Podcasts about heartbeat act

WE RECORDED OUR UPDATE ON KATE MIDDLETON BEFORE THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTED NEWS THAT SHE HAD BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER. READ MORE ABOUT THAT HERE: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/22/world/princess-kate-middleton-cancer Staff at clinic where Kate had surgery ‘tried to access her medical records' https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/19/inquiry-reportedly-begins-after-claims-clinic-staff-tried-to-access-princess-of-waless-records  TMZ's Kate video: https://www.tmz.com/2024/03/18/kate-middleton-seen-new-video-windsor-farm-shop-prince-william/ Users say Glassdoor added real names to user profiles without their consent: https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/20/glassdoor-added-real-names-profiles-without-consent/ A third of Bumble's Texas workforce moved after state passed restrictive ‘Heartbeat Act' abortion bill: https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/08/bumble-lost-a-third-of-its-texas-workforce-after-state-passed-restrictive-heartbeat-act-abortion-bill/  Washington Post report: Women are getting off birth control amid misinformation explosion https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/03/21/stopping-birth-control-misinformation/  AI Marilyn Monroe Marks Another Step Forward In Extending Celebrity Brand Value Beyond The Grave: https://deadline.com/2024/03/ai-marilyn-monroe-marks-another-step-forward-in-extending-celebrity-brands-1235850875/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's Thursday, February 8th, A.D. 2024. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Russian government persecuting Ukrainian believers Dmytro Lubinets with Human Rights in Ukraine reports that Russian forces have carried out 76 acts of religious persecution since invading Ukraine in 2022. Lubinets told the International Religious Freedom Summit last week, “The Russian military has repeatedly threatened the total physical elimination of all Evangelical believers, calling them American spies, sectarians, and enemies of the Russian Orthodox people.” The persecution incidents include 29 cases of killed or captured religious leaders. One pastor from Ukraine told the summit, “Most priests and pastors, like me, have been threatened, intimidated, humiliated, detained, beaten and deported.” Hungary helps persecuted Christians in 50 countries Speaking of the International Religious Freedom Summit, a representative of Hungary promoted Biblical values at the event in Washington, D.C. Tristan Azbej is the Hungarian Secretary of State for the Aid of Persecuted Christians and the Hungary Helps Program. Hungary established the program in 2017 as the first-ever governmental department dedicated to serving persecuted Christians. Since then, it has engaged in over 300 faith-based humanitarian projects in 50 countries.  Azbej told The Christian Post the program is part of Hungary's efforts to “implement the social teachings of the Bible.”  Wisdom says in Proverbs 8:15, “By me kings reign, and rulers decree justice.” Mexico is top exporter of goods to U.S. now Mexico became the top exporter of goods to the U.S. last year. This unseats China which held the top spot for two decades. In 2023, Mexico exported $475.6 billion worth of goods to the U.S., up 5% from 2022. Meanwhile, China exported $427.2 billion worth of goods to U.S., down 20% from 2022.  Also, the U.S. trade deficit fell 19% last year to $773.4 billion. It's the largest annual drop in the deficit in 15 years as the U.S. increased exports and decreased imports in 2023. The trade deficit measures the difference between exports and imports. RFK Jr: "NBC Nightly News declared it is no longer a two-man race, it's a three-man race" Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has a reason to be excited, reports RealClear Politics.com. KENNEDY: “I want to take note of a poll that came out, reported by NBC News today, that shows that 34% of the country would vote for me. (cheers) “NBC Nightly News declared that it is no longer a two-man race, it is a three-man race. (cheers) And if you do the math, all I really need, theoretically, is 34 points to win the election because if it is a three-way tie, and I get 34, it is winner-take-all.” Texas' fertility rate up 2% A recent report from the University of Houston found that the fertility rate in Texas increased by 2% in 2022. This followed the state's Heartbeat Act going into effect in 2021. It's the first time the Texas fertility rate increased since 2014. Life News reports the Heartbeat Act translated into about 8,000 more children being born in the Lone Star state in 2022. Life News also noted a “35.7 percent decline in the Texas teen-fertility rate since 2016. Overall, the Lone Star State has seen impressive long-term reductions in teen pregnancies, teen births, and teen abortions.” United Church of Christ declines after pushing homosexual sin The United Church of Christ reports it lost 286,000 members from 2012 to 2022. The mainline Protestant denomination also lost over 500 congregations over the same time period.  It started to see significant losses after 2005 when it passed a resolution that year in favor of faux homosexual marriage. Just between 2020 and 2022, the United Church of Christ dropped from 4,794 congregations to 4,603 congregations. And membership declined from 773,000 to 712,000.  Americans view small businesses, the military and churches favorably Pew Research released a new survey on how Americans view institutions. U.S. adults are most likely to view small businesses positively at 86%, followed by the military at 60% and churches and religious organizations at 59%.  Americans are least likely to view large corporations positively at 29%, followed by banks at 37%, colleges at 53%, and public schools at 53%.  2.6 billion people worldwide identify as Christian And finally, the Center for the Study of Global Christianity released their 2024 report. The report estimates there will be about 2.6 billion people who identify as Christian this year.  Africa and Asia are home to some of the fastest growing Christian populations. About 734 million Christians live in Africa, and 425 million live in Asia, both with growth rates of over 2%.  Evangelical and Pentecostal groups are the fastest growing among Christian denominations. An estimated 445,000 will be sent out this year. And an estimated 28% of the world has no access to the Gospel, down from 54% back in 1900.  Speaking of Christ, Isaiah 9:7 says, “Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.” Close And that's The Worldview in 5 Minutes on this Thursday, February 8th in the year of our Lord 2024. Subscribe by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

In May, 2022, when the SCOTUS leak threatened to overturn Roe v Wade and strip half the country of their reproductive right protections, Pamela quit her corporate sales job and embarked from her California bubble to Red states to capture the harrowing and mundane stories of American women. The resulting documentary, WE'RE NOT GOING BACK! won the Grand Jury award for Emerging Filmmaker when it premiered at The Awareness Film Festival in 2022.  Since then, Pamela continues her pro-choice activism with her feminist blog and podcast, The HisTerical Society. About WE'RE NOT GOING BACK!The film is a Pro-choice documentary film from 2022 before and after the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe v Wade with its Dobbs decision, taking away the constitutional right to abortion, abandoning almost 50 years of precedent, and paving the way for states to ban abortion. Capturing stories from Red states to educate and promote awareness of what's at stake now that Roe has fallen and to encourage everyone to vote, in what Pamela dubbed, Roe-vemberYou can find Pamela at; https://torranceproductions.comLink to WE'RE NOT GOING BACK! Pro-choice documentary on YouTube:  https://youtu.be/FF9f4aNgnVU?si=oD1gfhV8MfK9iTwj 

President Donald Trump recently blasted Florida's six-week abortion ban, calling it a “terrible mistake.” Trump said that as president, he'd find a gestational age limit that would please both abortion supporters and pro-lifers. The surprising remarks were at odds with Trump's record as America's most pro-life president. On this episode of The 40 Days for Life Podcast, we discuss just what in the world Trump was talking about.

