Podcasts about geoffrey r

Pre-order my Creepy Campfire Stories Book Now! https://a.co/d/eBLp4Yz Get a Darkness Prevails Plushie! Be one of the first 100 to verify your pre-order of CREEPY CAMPFIRE STORIES: https://www.quarto.com/campaign/creepy-campfire-stories-preorder Become an Eeriecast PLUS Member! https://eeriecast.com/plus GET MY WIFE'S ADORABLE STICKERS!!! https://ko-fi.com/ruffledragons/shop ORDER PHANTOM PHENOMENA: https://a.co/d/3hQAV7e ORDER APPALCHIAN FOLKLORE UNVEILED: https://a.co/d/iteR5xZ Get CRYPTID: The Creepy Card Battling Game https://cryptidcardgame.com/ SCARY STORIES TIMESTAMPS: 0:00 INTRO 1:27 Half the Woman She Used to Be from Neck044 21:30 Why Have a Break Room when you can have a Break Yard from Ish Ole 29:48 The SCARIEST Thing That EVER Happened to Me from Geoffrey R. 45:10 Confessions of a Caretaker from anonymous Read our new wendigo horror novel https://eeriecast.com/lore Sign up for Eeriecast PLUS for bonus content and more https://eeriecast.com/plus Get our merch http://eeriecast.store/ Join my Discord! https://discord.gg/3YVN4twrD8 Follow the Unexplained Encounters podcast! https://pod.link/1152248491 Follow and review Tales from the Break Room on Spotify and Apple Podcasts! https://pod.link/1621075170 Follow us on Spotify! https://open.spotify.com/show/3mNZyXkaJPLwUwcjkz6Pv2 Follow and Review us on iTunes! https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/darkness-prevails-podcast-true-horror-stories/id1152248491 Submit Your Story Here: https://www.darkstories.org/ Subscribe on YouTube for More Stories! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh_VbMnoL4nuxX_3HYanJbA?sub_confirmation=1 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Send us a Text Message.Very few places in Reykjavík have endured or garnered such a unique reputation as downtown institution Prikið. Known today as the beating heart of Iceland's hip hop scene, the cultural icon goes back way further than many people — including us! — even know.On this episode, Prikið's co-owner and well-known local character Geoffrey Þór Huntingdon-Williams joins us in the studio and gives us a deep dive into Prikið's past, present and future, offering us a glimpse into a rich and storied history that continues to this day as a living breathing saga of its own.Prikið is posted up at Bankastræti 12, 101 Reykjavík. If you're strolling through downtown for the first time, you'll recognize it from the iconic "cock on a stick" above its corner entry.Opening track: XXX Rottweiler hundar — Þér er ekki boðið (2001) Closing track: Spacestation — Fokking lagið (r. March 1)66 Degrees of Sound is a podcast production by The Reykjavík Grapevine, hosted by music editor Jóhannes Bjarkason and listings editor Rex Beckett.Editing and intro music by Rex Beckett.All tracks played on the show are in accordance with STEF, the Composers' Rights Society of Iceland.Check out grapevine.is for the full magazine coverage and events.grapevine.is for more upcoming events. Instagram: @rvkgrapevine Facebook: The Reykjavík Grapevine Youtube: The Reykjavík Grapevine

This episode examines Absence of Malice, a 1981 drama directed by Sidney Pollack. After Miami-based newspaper reporter Megan Carter (Sally Field) is tipped off by Justice Department organized crime strike force chief Elliot Rosen (Bob Balaban) about a criminal investigation into the disappearance and likely murder of a local union official, her paper runs a sensational front-page story. But the supposed target of the investigation, Michael Gallagher (Paul Newman), the son of an infamous bootlegger, is innocent; Rosen, the strike force chief, has leaked his name to the press to try to squeeze Gallagher for information. Gallagher is incensed and tries to pressure Megan to reveal her source. Megan initially refuses but later relents after her story unexpectedly leads to the tragic death of a friend of Gallagher's. Gallagher and Megan also become romantically involved. Gallagher hatches a plot to get even and get the government off his back. He causes an unsuspecting Megan to write another sensational story, this time implicating the District Attorney in a bribery scheme that Gallagher has invented. When the truth is revealed, both the prosecutors and the newspaper are humiliated, the victims of their own game of leaking information and reporting about it. Absence of Malice provides an insightful, if unflattering, picture of how newspapers operate and some of the ethical and moral complications that can result from the robust protections afforded the press under the First Amendment.  I'm joined by Brian Hauss, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, who has litigated numerous landmark First Amendment cases. Timestamps:0:00     Introduction3:31     The meaning of “absence of malice” 8:15     Deciding what a paper can print11:22   A skeptical take on the absence of malice standard  15:02   The meaning of “public figure”20:47   A newspaper reporter's First Amendment privilege?26:10   How the government handles leaks30:20   A troubling increase in leak prosecutions32:31   The “Leaky Leviathan”: How the government uses leaks39:06   The obligations of the press42:43   The legal vs. ethical obligations of the press48:11   Assessing critiques of the absence of malice standard 54:59   Timeless questions explored by the filmFurther reading:Adler, Renata, Reckless Disregard: ‘Westmoreland v. CBS et al. & Sharon v. Time (1986)Barbas, Samantha, The Enduring Significance of ‘New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,' Knight First Amendment Institute (Mar. 18, 2024) Liptak, Adam, “Clarence Thomas Renews Call for Reconsideration of Landmark Libel Ruling,” N.Y. Times (Oct. 10, 2023)Pozen, David E., “The Leaky Leviathan: Why the Government Condemns and Condones Unlawful Disclosures of Information,” 127 Harv. L. Rev. 512 (2013)Stone, Geoffrey R., “Why We Need a Federal Reporter's Privilege,” 34 Hofstra L. Rev. 39 (2005)  Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember. For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/faculty/full-time/jonathan-hafetz.cfmYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

