Podcasts about Equal Rights Amendment

Alice Paul was one of the most influential leaders of the women's suffrage movement. From her Quaker upbringing in New Jersey to her education in England, where she learned militant protest tactics, Alice Paul dedicated her life to securing equal rights for women. We'll follow her journey as she organized historic marches, endured arrests and force-feeding while imprisoned, and played a pivotal role in the passage of the 19th Amendment, granting women the right to vote. But her fight didn't end there. Alice Paul continued advocating for gender equality through the Equal Rights Amendment and spent decades pushing for legal protections for women around the world. Follow us on IG: @homance_chronicles Connect with us: linktr.ee/homance Send us a Hoe of History request: homancepodcast@gmail.com

Cold War #4 of 4. Today, in our last episode of our Cold War series, we are exploring the Cold War roots of the modern conservative movement. We'll trace the arc of the grassroots movement from the 1950s up to the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment in 1982, getting a glimpse at how the conservative movement began to move away from moderate, mainstream Republicanism. And we will see how women were central to the movement's organizational and political success. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Audio Disclaimer from Anne Marie: I am still learning how to record and edit with two live microphones and unfortunately in the transfer and editing process, I deleted the original file with the better audio quality. The episode you'll hear is a result of this mistake (only my microphone became the driving audio of the playback track). I apologize for the unevenness in the quality, but sincerely hope you stick around for the content! It was an incredible conversation and I'm glad I can still share it in some capacity.Episode Summary: This week, Anne Marie Gunn welcomes her former high school history teacher, Jane Thompson, as a guest to talk about the American Sexual Revolution of the 1960's and 1970's. The conversation begins with how World War II, Margaret Sanger/the (white) women's suffrage movement and movement towards family limitations, and the 1950's all led to an American Sexual Revolution. Jane and Anne Marie discuss the influence of culture on politics and vice versa (ie. through language about gender and sex changing over time). Their conversation highlights key figures in the Sexual Revolution including researcher Alfred Kinsey and author Betty Friedan (The Feminine Mystique). Other topics covered include: the Civil Rights Act of 1965, Roe v. Wade (1972) and its overturn (2022), Vietnam War protests, free love/drug culture of the hippie movement, Title IX and its impact on higher education, women's sports & equal pay, and girls' agency over their bodies, the Equal Rights Amendment not being signed, the LGBTQ+ movement, the AIDs crisis, the disability rights movement, the 80's mirroring the 50's, and the development of technology and the internet impacting American music and sex. Finally, Jane and Anne Marie discuss how the paradox of American individualism and idealism of unification impacts societal progress.

Political historian Oscar Winberg has a fascinating new book titled Archie Bunker for President: How One Television Show Remade American Politics. This book weaves together quite a few different threads in examining the historical context in which the television show, All In The Family, landed on American television screens. Archie Bunker for President examines why this particular sitcom was a kind of inflection point within U.S. politics, within the media landscape at the time and moving forward, and how television production shifted and changed around this one particular television series. Winberg also lays out the path from the early 1970s, when All in the Family first aired, to our contemporary political moment, when celebrity and politics seem to be inescapably intertwined. As Winberg notes in our conversation, television as an entity is inherently conservative, since the functional model was about appealing to the lowest common denominator so that advertisers would be willing to pay for time during shows. In order to reach the most viewers, at least in the age of network television, the television series needed to appeal to the largest market possible, and not “turn off” viewers. What happens in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the television show All in the Family is that this dynamic shifts, and the case is made that it isn't about reaching the most people, but about reaching the people who have the means and inclination to purchase what the advertisers are selling. This is part of the pitch that Norman Lear makes, that CBS executive Bob Wood finally decides to gamble on by greenlighting All in the Family. The dynamic inside the show itself is to focus on politics: to have the characters within the series discuss different political issues, and engage with the impacts of these issues, from women's rights and reproductive health to homosexuality to racism and the anti-war movement. In designing All in the Family with Archie Bunker (played by Carroll O'Conner) clearly defined as a conservative and as a bigot, and with Archie's daughter, Gloria Stivic (played by Sally Struthers) and son in law, Mike Stivic (played by Rob Reiner), as liberals and politically active, the show embedded politics within the narrative. Edith Bunker, played by Jean Stapleton, was an enthusiastic supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment, which was making its way through the ratification process while the series was airing, providing yet another avenue for political discussion within the show's structure. There were quite a few other shows that were developed at the same time as All in the Family that took up similarly political themes in iconic ways, from the Mary Tyler Moore Show to M*A*S*H to Maude. Political conversations were the fabric of these shows in much the same way as in All in the Family, where characters find themselves experiencing dimensions of politics in their lives and they discuss this with friends and family within the narrative construction. This also translated to Americans discussing these shows with each other at dinner, or at the “water cooler”, or at the beauty parlor or barbershop. Given the structure of television in the 1970s and 1980s, before cable and streaming services, options were more limited options, and many of these shows had great writers, actors, and showrunners. This was “appointment television” because there was no way to record or otherwise go back and watch the episode. Episodes were only available at their regularly scheduled time and day—which also meant that lots and lots of Americans were watching the same show at the same time. In some sense, Archie Bunker for President: How One Television Show Remade American Politics is not only about how one television show remade American politics, but also about how All in the Family remade American television, opening up the networks to developing and airing television shows that integrate politics (of all kinds) into the narratives. There is still quite a lot of television, particularly network television, that is pitched to the broadest possible audience, but the narratives in police procedurals or hospital-centered series or sitcoms integrate different dimensions of politics into their storylines in ways that had not been done before All in the Family. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Best selling author Anna Malaika Tubbs stops by to tell us all about her book, Erased: What American Patriarchy Has Hidden from Us and helps us hone in on real time examples of our Patriarchy is being weaponized today. Anna unpacks how the United States has constructed a unique - and often invisible - gendered hierarchy, one that is inextricably linked to whiteness and a deeply flawed binary system. From the founding fathers to the current Supreme Court, from the erasure of women in the Constitution to the ongoing fight for the Equal Rights Amendment, Dr. Tubbs reveals the mechanisms that have kept women's contributions hidden and their voices suppressed. Anna Malaika Tubbs is a scholar, advocate, and bestselling author (The Three Mothers: How the Mothers of Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and James Baldwin Shaped a Nation) whose work brings a fresh, urgent perspective on American history and its gendered systems. With a Ph.D. in Sociology and a Masters in Multidisciplinary Gender Studies from the University of Cambridge and a Bachelors in Medical Anthropology from Stanford University, Anna translates her academic knowledge into clear and engaging stories. Her articles have been published by TIME Magazine, New York Magazine, CNN, Motherly, The Huffington Post, For Harriet, The Guardian, Darling Magazine, and Blavity. Anna's storytelling also takes form in her talks, including her TED Talk that has been viewed 2 million times, as well as the scripted and unscripted screen projects she has in development. She lives in Los Angeles with her husband, former Mayor of Stockton, CA Michael Tubbs  and their three young children. Follow Anna Malaika Tubbs Follow us on Instagram @gettingbetterwithjvn Jonathan on Instagram @jvn and executive producer Chris @amomentlikechris  New video episodes Getting Better on YouTube every Wednesday.  Executive Producer, Chris McClure Producer, Editor & Engineer is Nathanael McClure Production support from: Chad Hall Our theme music is also composed by Nathanael McClure.Curious about bringing your brand to life on the show? Email podcastadsales@sonymusic.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Political historian Oscar Winberg has a fascinating new book titled Archie Bunker for President: How One Television Show Remade American Politics. This book weaves together quite a few different threads in examining the historical context in which the television show, All In The Family, landed on American television screens. Archie Bunker for President examines why this particular sitcom was a kind of inflection point within U.S. politics, within the media landscape at the time and moving forward, and how television production shifted and changed around this one particular television series. Winberg also lays out the path from the early 1970s, when All in the Family first aired, to our contemporary political moment, when celebrity and politics seem to be inescapably intertwined. As Winberg notes in our conversation, television as an entity is inherently conservative, since the functional model was about appealing to the lowest common denominator so that advertisers would be willing to pay for time during shows. In order to reach the most viewers, at least in the age of network television, the television series needed to appeal to the largest market possible, and not “turn off” viewers. What happens in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the television show All in the Family is that this dynamic shifts, and the case is made that it isn't about reaching the most people, but about reaching the people who have the means and inclination to purchase what the advertisers are selling. This is part of the pitch that Norman Lear makes, that CBS executive Bob Wood finally decides to gamble on by greenlighting All in the Family. The dynamic inside the show itself is to focus on politics: to have the characters within the series discuss different political issues, and engage with the impacts of these issues, from women's rights and reproductive health to homosexuality to racism and the anti-war movement. In designing All in the Family with Archie Bunker (played by Carroll O'Conner) clearly defined as a conservative and as a bigot, and with Archie's daughter, Gloria Stivic (played by Sally Struthers) and son in law, Mike Stivic (played by Rob Reiner), as liberals and politically active, the show embedded politics within the narrative. Edith Bunker, played by Jean Stapleton, was an enthusiastic supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment, which was making its way through the ratification process while the series was airing, providing yet another avenue for political discussion within the show's structure. There were quite a few other shows that were developed at the same time as All in the Family that took up similarly political themes in iconic ways, from the Mary Tyler Moore Show to M*A*S*H to Maude. Political conversations were the fabric of these shows in much the same way as in All in the Family, where characters find themselves experiencing dimensions of politics in their lives and they discuss this with friends and family within the narrative construction. This also translated to Americans discussing these shows with each other at dinner, or at the “water cooler”, or at the beauty parlor or barbershop. Given the structure of television in the 1970s and 1980s, before cable and streaming services, options were more limited options, and many of these shows had great writers, actors, and showrunners. This was “appointment television” because there was no way to record or otherwise go back and watch the episode. Episodes were only available at their regularly scheduled time and day—which also meant that lots and lots of Americans were watching the same show at the same time. In some sense, Archie Bunker for President: How One Television Show Remade American Politics is not only about how one television show remade American politics, but also about how All in the Family remade American television, opening up the networks to developing and airing television shows that integrate politics (of all kinds) into the narratives. There is still quite a lot of television, particularly network television, that is pitched to the broadest possible audience, but the narratives in police procedurals or hospital-centered series or sitcoms integrate different dimensions of politics into their storylines in ways that had not been done before All in the Family. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Political historian Oscar Winberg has a fascinating new book titled Archie Bunker for President: How One Television Show Remade American Politics. This book weaves together quite a few different threads in examining the historical context in which the television show, All In The Family, landed on American television screens. Archie Bunker for President examines why this particular sitcom was a kind of inflection point within U.S. politics, within the media landscape at the time and moving forward, and how television production shifted and changed around this one particular television series. Winberg also lays out the path from the early 1970s, when All in the Family first aired, to our contemporary political moment, when celebrity and politics seem to be inescapably intertwined. As Winberg notes in our conversation, television as an entity is inherently conservative, since the functional model was about appealing to the lowest common denominator so that advertisers would be willing to pay for time during shows. In order to reach the most viewers, at least in the age of network television, the television series needed to appeal to the largest market possible, and not “turn off” viewers. What happens in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the television show All in the Family is that this dynamic shifts, and the case is made that it isn't about reaching the most people, but about reaching the people who have the means and inclination to purchase what the advertisers are selling. This is part of the pitch that Norman Lear makes, that CBS executive Bob Wood finally decides to gamble on by greenlighting All in the Family. The dynamic inside the show itself is to focus on politics: to have the characters within the series discuss different political issues, and engage with the impacts of these issues, from women's rights and reproductive health to homosexuality to racism and the anti-war movement. In designing All in the Family with Archie Bunker (played by Carroll O'Conner) clearly defined as a conservative and as a bigot, and with Archie's daughter, Gloria Stivic (played by Sally Struthers) and son in law, Mike Stivic (played by Rob Reiner), as liberals and politically active, the show embedded politics within the narrative. Edith Bunker, played by Jean Stapleton, was an enthusiastic supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment, which was making its way through the ratification process while the series was airing, providing yet another avenue for political discussion within the show's structure. There were quite a few other shows that were developed at the same time as All in the Family that took up similarly political themes in iconic ways, from the Mary Tyler Moore Show to M*A*S*H to Maude. Political conversations were the fabric of these shows in much the same way as in All in the Family, where characters find themselves experiencing dimensions of politics in their lives and they discuss this with friends and family within the narrative construction. This also translated to Americans discussing these shows with each other at dinner, or at the “water cooler”, or at the beauty parlor or barbershop. Given the structure of television in the 1970s and 1980s, before cable and streaming services, options were more limited options, and many of these shows had great writers, actors, and showrunners. This was “appointment television” because there was no way to record or otherwise go back and watch the episode. Episodes were only available at their regularly scheduled time and day—which also meant that lots and lots of Americans were watching the same show at the same time. In some sense, Archie Bunker for President: How One Television Show Remade American Politics is not only about how one television show remade American politics, but also about how All in the Family remade American television, opening up the networks to developing and airing television shows that integrate politics (of all kinds) into the narratives. There is still quite a lot of television, particularly network television, that is pitched to the broadest possible audience, but the narratives in police procedurals or hospital-centered series or sitcoms integrate different dimensions of politics into their storylines in ways that had not been done before All in the Family. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Political historian Oscar Winberg has a fascinating new book titled Archie Bunker for President: How One Television Show Remade American Politics. This book weaves together quite a few different threads in examining the historical context in which the television show, All In The Family, landed on American television screens. Archie Bunker for President examines why this particular sitcom was a kind of inflection point within U.S. politics, within the media landscape at the time and moving forward, and how television production shifted and changed around this one particular television series. Winberg also lays out the path from the early 1970s, when All in the Family first aired, to our contemporary political moment, when celebrity and politics seem to be inescapably intertwined. As Winberg notes in our conversation, television as an entity is inherently conservative, since the functional model was about appealing to the lowest common denominator so that advertisers would be willing to pay for time during shows. In order to reach the most viewers, at least in the age of network television, the television series needed to appeal to the largest market possible, and not “turn off” viewers. What happens in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the television show All in the Family is that this dynamic shifts, and the case is made that it isn't about reaching the most people, but about reaching the people who have the means and inclination to purchase what the advertisers are selling. This is part of the pitch that Norman Lear makes, that CBS executive Bob Wood finally decides to gamble on by greenlighting All in the Family. The dynamic inside the show itself is to focus on politics: to have the characters within the series discuss different political issues, and engage with the impacts of these issues, from women's rights and reproductive health to homosexuality to racism and the anti-war movement. In designing All in the Family with Archie Bunker (played by Carroll O'Conner) clearly defined as a conservative and as a bigot, and with Archie's daughter, Gloria Stivic (played by Sally Struthers) and son in law, Mike Stivic (played by Rob Reiner), as liberals and politically active, the show embedded politics within the narrative. Edith Bunker, played by Jean Stapleton, was an enthusiastic supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment, which was making its way through the ratification process while the series was airing, providing yet another avenue for political discussion within the show's structure. There were quite a few other shows that were developed at the same time as All in the Family that took up similarly political themes in iconic ways, from the Mary Tyler Moore Show to M*A*S*H to Maude. Political conversations were the fabric of these shows in much the same way as in All in the Family, where characters find themselves experiencing dimensions of politics in their lives and they discuss this with friends and family within the narrative construction. This also translated to Americans discussing these shows with each other at dinner, or at the “water cooler”, or at the beauty parlor or barbershop. Given the structure of television in the 1970s and 1980s, before cable and streaming services, options were more limited options, and many of these shows had great writers, actors, and showrunners. This was “appointment television” because there was no way to record or otherwise go back and watch the episode. Episodes were only available at their regularly scheduled time and day—which also meant that lots and lots of Americans were watching the same show at the same time. In some sense, Archie Bunker for President: How One Television Show Remade American Politics is not only about how one television show remade American politics, but also about how All in the Family remade American television, opening up the networks to developing and airing television shows that integrate politics (of all kinds) into the narratives. There is still quite a lot of television, particularly network television, that is pitched to the broadest possible audience, but the narratives in police procedurals or hospital-centered series or sitcoms integrate different dimensions of politics into their storylines in ways that had not been done before All in the Family. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/film