Show off your Lone Star spirit with a free Texas flag hat with an annual subscription to The Texan: https://go.thetexan.news/texas-flag-hat/?utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=description&utm_campaign=weekly_roundupThe Texan's Weekly Roundup brings you the latest news in Texas politics, breaking down the top stories of the week with our team of reporters who give you the facts so you can form your own opinion. Enjoy what you hear? Be sure to subscribe and leave a review! Got questions for the reporting team? Email editor@thetexan.news — they just might be answered on a future podcast. This week on The Texan's Weekly Roundup, the team discusses: State Rep. John Raney announcing he will not run for re-election in 2024The Office of the Attorney General appealing a district court's ruling that the Heartbeat Act is unconstitutionalThe Texas Legislature failing to pass a judicial compensation reform bill in the 88th Legislative SessionA Texas man sentenced for threatening mass shooting against Arizona election officialsProtesters assaulting and spitting on attendees of the signing of the Save Women's Sports ActDPS officials sound off on the dangers of illegal border crossings between ports of entryACLU Texas suing to block Texas ‘drag ban' on sexually oriented performances with children in attendanceMembers of a San Antonio family pleading guilty to bribing government employees for million-dollar contractsA breakdown of Texas A&M's bungled hiring of journalism professor Dr. Kathleen McElroyLeander ISD parents holding a rally over a board trustee's sexual assault allegationsAngelina County authorizing a ‘planning study' to consider building a new courthouseA first grade teacher in Mesquite ISD resigning after her ‘anti-white' online posts went viral

How far should a company go with corporate activism? Lyft is setting the example for how companies should use corporate activism to speak out on issues. Last year, Texas passed the Heartbeat Act, which banned women from receiving abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat. The bill went even further, putting Lyft drivers who take women to abortion clinics at legal risk. The team at Lyft was quick to speak out against the legislation, and ensured drivers that they would cover legal fees and offer additional support if they were caught in trouble for bringing people to access essential health care. Uber followed suit quickly after Lyft's statement, highlighting how Lyft is setting an example for how to conduct corporate activism. Back in October, Fred Cook spoke with Dominic Carr, EVP of Communications & Marketing at Lyft. He joined Lyft just a year and a half ago and has already put the pedal to the metal when it comes to corporate activism. In this episode, Fred and Dominic discuss how a company can act on a broader corporate purpose, and how to do it right.  Featuring:Dominic Carr, EVP of Communication & Marketing at LyftHost:Fred Cook (@fredcook), Chairman Emeritus of Golin, a global PR firm. Author of “Improvise - Unorthodox Career Advice from an Unlikely CEO” and Director of the USC Center for Public RelationsFollow us: @Center4PR (Twitter, Facebook and Instagram)Newsletter: News from the USC Center for Public RelationsVisit our website: https://annenberg.usc.edu/research/center-public-relations

In light of the unprecedented leak of the U.S. Supreme Court's draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, issues of human dignity and the human right to life are front and center in our culture. We speak today with someone who has worked at the intersection of human dignity issues for many years and across a range of institutions. Arina O. Grossu, M.A., M.S., is Founder and Principal at Areté Global Consulting and a Fellow with Discovery Institute's Center on Human Exceptionalism. She focuses on the protection of human dignity, human rights, and the sanctity of human life from fertilization to natural death. Her areas of expertise include abortion, women's health, bioethics, conscience, pornography, sex trafficking, assisted suicide, and euthanasia. Arete Global Consulting https://areteglobalconsulting.com Arina Grossu at Discovery Institute https://www.discovery.org/p/grossu/

Litigation lenders are always looking at opportunities like patent cases to invest in and get paid, but is there enough money to invest in the Heartbeat Act to get funding? The demographics show that the world is heading towards negative population growth. Careers come first for the youngest generations currently in college and they're employing measures like freezing eggs to ensure their parenting plan stays on track. Looking at the abortion issue in this light, the state has an interest in making sure the population doesn't dwindle down to zero. With little hope for people to agree on abortion rights in the foreseeable future, Jack Russo and Rafael Chodos discuss why litigation lenders will likely support bounty hunting litigation. 

The Texas bounty hunting statute has gone viral with several other states, including California, picking up on it. Abortion, already a major emotional decision for a woman to make, just got a bit more difficult due to the Texas Heartbeat Act. For all the talk in the courts and the news about private enforcement, it's not very accurate about what can and cannot be done by a private citizen. Jack Russo and Rafael Chodos discuss if the overturning of Roe v. Wade is a preposterous idea or if the Heartbeat Act found a loophole wide open for exploitation.

In September, 2021 the state of Texas introduced the most restrictive abortion law in the United States. SB8, also known as the Heartbeat Act, prohibits the termination of pregnancy after around 6 weeks' gestation – the point at which some claim a heartbeat can be detected. SB8 has given traction to those who advocate for alternatives for women faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Just outside Dallas, a Christian couple are working to bring to fruition a ‘maternity ranch' to provide homes for pregnant, single mothers. Of course many women don't even know they are pregnant by the 6 week mark. So the law has promoted vigilance. And countless women hold their breath as they undergo an ultrasound in the state's few remaining abortion clinics. If they are in time, they can terminate their pregnancy in Texas. If not, they will have to travel to another state. But for some Texans, the law does not go far enough – they want a total ban on abortion. And in towns across the state, pro-life activists have pushed local government to declare their communities, ‘Sanctuaries for the Unborn Child'. Assignment reports from Abilene, where pro-life activists are lobbying to put in place an ordinance that would prohibit abortion within the city limits. So far, 39 Texan towns have outlawed abortion completely. Presenter: Linda Pressly Producer: Tim Mansel (Image: Aubrey Schlackman is planning on opening a ‘maternity ranch' for single, pregnant mothers in Texas. Credit: Tim Mansel/BBC)

