Podcasts about coney barrett

OA1114 - “We are now faced, my friends, with the fact that tomorrow is today.” --Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (April 4, 1967) We begin the second Trump administration exactly where we intend to remain for the next four years: in dissent.  Today's Inauguration Day counter-programming features two of the most powerful dissenters in modern American history: Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. We begin with commentary on Justice Sonia Sotomayor's defiantly inspiring July 1, 2024 dissent as read from the bench in the Supreme Court's immunity decision, and conclude with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s powerful call for a “revolution of values” to end “power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.”  Audio of Supreme Court decision announcements for July 1, 2024 (Sotomayor dissent begins as 42:00) Full text of Trump v. US (7/1/2024)(including Roberts majority, Coney Barrett concurrence, and Sotomayor and Jackson dissents) “Hear Me Roar: What Provokes Supreme Court Justices to Dissent from the Bench?” Timothy R. Johnson et al, Minnesota Law Review (2010) Martin Luther King, Jr. “Beyond Vietnam: A Time To Break Silence” (April 4, 1967) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Join Jim and Greg for three important martinis ranging from the U.S. Senate to the border to cronyism in politics.First, they react to Sen. Mitch McConnell announcing this will be his final year as Senate Republican leader. They break down McConnell's record on reshaping the U.S. Supreme Court by pushing through the nominations of Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett. They dig into his willingness to be the villain to protect other GOP members, but also the frustration conservatives have with his failure to fight harder for less spending and not being more aggressive on certain policy goals. And, of course, they preview the fight to replace McConnell as leader.Then they document the shady exemption to California's new law raising the minimum wage for fast food workers from $16 to $20 per hour for establishments that bake their own bread on site and sell it individually. This seems to be a specific carve out for Gov. Gavin Newsom's friend and donor who owns a bunch of Panera franchises in the state.Finally, they assess today's dueling border visits from Biden and Trump, what we can glean by the different areas of the border they are visiting, and why Biden's eagerness to reverse anything Trump did in office is coming back to bite him hardest at the border.Please visit our great sponsors:4Patriothttps://4Patriots.com/martiniStay connected with the Patriot Power Solar Generator 2000X on sale now. BIOptimizershttps://magbreakthrough.com/martinifreeGet your Free 14-day supply of Magnesium Breakthrough today!Fast Growing Treeshttps://fastgrowingtrees.comUse code MARTINI to save an additional 15% off.

It's been quite the week! Sam recaps some of the stories we're watching most closely: the Texas + other fascist controlled states v. federal government confrontation in the wake of a SCOTUS decision the fascists actually don't like (shockingly, Roberts and Coney Barrett agreed that the federal government has the authority to remove the murder wire that the state of Texas is strewing all over the border and in the Rio Grande), the latest on Trump's legal troubles (which, spoiler alert: do not portend a solution to our fascism troubles), and the ICJ ruling on the escalating genocide in Gaza. Then, Sam talks with Kathleen Belew, historian and author of Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America about her work and her evaluation of that movement as it's developed in 2024. Follow her at kathleenbelew.com, Twitter: @kathleen_belew, and TikTok: kathleen.belew. Mentioned in this episode: Eagle Pass Republi-Fascist Neo-Nullificaton v. Federal State Authoity at the Southern Texas Border by Paul Street Far-Right Extremists Are Organizing an Armed Convoy to the Texas Border by David Gilbert Right-Wing Talk Of An ‘Invasion' And ‘Civil War' Risks Rise In Vigilantism, Experts Say by Chris Mathias Protest Convoy Headed to Southern Border Is Calling Itself an ‘Army of God' by Tess Owen Research Letter: Rape-Related Pregnancies in the 14 US States With Total Abortion Bans Enforcing the Law to Disqualify a Violent Insurrectionist Is Good, Actually by Michael Liroff Recommended Reading/Watching: “Trump Is the Nominee. Fascism Is on the Ballot.” Author Jeff Sharlet on New Hampshire & Beyond American Fascism by Rick Perlstein (sign up for his newsletter!) Find out more about Refuse Fascism and get involved at RefuseFascism.org. We're still on Twitter (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@RefuseFascism⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) and other social platforms including Threads, Mastodon and Bluesky. Plus! Sam recently joined TikTok, check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@samgoldmanrf⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. The January 2024 survey will be closing soon, send your comments; ⁠⁠https://bit.ly/rf-pod-survey. You can also send  your comments to samanthagoldman@refusefascism.org or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SamBGoldman⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Record ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠a voice message for the show here. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Connect with the movement at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠RefuseFascism.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and support: · ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠paypal.me/refusefascism⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ · ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠donate.refusefascism.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ · ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/refusefascism⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Music for this episode: Penny the Snitch by Ikebe Shakedown Related Episodes: The Year Ahead and The New Fascism Syllabus The Nightmare Immigrants Face at the Texas Border Fascists in the U.S. Military with Will Carless Proud Boys and The New Era of American Fascism --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/refuse-fascism/message

Vicki, Shawn and Allan look into People of Praise. We decided to release this Special Episode to bring the facts during this tumultuous time. Will Amy Coney Barrett's religious group interfere with her new role? Do we consider this group a cult? Come here us tell the tale of People of Praise.

Also, how to create a culture that welcomes Biglaw vacations. ------ Amy Coney Barrett recently spoke publicly about how she longs for the days when most Americans couldn't recognize Supreme Court justices, highlighting that justices don't have to be there long for a culture of unaccountability to set in. Speaking of which, the majority of Clarence Thomas's former clerks signed an open letter shrugging off his ethical problems. But the real question is... did any of them bother to read a draft before signing on? And a managing partner wrote the firm about the virtues of taking a real vacation and got some blowback from attorneys.