Political historian Oscar Winberg has a fascinating new book titled Archie Bunker for President: How One Television Show Remade American Politics. This book weaves together quite a few different threads in examining the historical context in which the television show, All In The Family, landed on American television screens. Archie Bunker for President examines why this particular sitcom was a kind of inflection point within U.S. politics, within the media landscape at the time and moving forward, and how television production shifted and changed around this one particular television series. Winberg also lays out the path from the early 1970s, when All in the Family first aired, to our contemporary political moment, when celebrity and politics seem to be inescapably intertwined. As Winberg notes in our conversation, television as an entity is inherently conservative, since the functional model was about appealing to the lowest common denominator so that advertisers would be willing to pay for time during shows. In order to reach the most viewers, at least in the age of network television, the television series needed to appeal to the largest market possible, and not “turn off” viewers. What happens in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the television show All in the Family is that this dynamic shifts, and the case is made that it isn't about reaching the most people, but about reaching the people who have the means and inclination to purchase what the advertisers are selling. This is part of the pitch that Norman Lear makes, that CBS executive Bob Wood finally decides to gamble on by greenlighting All in the Family. The dynamic inside the show itself is to focus on politics: to have the characters within the series discuss different political issues, and engage with the impacts of these issues, from women's rights and reproductive health to homosexuality to racism and the anti-war movement. In designing All in the Family with Archie Bunker (played by Carroll O'Conner) clearly defined as a conservative and as a bigot, and with Archie's daughter, Gloria Stivic (played by Sally Struthers) and son in law, Mike Stivic (played by Rob Reiner), as liberals and politically active, the show embedded politics within the narrative. Edith Bunker, played by Jean Stapleton, was an enthusiastic supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment, which was making its way through the ratification process while the series was airing, providing yet another avenue for political discussion within the show's structure. There were quite a few other shows that were developed at the same time as All in the Family that took up similarly political themes in iconic ways, from the Mary Tyler Moore Show to M*A*S*H to Maude. Political conversations were the fabric of these shows in much the same way as in All in the Family, where characters find themselves experiencing dimensions of politics in their lives and they discuss this with friends and family within the narrative construction. This also translated to Americans discussing these shows with each other at dinner, or at the “water cooler”, or at the beauty parlor or barbershop. Given the structure of television in the 1970s and 1980s, before cable and streaming services, options were more limited options, and many of these shows had great writers, actors, and showrunners. This was “appointment television” because there was no way to record or otherwise go back and watch the episode. Episodes were only available at their regularly scheduled time and day—which also meant that lots and lots of Americans were watching the same show at the same time. In some sense, Archie Bunker for President: How One Television Show Remade American Politics is not only about how one television show remade American politics, but also about how All in the Family remade American television, opening up the networks to developing and airing television shows that integrate politics (of all kinds) into the narratives. There is still quite a lot of television, particularly network television, that is pitched to the broadest possible audience, but the narratives in police procedurals or hospital-centered series or sitcoms integrate different dimensions of politics into their storylines in ways that had not been done before All in the Family. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

Political historian Oscar Winberg has a fascinating new book titled Archie Bunker for President: How One Television Show Remade American Politics. This book weaves together quite a few different threads in examining the historical context in which the television show, All In The Family, landed on American television screens. Archie Bunker for President examines why this particular sitcom was a kind of inflection point within U.S. politics, within the media landscape at the time and moving forward, and how television production shifted and changed around this one particular television series. Winberg also lays out the path from the early 1970s, when All in the Family first aired, to our contemporary political moment, when celebrity and politics seem to be inescapably intertwined. As Winberg notes in our conversation, television as an entity is inherently conservative, since the functional model was about appealing to the lowest common denominator so that advertisers would be willing to pay for time during shows. In order to reach the most viewers, at least in the age of network television, the television series needed to appeal to the largest market possible, and not “turn off” viewers. What happens in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the television show All in the Family is that this dynamic shifts, and the case is made that it isn't about reaching the most people, but about reaching the people who have the means and inclination to purchase what the advertisers are selling. This is part of the pitch that Norman Lear makes, that CBS executive Bob Wood finally decides to gamble on by greenlighting All in the Family. The dynamic inside the show itself is to focus on politics: to have the characters within the series discuss different political issues, and engage with the impacts of these issues, from women's rights and reproductive health to homosexuality to racism and the anti-war movement. In designing All in the Family with Archie Bunker (played by Carroll O'Conner) clearly defined as a conservative and as a bigot, and with Archie's daughter, Gloria Stivic (played by Sally Struthers) and son in law, Mike Stivic (played by Rob Reiner), as liberals and politically active, the show embedded politics within the narrative. Edith Bunker, played by Jean Stapleton, was an enthusiastic supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment, which was making its way through the ratification process while the series was airing, providing yet another avenue for political discussion within the show's structure. There were quite a few other shows that were developed at the same time as All in the Family that took up similarly political themes in iconic ways, from the Mary Tyler Moore Show to M*A*S*H to Maude. Political conversations were the fabric of these shows in much the same way as in All in the Family, where characters find themselves experiencing dimensions of politics in their lives and they discuss this with friends and family within the narrative construction. This also translated to Americans discussing these shows with each other at dinner, or at the “water cooler”, or at the beauty parlor or barbershop. Given the structure of television in the 1970s and 1980s, before cable and streaming services, options were more limited options, and many of these shows had great writers, actors, and showrunners. This was “appointment television” because there was no way to record or otherwise go back and watch the episode. Episodes were only available at their regularly scheduled time and day—which also meant that lots and lots of Americans were watching the same show at the same time. In some sense, Archie Bunker for President: How One Television Show Remade American Politics is not only about how one television show remade American politics, but also about how All in the Family remade American television, opening up the networks to developing and airing television shows that integrate politics (of all kinds) into the narratives. There is still quite a lot of television, particularly network television, that is pitched to the broadest possible audience, but the narratives in police procedurals or hospital-centered series or sitcoms integrate different dimensions of politics into their storylines in ways that had not been done before All in the Family. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI.