A new Pro-Life bill hits Governor DeSantis's desk, the Feds put weird sketchy things in the budget again, and an update from the Texas Supreme Court on the Heartbeat Act! 0:00 Heartbeat Act Win from the TX Supreme Court! 4:00 Florida Passes 15-Week Abortion Ban 5:57 Development of a 15-Week Unborn Child 10:07 Texas Superintendent That Supposedly Assaulted & Pressed Woman to Abort 12:25 Judicial Bypass: Enabling Abusers 20:20 Federal Budget Passes as a Pro-Abortion Trojan Horse Give Now to defend the Texas Heartbeat Act: https://texasrighttolife.com/lawsuit/ Register for Team Life Camp: https://texasrighttolife.com/team-life-camp/?ref=Podcast Referenced article about the Federal Budget: https://texasrighttolife.com/federal-budget-passes-as-a-pro-abortion-trojan-horse/ Referenced article about the Texas Superintendent: https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-superintendent-ex-mistress-abortion-assault-allegations-court-document https://texasrighttolife.com/superintendent-allegedly-assaulted-ex-girlfriend-for-refusing-to-get-an-abortion/

Joe Biden picks a Supreme Court nominee and it looks like it could backfire. The Heartbeat Act just hit the 6-month mark. Columbia has fully legalized abortion and much more. Give Now to defend the Texas Heartbeat Act Register for Team Life Camp

The Border Crisis, Drug Mules and The Heartbeat Act. What do these things have in common? And Cardiac Cells. Are they hearts? Give Now to defend the Texas Heartbeat Act Register for Team Life Camp Referenced Stories: Inside Texas's Underground Abortion Pill Network Abortion Opponents Hear a ‘Heartbeat.' Most Experts Hear Something Else.

Yolanda speaks with Paxton Smith a reproductive rights activist, speaker, and musician from Texas, USA. Paxton went viral when she decided to use her valedictorian speech at the University of Texas, to speak against Texas' SB8 bill. Together they talk about what on earth is actually going on in Texas right now and how the Heartbeat Act is affecting women. ___________________ Speak On is an event series, podcast and panel show that explores culture, society and wellbeing. Please rate, review, like, share and subscribe and connect to Speak On's social media channels. Speak On Instagram: www.instagram.com/speakon_ | #SpeakOn Presented & Created by Yolanda Copes-Stepney: www.instagram.com/yokics Guest: Paxton Smith: https://www.instagram.com/paxtonasmith/ Producer: Abigail Weaver: www.instagram.com/_abigailweaver Production Assistants: Paige Walters & Sian Monforte --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/speakon/message

This week on The Texan's “Weekly Roundup,” the team discusses new fundraising numbers in Texas' hottest campaigns, a top state official's consultant being indicted for theft, the stances GOP gubernatorial candidates have taken on property tax reform, details surrounding suicides in the National Guard and criticisms levied at Governor Abbott, the Texas Supreme Court looking to weigh in on the last major challenge to the Heartbeat Act in federal court, a conversation with Dr. Peter McCullough on the Omicron variant and treatment options, a Houston doctor suing the hospital she formerly worked at for financial data relating to COVID-19, homicide rates in the state's largest cities, recent drug trafficking at the border, and a rundown of the Colleyville hostage situation.

I sat down with the director of the SHORE Centre, similar to Planned Parenthood and I ask them what exactly an abortion entails based on the stage of pregnancy. Is it a scary, gory and big "procedure"? or is it actually not what so many people make it out to be? What the heck is happening in texas? In decemeber something happened around heartbeat act but what was it and what does it mean?What are the laws around abortion in texas and the crazy T.R.A.P. laws that make it nearly impossible for clinics to exist?

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in 2 Texas Heartbeat Act Cases. Here Are the Top Takeaways. Thomas Jipping / @TomJipping / Sarah Parshall Perry / @SarahPPerry / November 01, 2021 Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaks outside of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., Nov. 1. (Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images) COMMENTARY BY Thomas Jipping@TomJipping Thomas Jipping is deputy director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Sarah Parshall Perry@SarahPPerry Sarah Parshall Perry is a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. We are only a month into the Supreme Court's 2021-22 term and abortion already appears to be this season's defining topic. The court heard arguments in two cases on Monday related to the Texas Heartbeat Act, which bans most abortions after the fetal heartbeat is detected (which is usually about six weeks after conception). And in just one month, the court will hear arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which challenges the constitutionality of Mississippi's ban on most abortions after 15 weeks. While Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization focuses on the constitutional merits of the Mississippi ban, the Texas cases focus on how the legislature sought to shield the Texas abortion ban from legal challenge in its Heartbeat Act. Ordinarily, parties that opposed the law would file a lawsuit before it was scheduled to go into effect, asking for an injunction to stop any enforcement while its constitutionality is litigated. That's what happened in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The Texas law, however, says that it can be enforced only by “private civil actions” and removes public officials (those normally tasked with the enforcement of state and federal law) from the enforcement process on the Texas Heartbeat Act altogether. As a result, the law went into effect as scheduled on Sept. 1.   In Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, abortion providers sued to prevent state courts from handling any private civil actions to enforce the Texas abortion ban. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit put the Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson case on hold, and on emergency appeal, the Supreme Court left the hold in place, but said that the case raised “serious questions” about the law's constitutionality. Even though the 5th Circuit scheduled arguments on the issue of whether federal courts could enjoin state courts from handling these lawsuits for early December, the plaintiffs appealed again to the Supreme Court by way of a rarely used procedural move known as “certiorari before judgment.” In United States v. Texas, the federal government sued Texas, also asking that the abortion ban be put on hold while its constitutionality is litigated. Like the abortion providers did in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, the Biden administration did not wait for the 5th Circuit to rule, but appealed directly to the Supreme Court. So, on Nov. 1, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases—one brought by abortion providers and one by the federal government—involving procedural issues that must be cleared up before the constitutional merits of the Texas abortion ban can even be addressed. In Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, the question is whether Texas can insulate its state law from federal court review by delegating enforcement to the public instead of state officials. In United States v. Texas, the question is whether the federal government has an interest in the case sufficient enough to sue state courts and officials to prevent them from enforcing the law. Texas argues that its new law does not prevent the courts from deciding this underlying constitutional issue. The enforcement mechanism simply prevents blocking the law before it is enforced. But abortion providers can still claim the law is unconstitutional should it be enforced against them in a private civil action. Besides, Texas says, the federal government's desire to see the law declared unconstitutional is not enough to justify its intrusion into the state's legislative business. At the Nov. 1 argument in United States v. Texas, newly appointed Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said that the United States has a vested interest in vindicating constitutional law and warned that if the Supreme Court approved of this method of limiting judicial review, it could be replicated in other contexts. That may be true as a matter of general principle or policy, but the question for the Supreme Court is whether the United States has the legal standing to sue Texas over it. It would appear not—as the United States cannot demonstrate it has standing to bring a suit against an entire state, because it cannot prove it was somehow harmed by the actions of Texas and all its citizens. Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared impatient with the United States' broad request for relief, saying that there had never been such an injunction so expansive “in the history of the United States.” This skepticism about the federal government's desire to intervene in a state's legislative and judicial process may mean that United States v. Texas is on shakier ground than Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson. The justices were concerned not with the choice of enforcement mechanism in the Texas abortion ban—using private citizens to sue for violation of a state law—but were skeptical of the Texas solicitor general's argument that the mechanism, by its nature, exempts the law from judicial review at all before it goes into effect. Because of how it's written, the Texas Heartbeat Act cannot be challenged until after someone has brought suit on the act itself, and this seemed to be a universal hang-up for nearly the entire bench. Justice Sonia Sotomayor in particular cited a long list of constitutional rights, from the Second Amendment to same-sex marriage, that might also be infringed if the Texas act could be replicated in other states.  This is the crux of the issue in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson. Though that would remedy only one of the issues facing the justices. Ex Parte Young, a Supreme Court case from 1908, featured prominently in the arguments of the United States. In that decision the Supreme Court allowed suits in federal courts for injunctions against officials acting on behalf of states, despite the state's sovereign immunity, when the state acted contrary to any federal law or contrary to the Constitution. But at the same time, that decision held that federal courts could not enjoin state courts from hearing cases. The abortion providers in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson argued that they were entitled to an injunction that would prevent state court clerks from accepting complaints (brought by private citizens) that claim the act has been violated. But that seems to run afoul of Ex Parte Young's prohibition on federal courts enjoining state courts. Justice Brett Kavanaugh mentioned that the “spirit of Ex Parte Young” ought to apply, and that the underlying holding in that case might be expanded to permit an exception in this case. Justice Elena Kagan was quick to point out in oral arguments, saying: “Essentially, we would be inviting states, all 50 of them, with respect to their unpreferred constitutional rights, to try to nullify the law [on abortion] of—that this court has laid down as to the content of those rights.” Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone, arguing for the state of Texas, responded: “The state of Texas has not nullified anything. Abortions have dropped to 50% or 60%. We have not wholly extinguished the right of women to get abortions and Texas judges are [still] bound to follow this court's precedent fully and faithfully.” The outcome in the Nov. 1 cases will have little to no effect on the outcome in Dobbs v. Jackson Whole Women's Health, set for oral argument on Dec. 1. If the Supreme Court decides to ditch 50 years of abortion precedent and overturn Roe v. Wade—and some conservatives have posited there are enough votes from the justices to make it happen—all state abortion lawmaking ability and all related regulations would be sent to the states for determination of what can and cannot be done within their own boundaries on this hot-button issue. But if the Supreme Court keeps Roe v. Wade alive, Texas may be out of luck, as the Texas Heartbeat Act restricts exercise of a constitutional right. The justices' line of questioning seemed to betray their desire to let the abortion providers' case move forward. In either case, the Texas Heartbeat Act—and not Roe v. Wade—might well be the law sent to history's dustbin. Editor's note: Kagan's quote has been corrected to reflect the official transcript. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we'll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.  The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

In a sign of growing impatience, Joe Biden's administration has stepped up its objections to a new abortion law in Texas and asked the Supreme Court to block it. Our guest this week is Bryan Hughes, a Texas state senator who spearheaded the legislation. What makes him think he's doing the right thing?

Rhode Island mom Nicole Solas says she is just one of many parents “with legitimate concerns about our kids' education.”Solas drew national attention earlier this year when her local school board in South Kingstown, R.I., threatened to sue her over public record requests she made to learn what her local school district was teaching students. The school board ultimately opted against taking legal action against her. But Solas made headlines again in August, when a teachers union, the National Education Association Rhode Island, filed a lawsuit against her over the records requests. Solas made the requests to determine whether her child would be taught about gender identity and critical race theory ideology, two controversial issues that have led to an increase in parental attendance at school board meetings across the country this year. Parents “simply want to know what their kids are learning, and they want to have a say if what their kids are learning is not appropriate,” she says. Solas is actively speaking out against Attorney General Merrick Garland's order to the FBI and federal prosecutors to meet with federal, state, and local leaders to look into a “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence” allegedly being made against “school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.” Garland's directive came less than a week after the National Association of School Boards asked President Joe Biden for assistance looking into whether threats against school board members and other school leaders could be classified as "domestic terrorism.”Solas joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to share her personal story of speaking out against her local school board, and to discuss Garland's order. We also cover these stories:Congress reaches an agreement to raise the debt ceiling.Former President Donald Trump asks a federal judge to order Facebook to reinstate his account.Texas will appeal a federal judge's injunction against the state's pro-life Heartbeat Act.Enjoy the show! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

A few weeks ago, I considered whether the new Texas abortion statute, the "Texas Heartbeat Act," violated the "Separation of Powers" Clause of the Texas Constitution of 1876. This week I examined whether the Heartbeat Act may violate the "Open Courts Clause," another unique feature of the 1876 state constitution, which also has no direct equivalent in the U.S. Constitution. While the application of that clause to the Act would raise some novel questions, the near-shutdown of abortion services in Texas over the last month suggests that the practical effect of the Act has been to deny the constitutional guarantee of "open courts" to providers--who would otherwise seek to defend the legality of the services they offer. 

With the recent passing of the Texas Heartbeat Act the fight for abortion access is more important now than ever. There is a Nationwide protest for Abortion Access on October 2nd. https://womensmarch.com/mobilize Roe V. Wade is at risk of being overturned once again, but now there is a conservative majority in the supreme court. We talk about the case that could dramatically change things for the worse Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Abortion access is critical for the health and well being of people with uteruses we need to make sure we maintain our rights and bodily autonomy. Resources: https://maps.reproductiverights.org/what-if-roe-fell https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-americans-dont-want-roe-v-wade-repealed-but-many-also-support-restrictions-on-abortion/ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/health/abortion-rate-dropped.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/05/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-abortion-texas-mississippi-arkansas.html https://www.aclu.org/other/keep-marching-what-you-can-do-protect-reproductive-freedom https://maps.reproductiverights.org/what-if-roe-fell#no-roe-reality https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/27/us/politics/biden-abortion-democrats.html https://didbidensayabortionyet.org/ https://katv.com/news/local/lawsuit-filed-challenging-arkansas-near-total-abortion-ban https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/18/upshot/abortion-laws-roe-wade-states.html https://allaboveall.org/resource/each-act-fact-sheet/

"Ziel Nummer eins im Bundesstaat Texas ist die Beseitigung von Vergewaltigungen, damit keine Frau und kein Mensch Opfer einer Vergewaltigung wird." Das sagte Texas' republikanischer Gouverneur Gregg Abbott auf die Frage eines Journalisten, warum das seit diesem Monat geltende strikte Schwangerschaftsabbruchgesetz auch im Falle von Vergewaltigung und Inzest keine Ausnahme zulasse. Und, das fügte Abbott noch hinzu, Frauen hätten unter dem sogenannten Heartbeat Act, dem Herzschlaggesetz, ja sechs Wochen Zeit, einen Abbruch vornehmen zu lassen. Die ersten sechs Wochen einer Schwangerschaft sind der Zeitraum, in denen Frauen es noch möglich ist, in dem US-Bundesstaat eine Schwangerschaft zu beenden. Die Organisationen, die in Texas Schwangerschaftsabbrüche vornehmen, schätzen jedoch, dass etwa 85 Prozent der Patientinnen nach der sechsten Woche einen Eingriff vornehmen lassen und daher künftig keine Chance mehr auf eine Betreuung haben. Nicht nur der Zeitraum ist im neuen Gesetz extrem eng gefasst, es sieht außerdem vor, dass nicht etwa Behörden für die Durchsetzung verantwortlich sind, sondern jede Privatperson einen Verstoß melden kann. Jeder also, der ein Verhalten an den Tag legt, das die Durchführung oder Veranlassung eines Schwangerschaftsabbruchs unterstützt oder begünstigt, kann durch das neue Gesetz belangt werden. Wer einen solchen Fall vor Gericht bringt, bekommt bei einer Verurteilung 10.000 Dollar – die von dem oder der Verurteilten zu zahlen sind. Das Gesetz ist ein Angriff auf die Frauenrechte im Bundesstaat und hat Implikationen, die weit über Texas hinausgehen. Welche Rolle der Supreme Court spielt, wie sich die Biden-Regierung verhält, warum das Grundsatzurteil Roe v. Wade in Gefahr sein könnte und warum das Thema in den Vereinigten Staaten ideologisch so umkämpft ist, diskutieren wir im US-Podcast. Außerdem: ein Rückblick auf den 20. Jahrestag der Terroranschläge des 11. September. Und im Get-out: der Schriftsteller Colm Tóibín, die Serie "Miss America" und die US-Fotografin Ruth Orkin im Fotografiska-Musem in New York. Der Podcast erscheint alle zwei Wochen donnerstags. Sie erreichen uns per Mail an okamerica@zeit.de.

We're checking on big issues with Family Voice Australia, including news from US State of Texas and a new Heartbeat Act. Help Vision to keep 'Connecting Faith to Life': https://vision.org.au/donate See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week, Alex Woolhouse (she/her) and Shivani Dave (they/them) are joined by presenter Dr. Ronx (they/them). We talk about transness in the medical field; the Heartbeat Act in Texas; and why Shivani hates pigeons. Plus, Alex answers a question about how to teach young children about gender fluidity. Alex Woolhouse (she/her): AlexWoolly (Twitter & Instagram) Shivani Dave (they/them): ShivaniDave (Twitter), dah_vey (Instagram) Dr. Ronx (they/them): Dr_Ronx (Twitter & Instagram) Helpline: 0808 801 0400  Calls to this helpline are free from landlines and mobile phones within the UK and do not appear on itemised bills Please support the work Mermaids do by donating: Mermaidsuk.org.uk/donate Registered Charity Number 1160575

Building on an insightful op-ed in today's Boston Globe about the Supreme Court's 1981 Grendel's Den case, this episode considers whether the Heartbeat Act's delegation of enforcement authority to millions of private citizens may violate the Texas Constitution's separation-of-powers clause -- a clause that does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. 

Recently a new anti-abortion law in Texas passed through the legislature, was signed by the governor and was allowed to go into law by the U.S. Supreme Court.--Joining Jim to discuss this issue was Brad Mattes. Brad is the president of Life Issues Institute, the pro-life grassroots partner of the Susan B. Anthony List Education Fund. Life Issues Institute was founded in 1991 to serve the educational needs of the pro-life movement. He's the host of Life Issues, a daily radio commentary.--This new legislation is called the -Heartbeat Act-. This act would stop any abortion once a medical professional can detect a heartbeat in the office of a doctor. Brad noted that this is at the six week mark and certainly by 8 weeks.

Recently a new anti-abortion law in Texas passed through the legislature, was signed by the governor and was allowed to go into law by the U.S. Supreme Court.--Joining Jim to discuss this issue was Brad Mattes. Brad is the president of Life Issues Institute, the pro-life grassroots partner of the Susan B. Anthony List Education Fund. Life Issues Institute was founded in 1991 to serve the educational needs of the pro-life movement. He's the host of Life Issues, a daily radio commentary.--This new legislation is called the -Heartbeat Act-. This act would stop any abortion once a medical professional can detect a heartbeat in the office of a doctor. Brad noted that this is at the six week mark and certainly by 8 weeks.

Happy long weekend suga bbz! This week, the certified ladies of rage have returned.  In this episode, we talked about the passing of "The Heartbeat Act" (abortion ban) in the circus du Texas. And we dived into the issue of female choices on sexuality and reproductive health being used as an indicators of our morals. Is abortion a societal moral issue or should it just be dictated by your own ethic system? And what is even morals babe.... Tune in now my certified suga bbs to listen to our existential spiral into the void!

Happy long weekend suga bbz! This week, the certified ladies of rage have returned.  In this episode, we talked about the passing of "The Heartbeat Act" (abortion ban) in the circus du Texas. And we dived into the issue of female choices on sexuality and reproductive health being used as an indicators of our morals. Is abortion a societal moral issue or should it just be dictated by your own ethic system? And what is even morals babe.... Tune in now my certified suga bbs to listen to our existential spiral into the void!

Pre-born babies are protected in Texas with the Heartbeat Act. National Sex Education Standards are on the prowl in a state near you, this time in Illinois and Nebraska. Use Opt-out forms to opt your children out of sex education or other harmful teachings like CRT. Visit Illinoisfamily.org and ConcernedParentsofTexas.com to download opt-out forms. Sowing seeds of truth in our children to drown out the weeds (ideologies) in the world. To support this podcast go to monicacline.com. To support It Takes A Family go to ittakesafamily.org --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/the-monica-cline-show/support

On this week's 51%, we discuss Texas Law SB 8, a new law banning abortion in the state after six weeks of pregnancy – before many women know they are pregnant. The Supreme Court allowed the law to take effect September 1. What does this signal for the future of Roe v. Wade? We sit down with Chelly Hegan, the president and CEO of Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood, and Dr. Julie Novkov of the University at Albany. Guests: Chelly Hegan, president and CEO of Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood; Dr. Julie Novkov, interim dean of the Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy at the University at Albany 51% is a national production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio. Its producer and host is Jesse King. Its theme music is "Lolita" by Albany-based artist Girl Blue. Follow Along You're listening to 51%, a WAMC production dedicated to women's issues and experiences. Thanks for tuning in, I'm Jesse King. We're going to try to tackle a very sensitive subject today — and if you've listened to the news at all over the past week, you know where I'm headed. On September 1, Texas enacted a total of 666 new laws, among them Texas Law SB 8, the most restrictive abortion law in the country. The “Texas Heartbeat Act” effectively bans abortion at six weeks into pregnancy, the point at which an embryonic or fetal heartbeat can be detected. Now, abortion rates are already at historically low levels in the U.S. According to the latest numbers from the Guttmacher Institute, in 2017 the country saw its lowest abortion rate since Roe v. Wade in 1973, at 13.5 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15 through 44. However, the Institute estimates that, as of 2019, 58 percent of reproductive-aged women live in states hostile to abortion rights. In 2021 alone, states have enacted at least 97 abortion restrictions — the green lights being the coronavirus pandemic and the growing conservative majority on the Supreme Court, which is expected to take up a Mississippi case that could overturn Roe v. Wade by the end of the year. Again, Texas law SB 8 is even more restrictive than the Mississippi law in question, and it has its own elements that are making abortion providers very nervous. Planned Parenthood and other groups tried and failed to keep the law from going into effect by suing over the summer — during the suit, I spoke with Chelly Hegan, the president of Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood in New York. This is far from the first abortion restriction from Texas to receive national attention. What makes Texas Law SB 8 different? I mean, I'm an optimistic person generally, and I have been involved in the conversations around potential limitations on abortion rights for years — and I've never been so scared. Whatever happens — we've got this case, and then we have the case going to the Supreme Court all happening in the fall — there's a very real possibility that by this time next year, we're going to be looking at whole swaths of the country that have no access to abortion. What's very different about SB 8, and why I think it's causing such a chill in the abortion rights world, is that it includes what's called a public cause of action. Typically, these laws come out, we get an injunction, they're clearly unconstitutional under Roe, there's no question about that. And they go away. But because of this public cause of action, there's no one to sue. One article I read, an attorney in Texas said, essentially, [that] this law deputizes every Texan as an attorney general of their own. It's a really slippery slope for the law, outside of abortion access. It's a slippery slope to put the enforcement of a law completely in the public's hands. And it is very widespread in terms of who it could affect. So the general public is allowed to sue under the law, but who can they sue? And in what instances? So what the law says, and I wrote this down so that I can remember: defendants can include anyone who is seen to aid or abet the access to abortion. So that can be doctors, nurses, receptionists at a health center, administrators for a health center. Parents who drive their child to a clinic, partners who bring their partner to a clinic, a friend who may loan them the money. And then it can go further. They can also sue attorneys who have defended abortion access. And who can do the suing is somebody who's standing outside of the health center as a protester, somebody who overhears a conversation between two people in a café talking about going to get an abortion, your boyfriend's mom. And then this is where it gets really frightening for women, especially women who are in abusive situations: it could be their partner. And then what they can sue for is equally sort of staggering, inside the law, because it's very structured. They can sue for $10,000 and their attorney fees, and that would be the responsibility of the defendant to pay. So it's essentially a bounty. It's like, "You get $10,000 if you do this." So let's talk a little bit about how this law might affect Planned Parenthood in Texas or in general, I mean, how many abortion providers are there in Texas? I don't know the exact number, but I know that it is decreasing all the time. There have been bans in Texas, they banned abortion early in the pandemic — abortion was not considered essential services, and they were not allowed to provide abortion during COVID. Texas also has very extreme what they call trap laws, which are architectural requirements in order to provide abortion. So they have to essentially be built like mini operating suites. The standard is so far and beyond what is actually necessary for safe patient care, but it costs millions of dollars to build one of these centers. So there's fewer and fewer providers in Texas all the time. The chilling effect it's having on them right now [is] their staff is scared to death. People who are working the receptionist desk at a health center, who maybe are making $15 an hour, they can't afford to be sued for $10,000. They can't afford the legal cost of even defending themselves should they win. They're having to make the decision between a job they love, and this sort of looming risk that they could be sued at any time by anybody, which is just an untenable place to put staff members. So the clinic's themselves are really suffering right now with a large amount of people leaving their jobs, and turnover, and also just real anxiety among the staff. Now, this is a debate that's been going on long before I was born. But I feel like I'm hearing it more and more now. I'm not sure if that's because I'm consuming more news now, or if it's something that's really ramping up in the last decade or so. Are we seeing more and more of these restrictions recently? Absolutely. Every year, there's more and more in every state. We even have anti-choice legislation introduced in New York, it just doesn't go anywhere. You know, it's it's almost like a red badge for people who want to appeal to the far right, that they have a list of these pieces of legislation that they've put forward, whether or not they win. It's a real political tool, only real people are trapped in the middle of that. I totally agree with you. I feel like the debate has been ongoing. Of course, people are always going to have concerns about it. But there is definitely something different now. When I first started 15 years ago at Upper Hudson, I got involved with the organization because — I was actually an artist at the time, and I knew so many people who really desperately needed health insurance and access to care — I saw Planned Parenthood there as a real place that anyone could get care that they needed, whenever they needed it. And so I just really wanted to get behind that mission. And for me, it was always just about health care access. In the 15 years that I've been there, it has just become increasingly attacks on basic access to abortion. And I do think that it is true: some of the people who've been in this movement for a really long time would tell you that, right now, it's about abortion, but really, it's even about birth control, and ultimately, it's about control. It's about controlling women and their access to managing their own fertility. You see that now in places where the rhetoric around abortion has gotten more extreme — they're now looping in various forms of birth control. So abortion is illegal, along with these forms of birth control, because they're seen as "abortions," which is completely foolish. Attacks on things like emergency contraception, because that's seen as abortion — which it is not. And so we know that this fight is going to go for a while, because even if they're successful in reducing access to abortion in close to 50 percent of the United States, that's not going to be enough. So the law is technically called the "Texas Heartbeat Act." This isn't the first time a state has passed a so called "heartbeat bill" restricting abortion at the six week mark, why that number and timeframe, what do you think is significant about the six week mark in a pregnancy? Because that is frequently before someone knows they're pregnant, so that would essentially stop all abortion. You wouldn't know that you're pregnant before five or six weeks, most people. Many people don't really know for two months, you know, it takes a while for most people to notice, if they're not actively monitoring. That short window creates a possibility that it's not possible for someone to get an abortion. And then if you lay on top of that...you know, Upper Hudson has three health centers in Albany, Troy and Hudson, you can get to one of our health centers if you live in the Capital Region on the outside, like if you're way out in the Helderbergs and you want to get to Hudson, maybe it's an hour, and that's typical across the state. It's typical in places like California and Oregon and Washington state, Illinois. But in places where abortion has been under attack for all of these years, they have very limited access already. You know, Mississippi has one. That's why the case that the Supreme Court is going to hear in the fall is one. Texas has very few, Minnesota has two or three, North Dakota has zero — there's like no access in many parts of the country. By the time you find out, figure out if and how you can pay for it, and figure out how you're going to get there, you're not going to be able to access the abortion that you want. Not to mention, if there's very few providers, just even booking an appointment...who knows who what the wait time could be. Exactly. I mean, for anybody who's ever just tried to get an OB GYN, you know, just a regular exam, you sometimes have to book out six, eight months. Clearly, people treat abortion differently, they do put a rush on trying to get you in. But that still means a couple weeks — if you're five weeks [pregnant], and you have a six-week ban, you have to really hustle to figure out where you're going to be able to go, and how you're going to get there. And then if you put on top of that, 24-hour waiting periods, and some of the other restrictions that require an education session with the same doctor that will perform your abortion — and then that doctor gets sick, or in some states, they fly out to provide the abortion, and can't get there — then you have to start the whole process over again, because it has to be the same person, not just an education session. There's just hurdle after hurdle after hurdle put in people's way. Could this law impact any other areas of women's health? Absolutely, that's a fantastic question, Jesse. I just recently finished reading a book called The Turn Away Study. And I highly recommend it, and we are really excited because the author is going to be a speaker at an event of ours in the fall. But in The Turn Away Study, she follows 1,000 women over eight years that tried to access abortion and were turned away, and we're unable to get an abortion, and those who did. And she looks at it from an economic point of view, from a health point of view, from a health of the child point of view, mental health point of view. You know, contrary to what so many people who are anti-abortion say, women who had some of the most difficulty were the ones who were turned away, not the ones who access their abortion, there is no long term depression related to abortion. There's no long term physical health conditions related to abortion. However, women who are trying to space their pregnancies, which is many of our patients...most of them already have children, and they're trying to time their children, they don't want to have one baby on top of the other — that's not healthy for someone, [and] that causes many concerns even around the delivery of the second child. People also want to time their children for the economic ability to support them all. All of that goes away if you don't have access to abortion. The physical effects of not having an abortion — delivery itself is a much riskier procedure, especially with all we know about health disparities in this country. People who are seeking an abortion because they know it's the best thing for themselves and their family and are denied are then put in a position of all of the other concerns around disparities, especially among Black and brown women in this country. So accessing abortion should easily be in the hands of the person who's accessing it, right? Because they know themselves, they know their lives, they know their bodies, they know their health, and putting roadblocks in the way like this puts so many people at risk. And so if someone wanted to support their local Planned Parenthood, what are some ways they could do that? We are always looking for people who are interested in writing letters to the editor and posting our stuff on their social media and that sort of thing, just to get more information out. And I also feel like if you're a pro-choice person, in New York, it's easy for us sometimes to not be super worried about things that are happening in Texas, because we passed the Reproductive Health Act in 2019. We have really strong laws in New York, there is a lot of protection. But there's a false narrative that has grown up in this sort of super divisive time that we live in, that being pro-choice is somehow a minority opinion. But poll after poll after poll says that 75 percent, if not more people, believe that Roe v. Wade should be the law of the land. So you're not alone. People need to be a little more comfortable sharing that opinion, because I think the more we hear it, the more it doesn't seem fringe anymore. What we're putting forward is that women should have full access to how they want to live their lives and who they want to live them with, and when and if they want have children. We're not saying everybody should have an abortion, and we're not saying that people shouldn't sit around their kitchen table, if they don't believe abortion is right, and share that viewpoint with their kids. You know, encouraging their kids not to have abortions. Obviously people have every right to live their lives the way they want, including people who want to have an abortion. As I mentioned earlier, the initial lawsuit by Planned Parenthood and several other groups failed to prevent the law from going into effect. The Supreme Court notably ignored an emergency appeal asking to shut down the law before September 1. It then voted 5-4 not to block the law, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the Court's three liberal members in dissent. So what does this signal for Roe v. Wade? Could it really be overturned? To learn more, I spoke with Dr. Julie Novkov, the interim dean of the University at Albany's Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy. Novkov has long focused on how political groups use the law to achieve social change, and she says, while she's concerned about Texas Law SB 8, she is hardly surprised. What is your reaction to Texas Law SB 8? Gender law experts have said for years that we are moving closer and closer to confrontation. But also, I want to acknowledge that a lot of what we thought we had with Roe has been undercut over the years already. As it's framed, and as it's been understood popularly, it's been understood as granting women a fairly unqualified right to choose abortion prior to viability. But the ways that women have been able to exercise that right have been limited practically from the beginning. One of the first things that happened after Roe was decided was mobilization to ensure that public funds could not be used to support abortion rights. So that ban was put into effect on the federal level, and several states have followed suit to try to limit access to abortions that aren't necessary to save women's lives. And then you had in 1992, the Casey decision, which shifted the standard to the "undue burden" standard, enabling states to assert their interest in protecting fetal life much more strongly than what exists under Roe. For those who don't know, what is the definition of undue burden? Undue burden is defined by the courts as any obstacle that makes it inappropriately difficult for a woman to exercise her right to choose abortion. When Casey itself was decided, it was trumpeted as a decision that upheld the principles of Roe v. Wade. But several of the specific restrictions that Pennsylvania had enacted that were challenged under Casey, the court chose to uphold. So over the years, the anti-abortion movement has been very effective in kind of looking for these points where they could exert pressure on Roe. They've pushed for constitutional standards that allow for parental notification, parental consent, as long as there's a judicial bypass. Regulations that require doctors to have admitting privileges at hospitals before performing certain types of abortions have been upheld. If drafted properly, restrictions on particular methods of procuring abortion have made it through the courts. There have been a lot of ways. One of the things that confuses me about the law is the fact that people can sue someone who they believe has aided or abetted an abortion, and then get $10,000 in damages. What harm are they trying to prove to get those damages? Well, remember that rights are, in some regards, creatures of the state. They're ideas that the state creates. So it's not that someone having an abortion is a personal injury to me, but rather the state has created this incentive for people to go out identify individuals who they believe are in violation of this law, and then take action or punish the provider for violating the law. It is designed to make it more difficult for this law to be challenged in court, and to enable the law to go into effect, to have the precise chilling effect that we're seeing. Incentivizing the public to go out and enforce laws, has that been done before? It's a fairly rare tactic. A couple of scholars note that there was a previous immigration law, I believe in California, that had this kind of private enforcement mechanism, where people received an incentive for turning in individuals they believed to be in violation of immigration law. The other major law, we have to go back to the antebellum era and look to the Fugitive Slave Act, which had private incentives. What does that signal for the future of Roe v. Wade? You know, there will be a lot of talk about whether the court is finally going to overrule Roe v. Wade. I'm not sure that's going to happen. I think it's likely we'll see further modification of Roe v. Wade. But the question for me is what what is actually going to be left of the concrete right to have an abortion once all of this has gone through. Right now, we are already seeing that many women struggle to access abortion rights. And this burden falls in a very unequal fashion on poor women, on women of color, on young women, on rural women. And this kind of development, regardless of whether or not the court decides to uphold some shell of Roe v. Wade, is going to simply continue that process of degradation. In terms of the court itself, I worry more about the broader precedent, that rights are not secure, that we cannot depend on those rights once they articulated to remain in our possession, and that they can be rolled back at the political whim of a minority. What the pro-life movement has done really effectively, I think, is to play the political game at the state level. To get people of like mind into state legislatures, and to encourage them to pass legislation that's going to restrict access to abortion. On the pro-choice side, the choice frame, you know, it made a lot of sense in the 1970s — because it's not a really radical frame in a lot of ways, and it ties in with ideas about liberty and autonomy that were very much in circulation in the 1970s. The more radical position would have been something more along the lines of, "the right to have an abortion, not just the right to consult with your doctor and choose whether or not abortion is the proper path for you to take." The right to control your own body, and to have an abortion, and to have access to abortion services. The choice rhetoric, I think, has been at this point deployed fairly cynically, across a range of issues. At some point, it becomes dispersed so broadly that it tends to lose its power and meaning. Do you see the framing then changing over the next year or so, as this goes through the courts? How do you see both Texas Law SB 8 and the Supreme Court case that they're taking later this year affecting politics? That's an interesting question, and I think it illustrates the disconnect between what's going on in the realm of jurisprudence, and what is going on in the realm of politics. Now, obviously in Texas, women and people with uteruses who are being actively harmed by this legislation have no choice but to go to court, because the legislature is clearly not a place where they're going to get much help. They could petition Congress to pass national legislation protecting abortion access and abortion rights, but that's a long process, and women right now are suffering for lack of access. So there will be efforts to fight this in court, clearly, and those efforts will likely try to develop frames that they think would be attractive to the justices who aren't going to be immediately inclined to continue to support Roe v. Wade. So they'll target Justice Roberts, they'll target Justice Kavanaugh, and basically try to preserve some sort of core. But the other thing that should happen, and is happening, is a broader movement-based strategy. That, again, has been framing abortion and talking about abortion as but one piece of broader reproductive autonomy: women's rights to contraception, women's rights to abortion, women's rights to adequate prenatal care, women's rights to assistance after birth...a broader conception of recognizing the important role that women play in reproduction in childbearing and trying to protect and enhance how that works. I don't know if you've had the chance to look at Justice Sotomayor's dissent, but there's some wonderful language in there that I think we should all keep in mind. She notes that this Texas bill is not just an attack on reproductive rights. It's not just an attack on abortion. It's an attack on the Constitution and on the Court itself, because it is an overt effort to try to prevent the courts from having a path to intervene. So she says, at the end of her dissent, "the Court should not be so content to ignore its Constitutional obligations to protect not only the rights of women, but also the sanctity of its precedent, and of the rule of law." Which I find tremendously compelling. Earlier in the show, Chelly Hegan pointed out that the majority of Americans support abortion rights — and she's right. According to the latest numbers by the Pew Research Center, 59 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, compared to 39 percent, who think it should be banned or mostly illegal. These numbers have been relatively stable for at least the past five years, but nonetheless it's a divisive topic that has long driven party politics — even among women. 37 percent of women lean toward banning abortion, so there are, presumably, a good number of women pleased with Texas Law SB 8. And we shouldn't forget that. You know, just before we wrapped today's episode, the Justice Department sued the state of Texas over the Heartbeat Act. Only time will tell whether the law will stand, whether similar ones will follow, and, if so, how they will be administered practically. But this law changes the game in that it forces the abortion debate out of just the legislative and judicial realm and places it directly in the public's hands — and considering our lives are becoming increasingly partisan and political on a number of fronts, that is concerning. For now, this is a very public and personal battle. In just the past couple weeks, we've seen activists on Tik Tok spamming Texas Right to Life with fake “whistleblower” tips. Companies like Lyft have pledged to cover all potential legal fees for their employees. Meanwhile, other countries, like Mexico, are moving toward legalizing abortion. So it will be interesting to see how our government handles things moving forward — five decades after Roe. Thanks for listening to 51%. 51% is a weekly, national production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio. Our story editor is Ian Pickus, our executive producer is Dr. Alan Chartock, and our theme is “Lolita” by Albany-based artist Girl Blue. A big thanks to Chelly Hegan and Dr. Julie Novkov for taking the time to speak with me. Until next week, I'm Jesse King for 51%.