En este episodio hablo con el Lcdo. Carlos Soto Laracuente sobre el caso de Melania De Jesús a quien representó durante su juicio por homicidio ocurrido en el 2008. También hablamos de la labor del abogado criminalista en Puerto Rico y además se contestaron las preguntas que me enviaron para el lcdo. a través de Patreon.Recuerda seguirnos en Facebook, Twitter e Instagram Visita crimepodpr.com para más detalles.Música de fondo: 'Time Alone', by David FesliyanFuentes de información:https://www.amazon.com/Abogado-Criminalista-Puerto-Rico-Spanish/dp/0981745857/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=el+abogado+en+puerto+rico&qid=1614132494&sr=8-3https://www.amazon.com/Why-Mothers-Kill-Forensic-Psychologists-ebook/dp/B000VI3HHY/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Geoffrey+R.+McKee&qid=1614214877&sr=8-1https://www.sotolaracuente.com/homepage.htmlSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/crimepodpr)

En este episodio hablo con el Lcdo. Carlos Soto Laracuente sobre el caso de Melania De Jesús a quien representó durante su juicio por homicidio ocurrido en el 2008. También hablamos de la labor del abogado criminalista en Puerto Rico y además se contestaron las preguntas que me enviaron para el lcdo. a través de Patreon. Recuerda seguirnos en Facebook, Twitter e Instagram Visita crimepodpr.com para más detalles.Música de fondo: 'Time Alone', by David FesliyanFuentes de información:https://www.amazon.com/Abogado-Criminalista-Puerto-Rico-Spanish/dp/0981745857/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=el+abogado+en+puerto+rico&qid=1614132494&sr=8-3https://www.amazon.com/Why-Mothers-Kill-Forensic-Psychologists-ebook/dp/B000VI3HHY/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Geoffrey+R.+McKee&qid=1614214877&sr=8-1https://www.sotolaracuente.com/homepage.htmlSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/crimepodpr)

“Roe v. Wade has no foundation in either law or logic; it is on a collision course with itself.”  Edward Lazarus, a former law clerk to Roe's author, Justice Harry Blackmun, who writes: As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe's author like a grandfather. . . . . What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent. ... The proof of Roe's failings comes not from the writings of those unsympathetic to women's rights, but from the decision itself and the friends who have tried to sustain it. Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.7 Ten Legal Reasons to Condemn Roe v. Wade 1.    The umpires are there to call balls and strikes. In real baseball they cannot be players as well.   The Roe Court far exceeded its constitutionally designated legal purpose and authority.  Under the U.S. Constitution, the power to make laws is vested in Congress and retained by state legislatures. Elected representatives are the proper ‘makers of law.’ These elected officials then answer to the voters. The role of the judiciary in constitutional review is to determine if the law being challenged infringes on a constitutionally protected right. It is not the role to then somehow come up with new laws of their own tastes and inclination. Justice O'Connor, quoting Chief Justice Warren Burger: Irrespective of what we may believe is wise or prudent policy in this difficult area, "the Constitution does not constitute us as 'Platonic Guardians' nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, 'wisdom,' or 'common sense.'"8 In Roe v. Wade and its companion, conjoined case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court struck down criminal laws of Texas and Georgia which outlawed certain abortions by finding that these laws (and those of the other 48 states) violated a "right of privacy" that "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." But such a right is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution nor even derivable from values embodied in it. It was a preference to have such a right and Justice Blackmun’s writings actually set themselves to devise the ‘rules’ that would then ‘emanate’ from such a preferred right. He simply made up new, substitutionary laws and imposed them on all the states!  In his dissenting opinion in Doe v. Bolton, Justice Byron White, joined by Justice William Rehnquist, wrote: I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers ... and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 states are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court. 2. The Roe Decision seriously misrepresents the history of medicine and society’s view of abortion. Justice Blackmun admitted to a serious fascination with the medical profession. Later in Doe v. Bolton we will see an almost passionate commitment to ‘protect the physician from the cloud of possible prosecution.’ The Mayo Clinic, for whom he served as legal counsel, admits to Blackmun’s unique obsession with the medical profession.  Proceedings of the Mayo Clinic Francis Helminski, J.D. Volume 69, Issue 7, p 698-699, July 01, 1994 Although three previous justices of the United States Supreme Court have had formal medical training, none has had more influence on medicine than Justice Harry A. Blackmun. Blackmun, a mathematics major at Harvard College, considered medical school but instead chose legal training. After becoming familiar with the legal work of the Mayo Clinic while practicing with a Minneapolis firm, he was internal legal counsel for the clinic from 1950 to 1959. Blackmun's work contributed to the development of the clinic, especially in the establishment of Rochester Methodist Hospital. As a Supreme Court Justice, Blackmun's concern for medicine was evident in many of his judicial opinions, including Roe v Wade and Regents of the University of California v Bakke. In Roe, he rested much of the constitutional foundation for legalized access to abortion on the integrity of the physician-patient relationship. The apparent purpose of the Roe opinion's long historical excursion is to create the impression that abortion had been widely practiced and unpunished until the appearance of restrictive laws in the prudishly-Victorian 19th Century. One example is adequate to show the distortion of Justice Harry Blackmun's version of history. He must overcome a huge hurdle in the person of Hippocrates, the "Father of Medicine," and his famous Oath which has guided medical ethics for over 2,000 years. The Oath provides in part: "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion."9 This enduring standard was followed until the Roe era and is reflected in Declarations of the World Medical Association through 1968: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception. ..."10 But Justice Blackmun dismisses this universal, unbroken ethical tradition as nothing more than the manifesto of a fringe Greek sect, the Pythagoreans, to which Hippocrates is alleged to have belonged! 3. Roe wrongly characterizes the common law of England regarding the status of abortion. The Court's language in Roe offers a plastic analysis and conclusion – "it now appears doubtful that abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus" – is patently false on its face. The Common Law drew its principles from Natural Law. Until quickening there were no objective signs that a human life was present. Quickening, the moment that movement can be detected, was considered objective scientific fact that the fetus was indeed definitively alive.11 William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769), an exhaustive and definitive discussion of English common law as it was adopted by the United States shows that the lives of unborn children were valued and protected, even if their beginning point was still thought to be "quickening" rather than conception: Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as the infant is able to stir in the mother's womb.    For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb ... this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.12 Until well into the 19th century, it was assumed that a child's life may not begin – and certainly could not be proven to have begun to satisfy criminal evidentiary standards – prior to the time the child’s movements were felt by the mother ("quickening"), at approximately 16-18 weeks' gestation. The science of the time was being applied to the enforcement of the law. After the invention of the modern microscope (1836) and the widespread, objective scientific revelation that mammalian life begins at conception, English law then increased the penalties for killing a child before quickening. Consistent with the principle that the law needs to follow objective, observable facts, in 1861 Parliament passed the Offences Against the Person Act. This law extended protection of the life of the child throughout pregnancy. This law was gradually whittled-away starting in the 1980’s. But the Act continued to protect pre-born life in Northern Ireland until 2019.20 The Roe Court looks at the distinction in early common law concerning abortions attempted before or after "quickening," wrongly. It falsely assumes that the law allowed women great latitude to abort their children in the early months of pregnancy. This is like saying people had an unspecified right to hack websites before such acts were criminally prosecuted. The law is designed to enforce known and demonstrable crimes. A law could not protect a human being it did not know to be alive. But as demonstrated by the Offences Against the Person Act, when the facts are known, then the law can be enforced. 4. In Roe, the Court downplays and distorts the purpose and legal weight of state criminal abortion statutes that had been deliberated and passed by the several states In the 19th Century, in virtually every state and territory, laws were enacted to define abortion as a crime throughout pregnancy. They contained only narrow exceptions, generally permitting abortion only if necessary to preserve the mother's life. The primary reason for stricter abortion laws, according to their legislative history, was to afford greater protection to unborn children. This reflected a heightened appreciation of prenatal life based on new medical knowledge. (See the Offenses Against the Person Act in the U.K.) Dr. Horatio R. Storer… etc is significant that the medical profession spearheaded efforts to afford greater protection to unborn lives than had been recognized under the common law's archaic "quickening" distinction. The existence of such laws, and their clear purpose of protecting the unborn, rebuts the Court's claim that abortion has always been considered a liberty enjoyed by women. These laws show broad acceptance of the view that the life of an unborn child is valuable and should be protected unless the mother's life is at risk. In that case, of course, both mother and child were likely to perish, given the primitive care then available for infants born prematurely. How does the Court get around the impressive body of laws giving clear effect to the state's interest in protecting unborn lives? It attempts to devalue them by ascribing a completely different purpose: the desire to protect the mother's life and health from a risky surgical procedure. Applying the maxim "if the reason for a law has ceased to exist, the law no longer serves any purpose," the Court declares that abortion is now "safer than childbirth." Therefore, laws banning abortion have outlived their purpose.   5. A privacy right to decide to have an abortion has no foundation in the text or history of the Constitution. Roe v. Wade locates a pregnant woman's "constitutional" right of privacy to decide whether or not to abort her child either "in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty ..., as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people." The Court does not even make a pretense of examining the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment, to determine if it was meant to protect a privacy interest in abortion. Clearly it was not. The Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to create any new rights, but to secure to all persons, notably including freed slaves and their descendants, the rights and liberties already guaranteed by the Constitution. Several rhetorical devices are used to mask this absence of constitutional grounding. The Court mentions several specifically enumerated rights which concern an aspect of privacy, for example, the Fourth Amendment's "right of the people to be secure in their houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." However, the Court fails to connect these to the newly found "right" to abortion, because no logical connection exists. Justice Blackmun attempts to graft abortion onto the line of decisions recognizing privacy/liberty rights in the following spheres: marriage (Loving v. Virginia, striking down a ban on interracial marriage); childrearing (Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, upholding parental decision-making regarding their children's education); procreation (Skinner v. Oklahoma, finding unconstitutional a state law mandating sterilization of inmates found guilty of certain crimes); and contraceptive use by a married couple (Griswold v. Connecticut). Certainly marriage, and building and raising a family are fundamental aspects of human life that predate human laws and nations. They are implicit in the concept of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, though even these rights are subject to state limitation, such as laws against bigamy, incest, and child abuse and neglect. But abortion does not fit neatly among these spheres of privacy. It negates them. Abortion is not akin to childrearing; it is child destruction. A pregnant woman's right to abort nullifies the right to procreate upheld in "Skinner." He no longer has a right to bring children into the world, but only a right to fertilize an ovum, which his mate can then destroy without his knowledge or consent. The fear of government intruding into the marital bedroom by searching for evidence of contraceptive use drove the Griswold Court to find a privacy right for couples to use contraception in the "penumbras, formed by emanations from" various guarantees in the Bill of Rights. But, however closely abortion and contraception may be linked in purpose and effect, they are worlds apart in terms of privacy. Abortions do not take place in the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms, preventing them does not require investigation of private sexual behavior, and they involve personnel other than the spouses. A "privacy right" large enough to encompass abortion could also be applied to virtually any conduct performed outside the public view, including child abuse, possession of pornography or using illicit drugs. The liberty interest to be protected from state regulation is never really defined in Roe. Instead the Court describes at some length the hardships some women face, not from pregnancy, but from raising children: Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by childcare. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. By this reasoning, one might argue that Roe's liberty encompasses ridding oneself of unwanted toddlers! Ordinarily, the defense of rights requires us to forgo lethal methods and use means likely to create the least harm to others. We may not, for example, surround our house and yard with a high voltage fence to deter trespassers. This principle is upended in the abortion context. Adoption, for example, would effectively eliminate all the "hardships" of raising "unwanted" children by non-lethal means. 6. Although it reads the 14th Amendment extremely expansively to include a right of privacy to decide whether to abort a child, the Court in Roe adopts a very narrow construction of the meaning of "persons" to exclude unborn children. Much is made of the fact that "person" as used elsewhere in the Constitution does not refer to unborn children when, for example, discussing qualifications for public office or census-taking. That point proves nothing. The Supreme Court has held that corporations are "persons" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and they are not counted in the census, nor can a corporation grow up to be president. The Roe Court also ignored the clear and uncontested biological evidence before them that individual human lives begin at conception: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." This is question determined by science, not philosophers or theologians or politicians. But while seeming to sidestep the question, the Court in fact resolved the question at birth, by allowing abortion to be legal throughout pregnancy. In the same vein, the Court refers to the unborn child as only a "potential life" (indeed, an actual life) from the moment of his or her conception. The Roe opinion states that a contrary finding on "personhood" would produce the opposite result (presumably foreclosing the mother's privacy right to an abortion). One does not have to be a "person" in the full constitutional sense, however, for a state to validly protect one's life. Dogs can be protected from killing although they are not "persons."13 And under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), people are prosecuted, fined and jailed for acts that may harm creatures, such as sea turtles, that are not "persons" in the full constitutional sense. Sea turtles are protected not only after they are hatched, but even while in the egg. In fact, each sea turtle egg removed from its nest constitutes a separate violation under the ESA, regardless of whether the sea turtle egg contained an embryo that was alive or "quick" or "viable" or even already deceased at the time of the taking.   7. The Roe Court assumed the role of a legislature in establishing the trimester framework. Roe holds that in the first trimester of pregnancy, the mother's "privacy interest" in an abortion trumps state regulation. From the end of the first trimester to the child's "viability" – which the Court presumed to be no earlier than 26 weeks – the state can regulate abortion practice only in ways reasonably related to advancing the mother's health. In the final trimester, the state – in the interest of protecting the "potential life" of the child – can regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where necessary to preserve the mother's "life or health." Health (see point 8 below) is the exception that swallows the rule. Pre-decision memoranda among members of the Roe Court acknowledged the serious flaw in establishing arbitrary, rigid time frames. Justice Blackmun himself admitted it was arbitrary.14 A reply memorandum from Justice Potter Stewart stated: One of my concerns with your opinion as presently written is ... in its fixing of the end of the first trimester as the critical point for valid state action. ... I wonder about the desirability of the dicta being quite so inflexibly "legislative." My present inclination would be to allow the States more latitude to make policy judgments. ..."15 Geoffrey R. Stone, a law clerk to Justice Brennan when Roe was decided, was recently quoted as saying: "Everyone in the Supreme Court, all the justices, all the law clerks knew it was 'legislative' or 'arbitrary.'"16 Justices O'Connor, White and Rehnquist denounced the arbitrary trimester framework in O'Connor's dissenting opinion in Akron: [There] is no justification in law or logic for the trimester framework adopted in Roe and employed by the Court today. ... [That] framework is clearly an unworkable means of balancing the fundamental right and the compelling state interests that are indisputably implicated. The majority opinion of Justice Rehnquist in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services states: The key elements of the Roe framework – trimesters and viability – are not found in the text of the Constitution or in any place else one would expect to find a constitutional principle. ... the result has been a web of legal rules that have become increasingly intricate, resembling a code of regulations rather than a body of constitutional doctrine. As Justice White has put it, the trimester framework has left this Court to serve as the country's "ex officio medical board with powers to approve or disapprove medical and operative practices and standards throughout the United States."   8. What Roe gives, Doe takes away. Many Americans believe that abortion is legal only in the first trimester (or first and second trimester). Many pollsters and media outlets continue to characterize Roe v. Wade as the case which "legalized abortions in the first three months after conception."17 In a recent television appearance, NOW's former president Patricia Ireland falsely claimed that "thirty-six states outlaw abortion in the third trimester." As noted above, under Roe state laws banning late-term abortions must contain a "health" exception. Health is defined in Roe's companion case, Doe v. Bolton, as including "all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health." This definition negates the state's interest in protecting the child, and results in abortion on request throughout all nine months of pregnancy. The fact that the Court buries its improbably broad definition of health in the largely unread opinion in Doe v. Bolton makes it no less devastating.   9. The Court describes the right to abortion as "fundamental." The Supreme Court has found certain rights fundamental. Expressed or implied in the Constitution, they are considered "deeply rooted in the history and traditions" of the American people or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," such as the free exercise of religion, the right to marry, the right to a fair trial and equal protection. A state law infringing on a fundamental right is reviewed under a rigorous "strict scrutiny" standard. In effect, there is a presumption against constitutionality. The Roe Court claims abortion is fundamental on the ground that it is lurking in the penumbras and emanations of the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment, along with privacy rights like contraceptive use. It's ludicrous to claim abortion is deeply rooted in American history or traditions or that our governmental system of "ordered liberty" implicitly demands the rights to destroy one's child, but it was an effective way to foreclose state regulations of abortion. The strict scrutiny test was later abandoned in Casey.   10. Despite the rigid specificity of the trimester framework, the opinion gives little guidance to states concerning the permissible scope of abortion regulation Abortion decisions that followed Roe chronologically have not followed Roe jurisprudentially. Many decisions have five separate opinions filed, often with no more than three justices concurring on most points. Eight separate opinions were filed in Stenberg v. Carhart (which effectively nullified laws in over two dozen states banning partial-birth abortion). The 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey could have resulted in Roe's reversal. The Casey Joint Opinion (there being no majority opinion) comes close to conceding that Roe was wrongly decided: We do not need to say whether each of us, had we been Members of the Court when the valuation of the state interest came before it as an original matter, would have concluded, as the Roe Court did, that its weight is insufficient to justify a ban on abortions prior to viability even when it is subject to certain exceptions. The matter is not before us in the first instance, and, coming as it does after nearly 20 years of litigation in Roe's wake we are satisfied that the immediate question is not the soundness of Roe's resolution of the issue, but the precedential force that must be accorded to its holding. Instead they jettisoned Roe's trimester framework and standard of legislative review, but kept Roe alive: Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent in Casey, in which he is joined in part by Justices White, Scalia and Thomas states: Roe decided that a woman had a fundamental right to an abortion. The joint opinion rejects that view. Roe decided that abortion regulations were to be subjected to "strict scrutiny," and could be justified only in the light of "compelling state interests." The joint opinion rejects that view. ... Roe analyzed abortion regulation under a rigid trimester framework, a framework that has guided this Court's decision-making for 19 years. The joint opinion rejects that framework. ... Whatever the "central holding" of Roe that is left after the joint opinion finishe[d] ... Roe continues to exist, but only in the way a storefront on a western movie set exists: a mere facade to give the illusion of reality. And later in that dissent: Roe v. Wade stands as a sort of judicial Potemkin village, which may be pointed out to passers-by as a monument to the importance of adhering to precedent. But behind the façade, an entirely new method of analysis, without any roots in constitutional law, is imported to decide the constitutionality of state laws regulating abortion. Neither stare decisis nor "legitimacy" are truly served by such an effort. Roe makes no legal sense whatsoever. It is Doe v. Bolton, handed down the same day, and 'interlocked' by Justice Blackmun, it is Doe that explicitly authorizes medical killing, "without the shadow of possible prosecution."

Hello and Welcome to 2021, the year where we’re definitely going to start exercising, heal our religious trauma and fix our political system, amiright!? Maybe not, but Alice Little rejoins the show to walk us through her efforts to fight the status quo and see sex workers enjoy the rights extended to everyone else. Join us as we discuss the ongoing pandemic and check-in on our favorite adult content creators, plus your calls and questions! ► Find Alice on YouTube by searching AliceLittleTv https://www.youtube.com/c/AliceLittletv/ ► Dive deeper into the episode and find Alice’s other links https://www.vcatx.com/media/alicevsnv Sex and the Constitution: Sex, Religion, and Law from America's Origins to the Twenty-First Century Book by Geoffrey R. StoneA NYC Paramedic Was Doxxed For Being On OnlyFans. The Real Scandal Is Not Her Sex Work By Elly Belle for Refinery29 (https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2020/12/10227681/new-york-post-doxxed-paramedic-onlyfans) A new law intended to curb sex trafficking threatens the future of the internet as we know it by Aja Romano for VOX (https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/4/13/17172762/fosta-sesta-backpage-230-internet-freedom)

I can’t tell if we’re behind on answering our emails or if time is a flat circle that no longer corresponds to common sense or basic human decency. In any case Vi and Christy answer your questions as we all look to get our bearings during these turbulent times. If you’ve written in, wanna give us a call or just need help remembering what day of the week it is the Secular Sexuality team has got you covered. “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.— Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy►Find even more resources and dive deeper into the episode at https://www.vcatx.com/media/junemailbag► Call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 800 656-HOPE https://www.rainn.org/► Learn more about Socratic questioning by visiting: https://streetepistemology.com/00:??:?? – Vi & Christy On Gay Pride Month00:06:20 – 1st Voicemail Caller – How To Talk To Loved Ones About Racism00:11:41 – Vi & Christy On A Conversation With Johnny P About Rape00:20:44 – Valerie – TX – Experiencing Genital Dysphoria00:32:52 – Rachel – Australia – Any Negative Impacts Of Soft Porn00:40:23 – Johnny – Will Same Sex Marriage Lead To Multiple Persons Marriage00:51:48 – Tim – PA – How To come Out To Family As A Poly-amorous Gay Person01:05:30 – Mark – Dallas – When To Tell Person You Dating About Your Atheism01:13:50 – Eli – Canada – Partner Having Issues With His Porn PerformancesResources we mentioned: Sex and the Constitution: Sex, Religion, and Law from America's Origins to the Twenty-First Century by Geoffrey R. StoneThe Myth of Sex Addiction by David Ley Ph.DSexual Intelligence: What We Really Want from Sex--and How to Get It by Marty Klein

I can’t tell if we’re behind on answering our emails or if time is a flat circle that no longer corresponds to common sense or basic human decency. In any case Vi and Christy answer your questions as we all look to get our bearings during these turbulent times. If you’ve written in, wanna give us a call or just need help remembering what day of the week it is the Secular Sexuality team has got you covered. “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.— Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy►Find even more resources and dive deeper into the episode at https://www.vcatx.com/media/junemailbag► Call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 800 656-HOPE https://www.rainn.org/► Learn more about Socratic questioning by visiting: https://streetepistemology.com/00:??:?? – Vi & Christy On Gay Pride Month00:06:20 – 1st Voicemail Caller – How To Talk To Loved Ones About Racism00:11:41 – Vi & Christy On A Conversation With Johnny P About Rape00:20:44 – Valerie – TX – Experiencing Genital Dysphoria00:32:52 – Rachel – Australia – Any Negative Impacts Of Soft Porn00:40:23 – Johnny – Will Same Sex Marriage Lead To Multiple Persons Marriage00:51:48 – Tim – PA – How To come Out To Family As A Poly-amorous Gay Person01:05:30 – Mark – Dallas – When To Tell Person You Dating About Your Atheism01:13:50 – Eli – Canada – Partner Having Issues With His Porn PerformancesResources we mentioned: Sex and the Constitution: Sex, Religion, and Law from America's Origins to the Twenty-First Century by Geoffrey R. StoneThe Myth of Sex Addiction by David Ley Ph.DSexual Intelligence: What We Really Want from Sex--and How to Get It by Marty Klein

How do you know when something’s obscene? It’s not exactly an easy question. Plenty of now respected works were, at one point, declared obscene and subject to judicial scrutiny - James Joyce’s Ulysses, Allen Ginsberg’s Howl, and George Carlin “7 Words You Can’t Say on TV” to name just a few. But how exactly does a court answer the question? And how can the layperson know, with any degree of certainty, whether something is obscene or not? In this episode of Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast from Popehat.com, host Ken White explores the United States Supreme Court’s approach to obscenity law through the lens of the landmark case of Jacobellis v. Ohio, in which we find one of the most well known lines in Supreme Court jurisprudence - “I know it when I see it.” With the help of guests Professors Philippe C. Met and Geoffrey R. Stone, Ken explores the rules set forth by the Supreme Court, their notorious ambiguity, and how they apply in the modern day. Professor Philippe C. Met is a professor of French and Francophone Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. He also serves as Editor-in-Chief of French Forum. Professor Geoffrey R. Stone is a noted First Amendment scholar, the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, and formerly served as law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

How do you know when something’s obscene? It’s not exactly an easy question. Plenty of now respected works were, at one point, declared obscene and subject to judicial scrutiny - James Joyce’s Ulysses, Allen Ginsberg’s Howl, and George Carlin “7 Words You Can’t Say on TV” to name just a few. But how exactly does a court answer the question? And how can the layperson know, with any degree of certainty, whether something is obscene or not? In this episode of Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast from Popehat.com, host Ken White explores the United States Supreme Court’s approach to obscenity law through the lens of the landmark case of Jacobellis v. Ohio, in which we find one of the most well known lines in Supreme Court jurisprudence - “I know it when I see it.” With the help of guests Professors Philippe C. Met and Geoffrey R. Stone, Ken explores the rules set forth by the Supreme Court, their notorious ambiguity, and how they apply in the modern day. Professor Philippe C. Met is a professor of French and Francophone Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. He also serves as Editor-in-Chief of French Forum. Professor Geoffrey R. Stone is a noted First Amendment scholar, the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, and formerly served as law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

A Roundtable Discussion Featuring Justin F Gainor, MD, Matthew Gubens, MD, MS, Geoffrey R Oxnard, MD, Heather Wakelee, MD, Isaac Levy, MD and Estelamari Rodriguez, MD, MPH moderated by Neil Love, MD. Produced by Research To Practice.

Biomarker Assessment and Targeted Treatment of Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) — Slide Presentation 2: Liquid Biopsy in NSCLC: How to Interpret and Apply Results in Clinical Practice — Dr Oxnard. CME information and select publications

Overview: In this episode of EMRA*Cast, Dr. Jessie Werner discusses medical education with researcher and educator, Dr. Jeff Riddell. We cover adult learning theory, the current state of medical education and new developments. If you’re wondering where the CCC report came from, how to give and receive better on-shift feedback, and what we can do to improve medical education, then this episode is for you! Key Resources:   Norman, Geoffrey R. "The adult learner: a mythical species." Academic medicine (1999). Gottlieb, Michael, Jeff Riddell, and Sara E. Crager. "Alternatives to the conference status quo: Addressing the learning needs of emergency medicine residents." Annals of emergency medicine 4.68 (2016): 423-430. Telio, Summer, Rola Ajjawi, and Glenn Regehr. "The “educational alliance” as a framework for reconceptualizing feedback in medical education." Academic Medicine 90.5 (2015): 609-614. Telio, Summer, Glenn Regehr, and Rola Ajjawi. "Feedback and the educational alliance: examining credibility judgements and their consequences." Medical education 50.9 (2016): 933-942.   Key Points: Adult Learning Theory:  Malcom Knowles’ Theory of Andragogy has 5 main assumptions: Adults are self-directed learners Adults learn experientially Adults approach learning based on tasks and social roles (adults want to know what they NEED to know) Adults approach learning as problem-solving Adults are intrinsically motivated to learn Geoffrey Norman argues against these ideas as being largely untested Adults and kids are actually more similar than different in how they learn When asking a question, or “pimping,” make sure you come at it with the right intent so as not to alienate learners. That being said, emotional activation (a little fear) can help you learn, as can the practice of retrieval (remembering) “Flipped Classroom”: lecture material is learned at home, asynchronously, and reviewed in conference “Interleaving”: mixing up topics rather than blocked topics i.e. when talking about pulmonary embolism you address it in multiple ways and emphasize varying concepts so that learners remember multiple aspects about it and how it ties in with various presentations or alternate diagnoses (not all PEs present with pleuritic chest pain!)    Feedback:   Formative: designed to help the resident improve (given directly to the resident in the moment) Summative: a summary of how the resident is doing overall (this is usually in your CCC report or an evaluation you see 6 months later) The Educational Alliance: Residents make credibility judgments about feedback in the context of a relationship (i.e. if you have a relationship with your resident then the feedback goes over better) Directions of Graduate Medical Education Technology is going to play a big role! There are a lot of resources out there now. Curating those resources will be important! Educational resources are not just in textbooks or from large academic centers. FOAMed, podcasts, blogs, etc are coming from multiple places. 

The concept of equality has been with us since the founding of the United States, and it's been revised and fought over and debated for about as long, from the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment to the culture wars and the legalization of same-sex marriage. But not every argument for equality that is brought up in a court of law goes well. In fact, equality arguments often backfire, ending up affirming inequality: Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. United States … or just last year, Trump v. Hawaii. Losing the battle in court for an abstract concept like equality has tangible consequences for people on the ground, from trans soldiers to Iranian kids seeking lifesaving medical treatment. But what if there’s a way to fight for equal treatment without sending current laws backsliding? American University law professor Robert Tsai joins us on the podcast to argue for what he calls “practical equality.”Go beyond the episode:Robert L. Tsai’s Practical Equality: Forging Justice in a Divided NationRead his essay on how another approach would be not only to broaden the variety of arguments, but also to expand the venues for those arguments.For a steamier episode on the law, check out our interview with Geoffrey R. Stone in the episode “Out of the Closet and Into the Courts”Listen to the More Perfect episode “The Imperfect Plaintiffs” about how certain cases—like Plessy v. Ferguson—were manufactured by individuals to challenge existing lawFor another spin on how public action influences the courts, check out this interview with lawyer Darryl Li about the mass protests of the Muslim travel ban, as well as Barry Friedman’s The Will of the PeopleTune in every week to catch interviews with the liveliest voices from literature, the arts, sciences, history, and public affairs; reports on cutting-edge works in progress; long-form narratives; and compelling excerpts from new books. Hosted by Stephanie Bastek. Follow us on Twitter @TheAmScho or on Facebook.Subscribe: iTunes • Feedburner • Stitcher • Google Play • AcastHave suggestions for projects you’d like us to catch up on, or writers you want to hear from? Send us a note: podcast [at] theamericanscholar [dot] org. And rate us on iTunes! Our theme music was composed by Nathan Prillaman. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The concept of equality has been with us since the founding of the United States, and it's been revised and fought over and debated for about as long, from the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment to the culture wars and the legalization of same-sex marriage. But not every argument for equality that is brought up in a court of law goes well. In fact, equality arguments often backfire, ending up affirming inequality: Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. United States … or just last year, Trump v. Hawaii. Losing the battle in court for an abstract concept like equality has tangible consequences for people on the ground, from trans soldiers to Iranian kids seeking lifesaving medical treatment. But what if there’s a way to fight for equal treatment without sending current laws backsliding? American University law professor Robert Tsai joins us on the podcast to argue for what he calls “practical equality.”Go beyond the episode:Robert L. Tsai’s Practical Equality: Forging Justice in a Divided NationRead his essay on how another approach would be not only to broaden the variety of arguments, but also to expand the venues for those arguments.For a steamier episode on the law, check out our interview with Geoffrey R. Stone in the episode “Out of the Closet and Into the Courts”Listen to the More Perfect episode “The Imperfect Plaintiffs” about how certain cases—like Plessy v. Ferguson—were manufactured by individuals to challenge existing lawFor another spin on how public action influences the courts, check out this interview with lawyer Darryl Li about the mass protests of the Muslim travel ban, as well as Barry Friedman’s The Will of the PeopleTune in every week to catch interviews with the liveliest voices from literature, the arts, sciences, history, and public affairs; reports on cutting-edge works in progress; long-form narratives; and compelling excerpts from new books. Hosted by Stephanie Bastek. Follow us on Twitter @TheAmScho or on Facebook.Subscribe: iTunes • Feedburner • Stitcher • Google Play • AcastHave suggestions for projects you’d like us to catch up on, or writers you want to hear from? Send us a note: podcast [at] theamericanscholar [dot] org. And rate us on iTunes! Our theme music was composed by Nathan Prillaman.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Proceedings from video interviews with Drs Geoffrey R Oxnard and Martin Reck on optimal strategies and emerging concepts in the management of lung cancer. | For more information, visit: http://www.researchtopractice.com/LCU218/Video

Conversations with Oncology Investigators. Bridging the Gap between Research and Patient Care. Interview with Geoffrey R Oxnard, MD conducted by Neil Love, MD. Produced by Research To Practice.

Conversations with Oncology Investigators. Bridging the Gap between Research and Patient Care. Interview with Geoffrey R Oxnard, MD conducted by Neil Love, MD. Produced by Research To Practice.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. The University of Chicago celebrates the 50th anniversary of the appointment of its first provost, Edward Hirsch Levi, with a day of public lectures and discussion exploring his influence on the University. Six University provosts take part in the event—Kenneth W. Dam, Norman M. Bradburn, Edward O. Laumann, Geoffrey R. Stone, Richard P. Saller, and Thomas F. Rosenbaum.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. The University of Chicago celebrates the 50th anniversary of the appointment of its first provost, Edward Hirsch Levi, with a day of public lectures and discussion exploring his influence on the University. Six University provosts take part in the event—Kenneth W. Dam, Norman M. Bradburn, Edward O. Laumann, Geoffrey R. Stone, Richard P. Saller, and Thomas F. Rosenbaum.

The Federal Shield Law is pending in Congress. Meanwhile, reporters have come under fire for protecting the privacy of their sources resulting in jail time and high fines. Join Law.com bloggers and co-hosts J. Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi as they explore the shield law with the experts: Lucy Dalglish, Executive Director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Geoffrey R. Stone, the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago Law School and Attorney Joel Kurtzberg, partner at the firm, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP. They will discuss the federal shield law pending in Congress, high profile cases involving reporters, states’ efforts to enact their own shield laws, punishment given to those who protect their sources and the rights of journalists.