Political historian Oscar Winberg has a fascinating new book titled Archie Bunker for President: How One Television Show Remade American Politics. This book weaves together quite a few different threads in examining the historical context in which the television show, All In The Family, landed on American television screens. Archie Bunker for President examines why this particular sitcom was a kind of inflection point within U.S. politics, within the media landscape at the time and moving forward, and how television production shifted and changed around this one particular television series. Winberg also lays out the path from the early 1970s, when All in the Family first aired, to our contemporary political moment, when celebrity and politics seem to be inescapably intertwined. As Winberg notes in our conversation, television as an entity is inherently conservative, since the functional model was about appealing to the lowest common denominator so that advertisers would be willing to pay for time during shows. In order to reach the most viewers, at least in the age of network television, the television series needed to appeal to the largest market possible, and not “turn off” viewers. What happens in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the television show All in the Family is that this dynamic shifts, and the case is made that it isn't about reaching the most people, but about reaching the people who have the means and inclination to purchase what the advertisers are selling. This is part of the pitch that Norman Lear makes, that CBS executive Bob Wood finally decides to gamble on by greenlighting All in the Family. The dynamic inside the show itself is to focus on politics: to have the characters within the series discuss different political issues, and engage with the impacts of these issues, from women's rights and reproductive health to homosexuality to racism and the anti-war movement. In designing All in the Family with Archie Bunker (played by Carroll O'Conner) clearly defined as a conservative and as a bigot, and with Archie's daughter, Gloria Stivic (played by Sally Struthers) and son in law, Mike Stivic (played by Rob Reiner), as liberals and politically active, the show embedded politics within the narrative. Edith Bunker, played by Jean Stapleton, was an enthusiastic supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment, which was making its way through the ratification process while the series was airing, providing yet another avenue for political discussion within the show's structure. There were quite a few other shows that were developed at the same time as All in the Family that took up similarly political themes in iconic ways, from the Mary Tyler Moore Show to M*A*S*H to Maude. Political conversations were the fabric of these shows in much the same way as in All in the Family, where characters find themselves experiencing dimensions of politics in their lives and they discuss this with friends and family within the narrative construction. This also translated to Americans discussing these shows with each other at dinner, or at the “water cooler”, or at the beauty parlor or barbershop. Given the structure of television in the 1970s and 1980s, before cable and streaming services, options were more limited options, and many of these shows had great writers, actors, and showrunners. This was “appointment television” because there was no way to record or otherwise go back and watch the episode. Episodes were only available at their regularly scheduled time and day—which also meant that lots and lots of Americans were watching the same show at the same time. In some sense, Archie Bunker for President: How One Television Show Remade American Politics is not only about how one television show remade American politics, but also about how All in the Family remade American television, opening up the networks to developing and airing television shows that integrate politics (of all kinds) into the narratives. There is still quite a lot of television, particularly network television, that is pitched to the broadest possible audience, but the narratives in police procedurals or hospital-centered series or sitcoms integrate different dimensions of politics into their storylines in ways that had not been done before All in the Family. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/popular-culture

The Drive the Vote for Equality campaign stopped in Chicago this week to press for national recognition of the Equal Rights Amendment. On today's In the Loop, we look back at Illinois' complicated history with ERA, and find out how the current state of the fight for the ERA ties into today's battles over voting rights. At the table: Maureen Hellwig, president emeritus of the Chicago Women's History Center; the Rev. Janette Wilson, national director of PUSH for Excellence; and Laura Welch, National board member for the National Organization for Women. For a full archive of In the Loop interviews, head over to wbez.org/intheloop.

This episode features Caryn Hartglass and Gary De Mattei covering three big cultural flashpoints through an uncompromising, no-nonsense lens. Billie Eilish's viral callout of meat-eaters — her blunt Instagram post, the predictable backlash, and what the ugly comments reveal about where we are as a society. A look at Suffs, the Broadway musical bringing the women's suffrage movement back into the spotlight, and the hard-fought history behind the 19th Amendment and its connection to the animal rights movement. From there, the conversation shifts to the Equal Rights Amendment — still not enshrined in the Constitution over a century after it was first introduced, despite hitting the 38-state ratification threshold. After a discussion on rejuvenation and recharging when tired and frustrated with the long game of activism, they conclude with a segment on addiction, culture, and marketing. No softening, no sponsors to protect, just honest talk.

This Day in Legal History: Frontiero v. RichardsonOn May 14, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Frontiero v. Richardson, a major case in the development of constitutional protections against sex discrimination. The case began when Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, sought dependent benefits for her husband. Under federal law at the time, a male service member could automatically claim his wife as a dependent, but a female service member had to prove that her husband depended on her for more than half of his support. Frontiero argued that this rule treated women in the military as less legitimate breadwinners than men. The Supreme Court agreed that the policy violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. A plurality of the Court reasoned that sex-based legal classifications often reflected outdated assumptions about women's roles in family and public life.The decision came only a year after Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification, giving the case a larger political and constitutional backdrop. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then working with the ACLU Women's Rights Project, filed an amicus brief urging the Court to treat sex discrimination with the same suspicion it applied to race discrimination. The Court did not produce a majority for strict scrutiny in sex-discrimination cases, but Frontiero still marked a sharp move away from judicial tolerance of laws based on gender stereotypes. Justice William Brennan's plurality opinion emphasized that women had long faced legal and social discrimination, including restrictions on property ownership, voting, employment, and civic participation.The ruling helped establish that administrative convenience was not a sufficient reason for the government to impose unequal burdens on women. It also signaled that servicewomen were entitled to equal treatment within institutions, including the military, that had historically been structured around male service members. In later cases, the Court would settle on an intermediate scrutiny standard for sex-based classifications, but Frontiero remains one of the key cases that pushed constitutional law in that direction.The U.S. Department of Justice has settled an investigation into PayPal over a 2020 investment program aimed at supporting Black- and minority-owned businesses. The DOJ said PayPal's Economic Opportunity Fund gave preferences based on race, color, and national origin without being tied to a specific remedy for past discrimination. PayPal did not admit liability, and the settlement says the DOJ did not make a formal finding that the company violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act or other federal law. As part of the agreement, PayPal will create a new small business initiative that waives processing fees on $1 billion in transactions.The fee waivers are valued at about $30 million and will apply to small businesses in farming, manufacturing, and technology, as well as businesses certified through the SBA's Veteran Small Business Certification Program. PayPal must also submit plans for the initiative, train employees on ECOA requirements, and report annually to the government. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche framed the settlement as part of the Trump administration's broader effort to challenge corporate DEI programs. PayPal said it was pleased to launch the new initiative and emphasized its long history of helping small businesses use digital financial tools. The settlement follows another recent DOJ resolution with IBM over workforce diversity-related allegations, showing continued federal scrutiny of corporate DEI practices.PayPal Settles Gov't DEI Probe With Small Biz Program - Law360The SEC and Elon Musk are scheduled to appear before a federal judge in Washington, D.C., to defend their proposed $1.5 million settlement over Musk's 2022 purchase of Twitter. The SEC's lawsuit accused Musk of delaying his disclosure that he had acquired a 5% stake in Twitter, allegedly allowing him to save about $150 million before the market reacted. Musk later bought Twitter for $44 billion.U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan has not automatically approved the deal and said she must evaluate whether it is fair, in the public interest, and free from improper collusion or corruption. She ordered both sides to appear in court and be ready to suggest a schedule for briefing in support of the settlement. The SEC filed the case in January 2025, shortly before President Biden left office. Musk has argued the case was politically motivated and has said the late disclosure was accidental.The proposed settlement would not require Musk to admit wrongdoing or surrender the money the SEC claimed he saved. Although the amount is much lower than what the SEC initially sought, a source told Reuters it was still the largest SEC penalty for that type of disclosure violation.US SEC, Musk to argue for Twitter settlement before DC judge | ReutersU.S. law firms saw strong client demand and higher billing rates in the first quarter of 2026, but those gains were limited by rising expenses and lower productivity. According to the Thomson Reuters Institute's latest Law Firm Financial Index, the quarter was healthy overall but not as financially impressive as firms might have expected given the level of demand. The report suggests that 2026 may not match the strong profit growth many firms saw in 2025, though analysts said it is still too early to draw firm conclusions. Average demand rose 2.7% from the same period last year, which the report described as an unusually strong increase. M&A work grew 4.4%, while litigation and overall corporate work each rose 2.9%. Large firms continued to push billing rates sharply higher, with Am Law 100 firms raising rates by 9.8%, while midsized firms increased rates by 5.3%. But expenses climbed almost as quickly, with direct expenses up 8.1% and overhead up 8.3%. A major driver of overhead growth was spending on technology, including artificial intelligence tools.Geopolitical instability, including the war in Iran, has also created uncertainty, with deal activity slowing in March and restructuring work not rising as expected. The report frames the market as still strong, but with enough warning signs that firms may need to watch costs, productivity, and client demand closely in the next quarter.Rising US law firm expenses offset strong demand and rate hikes in first quarter - report | ReutersA U.S. appeals court has temporarily paused a lower court ruling that had favored three challengers to the Trump administration's 10% global tariff. The pause means the tariffs remain in effect for two businesses and Washington state while the appeal continues. The U.S. trade court had ruled against the tariffs last week but did not issue a broad order stopping their collection nationwide. The Trump administration appealed that decision, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a short-term administrative stay while it considers whether to grant a longer pause. The challengers now have seven days to argue against keeping the lower court ruling on hold. Washington state qualified as an importer in the case because the University of Washington, a public research institution, paid tariffs. The tariff was imposed in February under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, after the Supreme Court struck down most of Trump's 2025 tariffs. Unless Congress extends it, the 10% global tariff is scheduled to expire in July.US appeals court pauses ruling against Trump's 10% global tariff | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Send us Fan MailA weird, uncomfortable realization kicked this conversation off: the United States still doesn't clearly guarantee equal rights for women at the constitutional level, and we've been sliding backward on core freedoms that shape everyday life. As dads of daughters, that lands differently, so we went searching for something more useful than another round of online debate.We propose a simple framework you can argue with, improve, or steal: five tiers of women's rights, from basic property and independence, to voting power, to equal rights under law, to full equity in real life. We talk through what tactics historically worked at each stage and why the strategies that helped early wins do not automatically unlock the last two tiers. That's where policies like the Equal Rights Amendment, equal pay enforcement, reproductive autonomy, paid parental leave and universal childcare stop being “nice to have” and become the definition of freedom.Then we take aim at what we call “mangoes” media, academia and NGOs. We're not saying they're useless, but we are saying they can't be the engine. The engine is organized labor power: voting blocs, strikes, and boycotts that hit the pocketbook, backed by coalitions that can keep pressure on year after year. We dig into Me Too as a case study, and we point to Iceland's women's strike as a reminder of what coordinated action can do.If you want a practical, strategic conversation about feminism, labor unions, gender equality and how change actually happens, hit play, then subscribe, share this with a friend, and leave a review. What lever would you pull first: vote, strike, or boycott? Support the showHelp these new solutions spread by ...Subscribing wherever you listen to podcastsLeaving a 5-star review Sharing your favorite solution with your friends and network (this makes a BIG difference)Comments? Feedback? Questions? Solutions? Message us! We will do a mailbag episode.Email: solutionsfromthemultiverse@gmail.comAdam: @ajbraus - braus@hey.comScot: @scotmaupinadambraus.com (Link to Adam's projects and books)The Perfect Show (Scot's solo podcast)Thanks to Jonah Burns for the SFM music.

Many people have heard of Kate Kelly—the Mormon feminist who challenged church power—but few know her full story.In this episode of Mormon News Roundup, we trace her journey in chronological order: from a faithful member of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the founder of Ordain Women, and ultimately to a nationally recognized advocate for gender equality and the Equal Rights Amendment.This video covers:The founding of Ordain Women and the 2013 General Conference protestThe theological and ethical arguments for women's ordinationThe events leading up to her 2014 excommunicationNational media coverage and public reactionLife after the LDS Church, including activism in feminism and reproductive rightsHer evolution into a broader political and cultural voiceThrough interviews, speeches, and key moments, you'll see how Kate Kelly's story reflects the power—and cost—of challenging institutional authority from within.

The law says “equal protection,” but Wendy Murphy argues the U.S. legal system still keeps women on the outside of that promise and the proof is in how gender-based violence gets handled. From rape statutes that require force to charging practices that slow-walk sexual assault complaints, we trace how constitutional doctrine, policing discretion, and courtroom culture combine to under-protect women and girls and to re-victimize survivors who try to seek justice. Wendy, an attorney and former child abuse and sex crimes prosecutor, breaks down the difference between equity and equality in plain language: equality is the constitutional floor that controls how government must treat people, while equity is impossible to achieve on top of a broken baseline. She explains how the legacy of coverture and the Supreme Court's approach after Reed v. Reed produced what she calls “unequal equal rights,” leaving room for laws to be enforced differently and worse when the victim is female. We also dig into stark examples: rape laws that treat bodily autonomy as less protected than property, hate crime statutes that often exclude sex, and evidence rules and courtroom orders that burden victims in ways other crime victims never face. From there we shift to what can actually change. Wendy walks us through the Equal Rights Amendment's long fight, why litigation still matters, and why education is a missing catalyst for constitutional reform. We also talk about Title IX enforcement in schools and why treating sex-based civil rights as second-class shapes girls' expectations of safety for life. If you care about criminal justice reform, victims' rights, constitutional law, or ending violence against women, this conversation gives you a clearer map of the problem and a strategy for action. Check out Wendy's related article, "Unequal Protection of the Laws for Women is ConstitutionalTerrorism, So How Come Nobody Knows About It?": https://digitalcommons.onu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1357&context=onu_law_review

Robin Ritch has spent her career building things that matter. She has led teams at Microsoft, Intel, and Cisco, and most recently served as President and Publisher of Deseret News Publishing Company, where she helped transform a 172-year-old institution into a nationally recognized digital voice. Throughout her career, Robin has had a knack for seeing around corners. She has launched new products, modernized organizations, and brought together unlikely communities around conversations that matter. She gives back through board service at The Policy Project, WikiCharities, Social Venture Partners, and Mission Edge, organizations working to make communities stronger. For as long as she can remember, Robin has been fascinated by women and their relationship with God. That lifelong curiosity is what led her to write “Using Friction to Grow”, her first book. Robin examines case studies of Latter-day Saint women who navigated significant social and ecclesiastical changes during the 1970s. She discusses how these women managed friction from society, family, and the Church to develop deeper discipleship and personal sanctification. Links Using Friction to Grow: Stories of Strength and Resilience, LDS Women 1968-1976 Watch the video and share your thoughts in the Zion Lab community Transcript available with the video in the Zion Lab community Highlights Key Insights The Purpose of Friction: Friction is a divine design intended to slow individuals down, allowing them to refine their relationship with God and smooth away “rough edges” of character. Personal vs. Organizational Revelation: Individuals may receive personal revelation for their own lives that precedes broader organizational shifts within the Church. Historical Resilience: Women in the 1970s drew strength from the stories of their suffragette grandmothers, recognizing that navigating tension within a faith community is not a new phenomenon. Individual Agency and Revelation: The women Robin interviewed did not view Church counsel as a reason to stop their personal progression; instead, they used it as a prompt to seek their own confirmed answers through prayer and fasting. Grace for Diverse Paths: These women practiced deep empathy, recognizing that God provides unique answers for different individuals and that one person’s path does not dictate the “correct” path for everyone else. Leadership Applications Validating the Struggle: Leaders can help members understand that feeling “friction” with a policy or teaching is not a sign of unworthiness but an opportunity for a sanctifying “wrestle” with God. Managing Implementation: Recognizing the gap between revelation and organizational implementation helps leaders be more patient with institutional changes and more supportive of members who see needs before the organization adapts. 00:02:00 – Robin’s Book: Using Friction to Grow 00:03:00 – The Importance of Women’s Stories 00:04:00 – The 1970s: A Time of Friction for Women 00:06:00 – The Equal Rights Amendment and Church Response 00:07:00 – Personal Stories of Friction and Faith 00:09:00 – Navigating Friction in Faith Communities 00:10:00 – The Role of Personal Revelation 00:12:00 – The Nature of Friction in Growth 00:13:00 – Engaging with Friction for Personal Growth 00:15:00 – The Evolution of Church Practices 00:17:00 – The Importance of Change and Growth 00:18:00 – Balancing Hope and Disappointment in Faith 00:20:00 – The Role of Friction in Personal Development 00:21:00 – Story of a Woman’s Experience with Church Leadership 00:24:00 – Finding Strength in Christ Amidst Friction 00:25:00 – The Impact of Personal Stories 00:27:00 – The Need for Women’s Voices in the Church 00:29:00 – Encouragement for Women in Parenting 00:30:00 – Broadening Engagement Beyond Parenting 00:32:00 – The Importance of Sharing Light 00:33:00 – The Role of Leaders in Navigating Friction 00:37:00 – Understanding Different Perspectives 00:40:00 – The Influence of Social Media on Women’s Stories 00:41:00 – The Responsibility of the Hearer in Storytelling The award-winning Leading Saints Podcast is one of the top independent Latter-day Saints podcasts as part of nonprofit Leading Saints’ mission to help Latter-day Saints be better prepared to lead. Find Leadership Tools, Courses, and Community for Latter-day Saint leaders in the Zion Lab community. Learn more and listen to any of the past episodes for free at LeadingSaints.org. Past guests include Emily Belle Freeman, David Butler, Hank Smith, John Bytheway, Reyna and Elena Aburto, Liz Wiseman, Stephen M. R. Covey, Benjamin Hardy, Elder Alvin F. Meredith III, Julie Beck, Brad Wilcox, Jody Moore, Tony Overbay, John H. Groberg, Elaine Dalton, Tad R. Callister, Lynn G. Robbins, J. Devn Cornish, Bonnie Oscarson, Dennis B. Neuenschwander, Kirby Heyborne, Taysom Hill, Coaches Jennifer Rockwood and Brandon Doman, Anthony Sweat, John Hilton III, Barbara Morgan Gardner, Blair Hodges, Whitney Johnson, Ryan Gottfredson, Greg McKeown, Ganel-Lyn Condie, Michael Goodman, Wendy Ulrich, Richard Ostler, and many more in over 800 episodes. Discover podcasts, articles, virtual conferences, and live events related to callings such as the bishopric, Relief Society, elders quorum, Primary, youth leadership, stake leadership, ward mission, ward council, young adults, ministering, and teaching.

Last time we trashed the standard narrative that modern conservative movements are organic, bottom-up uprisings.  Instead, what has appeared to be grassroots radicalization and mobilization is more often a soup of grievance politics stirred by elite capture and institutional control. Conservative power is less spontaneous rebellion, and mostly a coordinated, long-term business class welfare project. This is a sample of a premium episode. Sign up to listen to the entire episode. patreon.com/wetwired Whether we're talking about anti-abortion campaigns, fighting gay marriage, or resisting the Equal Rights Amendment, what looks like ground-up conservative mobilization has been shaped and reshaped by elite priorities or simply absorbed and redirected toward preexisting economic goals.  No doubt, grassroots anger is real but when it translates to policy (lol) it tends to preserve donor-class interests, with the scantiest symbolic concessions masking structural continuity. For every bathroom bill, there's a corporate tax break. Popular outrage supplies energy, legitimacy, and votes, while elites retain control over funding, media ecosystems, legal pipelines, and economic policy. The result is a kinder and more gentle managed populism mobilized from below, governed from above—where the appearance of radical change often conceals long-term institutional stability. There are probably some true believers up at the top who hate trans people and immigrants, but those people are also self-maximizing actors and they're never going to pass on that sweet free government money. Now we're going to pick up where we left off last time with the identity crisis of modern conservatism from the post-9/11 era through the Tea Party, the proto-Chad Alt-Right, Trump 1, through grandpa's turn at the wheel, and into Trump 2 and the current Heritage/MAGA realignment. Each apparent insurgency: the Tea Party, message board white nationalism and even QAnon has been either financed, absorbed, or neutralized by existing power structures, with grievance politics serving as fuel for institutional continuity.  What looks like political insurgency settles into consolidation, as factions spin out, rebrand, and are folded back into the broader conservative coalition. When the dust settles, it's always money who's left standing. Fly your crypto-leftist flag with our personal love letter to Juan José Arévalo, philosopher and socialist president of Guatemala, and the airline he nationalized. wetwired.printful.me/

This is part 7 in the series. (Part 6 was the episode on 5 Feb, 2026). We're continuing our discussion of the chapter called "Sex." Chapter 3. We finish that chapter today. The next chapter is War. We discuss his sub-chapters starting at "Roe v. Wade and the Supreme Court" on page 53 and discuss the book Our Bodies, Ourselves and the Equal Rights Amendment, both titles of subsections in the chapter on Sex. This is a continuation of a transformative reading and fair use of Chris Caldwell's "The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties" published by Simon and Schuster in 2020. We'd like to thank Chris Caldwell for writing it, Simon and Schuster for making it available, and encourage you to purchase your own physical copy of the book so that you can follow along. Please support brick and mortar book dealers, you local book dealers. I'd like to thank my former political philosophy student Matt Stone (Phil M03: Social and Political Philosophy at Moorpark College, Spring 2008) for purchasing my copy of the book for me and supporting TRP podcast. Let's foster a culture that values good authors and good books, physical books, and honors and rewards publishers for making those books available for us to read and to think about. Please support this author and this publisher. Also, support your local brick and mortar book dealer, dealers in physical books. The Republican Professor is a pro-political-phenomeonology-done-right podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

Episode 451 of Friends Talking Nerdy continues the show's History Month theme as Professor Aubrey and Tim The Nerd dive into an insightful and thought-provoking discussion about Women's History and the way history itself is often presented to us.The episode begins with a conversation about a problem many people don't notice until they step back and think about it: the way history is taught in schools often leaves out major pieces of the story. Professor Aubrey and Tim The Nerd explore how educational narratives can simplify complex movements, sometimes unintentionally turning living, breathing struggles into something that feels distant or finished. One striking example they discuss is how Civil Rights history is frequently framed through black-and-white photographs and a narrow set of classroom stories, which can subtly give the impression that these struggles belong entirely to the distant past. In reality, many Civil Rights leaders lived well into what we would consider the modern era, reminding us that these movements are far closer to our present than textbooks sometimes suggest.From there, the conversation turns toward the Women's Movement in the United States, where the hosts explore the different historical “waves” of feminism and the evolving goals that defined each era. They break down how early movements focused heavily on suffrage and legal recognition, while later waves expanded to address workplace equality, reproductive rights, cultural expectations, and broader social structures. As part of this discussion, Professor Aubrey and Tim The Nerd highlight key figures whose work helped shape these movements, including Susan B. Anthony and Alice Paul. They discuss Anthony's central role in the fight for women's suffrage in the 19th century and Paul's later activism that pushed the movement forward in the early 20th century, including her more militant strategies and her role in advocating for the Equal Rights Amendment.The episode also branches into a fascinating conversation about media, culture, and morality when the hosts discuss a video from the Council Of Geeks YouTube channel titled “Your Media Diet Is Not Your Morals,” hosted by Vera Wylde. Professor Aubrey and Tim The Nerd reflect on the idea that the media people enjoy—whether movies, books, or music—does not automatically define their values as human beings. The discussion touches on how audiences interact with stories, how art can explore uncomfortable ideas, and why separating fictional engagement from personal morality is an important part of media literacy.As always, the episode closes with the fan-favorite Songs Of The Week segment. Professor Aubrey brings a classic singer-songwriter pick with “All I Want” by Joni Mitchell, while Tim The Nerd delivers a dramatic and unexpected cover with “Thunderstruck” by Hellsongs, the lounge-style reinterpretation of the famous AC/DC anthem.Blending history, culture, media analysis, and great music, Episode 451 of Friends Talking Nerdy continues History Month with a lively conversation that challenges listeners to think about how history is told, whose voices get remembered, and why the past often feels further away than it really is.As always, we wish to thank Christopher Lazarek for his wonderful theme song. Head to his ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for information on how to purchase his EP, Here's To You, which is available on all digital platforms.Head to Friends Talking Nerdy's⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠for more information on where to find us online.

John talks with former Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney on her leading a national campaign to finalize the Equal Rights Amendment and permanently protect women's rights. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this International Women's Day, Brian speaks with Professor Jacqueline Murray, PhD, FRSC, FRHistS, University Professor Emerita of History at the University of Guelph, about the fragility of women's rights and the historical forces that shape gender equality. They explore:Historical roots: From biblical texts to Enlightenment philosophy, how ideas about gender shaped legal and social inequality.Milestones and limits: The U.S. Equal Rights Amendment, Canada's 1927 Persons Case, and the gaps these reforms left.Contemporary challenges: Resurgent anti-feminist movements, abortion rights rollbacks, online misogyny, and threats to democratic institutions.Professor Murray emphasizes that rights are not permanent—they are political achievements that require vigilance to maintain.

Send a textRebecca Delahunt, director of public policy for Minnesota Family Council, joined Liz Collin on her podcast and talked about the latest developments with the so-called Equal Rights Amendment.Among her many concerns, Delahunt explained that "if this were to pass, it would give much higher legal protection for males to be housed at Shakopee,” Minnesota's prison for women. She said it could also lead to protections in the state constitution that would allow criminals to change their names and birth certificates and “practically disappear without a court order.”Support the show

Monday, January 20th, 2025Americans celebrate Martin Luther King Jr's legacy and the struggle for freedom, equality, and justice. A prominent leader in the modern civil rights movement, Dr. King was a tireless advocate for racial equality, working class, and the oppressed around the world. TikTok is back online after a farce rescue from the man who originally wanted to ban it; Trump launches a crypto rug pull scam; Elon Musk is dispatching agents across government agencies; the SCOTUSblog publisher has been indicted on tax charges; CNN is moving Jim Acosta's show to the middle of the night; President Biden makes a statement on the Equal Rights Amendment and commutes the sentences of 2,500 non violent drug offenders; the US grounds SpaceX Starship after another explosion; Vivek Ramaswamy will announce a run for Ohio governor; CBS kisses the ring by discussing a settlement with Trump in their defamation suit; Chicago and San Diego brace for immigration enforcement operations; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News. Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:https://apple.co/3XNx7ckWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://patreon.com/thedailybeanshttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/https://apple.co/3UKzKt0 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Award-winning authors Katie Rich and Heather Sundahl explore 2 controversies: Ordain Women & Equal Rights Amendment in the sometimes turbulent history of Exponent II during the late 20th century and its evolution into the digital age. The discussion centers on the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and how it marked a “watershed moment” for Mormon feminism. While many LDS women initially supported the ERA, the Church’s stance shifted after Phyllis Schlafly convinced leadership that the amendment was a threat to the family. This led to a massive, coordinated effort where the church deployed 13,000 women to the 1977 International Women's Year meeting in Salt Lake City to vote against nearly every proposal, including protections for victims of rape and childhood education. https://youtu.be/fW6UiSJehCo Don't miss our other conversations about Mormon feminism: https://gospeltangents.com/lds_theology/feminism/ Copyright © 2026 Gospel Tangents All Rights Reserved A central figure in this era was Sonia Johnson, a “firebrand” who founded Mormons for ERA and publicly challenged the church’s covert lobbying efforts. Her excommunication in 1979 was particularly shocking because it was based on her political activism and public reach rather than moral failings. The authors note that the Church often distinguishes between private belief and public dissent; while many shared Sonia’s views, her large platform made her a target for disciplinary action. The conversation also highlights how Exponent II has navigated these tensions by prioritizing “community over ideological purity”. Unlike more direct activist groups like Ordained Women, Exponent II provides a platform for a wide spectrum of voices, from those seeking ordination to those who find power in traditional roles. This is exemplified in their “priesthood issue,” which contrasted the experiences of women who felt marginalized by their inability to give blessings with those who, like Diane Pritchette, believe women already possess inherent spiritual power. The authors conclude by discussing the historical precedent of Mormon women giving blessings by the laying on of hands—a practice that was common until the 1930s and continues in private settings today, despite official discouragement. We highlighted the distinction between direct activist movements and the platform-based approach of Exponent II. While the two share common threads, Exponent 2 remaines a space for diverse perspectives rather than an organization that took an official stance on the ordination of women. The authors describe Ordain Women as a movement focused on direct activism, whereas Exponent II is a feminist platform that hosts a “Mormon continuum” of voices, including those who are active, inactive, ex-Mormon, or never Mormon. Many early profiles for the Ordain Women movement, which utilized a style similar to the “I'm a Mormon” campaign, were actually Exponent II bloggers. Kate Kelly, the founder of Ordain Women, participated in Exponent II retreats. She was featured on a panel that specifically discussed women and the priesthood, showcasing how the organization fostered dialogue on controversial topics without mandating a “universal stance”. A specific quarterly issue of the Exponent 2 magazine was dedicated to the priesthood to explore the topic’s complexity67. This issue highlighted two contrasting viewpoints: ◦ Abby Hansen, a member of Ordain Women, shared the pain of feeling disconnected from spiritual power, specifically the difficulty of needing to seek blessings from “random” home teachers while her husband was away in the military. ◦ A Relief Society president in Boston, recounted an instance where she laid her hands on a woman’s head to give a blessing during a crisis, operating under the belief that women already possess inherent spiritual power and do not need to “agitate” for others to give it to them. The desire for ordination is often linked to the lost history of Mormon women giving blessings. Women historically performed healings by the laying on of hands until the 1930s, as mentioned by Jonathan Stapley and Kristine Wright. The practice still occurs in private, “unauthorized” settings today among both feminists and traditionalists who feel a spiritual confidence to act in moments of crisis. Don't miss our other conversations about Mormon feminism: https://gospeltangents.com/lds_theology/feminism/ Copyright © 2026 Gospel Tangents All Rights Reserved

Mormon women led by Claudia Bushman started the Exponent II organization in Boston while her husband Richard Bushman was stake president. Claudia caused waves when she spoke about Mormon feminism and black priesthood ordination in the 1970s before the Equal Rights Amendment & black ordination became bigger issues in the LDS Church. Salt Lake City sent an apostle to shut down the organization. Award winning authors Katie Rich & Heather Sundahl detail these early days of Exponent II in their history of 50 years in the organization. Check out our conversation… https://youtu.be/CGUWDGlv87I 0:00 Meet the Authors 5:06 Living History 19:46 Bushmans in Boston Don't miss our other conversations about Mormon feminism: https://gospeltangents.com/lds_theology/feminism/ Copyright © 2025 Gospel Tangents All Rights Reserved Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission Award-winning authors Katie Rich and Heather Sundal chronicled the five-decade history of the organization in their book, 50 Years of Exponent II. The story began in July 1974, when a group of LDS women in Boston felt inspired to create a new platform for women's voices. This inspiration was sparked by the discovery of the original Woman's Exponent (1872–1914) in Harvard’s Widener Library—a suffragist paper that showcased the complex lives of early Mormon women who balanced faith with activism. The organization grew out of a successful community project: a guidebook titled Beginners’ Boston. While the local Elders Quorum dismissed the guidebook as a “stinker of an idea,” the Relief Society took it on, eventually selling 23,000 copies! This success provided the women with both the confidence and the funds to launch a more ambitious project: Exponent II. The timing was critical, as the official Relief Society Magazine had been shuttered in 1970 due to the church’s correlation movement, leaving women without an official outlet for their unique perspectives. Claudia Bushman However, the publication quickly faced tension with Church leadership in Salt Lake City. In 1975, Area Authority Robert D. Hales met with founder Claudia Bushman, specifically requesting that the paper cease publication because he believed it would “come to no good”. Leadership was particularly concerned about the paper’s hand-drawn art, which they felt looked “subversive,” and Claudia’s public comments in the Boston Globe regarding racial policies in the Church. Later, Apostle L. Tom Perry met with the staff, strongly suggesting they shut down and explicitly stating that Claudia Bushman must resign as editor to avoid the appearance that the paper was an official church publication, given that her husband, Richard Bushman, was the Stake President. Despite these pressures, the women chose to continue, prioritizing community over ideological purity. When Claudia Bushman eventually resigned, the organization avoided collapse by shifting from a model based on a charismatic leader to a collective, decentralized effort. By focusing on personal narratives rather than a “one-size-fits-all” perspective, Exponent II has remained a vital lifeline for women seeking to explore the complexities of their lives and faith for over fifty years. Don't miss our other conversations with Mormon feminism: https://gospeltangents.com/lds_theology/feminism/ Copyright © 2025 Gospel Tangents All Rights Reserved Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission

Happy Winter holidays to all of our listeners! We hope you are warm and cozy as you listen to this, our 116th handcrafted, collectively created podcast. In this month's edition, Freda interviews Wendy Murphy, an experienced impact litigator working fiercely to gain equal protection for women under the law. Wendy has won numerous cases setting precedent and leading to changes in the law for women regarding sexual assault and protecting the constitutional and civil rights of victimized women and children. To listen to Wendy Murphy bring her case to court on December 16th at 2pm Eastern time you can use the following website. It is possible to register two days in advance. https://forms.mad.uscourts.gov/courtlist.html You can read Wendy's Constitutional Terrorism article that details the Equal Rights Amendment, its herstory, and its importance in more detail than she had time to provide in her interview here: https://8fdaf192-a63f-4cc1-ba48-30c5727fb699.usrfiles.com/ugd/8fdaf1_b95d74efe47e437abcf29301af7a10b8.pdf And here is a link to Wendy Murphy's book Oh No He Didn't: Brilliant Women and the Men Who Took Credit for Their Work. Her book includes a discussion about women's inequality and ties to the problem of men taking credit for women's work: https://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Brilliant-Women-Credit-Their/dp/1947976478/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=7W5QB3UD3NSW&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.E2dmW1SmEINDuhKhtXPlPLZmNtT0WR6WnGCHuF4ZbtulZayM_NULVg_aD39TCnXEXwCILf_svyZ3MCbNtgyw9jeIEby5dUtQh8ra378hrnVn2Dg1JCB8Z2E_tJY0Q0fzrv-H97ahAYLOyqldRKD84wM52_YgBXTdw5tksAreiwRO9Epsg7uxHFMRuRJs7Zk5ZP2WfQwB2_FQy2St3ByK_A.uBD0ckSRUUzY_vegQwKtrJrseNHYSW_6AYsyEbNQMYU&dib_tag=se&keywords=oh+no+he+didnt&qid=1737175237&sprefix=oh+no+he+didnt%2Caps%2C83&sr=8-1#aw-udpv3-customer-reviews_feature_div Wendy Murphy works with the organization EQUAL MEANS EQUAL, a national non-profit organization dedicated to the immediate publication, adoption and enforcement of the original Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the U.S. Constitution, which became enforceable federal law on January 27th of 2022. You can get involved here: https://equalmeansequal.org/ You can hear Wendy speak more here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6tnXAMpZsS8 Wendy referenced the feminist activism group FIST. Feminists in Struggle (“FIST”) is a national female-only radical feminist network, democratically run, and composed of individuals born female and affiliated female-only feminist organizations. You can find FIST here: https://feministstruggle.org/ Thanks for staying tuned to WLRN, your feminist-community powered radio station in the Femisphere!

EASY LISTENING DEP'T.: [THE WASHINGTON POST] "Mr. Cheney supported tax cuts and defense spending increases, like nearly all Republicans, but he joined the rightmost wing in voting against a federal holiday honoring the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., as well as the Equal Rights Amendment, creation of the Education Department, a ban on armor-piercing bullets, and anti-apartheid sanctions on South Africa. He likewise opposed Head Start for preschool children, the Superfund Program for Toxic Waste Cleanup, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. The one exception to his otherwise blanket endorsement of hard-right culture war positions was his support, eventually, of gay marriage, apparently brought on strictly because one of his own daughters was a lesbian." Please visit, read, and support INDIGNITY! https://www.indignity.net/

BigTent hosted a TentTalk on Wednesday, October 15 at 12:00PM ET featuring Sandy Radoff and Claire Ullman, co-founders of Students for Voting Justice, and Andrea Miller, founding board member of the Center for Common Ground. The discussion offered an in-depth briefing on the state of the 2025 Virginia elections and highlighted effective Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) strategies. Speakers shared how young leaders across the Commonwealth are mobilizing voters through grassroots tactics, youth-focused outreach, and strong partnerships with community and campus networks to drive turnout and civic engagement. Learn more about Students for Voting Justice: https://www.studentsforvotingjustice.org/ Learn more about Center for Common Ground: https://www.centerforcommonground.org/ ABOUT THE SPEAKERS Sandy Radoff is a researcher and statistician who had her own business as a marketing and opinion research consultant for over 20 years. She has a Masters Degree in Applied Mathematics and Statistics and went back to graduate school to indulge her passion by completing all the coursework towards a Masters Degree in political science. For the past several years, she has spent considerable time as an activist focusing on the environment and social justice. Being Co-Director of Students for Voting Justice has brought the most meaningful pieces of her life together in one place. Sandra lives in New York City with her husband and has two grown children, a son and a daughter, both Millennials. Claire Ullman taught political science and public policy at Barnard College and the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs until co-founding Students for Voting Justice in 2020. She has a Ph.D. in political science from Columbia University and a BA from Harvard University. Before she went to graduate school, Claire helped found an emergency shelter for homeless women and children in Seattle as a VISTA volunteer and then stayed on as its development officer and then its Assistant Director. She served on the board of the Grand Street Settlement in New York City from 1995 to 2008. Finally, and perhaps most relevant to her current job as Co-Director of Students for Justice, Claire is the parent of three recent college graduates. Andrea Miller is the Founding Board Member of the Center for Common Ground, Executive Director of People Demanding Action, Founding President of the National Women's Political Caucus of Virginia, and a member of the Democracy and Governance working group of the Virginia Green New Deal. Andrea is an IT and Political Director and a digital and elections strategist. She designs and administers digital phone banks and texting programs. From 2013 to 2015, she led the Progressive Round Table on Capitol Hill, bringing together members of Congress, activists, and non-profit leaders. Her expertise is in voting rights, climate, and the Equal Rights Amendment. She has successfully advocated for legislation on both the Federal and State level. In 2008 she was the Democratic nominee for the Virginia 4th Congressional district. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit bigtentnews.substack.com

This is the second part of our epic deep dive into the life of Phyllis Schlafly -- the far-right firebrand who brought down an amendment and arguably helped transform a political party. In Part 2, Moira walks Adrian through Schlafly's attack on the Equal Rights Amendment, and how she pioneered a whole new style of politics to defeat what had been essentially a done deal -- or carried it into the mainstream, at any rate.Here is a list of books we'll be referring to in both parts of this episode:Andrea Dworkin, Right Wing WomenJane J. Mansbridge, How We Lost the ERAMarjorie J. Spruill, Divided We StandDonald T. Critchlow, Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots ConservatismPhyllis Schlafly, A Choice Not an EchoPhyllis Schlafly, Strike from Space

In the latest conversation in the Talking San Diego series, Harry sits down with Harvard historian and New Yorker writer Jill Lepore in front of a live San Diego audience to discuss Lepore's important new book, “We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution.” The book contains revelations about the importance to the Framers of the Amendment process, which Lepore argues has become a dead letter since the failure of the proposed Equal RIghts Amendment.  In its stead various generations of Americans have looked to either political events or, more recently, the U.S. Supreme Court, to announce fundamental changes in our charter document, with significant consequences for the democracy  In her book, as in her conversation with Harry, Lepore challenges the Supreme Court's dominant doctrine of originalism; and she rallies Americans to be able to become more personally involved in repairing fundamental problems with the Constitution. The book was released for purchase Tuesday, September 16. This event was made possible by the generous support of the Prebys Foundation, which made it possible for local high school teachers and students to attend free of charge; by KPBS who have their own deep dive series on the American founding coming out in November in the form of a new Ken Burns series; and by Warwicks, our bookselling partners.  You can read more about Jill's book in the Atlantic and the New York Times.   Talk to you later Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Moira walks Adrian through the life and times of Phyllis Schlafly -- the far-right firebrand who brought down an amendment and arguably helped transform a political party. This first part charts Schlafly's path before she launched her crusade against the Equal Rights Amendment, focusing on: Paleoconservatism, America First, the John Birch Society, Cold Warriors, Goldwater Gilrls and space-based weaponry (for some reason).Here is a list of books we'll be referring to in both parts of this episode:Andrea Dworkin, Right Wing WomenJane J. Mansbridge, How We Lost the ERAMarjorie J. Spruill, Divided We StandDonald T. Critchlow, Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots ConservatismPhyllis Schlafly, A Choice Not an EchoPhyllis Schlafly, Strike from Space

On Mission Matters, Adam Torres interviews Zakiya Thomas, President & CEO of the ERA Coalition, representing 300 partner organizations and 80 million people nationwide. Zakiya shares updates on the Equal Rights Amendment, the new “Claim the 28th” campaign, and how communities can take action to ensure constitutional gender equality is recognized and enforced. Big thanks to ⁠Take The Lead Women⁠! Follow Adam on Instagram at ⁠https://www.instagram.com/askadamtorres/⁠ for up to date information on book releases and tour schedule. Apply to be a guest on our podcast: ⁠https://missionmatters.lpages.co/podcastguest/⁠ Visit our website: ⁠https://missionmatters.com/⁠ More FREE content from Mission Matters here: ⁠https://linktr.ee/missionmattersmedia⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Marcy Syms is a pioneering businesswoman and advocate for respect in leadership. She's seen leadership fads come and go. She was a CEO when people still thought “women shouldn't do that sort of thing”  And she's done something many folks have never had to endure - shuttering her family's business while making her key creditors whole - an act deeply in line with her core value of respect. Marcy shares insights from her journey in the retail industry, her experiences with leadership dynamics  and her advocacy for the Equal Rights Amendment - something she hopes to see made part of the constitution while she's still around to enjoy it! Why Respect?

This Day in Legal History: Nineteenth Amendment CertifiedOn this day in legal history, August 26, 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was formally certified by Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby, granting women the right to vote nationwide. The certification marked the culmination of a nearly century-long struggle led by suffragists like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and later Alice Paul and Ida B. Wells, who fought for political inclusion through protests, civil disobedience, and persistent lobbying. The amendment's ratification by Tennessee—by a single vote—on August 18, 1920, provided the necessary 36th state approval to satisfy constitutional requirements.The Nineteenth Amendment's language is deceptively simple: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged... on account of sex.” But its legal impact was profound, constitutionally guaranteeing the franchise to half the population that had long been excluded. The certification did not end all voting discrimination—many women of color, particularly Black and Native American women, continued to face racist barriers to the ballot—but it was a foundational legal step toward gender equality in civic life.August 26 is now recognized as Women's Equality Day, established by Congress in 1971, to honor the legal and political significance of the Nineteenth Amendment and to commemorate the broader fight for women's rights. The legal principle enshrined in the amendment echoes in later equality jurisprudence, forming part of the constitutional backdrop to cases involving gender discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.The Nineteenth Amendment also represented a rare moment when a constitutional change directly expanded democratic participation, in contrast to more procedural or structural amendments. It altered not just who could vote, but how lawmakers and courts would later consider the role of gender in public policy and civil rights. The amendment continues to serve as a legal and symbolic foundation for subsequent laws and cases advancing gender equity, including Title IX and the push for the Equal Rights Amendment.On August 26, the legal history of suffrage becomes not only a story of amendment certification, but of constitutional transformation through organized legal and political struggle.U.S. Senator Ron Wyden has called on Chief Justice John Roberts to initiate an independent investigation into the federal judiciary's cybersecurity practices, following a significant breach of the court system's electronic case management system. In a letter, Wyden urged Roberts to involve the National Academy of Sciences in reviewing both the recent and previous hacks—highlighting that foreign actors, possibly including Russia, exploited the same vulnerabilities in both incidents.Wyden criticized the system as outdated, insecure, and costly, noting this was the second major breach since 2020. He emphasized that sensitive data, including information on confidential informants and sealed case files, may have been compromised. The judiciary's handling of cybersecurity, Wyden argued, has repeatedly failed to meet the standards expected of institutions entrusted with highly sensitive information.The senator pointed out that despite years of warnings and expert recommendations, the judiciary has lagged in updating its technology. U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Scudder recently admitted in testimony that the case management system is obsolete and needs replacement. Wyden also noted that while executive branch agencies have been using multi-factor authentication since 2015, the judiciary will not implement it until the end of 2025.Wyden has long advocated for transparency and modernization in the court system, including efforts to make the PACER database free. His latest request underscores growing bipartisan concern over national security implications tied to the federal courts' digital infrastructure.US senator calls for independent review of federal judiciary cybersecurity | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration can move forward with a provision in its recent spending bill that bars Medicaid funding from going to abortion providers in Maine. The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Lance Walker—a Trump appointee—rejected a request by Maine Family Planning to block the provision, part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed by Congress in July. The organization argued the law unfairly targeted them and violated their constitutional rights, but the judge declined to intervene, emphasizing the law was a product of the democratic process.Walker acknowledged that the policy might be unwise but stressed it is not the judiciary's role to override legislative choices based on policy disagreements. Maine Family Planning, the state's largest reproductive healthcare provider, warned that the ruling could force clinic closures and reductions in care, impacting around 8,000 patients annually.The case is one of two major legal challenges to the law. A separate federal judge in Boston has temporarily blocked the same provision as it applies to Planned Parenthood nationwide, and that ruling is under appeal. The Maine case focused on how the law would impact two of the state's main abortion providers and argued it violated equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment by singling them out.Judge Walker, however, found that Congress has the authority to direct federal funds in ways consistent with its policy goals, including discouraging abortion—a procedure that is no longer protected as a constitutional right following the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.Trump administration can withhold Medicaid funding from Maine abortion providers, judge rules | ReutersPresident Donald Trump has moved to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, alleging she made false statements on mortgage applications—an accusation she denies. The unprecedented move, announced via Truth Social, sent financial markets into a brief stir, with long-term Treasury yields rising and the dollar dipping, reflecting concerns over the Fed's independence. Cook, appointed by President Biden and confirmed in 2022, has vowed not to resign and plans legal action, arguing that Trump lacks authority to remove her without proper cause.Trump claims Cook's conduct shows “gross negligence” and undermines trust in the Fed. However, under the Federal Reserve Act, governors can only be removed “for cause,” a standard historically interpreted to mean inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct while in office. Cook's alleged mortgage misstatements predate her time at the Fed, making the legal grounds for removal murky.This attempt follows months of Trump's public attacks on the Fed for keeping interest rates high. If successful, it would allow him to reshape the board with dovish policymakers more favorable to rate cuts. Critics, including Senator Elizabeth Warren and legal scholars, denounced the move as a political power grab and a threat to central bank independence.The Department of Justice may investigate Cook following a criminal referral, but no charges have been filed. Legal experts suggest the case could test the Supreme Court's recent statements on limits to presidential power over independent agencies. Meanwhile, Cook has reiterated her commitment to her role and refuses to step down amid what she calls political bullying.Trump Moves to Fire Fed's Cook, Setting Up Historic Legal FightAnd in my column this week, a story out of Utah. A small town in Utah, Wellington, is facing public backlash after proposing a 225% property tax hike—a dramatic response to years of avoiding smaller, routine tax increases. This financial crisis wasn't caused by a single year of overspending but rather by elected officials deferring necessary tax adjustments since 2017, despite rising costs for services and infrastructure. While avoiding tax hikes may have seemed politically savvy, it left the town with a nearly $400,000 budget shortfall that now demands a painful correction.The Wellington situation illustrates a broader problem: local governments often delay modest increases to avoid political consequences, only to face greater fiscal challenges later. Holding tax rates flat may feel like good governance, but it allows infrastructure to decay and expenses to balloon. By the time officials act, the required adjustment feels extreme to residents who weren't prepared for it.The solution, according to my piece, lies in normalizing small, predictable tax increases. This would help cities keep pace with inflation and infrastructure needs, without shocking taxpayers. One of my proposed reforms is land value taxation, which taxes land rather than improvements on it—encouraging development without penalizing property upgrades and offering greater economic stability.To depoliticize the process, cities could establish independent, bipartisan bodies to manage long-term tax planning. This shift from reactive crisis management to proactive fiscal planning could help avoid sudden, disruptive tax spikes like Wellington's. The underlying message: the longer tax adjustments are postponed, the more painful and politically damaging they become.Utah Town's 225% Property Tax Spike Is Lesson on Fiscal Realism This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The story of women's basketball in the United States is one of grit, activism, and transformation. From barnstorming road shows to the bright lights of the WNBA, the game has mirrored — and often propelled — larger social changes in American life. We journey through that history with the help of Pamela Grundy and Susan Shackelford, authors of the newly expanded edition of "Shattering the Glass: The Remarkable History of Women's Basketball." Drawing on years of research and oral histories, they guide us through some the game's pivotal chapters: Barnstorming pioneers: How teams like the All-American Redheads and Hazel Walker's Arkansas Travellers brought women's basketball to audiences across the country when mainstream platforms were closed to them. College roots: The rise of organized play on campuses and the role of the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women in carving out space for female athletes. The 1970s: The seismic impact of Title IX, the fight for the Equal Rights Amendment, and the first women's Olympic basketball tournament in 1976. Coming of age: The ambitions and struggles of the Women's Professional Basketball League (WBL: 1978–81), and the eventual NCAA takeover of women's college championships in 1982. The 1990s: How 1996 Olympics success inspired the launches of both the American Basketball League (ABL) and the NBA-backed WNBA - to rejuvenate the professional landscape, and set the stage for the modern era. Grundy and Shackelford help us frame women's basketball not only as sport, but as a cultural battleground where issues of equity, representation, and identity have played out for generations - where women players, coaches, and advocates continually broke barriers in the process.   PLUS: Get your women's throwback game on with promo code savings from our friends at OldSchoolShirts.com (WBL & ABL: code GOODSEATS) and Royal Retros (early-years WNBA: code SEATS)! + + +   SUPPORT THE SHOW: Buy Us a Coffee: https://ko-fi.com/goodseatsstillavailable "Good Seats" Store: https://www.teepublic.com/stores/good-seats-still-avalable?ref_id=35106 BUY THE BOOK (AND SUPPORT THE SHOW!):  "Shattering the Glass: The Remarkable History of Women's Basketball": https://amzn.to/415S3Pm SPONSOR THANKS (AND SUPPORT THE SHOW!):  Royal Retros (10% off promo code: SEATS): https://www.503-sports.com?aff=2 Old School Shirts.com (10% off promo code: GOODSEATS): https://oldschoolshirts.com/goodseats FIND AND FOLLOW: Linktree: https://linktr.ee/GoodSeatsStillAvailable Web: https://goodseatsstillavailable.com/ Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/goodseatsstillavailable.com X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/GoodSeatsStill YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@goodseatsstillavailable Threads: https://www.threads.net/@goodseatsstillavailable Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/goodseatsstillavailable/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/GoodSeatsStillAvailable/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/good-seats-still-available/

Jill Wine-Banks hosts #SistersInLaw to stand up for women's rights, fire off on Pete Hegseth for his misogynist comments, and renew the call for an Equal Rights Amendment and greater representation for women in government and the military.  Then, the #Sisters explain the court decision on the Impoundment Control Act and break down what it means for presidential power and congressional authority.  They also discuss the lawsuit filed by the District of Columbia to stop Trump's takeover of its police force and whether it represents a violation of the separation of powers and the limits on the president's constitutional authority. Get the brand new ReSIStance T-Shirt & Mini Tote at politicon.com/merch #SistersInLaw Spin-off Shows Are Here! Check out Jill's New Politicon YouTube Show: Just The Facts Check out Kim's New Politicon Podcast: Justice By Design Books & Upcoming Tour Events From The #Sisters Joyce's new book, Giving Up Is Unforgivable, is now available for pre-order!  Not only that, for a limited time, you have the exclusive opportunity to order a signed copy here! Get Barb's book, Attack From Within, now in paperback! And, don't miss her ongoing tour!  You can buy tickets at barbaramcquade.com for all upcoming shows, or at the Aspen Institute Link for her appearances there.  You can also get tickets for her talk in Denver at this EventBrite link. Add the #Sisters & your other favorite Politicon podcast hosts on Bluesky Get your #SistersInLaw MERCH at politicon.com/merch WEBSITE & TRANSCRIPT Email: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcast Get text updates from #SistersInLaw and Politicon.  Support This Week's Sponsors Aura Frames: Get $35 off on Aura Frames' best-selling Carver Mat digital picture frame.  Go to AuraFrames.com and use the promo code: SISTERS Smalls: For a limited time only, get 60% off your first order PLUS free shipping when you head to Smalls.com/SISTERS  Blueland: For 15% off your order of green cleaning products, go to blueland.com/sisters OneSkin: Get 15% off OneSkin with the code SISTERS at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod Get More From The #SistersInLaw Joyce Vance: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Alabama Law | MSNBC | Civil Discourse Substack | Author of “Giving Up Is Unforgiveable” Jill Wine-Banks: Bluesky | Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President | Just The Facts YouTube Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Bluesky | Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | The Gavel Newsletter | Justice By Design Podcast Barb McQuade: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC | Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America

The road to equality has never run smooth - in part 2, Alice Paul and the suffragists finally achieve their goal of a constitutional amendment giving women the vote - but not until a great deal of lobbying, schisms, sacrifice, and sheer willingness to go against the grain at every occasion. Never one to rest for long, Alice then had a greater aspiration - an Equal Rights Amendment that would enshrine equality for women in the constitution , which she co-wrote in 1923. One hundred years later, the ERA has yet to pass. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week on The Monday Edit, we have a very special guest joining in on the Monday fun: best selling author Anna Malaika Tubbs stopped by to tell us all about her new book, Erased: What American Patriarchy Has Hidden from Us and helps us hone in on real time examples of our Patriarchy is being weaponized today. Anna unpacks how the United States has constructed a unique—and often invisible—gendered hierarchy, one that is inextricably linked to whiteness and a deeply flawed binary system. From the founding fathers to the current Supreme Court, from the erasure of women in the Constitution to the ongoing fight for the Equal Rights Amendment, Dr. Tubbs reveals the mechanisms that have kept women's contributions hidden and their voices suppressed. Anna Malaika Tubbs is a scholar, advocate, and bestselling author (The Three Mothers: How the Mothers of Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and James Baldwin Shaped a Nation) whose work brings a fresh, urgent perspective on American history and its gendered systems. With a Ph.D. in Sociology and a Masters in Multidisciplinary Gender Studies from the University of Cambridge and a Bachelors in Medical Anthropology from Stanford University, Anna translates her academic knowledge into clear and engaging stories. Her articles have been published by TIME Magazine, New York Magazine, CNN, Motherly, The Huffington Post, For Harriet, The Guardian, Darling Magazine, and Blavity. Anna's storytelling also takes form in her talks, including her TED Talk that has been viewed 2 million times, as well as the scripted and unscripted screen projects she has in development. She lives in Los Angeles with her husband, former Mayor of Stockton, CA Michael Tubbs  and their three young children. Not A Phase. Trans Lifeline Follow Anna Malaika Tubbs @annamalaikatubbs Follow us on Instagram @gettingbetterwithjvn Jonathan on Instagram @jvn and senior producer Chris @amomentlikechris New video episodes Getting Better on YouTube every Wednesday. Senior Producer, Chris McClure Producer, Editor & Engineer is Nathanael McClure Production support from Julie Carrillo, Anne Currie, and Chad Hall Our theme music is also composed by Nathanael McClure. Curious about bringing your brand to life on the show? Email podcastadsales@sonymusic.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Enjoy some of our favorite recent conversations from the centennial series:Mark Mather, demographer and associate vice president for U.S. Programs at the Population Reference Bureau (PRB) walks us through the shifts over the past 100 years in U.S. birth rates, followed by changes in U.S. mortality statistics.Julie Suk, a law professor at Fordham University and the author of We the Women: The Unstoppable Mothers of the Equal Rights Amendment (Skyhorse Publishing, 2020), reviews the history of the Equal Rights Amendment, from its introduction by Alice Paul in 1923 through its current disputed status, following passage by a 38th state and President Biden's declaration that it's the "law of the land."Liza Donnelly, writer and cartoonist at The New Yorker and the author of Very Funny Ladies: The New Yorker's Women Cartoonists, 1925-2021 (Prometheus, 2022) and the substack "Seeing Things", talks about the evolution of the "New Yorker cartoon" over the magazine's 100-year history.Co-hosts of The Season Pass podcast, Robert Coker, author of the book Roller Coasters: A Thrill Seeker's Guide To The Ultimate Scream Machines (Main Street, 2002) and Douglas Barnes, talk about the history of roller coasters, from the "Golden Age" of 1920's wooden coasters like Coney Island's Cyclone through modern steel "stratacoasters," like the late lamented Kingda Ka, which was recently imploded to make room for something even bigger. These interviews were lightly edited for time and clarity; the original web versions are available here:100 Years of 100 Things: US Population Shifts (Jan 2, 2025)100 Years of 100 Things: US Mortality Causes (Jan 6, 2025)100 Years of 100 Things: The ERA (Mar 4, 2025)100 Years of 100 Things: New Yorker Cartoons (Mar 20, 2025)100 Years of 100 Things: Roller Coasters (Apr 11, 2025)

Today, we revisit a conversation about the Equal Rights Amendment, and its current status.On Today's Show:Julie Suk, a law professor at Fordham University and the author of We the Women: The Unstoppable Mothers of the Equal Rights Amendment (Skyhorse Publishing, 2020), reviews the history of the Equal Rights Amendment, from its introduction by Alice Paul in 1923 through its current disputed status, following passage by a 38th state and President Biden's declaration that it's the "law of the land."

Join us on April 23 for our Live storytelling event. Get free tickets and details at tamarindopodcast.com/live Today's episode is our chat with Dolores Huerta, activist, civil rights leader, feminist, and icon. She is the co-founder of the United Farm Workers Association, which later became the UFW, and she continues to inspire, organize, and energize people to vote and effect change in their communities. She is the Founder of The Dolores Huerta Foundation, which passionately advocates for social justice, focusing on empowering marginalized communities through grassroots organizing, civic engagement, and education initiatives. Learn about them here: doloreshuerta.org Dolores Huerta sits on the board of the Feminist Majority Foundation and as she mentions on the show, now is the time for us to call for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, learn more: https://feminist.org/our-work/equal-rights-amendment/ Tamarindo is a lighthearted show hosted by Brenda Gonzalez and Delsy Sandoval talking about politics, culture, and self-development. We're here to uplift our community through powerful conversations with changemakers, creatives, and healers. Join us as we delve into discussions on race, gender, representation, and life! You can get in touch with us at www.tamarindopodcast.com Brenda Gonzalez and Delsy Sandoval are executive producers of Tamarindo podcast with production support by Karina Riveroll of Sonoro Media. Jeff Ricards produced our theme song. If you want to support our work, please rate and review our show here. This episode is brought to you by “HIRE ELLAS”. Ready to bring visibility to your business in your unique voice? Then hire ellas! ELLAS are Jackie and Ana, creative strategists that provide marketing consultation and creative services to growing businesses and organizations. With over a decade of creative and strategic experience, Hire Ellas can help you figure out what pieces of your business's story resonate the most with your customers. Follow them on Instagram (@HireEllas) or reach out via email Jackie@HireEllas.com SUPPORT OUR SHOW Contribute to the show: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/tamarindopodcast1 Follow Tamarindo on instagram @tamarindopodcast

Each weekend on Best Of The Gist, we listen back to an archival Gist segment from the past, then we replay something from the past week. This weekend, we listen back to Mike's 2022 interview with Kate Shaw, ABC Legal Analyst and co-host of the Strict Scrutiny podcast. It's an extended interview about the Equal Rights Amendment, which, many of its backers claim, actually passed and should be the law of the land. Then we listen back to Mike's Tuesday Spiel about the pardoned January 6th attackers.    SUBSCRIBE  We offer premium subscriptions, including an AD-FREE version of the show and options for bonus content.    The Gist is produced by Joel Patterson and Corey Wara    Email us at thegist@mikepesca.com  Subscribe to The Gist's YouTube Page  Follow Mike's Substack > Pesca Profundities  To advertise on the show, click here  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In episode 1803, Jack and guest co-host Jacquis Neal are joined by musician, comedian, author of The Advice King Anthology and host of Cold Brew Got Me Like, Chris Crofton, to discuss… Biden’s Last Minute ERA Statement Was His Whole Presidency In A Nutshell, Maybe It Would Have Been Smart to Stick with the “These Guys Are Weird” Thing? And more! Biden’s Last Minute ERA Statement Was His Whole Presidency In A Nutshell Biden declares the ERA the law of the land — but it likely will not matter What Biden didn’t do on the Equal Rights Amendment is more important than what he did Is the Equal Rights Amendment ratified? Here's its history. Archivist says Equal Rights Amendment can’t be certified as Democrats push Biden to recognize it ‘Law of the land:’ Biden signals Equal Rights Amendment should be ratified Biden’s ‘Declaration’ About the Equal Rights Amendment Doesn’t Mean Sh*t Maybe It Would Have Been Smart to Stick with the “These Guys Are Weird” Thing? LISTEN: The Chocolate Conquistadors by BADBADNOTGOOD & MF Doom L.A. Wildfire Relief: DONATE: Support the Kaller/Gray Family's Recovery Zeitgang Lightsaber Auction and Fundraiser Displaced Black Families GoFund Me Directory See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand joins Hysteria to talk about the future of the Equal Rights Amendment under Trump, her goals for her role as chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and honor the memory of Cecile Richards. Erin and Alyssa also review Trump's executive orders from his first days in office and question if any of them will actually improve the economy (spoiler alert: they won't).Tracking Trump's executive orders: What he's signed so far (Axios 1/21)What Trump supporters believe and expect (Pew 11/13)Biden Proclaims That The Equal Rights Amendment Is The Law Of The Land—But What Does That Mean? (Vanity Fair 1/18)

How do you win in politics? In the final part of our series, we follow the epic battle that Phyllis Schlafly and her team of Eagles waged against the swamp…and in the process, uncover the surprising truth at how to win in politics. And stick around after the episode for a discussion on what former President Biden attempted to do by claiming the Equal Rights Amendment was the law of the land.Support the show: https://redpilledamerica.com/support/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Monday, January 20th, 2025Today, Americans celebrate Martin Luther King Jr's legacy and the struggle for freedom, equality, and justice. A prominent leader in the modern civil rights movement, Dr. King was a tireless advocate for racial equality, working class, and the oppressed around the world. TikTok is back online after a farce rescue from the man who originally wanted to ban it; Trump launches a crypto rug pull scam; Elon Musk is dispatching agents across government agencies; the SCOTUSblog publisher has been indicted on tax charges; CNN is moving Jim Acosta's show to the middle of the night; President Biden makes a statement on the Equal Rights Amendment and commutes the sentences of 2,500 non violent drug offenders; the US grounds SpaceX Starship after another explosion; Vivek Ramaswamy will announce a run for Ohio governor; CBS kisses the ring by discussing a settlement with Trump in their defamation suit; Chicago and San Diego brace for immigration enforcement operations; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You Naked WinesSo go to NakedWines.com/DAILYBEANS with the code AND password DAILYBEANS for six bottles of wine for $39.99.Thank You Helix Sleep Go to HelixSleep.com/dailybeans for 27% Off Sitewide plus 2 Free Dream Pillows with your mattress purchase.Stories:Supreme Court blog publisher Tom Goldstein, a high-stakes poker player, indicted on tax charges (Politico)Vivek Ramaswamy will announce run for Ohio governor 'shortly' (Cincinnati Enquirer)ICE planning major enforcement operation in Chicago after Trump inauguration (Julia Ainsley | NBC News)Musk and Ramaswamy sending agents across US government to seek cuts | Trump administration (Robert Tait  | The Guardian)Trump's Latest, and Most Questionable, Crypto Launch, Explained (Ruth Murai |  Mother Jones)Good TroubleI am launching a new social media platform, wholly owned and funded by YOU, our contributing listeners, and not by a billionaire that's going to be sitting on the dais today with a would-be dictator. The Daily Beans & Mueller, She Wrote | Creating podcasts | PatreonWatch DutyWatch Duty Fire Public Safety Information (App) Cal FireIncidents | CAL FIREFrom The Good NewsHealth Plans | TRICAREUnderdog Rescue - MNThe Movement and the “Madman” | American Experience | PBSFurball Farm Cat Sanctuary - MNObergefell v. Hodges | OyezSiriusXM Progress Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, President Biden can't leave the office quick enough. He now claims to have amended the Constitution. Biden announced that the Equal Rights Amendment is the “law of the land,” despite the Justice Department and the U.S. archivist saying the President could not ratify the Constitutional amendment. Biden is lawless then he lectures us about the rule of law. According to Democrats, you can do anything if it's in pursuit of the radical left agenda. Also, Ambassador Danny Danon calls in to discuss the Israel/Hamas ceasefire. This is not a peace agreement; Israel keeps the right to go into Gaza and finish off Hamas if necessary. Danon says they are determined to finish the job but will pause to get the hostages back.  Later, Democrats keep telling us we have to fix our immigration laws, but they're not broken.  We have very detailed immigration laws which work if they are enforced. The problem is Democrats lack of virtue and lack of execution - its intentional.  It will be important to have a Governor in the DHS position – Kristi Noem will be fantastic. Afterward, a unanimous Supreme Court upheld the TikTok ban. It can still survive; it just needs new American ownership. We can't allow China to control Americans' data. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

David French and Sarah Isgur come at you on this Friday evening to enumerate the absurdities of the TikTok ban-or-sale discourse following the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the law, a plangent (and perhaps futile) homage to Congress actually doing its job. Plus: Biden “ratifies” the Equal Rights Amendment and Sarah loses it. Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Sarah's Collision newsletter, weekly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices