the pro-life movement can better support the Black community. — Transcript: Voiceover Intro: Hello, and welcome to episode 11 of the Rehumanize podcast. Herb Geraghty: Hello everyone. Herb Geraghty here, back on the Rehumanize podcast. Today, I am joined by Cherilyn Holloway, the founder of a new organization called Pro-Black Pro-Life. Welcome Cherilyn. So just first off the bat, what is the mission of Pro-Black Pro-life? Cherilyn Holloway: The mission of Pro-Black Pro-Life is to reach inside the black community and to sit knee-to-knee and talk about the systemic issues that they face on a daily basis while also introducing them to the issue of life and abortion that's also happening in our community. And I just believe that in order to do that, we have to build trust and they have to understand that we are for them and not against them, but that they recognize that abortion is something that's happening in our community--to us and not for us. Herb Geraghty: So I think the listeners of the Rehumanize podcast typically would, I would say know what it means to be pro-life. But I think that pro-black might be new to some of them. So could you just talk a little bit about what that means to you? How do you be pro-black? Cherilyn Holloway: Yeah, I think that the pro-life movement has done an excellent job of polarizing and keeping out the black community in terms of talking about racism outside of abortion. And so the term pro-black just says that we are for the advancement of the black community at every stage of life. And saying that is really in camaraderie with what they're already seeing with Black Lives Matter and the other issues that they're facing, but also saying that I'm also pro-life. And so you can be both. Being pro-life does not put you in a box that says that you're a bunch of other things; being pro-life stands alone, just like being pro-black stands alone. And more so, being pro-black doesn't mean that we're anti-white. It just means that we focus on the issues that are in my community in order to bring them full circle, and understanding what it means to support whole life. Herb Geraghty: You mentioned the sort of mainstream, traditional pro-life movement. Can we talk a little bit about where you think the pro-life movement, as it is now, sort of succeeds and fails when it comes to reaching the black community? Cherilyn Holloway: I think the pro-life movement succeeds at reaching the black community with their pregnancy centers. I think pregnancy centers have missions to reach all abortion-minded women, and they desperately want to reach even outside of their community. And so I feel like in that situation, they are completely whole life. They understand the importance. But I think the pro-life message has been construed as a political message, and when we do that, we really polarize and keep people outside of the movement. Because if I'm not pro-Trump Republican then I can't be pro-life, or if I say I'm pro-life, then people are going to automatically think I'm those [additional] things. And we have not done a great job of saying, "No no no, pro-life is just a part of what your beliefs are, and it does not mean any of the other things." Just like when I say I'm pro-black doesn't mean that I don't believe that other image bearers matter. It just means that this is the part of my community that I'm relating to that is struggling right now and that they need help. And I think that the pro-life movement has failed us in terms of really not allowing that messaging in, by saying, "We're not talking about that, we need to have this narrative that says just this one thing on abortion and the abortion commute and the abortion industry," and not allowing for the other experience of black people to come in and to help shape that. Herb Geraghty: I would say that as someone who--I've tried to be a supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement, I try to be knowledgeable on these issues, but I'm also very active within the traditional pro-life movement. I've definitely seen that. I've seen my sort of, what I see as an innocuous Twitter post--just #blacklivesmatter--something that I think is, you know, an obvious thing to say, can come across to certain people within the wider conservative movement especially, but also [within] the pro-life movement, as, you know, an attack against them in some way, or an attack against white people or an attack against their values. And I think for me, I have a hard time sort of bridging that gap because I think that we're talking past each other a lot of the time. Herb Geraghty: I think that, in the way that when I say I'm pro-life and then all my, you know, fellow left-leaning LGBT friends assume that means that I'm a bigot and that I'm with Donald Trump on all of his policies, the same thing sort of happens when I say black lives matter. Pro-lifers think that that means that, you know, I'm a Planned Parenthood clinic escort and I support the Democratic Party, or I'm Antifa; sort of all these things that they, you know, have major issues with. And I think that it's so important for people like you, who can be a representative of sort of both sides of this very polarized debate, to say, "No, these aren't in conflict at all. In fact, these go together. You know, I'm pro-black because I'm pro-life, I'm pro-life because I'm pro-black. They don't contradict each other at all." And I think it's so important that people, you know, with your message, get that across, because without the black community, we're not gonna win this fight. Without the black community, even if, you know, abortion is illegal, we're still going to be losing, you know, how, how many millions of black children every year, how many black women are going to be hurt. So I think that this message is so crucial. Cherilyn Holloway: Yeah. And I think that the thing is that we, as humans, love to put people in a box, right? Putting people in a box, putting people in categories makes us feel better about ourselves, because then we feel like we know how to treat people. Like if I agree with you on this, I know how to treat you. Instead of just looking at it from a grand scheme of, of like, I'm just going to treat everyone with kindness and love and really take time to hear what they have to say. Instead of feeling like everything is a defensive attack on my beliefs. If you are a Christ follower and you believe that we are all image bearers, then you should believe that black lives matter. That's not to say that you have signed up and are donating to the Black Lives Matter organization, because we're talking about two totally different things. No one owns the phrase "black lives matter." Herb Geraghty: Yeah. Cherilyn Holloway: You can say "black lives matter" without being a Marxist. Like, you can say it, it's fine. And saying that doesn't mean that other people don't matter. But what we're talking about right now is this point in particular that the pro-life movement has continued to talk about over and over and over again--is the abortion rate in the black community. If you are going to continue to make this point over and over and over again, then be prepared to talk about all the other issues. If you want my community to respond to your efforts to teach them that this is genocide, that Margaret Sanger was racist, and that the whole entire abortion industry was built on racism, then you have to wrap it around your brain that the banking industry, the healthcare industry, the housing industry, all those things too, were also built on systemic racism. Like, that's what we're dealing with. Cherilyn Holloway: We're dealing with those on a daily basis, and what you are communicating to my community is, "We only care about this one thing. We only see racism this one way." And we're not going to listen to that. And so when you wanna know why we're not showing up, it's because we don't trust you. We don't trust you because you're not listening to us. You're not listening to our experiences. When a man has a knee on his neck for 8 minutes and 47 seconds, the first thing you go to is his, like, arrest record. Like, at what point in time does that even matter? Because you're telling me that my child in the womb has rights. It's an innocent child and it has rights. So if this person has an arrest record, all of a sudden they lose these rights? Like, it's a conflict, you know? Cherilyn Holloway: And I just feel like that is where the pro-life movement continues to really disable their voice in my community, really discredit anything that they would ever have to say. And [it] allows people to say, "I'm going to continue to vote this way. I'm going to continue to speak this way, because this group over here clearly doesn't care about me." Like, they won't even address the issue. Every time an issue comes up, they defer to black-on-black crime, or they defer to, like, what criminal thing this person does. Or it's always like, "Oh, they were shot in their car at point blank range by a police officer? Well, what did they do?" Well, if they didn't try to shoot the police officer, what difference does it make? Cherilyn Holloway: Like, nothing really makes sense at that point that would take that person's life. And that's what as pro-lifers we're trying to communicate to the women in the black community when they're going to Planned Parenthood, they're going to the abortion clinic. Like, whatever you're dealing with right now, it's fine. You can get over it, just bring this baby earth side. But once that baby becomes an actual living, breathing child, then we're like, "Eh, thank you. Thank you for doing that for us. Now, if they die at the hands of the police, or they die at the hands of, you know, a healthcare system from infant mortality, or they die at the hands of, you know, poverty, or from growing up in the ghetto from redlining, none of that really matters to us. What matters is that we're no longer aborting these babies in the womb. But we are killing them outside of the womb." Cherilyn Holloway: And that's what they're hearing. And so I feel like the pro-life movement--and being a movement that has tried to shape a narrative in a way that they thought was going to be powerful if everybody was saying the same thing at the same time--did not understand that unity is not uniformity. That, in a way, to make sure that we all come together does not mean that we all have to be saying the exact same thing at the exact same time. That we can all be moving in the exact same direction in different lanes, talking to different people. And sometimes those lanes, those people will intersect lanes, but we're all moving to the same goal that life matters. It is important and we value it. Herb Geraghty: Absolutely. What you were talking about reminded me of a great meme that I saw recently, that I just learned today you [yourself] made. It was a viral meme. It went all over the pro-life community, especially within the, sort of, consistent life ethic pro-life community, but this idea, it was very well communicated in a meme, but this idea that: pro-lifers believe that racism exists, but only in abortion, and pro-choicers believe that racism exists in everything except for abortion. And I think that, you know, I overuse the word "inconsistent" I think, but it's just so inconsistent. We can recognize the reality, especially for those of us who I would say believe in the concept of systemic racism and also think that it is bad (it's so obviously backed by data), [systemic racism] is both present in all of those systems that you mentioned, whether it's healthcare or especially criminal justice, or all of these systems; in business, in the way our economy is structured, from slavery until today. [But] it so obviously is also present in the abortion industrial complex. [The idea] that it wouldn't be, doesn't even make sense considering what we know about American history. Cherilyn Holloway: Yes. Yeah. And I think that, it's really amazing to me that, for one that that post went viral. Herb Geraghty: Yeah, that was, you were sort of first starting this project and immediately everyone was talking about you. Cherilyn Holloway: So, I remember I made that comment a couple of times, like a year ago, just in conversation with someone, and it just baffled me that I would have this conversation with people. And when I would talk about abortion and racism, they would just have this blank stare like, "No, look, we need that access." Or when I would talk about racism aside from abortion, they were like, "No, well, we're past that. We're past racism in America. Like, we had a black president. There's no racism. Just [with] abortion. This is the only place." And I was just so struck by that; like wow, this is a real thing. And it was actually Destiny De La Rosa that said to me, "You really need to make a meme of that." And I'm like, I'm not a graphic designer. Cherilyn Holloway: I can talk a lot, but I'm not putting anything in a meme. And so when I began to work on my social media posting and I had to choose marketing that was actually working on the graphics and I was like, "Here's what I want to say." And our graphic designer--that was attempt number one. And I was like, "Oh my gosh, this is perfect." I didn't expect it to go viral. I really didn't. But I think that the fact that it went viral just attests to this idea that, this is the message that we've been getting. The message is so inconsistent. And people are recognizing it, like, "Wait a minute." Because when I have the conversation one-on-one and I say to people that have never thought about abortion having to do with systemic racism, and we talk about it and we talk about the numbers and we talk about the founder and we talk about the documents. Cherilyn Holloway: They're like, "Oh, it makes perfect sense." Or when I talk to history teachers or professors of Africana studies, and I say, "Did you know this?" And they look at me like, of course we knew that. This is history. This is well-documented history. And anyone who denies this is just denying the facts. That's what it really boils down to. Regardless of what side you're on, you're just denying the facts: the facts that these things were put in place, and we have not--this is not something we can just go in and tweak a couple of things and fix, regardless if it's systemic racism and all the other issues, or systemic racism and abortion, we just can't walk in and tweak a couple things and fix it. We've tried that. We've tried that with diversity and inclusion programs. Cherilyn Holloway: We tried that with, you know, sensitivity programs. You can't just go in and tweak a couple things. You have to tear the system down and rebuild it. That's what's the problem is. If we're talking about the Rockefellers or other families and generations of people that have perpetuated this over years, that are in charge of our banking systems and our housing systems and our prison systems, we have to go in and tear those down and restructure them. Because regardless of how many generations we are removed from it, this is still family upbringing, family, teaching, family ingrained--like, this is the way we're supposed to think. There is white supremacy, and maybe that's not what grandpa called it. You know, maybe grandpa called it preserving our family history or lineage or future, like, this is what we have to do. And so you believe that you're doing something that's very model and helpful to your family. Cherilyn Holloway: But really what you're doing is perpetuating white supremacy. And so we have to go in and be willing to tear the system down and say, "Okay, let's stop advocating for the Hyde amendment to be appealed, and let's figure out why is it that a woman feels like our society is so hostile that she would rather kill her unborn child than to bring it into this world? What have we created that would make a woman feel like that?" That's the question we should be asking not, "Oh, well this is an economic"---no, no, no, no, no. Because if we are 70 years removed from the suffrage movement, why is it that our corporations, that our universities don't have childcare? Why don't we have maternal housing? Why, if we're so strong as women, so strong as bringers of life, why haven't we demanded this? Cherilyn Holloway: These are the things that we should be working to mend. There's not a woman in the United States of America who finds herself pregnant prior to entering medical school that should have to make the decision whether to bring her child into this world or abort, because she won't be able to start medical school. This is 2020, are you kidding me? Herb Geraghty: Yeah. Cherilyn Holloway: That medical school should have free childcare and a place for her to live with that child. Period. Because if we care about women and what they're able to do, the super power--whether you decide to use it or not--the super power that you have of bringing forth life, that's the thing we should be fighting for. We shouldn't be fighting for wanting to be more like men in a way that, "I should not have to have this baby if I don't want to," or "I can't advance in my career." It's 2020. You should be able to advance in your career with your baby by your side. Like, this is crazy. Herb Geraghty: Absolutely. Something that I always say from--I come from a more left-wing perspective, is that abortion is a tool of the capitalist class. It's very common for pro-life feminists to be talking about how, you know, abortion perpetuates and is a tool of patriarchy. But in addition, your boss benefits when you get an abortion. Cherilyn Holloway: Absolutely, absolutely. Herb Geraghty: The CEO of whatever company you're working for benefits if he doesn't have to pay maternity leave. If he doesn't need to deal with the healthcare that that child is going to take from now on. And our society has decided that we value, of course, the male-normative body that can't get pregnant, and our society values those bosses and CEOs' profits over life. [Over] bringing new life into the world, or at least not snuffing life out that already is in this world. And it's, to me, so important to get this message out--not just to the left. Herb Geraghty: Because I think that the left and the people within the Democratic Party--obviously, many African-Americans involved in both of those groups--um, it's important to get this message to them, but it's also vitally important to get this message to the pro-life movement so that they will shut up when we're talking about these issues. Because without these perspectives, without, you know, being able to talk to abortion-minded people in the language that they understand, we're not going to be able to reach them. You know, a conservative Christian might be completely right when he's talking about family values and, you know, responsibility and, you know, everything that you can imagine a white conservative Christian man telling a woman why she should keep her pregnancy and not abort her child. I probably agree with most of what he's saying, but if you're not able to speak to her in a language that she understands, if you're not able to speak to her and let her know that you're able to help her because you understand the injustices she faces every day and you're working with her to tear down those systems of injustice, you're not going to be able to reach them. Cherilyn Holloway: Yeah. Herb Geraghty: And it's so important, I think, for the wider pro-life movement to make space for voices like yours so that we can reach everyone. You know, something that, again, I say a lot is that we're not going to end abortion if we don't have everyone on board. Cherilyn Holloway: Yeah. Herb Geraghty: You know? This is the Rehumanize podcast, so I only talk about things that I think are important, but it is so important. I say it over and over again, but it's so necessary to make sure that we are, you know, giving a platform to women of color, particularly black women of color. I always am excited for atheist black women of color, because, you know, you're a Christian, but we need people who resemble, both ideologically and also physically, the abortion-minded population, because that is who is most effective at reaching them. Cherilyn Holloway: Yeah. And I will say that I am Christian, I was born and raised Christian, but this was never talked about in my church. And so I didn't come to my beliefs from a biblical standpoint until after, um, years after where I realized, "Oh, wait, it's in the Bible too?" And so it was really just me, my own struggles after my abortion feeling like something wasn't right in the decisions I made after that, of feeling like my self worth was so low. And I couldn't understand why. I thought I was in control, but I wasn't in control. It was so messy. So, so messy. And it wasn't until I was in my thirties where I realized like, wait, let's go back. And let's revisit these other choices that I made and see where things could have kind of gotten... the wires could have gotten tangled. Cherilyn Holloway: And I realized that it was during my abortions that I, you know, I have two prior abortion choices. One when I was 15 and one when I was about 29, and, um, I didn't realize it at the time. When I was 29, I knew I was wrong. I knew what I was doing. I had already had two kids. And I knew exactly what I was doing. No one had to tell me like, "Oh, it's no big deal. It's a clump of cells." I've brought these clumps of cells earth side. Like, I know the possibility. So I knew what I was doing. And after that, I knew I needed help. I needed some type of healing. And through that is when I began to be able to process and really kind of understand that as women, there is a deeper connection when we are pregnant. Cherilyn Holloway: Something begins to happen from our mind to our heart, to our body, that is not something that can be explained. It's not necessarily that you feel this feeling of motherhood, because that's a lie, but there's something else chemically and emotionally happening that when it's gone, those things don't go away. And I felt lied to, and I felt like I wanted to warn women. I wanted to warn women that if you make this choice, it will not go away. If you make this choice, this choice will not keep you from your behavior. Like, you can say, "Oh, I promise if I make this choice, I will change." It's not--this is not the defining factor. And actually, this is going to make you feel worse. And this is going to potentially have you making other decisions that you will not connect until maybe even 10, 15 years down the road. Cherilyn Holloway: So that's what brought me into the movement initially: my own experience and wanting to warn women. Like, "If you make that decision, I will still be here when you're done, but please understand it does not erase it. It just will not just go away. You will then begin to have to deal with other things." And, you know, I also feel like when we talk about the pro-life movement and we talk about systemic racism, when we talk about even the whole life issue, that people in the movement that don't feel like that is their call[ing]--whether you're in apologetics or you are just advocating for that baby in the womb, that's okay. It's okay. You're not wrong. Like, I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm not saying that your call is not your call; but then don't feel like me being pro-black and pro-life is wrong because it doesn't match what you're doing. Cherilyn Holloway: You know? What I'm doing should not offend you in any way. It should not make you feel like I'm threatening you in any way. Like, there are plenty of people that can do apologetics around and around and around me, and as being someone who's pro-life, would still not be to be able to keep up because that's not my call. That doesn't mean that because I'm pro-black and pro-life that your call is unnecessary, right? No, we need you, too. We need all of the pieces to the puzzle to bring this forth. And you said this today, Herb, in your speech--we need everybody, we need all of the voices. And I think that it's interesting that this is a movement that feels like if someone says something different, even if they're anti-abortion, or even if they're pro-life or whatever you want to call it, they feel like when somebody says something different, they're like, "[Gasp] No, we can't, we can't--don't promote that. That's so different than what we're trying to do." Cherilyn Holloway: No, no, no. Be free. You have a calling: fulfill your calling. Be free in that. And you may run into someone, you may run into that black woman that's like, "Oh, I just feel like people don't care about the plight of black America. I feel like you only care about the pro-life movement." That's when you say, "Hey, have you heard of Cherilyn Holloway? She is someone you can talk to." Because what you know for sure is that I will speak up about abortion. Like, you know that for sure. And you may not be able to reach them on the pro-black issue. And you may not want to reach them on the pro-black issue, because that may not be your thing, but you have someone to direct them to. Cherilyn Holloway: If someone says to me, "Hey, Cherilyn, I feel it. And I'm also, you know, anti-war and I'm pro LGBTQ and all these things, where can I go?" And I'm like, Rehumanize. That's where you need to go. Like, you know, LGBTQ for life. That's where you need to go. There's a place for you. It may not be my lane, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong. And I feel like that's the thing that kept me so long from using my voice--is this feeling that people, the voices around me kept saying, "You're wrong. We don't need you. We need more people saying this [particular thing], we need more people saying the same thing that we're saying." And it got to a point when the Ahmaud Arbery shooting happened, and it finally came to life, where I just felt like, the time is now. It's time. As in NOW. People are hurting and they're hearing again the same thing, like, "Oh, well, what did he do?" You know? And people are frustrated by that. Like, he didn't do anything that caused him to lose his life. And his--at one point in time, he was an unborn child. I need you to fight for him now, just as you would have when he was in the womb. And if you can't do that, send the people to me. Herb Geraghty: Cherilyn, thank you so much. I don't think I have anything to add to that. Do you have anything that you would like to promote? Where can we find you? How can we support your work? Cherilyn Holloway: Oh, you can find me everywhere. So I have a Facebook page @problackprolife1619, same thing Instagram, @problackprolife1619. YouTube Pro-Black Pro-Life, I do videos. They're really just history-based, little short snippet-like lessons, things for you to think about. You can email me at cherilyn@problackprolife.com. I think that's it. I think those are all the places that you can find me. Cherilyn Holloway: I do--there's also a podcast, PBPL Conversations, which really is just me walking out what I am encouraging other people to do. So it's, like, me showing you, how do you have conversations with people that live in different areas or have different viewpoints of you in your community? And so, there's conversation up right now with Christina Bennett. There's a conversation up with Regan Philips who believes that, you know, the access that Planned Parenthood has given in our community, the black community and our neighborhood, supersedes the--what they do in abortion. And that's a conversation I feel like everyone should listen to. She's a dear friend of mine. There's a conversation with M-J Xavier, who lives in the UK, talking about what racism looks like over there and what abortion looks like over there. She's a black woman who has an amazing story. And so that's another place that you can find us. That's PBPL Conversations on conversations on all of the podcast channels. Those are not edited, Herb. Like, those are what I call "I said what I said" podcasts. Herb Geraghty: [Laughs] We could not do that. I am every day at grateful that we have Maria Oswalt on our staff, who can edit out all of the ridiculous things that I say when I'm trying to come up with the questions that I really want to ask. Cherilyn Holloway: I typically ask five--the same five questions. That's my role, that's what I think saves me, is I typically try to ask the same five questions to every single person. But there is a lot of foolishness--a lot of like, wait, are we still recording? Could this be edited? No, it can't. I don't have those skills. I don't have a Maria. I don't have those skills. Sorry about your luck. [Laughs] Um, my YouTube videos are edited by Choose Life Marketing and the amazing production staff there. So I'm grateful for that because there are a lot of, like, pauses in those where I lose my train of thought. But as far as the podcasts, those are completely real conversations that have happened from the time we log on to the time we log off. And maybe one day I'll figure out how to add the intro and the outro. maybe I won't. I dunno. [Laughs] Herb Geraghty: Well, thank you so much. Cherilyn Holloway: My pleasure. It's always a pleasure, Herb. I love you and I love everything that Rehumanize does, and I will continue to support you guys to the end of time. Herb Geraghty: Absolutely. I can't wait to work together in the future. Voiceover Outro: Thanks for tuning in to the Rehumanize podcast. To learn more, check out our website at rehumanizeintl.org, or follow us on social media @rehumanizeintl. —  Intro/outro music: "Belize," by Monty Datta. https://montydatta.bandcamp.com/track/belize  — Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org!

John Whitehead of the Consistent Life Network joins the podcast again to discuss the history and tragedy of the atomic bombs. —  Intro/outro music: "Belize," by Monty Datta. https://montydatta.bandcamp.com/track/belize  — Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org! 

This episode, Herb Geraghty is joined by Lauren Handy, an activist and organizer with Mercy Missions. They chat about civil disobedience, nonviolent direct action, doing activism behind bars, and more. —  Intro/outro music: "Belize," by Monty Datta. https://montydatta.bandcamp.com/track/belize  — Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org!

In this episode, Herb Geraghty sits down with Beth Fox, one of Rehumanize International's newest board members. They talk about ableist discrimination before birth, late-term abortion, assisted suicide, palliative care, and ways that everyone can help advocate for people with disabilities. —  Intro/outro music: "Belize," by Monty Datta. https://montydatta.bandcamp.com/track/belize  — Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org!

In this episode, Herb Geraghty interviews Krista Corbello, a passionate pro-life speaker from Louisiana and a recent addition to the Rehumanize International board. —  Intro/outro music: "Belize," by Monty Datta. https://montydatta.bandcamp.com/track/belize  — Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org!

In this episode, Herb Geraghty interviews John Whitehead, president of the Consistent Life Network. They discuss the history of Consistent Life Ethic activism and respond to common rebuttals to the CLE. —  Intro/outro music: "Belize," by Monty Datta. https://montydatta.bandcamp.com/track/belize  — Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org!

In this episode, Herb Geraghty interviews Terrisa Bukovinac outside of the 2019 Democrats for Life Conference in Lansing, Michigan. Terrisa is the founder of Pro-Life San Francisco, a feminist, a vegan, and a registered democrat.   —   Intro/outro music: "Belize," by Monty Datta. https://montydatta.bandcamp.com/track/belize    —   Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org!

In this episode, Maria Oswalt interviews two extremely talented pro-life artists, Cheri Rose and Jason Jones. They share what inspires them, what they consider the role of art to be in the pro-life movement, and more. — Create | Encounter submission guidelines can be found here: https://www.rehumanizeintl.org/create-encounter — Photos of the 2019 first- and second-prize winners of the Pro-Life Women's Conference Art Show can be found on the Rehumanize International facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/255776494446827/posts/2653792014645251?s=1324159717&sfns=mo — From Jason Jones: A Call for Disunity in the Pro-Life Movement https://stream.org/call-disunity-pro-life-movement/ — Intro/outro music: "Belize," by Monty Datta. https://montydatta.bandcamp.com/track/belize  — Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org!

In this episode, our summer intern Ashlen Sandoz interviews attendees of the Pro-Life Women's Conference in New Orleans. — Intro/outro music: "Belize," by Monty Datta. https://montydatta.bandcamp.com/track/belize — Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org!

In this episode, Aimee Murphy delves into her story as a survivor of rape, and then she and Herb Geraghty discuss the best ways to help survivors. — RAINN sexual assault hotline: 800.656.HOPE — Intro/outro music: "Belize," by Monty Datta. https://montydatta.bandcamp.com/track/belize — Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org!

Hello hello! Welcome to this brand new podcast from Rehumanize International. This introductory episode features our Director of Communications, Herb Geraghty; in it, he discusses the impact of dehumanizing language throughout history. Hope you enjoy! — Intro/outro music: "Belize," by Monty Datta. https://montydatta.bandcamp.com/track/belize — Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org!