Also, how to create a culture that welcomes Biglaw vacations. ------ Amy Coney Barrett recently spoke publicly about how she longs for the days when most Americans couldn't recognize Supreme Court justices, highlighting that justices don't have to be there long for a culture of unaccountability to set in. Speaking of which, the majority of Clarence Thomas's former clerks signed an open letter shrugging off his ethical problems. But the real question is... did any of them bother to read a draft before signing on? And a managing partner wrote the firm about the virtues of taking a real vacation and got some blowback from attorneys.

This is the full episode of The Morning Show with Preston Scott for Thurs. May, 18, 2023.Our guest today includes Dr. Steve Steverson in Paws-4-Thought. Follow the show on Twitter @TMSPrestonScott.Check out Preston's latest blog by going to wflafm.com/preston. Check out Grant Allen's blog by going to wflafm.com/grantallen.Listen live to Preston from 6 – 9 a.m. ET and 5 – 8 a.m. CT!WFLA Tallahassee Live stream: https://ihr.fm/3huZWYeWFLA Panama City Live stream: https://ihr.fm/34oufeRFollow WFLA Tallahassee on Twitter @WFLAFM and WFLA Panama City @wflapanamacity and like us on Facebook at @wflafm and @WFLAPanamaCity.

Trump Supreme Court appointee bends the knee to Floyd and the Fellas

[3 MAY 23] BCP UNFILTERED, Season 3, Episode 26. Run Time: 1:10:36 In this episode: Supposed attempt on Putin's life by Ukraine via drone strike FBI meddling in foreign affairs Garland openly lies Hunter Biden could be charged soon Trump trumps them all in the polls Biden campaign troubles Elon Musk comments on Arizona stolen election All eyes on Amy Coney Barrett The Navy's drag queen recruiter Kevin McCarthy flips on MAGA.  Was this customer right or wrong? Texas craziness: Wimmin NOT Women Katie Hobbs is now ticking off her supporters! Trump kicked NBC off his plane! Latest Tucker Carlson leak Good news: judge rules AGAINST Soros Puppet 

Amy Coney Barrett is a judge on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2019, Judge Barrett delivered the James Madison Program's Annual Walter F. Murphy Lecture in American Constitutionalism. The lecture was entitled "The Constitution as Our Story." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Amy Coney Barrett is a judge on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2019, Judge Barrett delivered the James Madison Program's Annual Walter F. Murphy Lecture in American Constitutionalism. The lecture was entitled "The Constitution as Our Story." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Amy Coney Barrett is a judge on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2019, Judge Barrett delivered the James Madison Program's Annual Walter F. Murphy Lecture in American Constitutionalism. The lecture was entitled "The Constitution as Our Story." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Amy Coney Barrett is a judge on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2019, Judge Barrett delivered the James Madison Program's Annual Walter F. Murphy Lecture in American Constitutionalism. The lecture was entitled "The Constitution as Our Story." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hour 3b - Happy Thursday! Here's what Nick Reed covers this hour: In case you missed it, Nick interviews our ABC Books Author of the week. You can find more information by clicking here. Raw Story has an article titled, "Amy Coney-Barrett to rule on LGBTQ case whose anti-LGBTQ attorneys paid her 5 times for speaking engagements" Drag shows are now targeting young children, going as far to allow young girls to poll dance in the middle of parades. ALSO - Our weekend producer, Katie, and Josh and Ashali with the Pyramid Roofing Company join us this morning: Katie, who is originally from Russia, is studying to get her citizenship. Nick, Sarah, and the Pyramid team help quiz Katie on just some of the questions that she may come across whenever she takes the test.

An alumni group from Rhodes College in Memphis is outraged that Amy Coney Barrett is in the school's hall of fame. • mypillow.com PROMO CODE: ABS • betterhelp.com/abernathy • gacraftpirits.com PROMO CODE: ABS • https://share.2ashield.com/a/2A/ABS

There has been a long-standing effort to create a conservative majority Supreme Court that is willing to reconsider substantive due process rights, reduce the authority of the Federal government, and return the U.S. to an “originalist” state. The final episode in our series, “The Road We're On,” examines the ideological imbalance on the current Court, discusses the long-term coordinated effort to install conservative justices, examines why “originalism” is so valuable to Conservatives, and asks what can be done to stop the momentum.  Bonus discussion, Samuel Alito: Poster Boy for Originalism + Fireside Unscripted: The Problem With Clickbait, are live on Patreon NOW! What's in this episode? The ideological imbalance on the current Supreme Court, and why it's dangerous Why Conservatives started their 50 year campaign for The Court How they've managed to pull that campaign off (spoiler: The Federalist Society) Balls, strikes, Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett, Brown-Jackson, and Roberts What “originalism” is and why Conservatives dig it so much Judicial restraint, judicial review, and judicial activism How to stop a moving train - not really. But how to change this judicial course Good News: Bipartisan…? Legislation to protect marriage, contraception, and abortion care. If you'd like to get in touch… You can leave us a review at: https://ratethispodcast.com/fireside Or you can drop us a note from our Contact page! You can find all of our sources in our Show Notes. And, check out our Patreon Page! Patrons get access to early episode drops, bonus content, priority topic requests, quarterly happy hours, and more!

Sam and Emma host Peter Shamshiri, or Law Boy on Twitter, co-host of the 5-4 Podcast, to discuss the recent Supreme Court term and what the big decisions mean for us going forward.    Sam and Emma first run through the terrifying updates from this weekend, including a longer conversation on the Highland Park shooting (of the multiple mass shootings), Brittany Griner's plea to Biden, Ohio successfully forcing a 10-year-old to escape the state to terminate a pregnancy resulting from rape, and updates on Russia's bombing of a mall in Ukraine. Then, Peter Shamshiri joins as dive into the West Virginia v EPA case and the conservative Court's ultimate goal of unwinding the administrative state all the way back to the Lochner Era, looking at how the case addresses the Clean Air Act, claiming the EPA only has authority to police specific facilities rather than preemptively impose standards on the energy industry as a whole, even though the policy they were addressing had already been rolled back. Next, they look into the history of Justice Roberts' “Major Questions Doctrine,” first exploring the emergence of the Chevron Doctrine towards the end of the 20th Century asking that courts defer to administration on the interpretation of statutes, followed by the beginning of its undoing in an FDA case in the 2000s (despite the same court supporting it for Bush's EPA), before getting into the accelerated takedown of the Chevron doctrine throughout the pandemic, from the CDC's eviction moratorium to OSHA's workplace vaccine mandate. They then shift to the court granting cert to a North Carolina case addressing the independent state legislature theory, another idea that came to prevalence under John Roberts and during the Bush administration, central to Bush v. Gore (a project worked on by Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett), with an extended conversation on the worst (and most likely) outcomes from this case and the contrast it draws in undermining state courts and putting the powerfully in their own hands. They wrap up the interview with a conversation on the Dobbs case, this Court's emphasis on religious freedom and how it can shape a world where non-fundamentalists are ostracized, the absolute meaninglessness of the abortion “exemptions” in such a society, and the constitutional right to interstate travel. And in the Fun Half: Chris from the Bay Area calls in to discuss Sam's clear violation of Saul's Second Amendment rights by refusing to purchase him a genuine Kyber-crystal-powered lightsaber and to engage Emma's discussion on the BS abortion “exemptions” being pushed by Democrats. Diving deeper into this, Sam and Emma cover the Democratic Party's complete impotence in response to Dobbs, walking through the countless millionaires whose only reaction was, “gimme money and I'll do it next time.” Kowalski discusses the tropical twister that hit his Nebraskan farm last night, Sam and Emma walk through the wonderful GOP primary debate for AZ Governor, and Jordan Peterson holds back the tears as he gets banned from Twitter for deciding that Elliot Page must be held responsible for his transphobic fears, plus, your calls and IMs!   Check out the 5-4 Podcast here: https://www.patreon.com/fivefourpod   Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here:  https://madmimi.com/signups/170390/join Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Check out today's sponsors: History Is US: “History is US”… an important 6-part documentary podcast series hosted by award-winning Princeton University professor Dr. Eddie Glaude, journeys back to face the truths about race at the heart of the American story. Listen to “History is US” a presentation of Shining City Audio, C13 Originals, and Jon Meacham studio. Available now, wherever you listen to your podcasts. Shopify: Scaling your business is a journey of endless possibility. Shopify is here to help, with tools and resources that make it easy for any business to succeed from down the street to around the globe. Shopify powers over 1.7 million businesses - from first-sale to full-scale. Shopify gives entrepreneurs the resources once reserved for big business - so upstarts, start-ups, and established businesses alike can sell everywhere, synchronize online and in-person sales, and effortlessly stay informed. Go to https://www.shopify.com/free-trial?utm_campaign=paid_audio_-_podcast_-_amer_-_united_states_-_all_-_experimential_-_english_-_awareness&utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=audio&utm_term=majority, for a FREE fourteen-day trial and get full access to Shopify's entire suite of features! Cozy Earth: One out of three Americans report being sleep deprived, and their sheets could be the problem. Luckily Cozy Earth provides the SOFTEST, MOST LUXURIOUS and BEST-TEMPERATURE REGULATING sheets. Cozy Earth has been featured on Oprah's Most Favorite Things List Four Years in a Row! Made from super soft viscose from bamboo, Cozy Earth Sheets breathe so you sleep at the perfect temperature all year round.  And for a limited time, SAVE 35% on Cozy Earth Bedding. Go to https://cozyearth.com/and enter my special promo code MAJORITY at checkout to SAVE 35% now. Support the St. Vincent Nurses today! https://action.massnurses.org/we-stand-with-st-vincents-nurses/ Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Subscribe to Matt's other show Literary Hangover on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/literaryhangover Check out The Nomiki Show on YouTube. https://www.patreon.com/thenomikishow Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out The Letterhack's upcoming Kickstarter project for his new graphic novel! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/milagrocomic/milagro-heroe-de-las-calles Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ Subscribe to AM Quickie writer Corey Pein's podcast News from Nowhere. https://www.patreon.com/newsfromnowhere  Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop Check out AidAccess here: https://aidaccess.org/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

In the week ending one of the most consequential Supreme Court terms in American history, 3 of the country's most trenchant and prominent Court watchers – Dahlia Lithwick, Leah Litman, and Steve Vladeck – join Harry to assess the Term and what it portends for coming years. The 5 arch-conservative Justices shot out of the gate in their first term together and unabashedly wrenched the law and the country sharply right in area after area, starting but by no means ending with abortion.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Jennifer Senior was a long-time staff writer at New York magazine and a daily book critic for the NYT. Her own book is the bestseller, All Joy and No Fun: The Paradox of Modern Parenthood. She’s now a staff writer at The Atlantic, where she won the 2022 Pulitzer for “What Bobby McIlvaine Left Behind,” a story about 9/11. But in this episode we primarily focus on her essay, “It’s Your Friends Who Break Your Heart.”You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player above (or click the dropdown menu to add the Dishcast to your podcast feed). For two clips of our convo — on why friends with different politics are increasingly rare, on how Jesus died for his friends — pop over to our YouTube page. A new transcript is up in honor of what we are still learning about Trump’s attempted violent coup: Bob Woodward and Robert Costa on the perpetual peril of Trump. Below is a segment of that convo — probably the most significant one we’ve had on the Dishcast yet:Turning to the debate over abortion in the ashes of Roe, a reader dissents:I’m having a hard time understanding why you’re so misleading about abortion rights in the US compared to other nations, and naive about protection of the other rights under the 14th Amendment. Germany allows abortions up to 12 weeks for any reason, but what’s remarkable about Germany is not the 12-week mark, but that Germany offers pre-natal care, child care, employment guarantees, etc. that make it much easier for a woman if she chooses to go through with her pregnancy. The US doesn’t have anything like this. And even with the new right in America pretending to hop on board the social insurance train, passing any laws in a conservative-majority Congress that would provide more social services to pregnant women would deliberately NOT address or protect the right of a woman to control her own fertility — that is, to decide to have a child or not. In other words, the interests of a woman’s bodily autonomy and reproductive control would be denied. That makes women, on the whole, unable to live freely in society. But we don’t have to hop over to Europe to run a comparison. Canada protects abortion rights for any reason, with most clinics providing the procedure up to 23 weeks. This aligns with the (previous) fetal viability cutoff that Roe protected. And recently Mexico decriminalized abortion entirely, which paves the way for full, legal abortion rights.The US is now the regressive anomaly, not the progressive outlier you insist we are. And your idea that abortion can just be decided via democracy is cute — maybe that would’ve been true in the past — but SCOTUS could care less about the legislative process. You only have to look at their recent gun decision to realize that. You should make these things clear when you discuss abortion, instead of conveniently obfuscating the context and facts.As far as your confidence that the other rights under the 14th Amendment — gay marriage, access to contraception, etc. — will stand firm, I’m not sure why. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett evoked stare decisis in their confirmation hearings, and this turned out to be a shameless lie from all of them. With the conservative majority in place, they could then take up the Dobbs case and use it to overturn Roe entirely — stare decisis be damned.Alito left the door open to address Obergefell, etc. in his draft opinion, so why would you think Thomas taking it a step further is just him “trolling”? The majority of Americans wanted Roe left in place; its provisions were the compromise that balanced the interests of the woman with that of the fetus that you incorrectly thought was lacking. (Listen to Ezra Klein’s podcast with court expert Dahlia Lithwick to understand why that is). Yet despite its popularity, Roe was struck down. The majority of Americans support gay marriage. But the conservative court has publicly stated now that they don't care about what Americans want or think. Alito and Thomas have clearly said what they're willing to go after next. Kavanaugh playing footsie with the idea that those other rights are safe is just another lie that you are too willing to fall for, as I was too willing to think they wouldn't, in the end, touch Roe.As far as healthcare access in Germany, Katie Herzog made that point during our “Real Time” appearance last Friday:From a “Real Time” watcher:I disagree with you on quite a few issues, but appreciated your level-headed commentary on Bill Maher’s show. You’re one of the only people I saw today who forcefully made the point that the SCOTUS decision still allows for action by Congress — it’s a crucial point that has been totally lost in this discussion.From another fan of Bill’s show:I appreciated your take pointing out that the US is the only country that has made abortion rights a constitutional right, and I do understand your argument that this is something that needs to be decided through the democratic process. But I’m wondering if perhaps, on a deeper level, you’re shooting yourself in the foot. Your attitude has been for a long time that America is unique, exceptional, in its supposed commitment to individual freedom, as reflected in its constitution. Doesn’t that imply that enshrining personal rights in its constitution is in fact a perfect evocation to our country’s exceptionalism, what sets it apart from the cynical bickering and proceduralism of European parliamentary systems?I believe in democracy, tempered by constitutional restraints. So the kind of judicial supremacy you seem to be advocating seems outside that. I repeat that I would not have repealed Roe, for stare decisis and social stability reasons. But for the same reason, I wouldn’t have voted for it in 1973. I also believe that the Court could approximate your vision, in defending minority rights. But women are hardly a minority, and many women — at about the same rate as men — want abortion to be illegal.Many more dissents, and other reader comments on abortion, here. That roundup addressed the concern over stare decisis that readers keep bringing up. As I wrote then:Yes, I worry about stare decisis — but it is not an absolute bar to changing precedents. Akhil Amar, the renowned constitutional scholar at Yale, rebuts the same argument. Amar also just appeared on Bari’s podcast, in an episode titled, “The Yale Law Professor Who Is Anti-Roe But Pro-Choice” — a great listen.Bari addressed the Dobbs decision in her new piece, “The Post-Roe Era Begins.” Another reader looks at the legislative route:I think President Biden and the Democrats as a whole would be in a far better position with voters today if over the past 18 months they had taken that same “small bites” approach on a variety of other issues: border security, election reform and just about any other challenge where they now have nothing to show the American voters because they approached those issues if they had significant majorities in each house. They could even take this “small bites” approach right now on the abortion issue, given (as you’ve documented) that the vast majority of Americans favor access to abortions with reasonable restrictions. Instead, Chuck Schumer runs a bill that’s even more permissive than Roe.I know it’s naïve to think we can take politics out of policymaking, but maybe, given the election hand they were dealt, it would have been good politics to pursue progress over progressivism. Right now they’d be running on a far different record (one of being the adults in the room) and could present a much stronger claim for leading our nation. Instead, they wasted a lot of time and opportunity pretending they had the clout to adopt the entire far-left progressive agenda.Another reader delves into the Court precedents that Democrats are wringing their hands over:You wrote about Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell: “Thomas also concedes that there could be other constitutional defenses for these previous decisions beyond ‘substantive due process.’”There is one defense, at least. The 14th Amendment has a due process clause and an equal protection clause. When Casey upheld Roe, the right to abortion was based upon due process, not equal protection. Dobbs found that due process did not guarantee the right to abortion. Equal protection of the laws is different. If a state allows an opposite-sex couple to marry or have sex, but bans a similarly situated same-sex couple from doing so, then equal protection of the laws is denied based upon sex, in violation of the 14th Amendment. If there were a state where females were banned from obtaining abortions but males were specifically permitted to have abortions, then that would be a denial of equal protection, based upon sex. But there is, of course, no world in which that would happen, and if there were, the state could simply ban males from having abortions as well and cure the equal-protection problem. Obergefell was based upon both due process and equal protection, so if due process is removed we still have equal protection. Lawrence was decided on due process alone, but it easily could be upheld based upon equal protection. (Justice O’Connor, in concurring in the ruling, said she would have relied upon equal protection instead of due process.) So Lawrence and Obergefell seem safe. Griswold does not seem safe under equal protection, but it may be safe under other provisions, although no state is currently seriously trying to ban the sale of contraceptives. Although Bostock was a decision based upon the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and not on the Constitution, Gorsuch ruled that the law that banned sex discrimination in employment applied to gays and transgender people. His reasoning was that if you fire a female employee for being married to a women but don’t fire a male employee for being married to a woman, then you are discriminating based upon the employee’s sex. There is a very strong argument that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause works similarly. I broadly agree with this. Speaking of the transgender debate, a parent writes:While I generally agree with your balanced approach, I think you are still missing what is fueling the alarm on the right. As a parent of a 14 year old, I’m very aware of the extraordinary confusion that some teens now face because of the mainstream promotion of gender identities. For many kids, all this is harmless and ridiculous, and they tune it out. For a very tiny number of kids, this information may be extremely necessary, and perhaps even lifesaving, so they don’t feel so alone.  But unfortunately, I believe there is a quite significant number of kids that have come to believe that all their teen problems will be solved if they simply lop off a few body parts. A few days ago I caught up with a friend who is a wreck because her 14-year-old daughter asked if she could cut off her breasts. This girl has some issues with body anxiety and acceptance, like the majority of teen girls, and has now decided she can avoid all the bad aspects of maturing into a woman by simply becoming a man, which in her mind is closer to remaining a girl, which is what she really wants. The mother is trying to help every way she can, and is about as caring and progressive as a parent can possibly be. But you have to understand how parents today are simply helpless to combat the flood of bizarre, foolish, and/or utterly toxic information that their kids find on the internet, or in social media with their classmates. We entirely ban our 14-year-old from all social media, and from all internet sites except for those needed for school, because we have seen time and time again how kids’ lives are getting wrecked from all that sludge. Most parents are simply not equipped to handle it. Many aren’t able to police their child as thoroughly as we do, and for those on the right with kids, I believe this very real damage has caused some to turn to any platform such as QAnon or other fringe groups that can make sense of this real trauma and harm to their kids. If you don’t have kids, it’s very easy to dismiss this as hysteria. But if you are aware of what's happening to kids nowadays, it’s truly terrifying.Lisa Selin Davis would agree; her new piece on Substack is titled, “It’s a Terrifying Time to Have a Gender-Questioning Kid.” And I completely understand where the reader is coming from. I find the relentless promotion of concepts derived from critical gender and critical queer theory to be destabilizing to kids’ identities, lives and happiness. These woke fanatics are taking the real experience of less than a half percent of the population and imposing it as if it is some kind of choice for everyone else. This is called “inclusion.” It is actually “indoctrination.”Telling an impressionable gay boy he might be a girl throws a wrench into his psychological development, adding confusion, possible generating bodily mutilation. Making all of this as cool as possible — as so many teachers and schools now do — is downright disturbing. The whole idea that all children can choose their pronouns because the tiniest proportion have gender dysphoria is a form of insanity. But it’s an insanity based on critical theory whose goal is the dismantling of all norms, and deconstruction of objective reality by calling it a function of “white supremacy.” This next reader has “a theory I’ve wanted to float by you”:I’m increasingly becoming of the opinion that the modern trans/gender movement is the twisted offspring of something in the gay rights movement that we thought was a good thing but actually wasn’t: the notion that someone is “born that way.” Today, we increasingly feel the need to diagnose children who were “born a certain way” and then provide medical interventions for something that is aggressively conflating the physical and the mental. (I’m using the historical Abrahamic distinction between the two here, sure there’s a philosophical debate about whether or not this distinction exists.) And that makes perfect sense if you think that the foundation of acceptability for these immutable identities is determined at birth — we have medicine in service of zeitgeist.I think the original sin here is going with “what we could get done” in the gay rights movement and stopping before we finished the job — of letting everyone know that these are preferences, and you need to respect and love people regardless of the choices they make and not just because they “can’t help it” because they were “born that way.” If we were to do away with this biological imperative driving identity, we’d end up with what we should really be striving for: radical acceptance of personal choices, and deconstruction of gender roles and stereotypes without engaging in pseudoscience.The trouble with this argument, I think, is that it doesn’t reflect the experience of most gay people. We do not “choose” our orientation. That is the key point — whether that lack of choice is due to biology or early childhood or something else is irrelevant. And genuinely trans people do not choose to be trans either. It’s a profound disjunction between the sex they feel they are and the sex they actually are. It also may be caused by any number of things. But it is involuntary.The queer left rejects this view entirely — because, in their view, there is no underlying reality to human beings, biological or psychological. It’s all about “narratives” driven by “systems of power,” and being gay or trans is infinitely malleable. That’s why they continuously use a slur word for gays — “queer” — to deconstruct homosexuality itself, and turn it merely into one of many ways in which to dismantle liberal society. I regard the “queer left” as dangerous as the far right in its belief that involuntary homosexual orientation doesn’t exist. Lastly, a listener “would like to make a couple of suggestions for Dishcast guests”:1) Razib Khan — he has been blogging for 20 years on genetics, particularly ancient population movements (e.g. Denisovans and Yamnaya). His Unsupervised Learning is currently the second-highest-paid science substack after Scott Alexander. To give you a flavour, his post on the genetic history of Ashkenazi Jews was very popular. Khan also does culture war stuff, mostly because he is a scientist and believes in truth and science. He has subsequently been the subject of controversy, as you can see from his Wikipedia page — which isn’t really fair, but gives you a flavor. His post “Applying IQ to IQ: Selecting for smarts is important” is the kind of thing that gets him in trouble. He is my favourite public intellectual, in large part because he combines actual hardcore science information with anti-woke skepticism. And he is just generally a very smart and interesting guy. Though I’m a fan of his substack, I’d like to hear him on your podcast because I’d like to find out more about Razib as a person, how he feels about the controversies, etc.2) Claire Fox — Baroness Fox of Buckley — is a former communist turned libertarian and Brexiteer, once a member of European Parliament and now a life peer in the House of Lords. Her Twitter feed gives a pretty good idea of her interests and views. Here are some clips on cancel culture in higher education; single-sex spaces for women; and a libertarian view on smoking. She broadly belongs to the British “TERF island” of gender-critical feminists. I know you’ve had Kathleen Stock on your podcast already, but Fox’s background, libertarian views and current membership in the House of Lords make her particularly interesting.I know Razib and deeply admire him and his intellectual courage. And it’s true that, in real life, he’s a hoot, a lively conversationalist, with an amazing life story. Because of his views about the science of genetics and human populations, he is, of course, anathema to the woke left. One good reason to invite him on. Get full access to The Weekly Dish at andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

Ruth Sent Us is now TARGETING Amy Coney Barrett and her CHILDREN!

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.

George and callers discuss if Supreme Court Justices should answer questions honestly in confirmation hearings.  Were Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett just "obfuscating" their opinion on Roe v Wade to get confirmed?  Would you be okay if a Liberal nominee "obfuscated" their opinion, or is this just business as usual?   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Earlier this evening, Politico reported on what appears to be a leaked draft opinion from the Supreme Court striking down Roe V. Wade. In light of the news, we're re-running our interview with Ilyse Hogue of NARAL Pro-Choice from October 2020. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In the fourth hour of the morning show, Larry O'Connor and Julie Gunlock talked to former NYPD detective Rob O'Donnell.  They also talked about a juror wanting out of a trial because of her sugar daddy. They also talked about the passing of comedian Gilbert Gottfried and how Justice Amy Coney Barrett handled a heckler like a boss. WATCH: Potential juror in Parkland shooting trial uses ‘sugar daddy' as reason to be excused Married Florida mother 'Ms Bristol' who told judge she couldn't be on Nikolas Cruz jury because she needs to keep her sugar daddy sweet reveals he gives her $8,000-a-MONTH! Video: Gilbert Gottfried on Hollywood Squares NBC NEWS: Comedian Gilbert Gottfried died of rare, often overlooked disease Heckler interrupts Barrett at Reagan library, her response sparks laughs, applause from crowd For more coverage on the issues that matter to you, visit www.WMAL.com, download the WMAL app or tune in live on WMAL-FM 105.9 FM from 5-9 AM ET. To join the conversation, check us out on Twitter: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @Jgunlock,and @patrickpinkfile. Show website: https://www.wmal.com/oconnor-company/     See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We are, my fellow Americans, ruled by the grand total of:545 PEOPLE.545 PEOPLE! That includes the House of Representatives, 435 of us, the U.S. Senate, 100 of us, the Supreme Court, 9 of them, and of course the President. 545 PEOPLE RULE AMERICA.They tell us how to live. They make our laws. They choke us with regulations. They exercise control any and every way they possibly can. As much as possible, THE 545 ignore the states. They create agencies, and more agencies. They make special appointments and invest additional persons with power. They control the military. And, WE THE PEOPLE think we live in a democracy. We don't. At best, functioning as our Founding Fathers intended this Country to do, we America are a REPUBLIC, a series of checks and balances, the power of our Country divided four ways between House, Senate, Judiciary (federal courts) and of course the President. If the right people are in office, true Americans, REAL REPRESENTATIVES of We The People, the United States of America is the finest government ever created by mankind.The Constitution of the United States created a Supreme Court. This court was empowered to create lesser courts and they created local federal district courts, and federal appellate courts to handle legal business before it got to the Supreme Court. Again, with the right people in office, the federal judiciary can function extremely well, dispensing real justice, constitutionally driven, fair decisions, with liberty and justice for all. There are, my fellow Americans as you undoubtedly know, 9 of them. They come and go. Some stay far longer than others. Some are appointed because they are brilliant jurists. Others because they are fair, impartial and constitutional. Still others are political appointees, put in office to serve a certain and specific cause (i.e., conservative). All make a mark, one way or another. There are 9 of them. Five, ONLY FIVE, United States citizens, men and women no different than you or me can make a decision which radically changes or deeply affects the lives of millions upon millions of people. FIVE! Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States resigns his position at the end of the current Supreme Court term. Justice Breyer has been a member of the Supreme Court now some 27 years. Breyer has been labeled a pragmatic liberal. That is, Breyer votes with the liberal–progressive block of the Supreme Court in every major decision, but at the same time he is sympathetic to law enforcement, not hostile to business and a great believer in the independence of the Supreme Court, in fact all judicial bodies. He was openly against the Democrat notion of packing the Supreme Court, that is increasing the number of justices from the current 9 to 15. But again, in every major decision, Breyer showed himself to be liberal in thinking and belief, and in interpretation of a constitution, progressive to the core. But Breyer was pragmatic, reasonably fair, and most importantly listened to opposing points of view. In light of the candidates who will arise out of the progressive, radical left to replace him, small wonder that many think the resignation of Stephen Breyer will indeed be a loss to the Supreme Court. The balance of power will not change. There are now 6 justices who are considered conservative and 3 liberal or progressive, including Breyer. His resignation will leave the court with but 2 liberal members, Kagan and Sotomayor and the same 6 conservatives namely Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. There are 6 males and 3 females. There is one black male justice, Clarence Thomas and no black females. In choosing a replacement, it seems as though President Biden is determined to play the race card. Biden has promised that he would appoint a BLACK WOMAN to the Supreme Court with his first nomination. As the Wall Street Journal stated, that is most unfortunate because that promise “elevates skin color over qualifications”. Indeed it does. It is most unfortunate for WE THE PEOPLE that race is a determining factor as high up as the United States Supreme Court. But sadly, that is America 2022. The two most discussed black female candidates who meet Mr. Biden's demographic litmus test are Leondra Kruger of the California Supreme Court and Ketanji Jackson, now a member of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. If either were nominated, either one would be a progressive farther to left than Stephen Breyer.If justice is in fact colorblind it matters not who sits on the Supreme Court. If justice occurs as a result of the rule of law and is fully constitutional in justification, it matters not who sits on the Supreme Court. But it never is for human beings are involved. They have preferences and predilections. They have their very own points of view and the members of the Supreme Court invariably show their colors conservative or liberal, when all WE THE PEOPLE care about is whether or not the decisions they make are fair and constitutional. We should hope and pray, We The People, that Biden will appoint a fair minded, objective, constitutional, rule of law nominee so that those 9 people who ultimately rule us will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and more importantly, protect, preserve, and defend the freedoms of this great Country and all of:US.

Amy Coney Barrett is officially an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Barrett was sworn in on Tuesday October 27 by Justice Clarence Thomas, cementing her place in history as a member of the nation's highest court. On this week's episode of the Healthcare Happy Hour, Marcy discusses what this could mean for both healthcare and the Supreme Court moving forward.

Chris discusses the swearing-in of Judge Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court Justice with Kaitlan Collins, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Dana Bash, David Axelrod, and Nina Totenberg. Then, Chris goes one on one with Trump Campaign communications Director, Tim Murtaugh. Chris wraps up the show with “Wizard of Odds,” Harry Enten, and the latest 2020 election early voting numbers. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Wednesday on Political Rewind: As the Senate Judiciary committee prepares to vote on the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, our panel of experts takes a look at how she could help shape rulings that may have a big impact here in Georgia. How could this impact decisions on issues like abortion rights, healthcare, and immigration? Our panelists included: Fred Smith, professor of Constitutional law at Emory University; Charles Kuck, immigration attorney; Dr. Amy Steigerwalt, professor of political science at Georgia State University; and Greg Bluestein, politics reporter for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Over the past week it's become clear that most U.S. Americans view Amy Coney Barrett's transracial family as noble, good and representing all things decent. However, transracial adoptees have a different take. It seemed to showcase white saviorism and virtue signaling. Torie and Angela discuss why the Supreme Court nominee's comment was so polarizing and why conversations about transracial adoption are so divided that even hearing directly from transracial adoptees, isn't enough to counter the dominant fairytale narrative. 

This special bonus episode features author, filmmaker, artist and activist Frank Schaeffer, son of Francis Schaeffer--the hugely influential intellectual evangelical and anti-abortion activist. Frank, along with his famous father, helped to launch the evangelical anti-abortion movement back in the 1970s and 80s with their film series "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?"  As we discuss the backstory of how abortion came to be the biggest single-issue topic for Republican and evangelical voters of today, Frank fills us in on the details--and helps explain why the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the US Supreme Court poses such a threat to all Americans. Help Support Independent Media like MindShift Podcast on Patreon! Contact Details Follow Frank on Twitter @Frank_Schaeffer "Let Me Be Frank" film about Frank Schaeffer on Vimeo Follow me on Twitter @MindShift2018 Like the MindShift Podcast Facebook Page

For a second day, Judge Amy Coney Barrett took questions from Senate Judiciary Committee members on Capitol Hill on topics ranging from the Affordable Care Act to Roe v. Wade and legalization of same-sex marriage. Judge Barrett declined to give answers on how she would rule on those matters after repeated questions from Democrats. Senator Amy Klobuchar was one of those Democrats questioning Judge Barrett. She tells Anderson Cooper Judge Barrett’s record is the polar opposite of what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stood for her whole life. Plus, New York Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo has seen the extreme rise and fall of Covid-19 cases in his state. New York was the first epicenter of the virus where more than 33,000 people have died. Governor Cuomo joins AC360 to discuss the status of the recent flare ups in New York City and reacts to President Trump’s mask-less campaign rallies. Airdate: October 13, 2020 Guests: Gov. Andrew Cuomo Sen. Amy Klobuchar To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Senator Harris presses Judge Barrett on Obamacare, abortion and other topics. President Trump holds campaign rally in Pennsylvania with few masks, no social distancing; packs schedule with rallies after being sickened with coronavirus. FBI: group in Michigan kidnapping plot also eyed Virginia governor. Virginia governor points to Trump's rhetoric after FBI says extremist group eyed kidnapping him and Michigan governor. More than 10.5 million general election ballots cast so far. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

The latest media hit on Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is a "selectively edited" video from four years ago that purports to show she objected to filling a vacancy during an election year. The video actually shows her arguing the opposite. Also, North Carolina Democratic candidate for US Senate, Cal Cunningham, might need to have MORE affairs, as he saw his poll numbers rise amid the sex scandal that broke open last week. Subscribe for FREE Become a Patron Support Our Advertisers Pete's Marketplace Pete on Twitter Fan Facebook Group Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/petekalinershow See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. Get exclusive content here!: https://thepetekalinershow.com/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ted Cruz is a U.S. Senator to the state of Texas since 2012, former presidential candidate in 2016, and former Solicitor General of Texas from 2003-2009.  He has argued nine times in front of the Supreme Court, eight of those as solicitor general. Currently, he hosts of a podcast, The Verdict, and he is the author of a new book, One Vote Away: How a Single Supreme Court Seat Can Change History.   In this episode, Christian sits down with Ted Cruz at the Defend The Police Rally in Conroe, TX to discuss the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, what citizens can do to back the blue, and the stakes of the 2020 Election. You can follow Ted on Twitter at @tedcruz. 

Smart, accomplished, and a religious wife and mother? Do such women exist? I thought a traditional life was an impediment to a woman being successful in the world outside her doorstep. According to the powers that be, these two worlds are wildly at odds. Enter Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, who comes along to put that narrative to rest. If confirmed, Barrett will replace feminist icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the left can't stand it. They're positively green with envy. How can a woman look as graceful and as feminine as Barrett, with a husband and seven kids to boot, and somehow make it to the Supreme Court? To make matters worse, Barrett says things like this: “What greater thing can you do than raise children? That's where you have your greatest impact on the world.” It's enough to drive a feminist mad. Here to talk with me about why the left really hates Amy Coney Barrett is Joy Pullmann, executive editor of The Federalist, as well as a happy wife and mother of six children. IN THIS EPISODE: 4:00 How and why ACB is the polar opposite of Ruth Bader Ginsberg 5:00 Why ACB's very existence repudiates the left's view of women and how her nomination has brought what it means to be family oriented to the forefront 6:10 How women have used abortion as a means to get ahead in their careers since babies/family don't “fit” into a career-focused woman's life 7:45 How unlikely it is for a typical woman to have ACB's career and as many kids as she has. Suzanne discusses how women “having it all” at once is a myth and how ACBs support system (husband, in laws/family) helped her become who she is today. 10:55 – 13:00 What it takes to have “balance” in your life and the different components such as giving up social media, going out to parties, having helpful in-laws, does the husband/wife work full-time?, etc. 13:00 The benefit of having a large family and how older kids help raise younger kids 15:20 Young women need to understand that they shouldn't look at ACB and think this is attainable for most women and how a lot of women do not want the kind of career that she has 16:50 –18:20 Suzanne talks about her frustration with some women on the right who think women can rise to the top of their profession and have many children at the same time 18:24 Women on the left want government to raise your kids so you don't have to orchestrate your life 19:25 Joy describes that when she gets tired, she often gets frustrated with her husband and how she has to put that into perspective by taking stock of how she can improve her day-to-day to make it easier. 20:35 How government-run daycare is not a good plan and how the left's narrative regarding working women fosters the resentment that men aren't doing their fair share 21:20 – 22:30 Suzanne and Joy talk about COVID-19 divorce 22:30 How ACB embraced marriage and motherhood alongside her professional endeavors, which is atypical for women in politics 23:10 – 26:00 How the left uses The Handmaid's Tale imagery and the double standards that come along with that 26:05 ACB says the greatest thing you can do is raise children and how that is rarely acknowledged by any woman in power 26:40 Joy describes the impact you make on the world raising children 27:30 ACB is a happy woman, and it drives the left crazy. Even without her professional success, she would be happy because of her faith and her family. 28:15 –30:08 The left constantly smears religious people as uneducated and why that narrative is a manipulative power-play and MORE! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

The Swamp, Explained" series, Chris Spangle and Rob Quartel go in-depth on how Washington works. In this episode, we discuss Trump's illness and its effects on the race and Coney Barrett's nomination. We discuss the 25th amendment and succession protocol. We also cover the debate and his taxes.  Follow Rob on twitter: @RobQuartel. Check out Rob's resume here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rob-quartel-5291553/  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

THE DAILY ARTICLE FOR SEPTEMBER 29, 2020 Critics are already attacking Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court. Today's podcast discusses their accusations, then we focus on ways we can respond redemptively to those who criticize our personal lives and faith. ABOUT THE DENISON FORUM The Daily Article is a daily biblical commentary on the news of the day by Dr. Jim Denison. To learn more about the Denison Forum, visit DenisonForum.org or email us at comments@denisonforum.org.

9.28.20 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Trump's taxes reveal he is a sham; Who is #45's SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett? Early votes show signs that Black voters are shifting to mail in voting; The Rock backs Biden/Harris; South Carolina voters no longer have to have a witness for their absentee ballots; Black women are encouraged to participate in a general strike for Breonna Taylor; Black docs test COVID vaccines; Stripper PSA get your booty to the polls; Bishop Michael Curry joins us to talk about his new book, 'Love Is The Way' Support #RolandMartinUnfiltered via the Cash App ☛ https://cash.app/$rmunfiltered or via PayPal ☛https://www.paypal.me/rmartinunfiltered  #RolandMartinUnfiltered is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Independent, investigative news, reporting, interviews and commentary

THE DAILY ARTICLE FOR SEPTEMBER 28, 2020 We watched history being made when Judge Amy Coney Barrett was nominated to the Supreme Court on Saturday. Today's podcast explains the furor over her nomination and calls us to deepen our resolve to obey and share God's unchanging word with courageous grace. ABOUT THE DENISON FORUM The Daily Article is a daily biblical commentary on the news of the day by Dr. Jim Denison. To learn more about the Denison Forum, visit DenisonForum.org or email us at comments@denisonforum.org.

Part 1: What the Senate confirmation process looks like and the parliamentary tactics available to democrats to try to delay the confirmation until after elections. Guest: Caren Morrison is Associate Professor of Law, Georgia State University. She wrote the piece Can Trump and McConnell get through the 4 steps to seat a Supreme Court justice in just 6 weeks? for the Conversation.com Part 2: What the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett could mean for the judicial branch of government. Guest: Neil Kinkopf is a Constitutional lawyer and a Professor of Law at Georgia State University College of Law.   The post Long and Short Term Implications of an Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation appeared first on KPFA.

Chris Spangle, Harry Price, and Rhinehold discuss the benefits and harm of social media, the Breonna Taylor verdict, the selection of Amy Coney Barrett to replace RBG on the SCOTUS, and the preview a future episode on political legitimacy.  Time Stamps: A Campaign to Watch - 00:02:30 Should we quit social media? - 00:17:21 The selection of Amy Coney Barrett - 00:42:57 The Death of Breonna Taylor - 00:57:25 Mainstream Media and Political Legitimacy - 01:45:58 Video - https://youtu.be/WjpzOQET-M8 Correcting the misinformation about Breonna Taylor - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/24/correcting-misinformation-about-breonna-taylor/ Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett to Fill Ginsburg's Seat on the Supreme Court - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court.html The Election That Could Break America - https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/ Ta-Nehisi Coates on Why He Left Social Media - https://youtu.be/IDpqBVMh1Qo Misc. - Learn Libertarianism - https://libertyexplained.com/  - Subscribe to the podcast: https://link.chtbl.com/we-are-libertarians - Visit our website - https://wearelibertarians.com/ - Visit the store - http://wearelibertarians.store - Support us on Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/wearelibertarians Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices