Podcasts about obergefell

Last week, more than 80 organizations—including the Colson Center, Alliance Defending Freedom, and Focus on the Family—sent a letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The purpose was “to denounce . . . the so-called ‘Respect for Marriage Act, ‘in the strongest possible terms.”   The letter outlined three problems with this legislation.  First, the act would require recognition of any state definition of marriage, making possible options such as polygamous or open marriages. This would sacrifice the well-being of children for adult happiness.   Second, the act sets up religious organizations and businesses to be sued for upholding that marriage is between a man and a woman. So, religious foster agencies, social service organizations, and other organizations and businesses contracted with the government could expect to be targeted.   Third, this legislation could threaten the tax-exempt status of non-profits that believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.   The so-called “Respect for Marriage Act” would establish and expand the wrongly decided Obergefell ruling. If you care about religious liberty and children, please contact your senator today.  Resources:  Call Your Senators About the Respect for Marriage Act>>    Possible Script to Say to Senator's Office About Marriage Act>>  Letter From Coalition to Senate Minority Leader>> 

The day that the Supreme Court released its ruling for marriage quality, Jim Obergefell — the man behind the watershed decision — saw a sign of his impending victory on his admission slip. "Every time I had been in the Supreme Court, the tickets were bright orange," Obergefell reflected on the latest episode of Law&Crime's podcast "Objections: with Adam Klasfeld.""On Friday, June 26 — that day, it wasn't bright orange," he continued. "It was lavender, and when we realized that we all thought, 'Well, this has to be a sign. This has to be a positive sign. There's no reason for the ticket to have changed color, let alone being lavender.'"In an extended interview, Obergefell moves beyond the cold record of that case to reflect upon how he and his late husband John Arthur began their legal battle over their marriage. He describes how he became ordained to officiate weddings after his Supreme Court victory — and came to read the closing lines of the ruling that bears his name at "every" ceremony.He also discusses his ongoing political campaign for state office in Ohio and movement on Capitol Hill right now to preserve same-sex marriage with the Respect for Marriage Act.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The unconstitutional Obergefell decision is hanging by a thread. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved - visit www.LC.org

22- of Republicans have squished on codifying Obergefell, and have joined the other side among the House of Representatives.--This appears to be happening with the US Senate as well. Witnessing the squishing is one of the most outstanding experiences of our generation.--But the fault doesn't lie with our politicians.--The fault lies with the heart of the people. 71- of Americans want homosexual mirage in place, up from 61- when Trump was elected.--Trump did not bring a revival to America. America is not repenting. The Roe v. Wade reversal was not repentance.--America is in tremendous degrade, the problem starts with the church.----This program includes---1. The World View in 5 Minutes with Adam McManus -America is in recession, Amy Grant hospitalized after bike crash, Marshall Foster- America needs to repent---2. Generations with Kevin Swanson

In the 2015 majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, a decision that overruled laws in dozens of states and imposed same sex “marriage” on the United States, Justice Anthony Kennedy rightly described marriage as an institution that is fundamental to society, that protects and ensures the well-being of children, and that is essential for a flourishing society. To withhold this institution from same-sex couples, Kennedy then wrongly concluded, would be to violate their dignity and disrespect their autonomy, especially the autonomy reflected in their intimate unions. What went missing in this opinion was a definition of what marriage is, and therefore why it is such an irreplaceable institution.  In the end, Kennedy's decision failed in the same way that Matt Walsh's new documentary What Is a Woman? reveals that transgender ideology fails. Repeatedly, advocates Walsh interviewed echoed the same refrain, that a woman is “anyone who identifies as a woman.” However, when pressed further and asked, “but what are they identifying as?” they had no answer. In the same way, under Kennedy's reasoning, any relational arrangement we identify as marriage is marriage and warrants being included in the institution, even if it lacks the necessary ingredients that make marriage what it is. It is like saying, “The Rockefellers are rich, so I'm going to change my name to Rockefeller so I can be rich.”   Of course, this is not how reality works. Instead, Kennedy resorts to identifying marriage as an ever-evolving institution. In other words, marriage is not baked into reality like gravity. Instead, it is more like a speed limit, a social construct that changes as society changes.  If marriage is indeed just a product of abstract progress, untethered from any created intent or design, it suffers the same moral quandary as naturalistic evolution. There is no way to control what creature comes next, or to know, as Justice Kennedy assured us, that what followed would be better than what came before (or even if it will be good). There is no guarantee that marriage will remain an institution fundamental to society, that protects and ensures the well-being of children and contributes to human flourishing.  In fact, since Obergefell was decided, the rights of children to know their mom and dad, and to have their minds, bodies, futures, and most important relationships protected, have been replaced by the rights of adults to pursue their own desires and happiness. Justice Kennedy, it seems, has gotten his wish. Marriage has indeed evolved, or at least our conception of it has, but not for the better. Throughout human history, marriage was understood, including in law, to be a sexually complementary union, ordered toward procreation. No-fault divorce and now more fully same-sex “marriage” redefined it as an institution ordered only toward the vagaries of adult happiness.  Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives proposed the wrongly named “Respect for Marriage Act.” If it passes the Senate, this bill will result in a further stage of the legal evolution of marriage. When Obergefell was decided, the “T” had not yet taken over the ever-growing acronym of sexual identity preferences. The Respect for Marriage Act would not only encode Obergefell, but it would also further the reinvention of marriage in law. In effect, marriage would evolve into a genderless institution, not only unbound from its essential connection to children and sexual difference but to any embodied realities whatsoever. In other words, there would be no legal obstacle to extending marriage beyond couples to relationships consisting of multiple partners.   Even worse, redefining marriage not only redefines the definition of “spouse” but also “parent.” Parenting should be a sacrificial investment in future generations, but redefining marriage in this way has made it a self-determined right of getting “what we want.” Children have always borne the brunt of the worst ideas of the sexual revolution, especially when combined with new reproductive technologies. Rather than the fruit of a loving union, children are now increasingly treated as products of casually partnered consumers.  Further, if the Respect for Marriage Act becomes law, the worst parts of the Obergefell decision would be established in law in a way that abortion was not under Roe v. Wade. Like Roe, Obergefell was an act of judicial overreach. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent, “[T]his Court is not a legislature…. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be…. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as constitutional law…. The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment.”   In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy claimed that the decision would not affect people of conscience, especially “religious institutions and people.” That has proven to be flatly wrong. The Respect for Marriage Act contains no conscience protections.  Despite their party platform which claims a commitment to Constitutional originalism and religious freedom, this bill could find support from 10 Republican Senators. If it does, it will pass the Senate and become law. Please, if you live in a state with a Republican Senator who has not indicated he or she will oppose this bill, contact them today and tell them to do so. 

Is Ron DeSantis going to run for president in 2024? If he is, New Abnormal co-hosts Andy Levy and Molly Jong-Fast are of the opinion that he'll be a scarier candidate than Donald Trump if the former president chooses to run again. Then, New York Governor Kathy Hochul talks to Molly about what she and her administration are doing to prevent ugly fallout from the Supreme Court ruling on guns in the state and her opinion on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg not prosecuting Trump. Plus! James Obergefell, the plaintiff in the historic Obergefell v Hodges Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage, shares the events that led to his case and why he's “disgusted” today.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

A new bill is making its way through Congress that would protect the right to same-sex marriage on the federal level. The Respect for Marriage Act passed the House with the support of 47 Republicans.The push in Congress comes after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in the Dobbs v. Jackson's Women's Health decision suggesting that the court should reconsider Obergefell v. Hodges. The right to same-sex marriage has been protected under the Obergefell decision since 2015.We discuss what's in the bill and whether it has a chance to pass a gridlocked Senate.Want to support 1A? Give to your local public radio station and subscribe to this podcast. Have questions? Find us on Twitter @1A.

Here's what we're talking about today: Three House Bills Poised to Fail in Congress -Right to Contraception Act (via NBC News) -Respect for Marriage Act (via Axios) -Women's Health Protection Act (via NBC News) -Griswold – can married couples use contraceptives? -Lawrence – can same-sex couples be in a relationship? -Obergefell – can same-sex couples get married?Abortion Will Remain Legal in Kentucky -Story via Courier JournalJanuary 6th Season Finale -Story via SlateHot Hot Heat -Main story via NPR -Yosemite Fire via AP News -Worldwide Heat Connected via AxiosMonkeypox Declared Public Health Emergency -Protest story via Buzzfeed News -Additional reporting via CNN -WHO declares global health emergency via CNBC

Since the unconstitutional Roe was overturned, leftists have been roiling in rage at the thought that states are now free to enact the will of the people with regard to killing humans in the womb. In his concurrence, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argued that three other Supreme Court cases should be revisited in that they too lacked constitutional grounding—an argument made also by the esteemed Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork. One of the decisions Thomas believes should be revisited is the Obergefell decision that imposed same-sex “marriage” on the entire country, robbing states—that is, the people—of their right to decide if intrinsically non-marital relationships should be legally recognized as marriages. And so, leftists livid at the prospect of diverse states one day being free to enact marriage laws in accordance with the will of the people, are trying to take that right away preemptively through federal legislation. This week the U.S. House of Representatives passed the laughably named “Respect for Marriage Act” (H.R. 8404)—a bill that doesn't merely disrespect marriage; it is hostile to marriage. The bill, which would overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, now goes to the U.S. Senate. Read more...

COVID: • Sigue subiendo la tasa de positividad por Covid-19 • https://esnoticiapr.com/sigue-subiendo-la-tasa-de-positividad-por-covid-19-2/ • El Departamento de Salud reportó este viernes que la tasa de positividad por Covid-19 está en 32.07%. • Se informó de otras 10 muertes a causa del COVID-19, ascendiendo los decesos a 4,718 desde que empezó la pandemia en marzo de 2020 en Puerto Rico. • De las 10 personas que murieron, siete no tenían las vacunas al día, una no estaba vacunada y dos estaban al día con las vacunas. Anuncios • Mañana en El Candil a la 1:00pm. Alfonso Giménez Lucchetti presenta el libro El Coloniaje En Pelota del maestro Jesús Ortiz • El Comité Caborrojeño Pro Salud y Ambiente lleva más de 15 años creando proyectos de educación en el área de las Salinas de Cabo Rojo. Han trabajado con miles de visitantes y nunca dicen que no cuando de labor voluntaria se trata. El Centro Interpretativo de las Salinas y sus alrededores naturales han sido, y siguen siendo, hogar, salón, laboratorio, museo e inspiración para muchos. Ayúdame donando y compartiendo este mensaje. • 1 árbol x 1 libro: una iniciativa de editora educación emergente en colaboración con cuidadorxs alrededor del archipiélago puertorriqueño o En medio de la crisis climática global y de sus agudas manifestaciones en esta colonia nuestra, Editora Educación Emergente (EEE) quiere unirse a cuidadorxs de los árboles, de la tierra, de las semillas, de las islas, de la vida, para comprometerse, en un pequeño esfuerzo de reforestación, a sembrar un árbol endémico puertorriqueño por cada título que publique a partir del anuncio público de esta iniciativa, que se hará próximamente... ¡PENDIENTES! o Si tú, tu comunidad u organización quisiera unirse a esta iniciativa como cuidadorxs de árboles, el compromiso consistiría en dos tareas: (1) cuidar el o los árboles que puedas tener a tu cargo en las tierras que acompañas, y (2) documentar su crecimiento para que EEE pueda compartirlo a futuro con sus comunidades lectoras. Cada árbol llevará el nombre del libro que representa. o https://editoraemergente.com o https://portal.editoraemergente.com Judge makes decision on Kentucky’s abortion ban • https://www.wkyt.com/2022/07/22/judge-makes-decision-kentuckys-abortion-ban/ o LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WKYT) - Abortion will be allowed in Kentucky while the ACLU’s lawsuit over the state’s laws banning abortion is decided. o Kentucky’s trigger law, which was passed in 2019, went into effect immediately when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, banning abortions in the state. o The ACLU says the ban violates the state’s constitution. The judge had previously granted the ACLU’s request for a restraining order against the law and the ACLU wanted the judge to continue blocking it. o According to the ruling, the court found a “substantial likelihood that these laws violate the rights to privacy and self-determination.” It says those rights are protected by multiple sections of the state’s constitution. Pregnant Women Can't Get Divorced in Missouri. The state's divorce law has come under more scrutiny since the overturning of Roe v. Wade • https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/pregnant-women-cant-get-divorced-in-missouri-38092512 o She says that the whole basis for Missouri putting the pause on a divorce proceeding until a child is born is because Missouri divorce law "does not see fetuses as humans”. o "You can't have a court order that dictates visitation and child support for a child that doesn't exist," she says. "I have no mechanism as a lawyer to get that support going. There's nothing there because that's not a real person." o Missouri ends abortion JUNE 24, 2022  Following the Supreme Court of the United States’ ruling Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt today issued an opinion to the Missouri Revisor of Statutes that “triggers” parts of Missouri’s House Bill 126, effectively ending abortion in the State of Missouri. Missouri is the first state in the country to do so.  “Today, following the United States Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, with the issuance of an attorney general opinion, my Office has yet again reinforced Missouri’s dedication to protecting the sanctity of life, both born and unborn. With this attorney general opinion, my Office has effectively ended abortion in Missouri, becoming the first state in the country to do so following the Court’s ruling,” said Attorney General Schmitt. “My Office has been fighting to uphold the sanctity of life since I became attorney general, culminating in today’s momentous court ruling and attorney general opinion. I will continue the fight to protect all life, born and unborn.” Ted Cruz Says Supreme Court Was Wrong to Legalize Gay Marriage: 'Ignored 2 Centuries of Our Nation's History . n Sunday's episode of his podcast, Republican Sen. https://people.com/politics/ted-cruz-says-supreme-court-was-wrong-to-legalize-gay-marriage/?amp=true • Ted Cruz said the 2015 case that legalized same-sex marriage in the U.S. "was clearly wrong when it was decided" • The issue, Cruz suggested, is that the legality of same-sex marriage should be left to the states. • "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," Cruz said. "Marriage was always an issue that was left to the states. We saw states before Obergefell, some states were moving to allow gay marriage, other states were moving to allow civil partnerships. There were different standards that the states were adopting."

On this episode of "The Federalist Radio Hour," Federalist Senior Editor and RightForge Co-Founder Christopher Bedford joins Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss why 47 Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to codify same-sex marriage, how the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges decision ushered in a new era of cultural battles, and why Republicans on Capitol Hill should speak up about the importance of marriage and family. 

Julio and guest co-host Jamilah King, managing editor at BuzzFeed News, talk about the final January 6 hearing of the summer, the bills passed in the House to protect same-sex marriage and the right to contraception, and the recent racist attacks against South Texas Representative Mayra Flores. This episode was mixed by Rosana Cabán. ITT Staff Picks: Trump's “idleness, the committee sought to prove, should not be confused with ineffectiveness. It was complicity,” writes Jim Newell in his breakdown of the final January 6 hearing of the summer, for Slate. Orion Rummler reports for The 19th on how the Respect for Marriage Act would protect same-sex marriage if the landmark Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges is overturned. “It's time for Democrats and so-called liberals to stop being smug when it comes to Latino voters and instead start earning the respect,” writes Julio in this opinion piece for MSNBC about the racist attacks against Rep. Mayra Flores. Photo credit: AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File

On Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed what is known as the Respect for Marriage Act. Despite its traditional-sounding name, this bill is anything but. It's an attempt to make legislatively secure what was decreed by the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that redefined marriage for the entire nation.  It's not surprising the bill passed the progressive-controlled House, but 47 Republicans joined all the Democrats in the vote. And it seems at least possible that Dems could find 10 Republicans in the Senate, which would make the deceptively named act a law.   There's nothing conservative about the state redefining marriage and forcing it on a nation as Obergefell did. If so-called conservative lawmakers don't get that, it seems there is little left for conservatism to conserve.  Too many political conservatives are philosophically rootless. Their ideas are built on sentiment or nebulous “values” instead of the solid rocks of Scripture and common sense. If society is ever to re-embrace creational norms about marriage and family, our so-called conservatives must reject “the Hallmark-ization” of ethics. They must stop prioritizing sentiment over conviction. 

Happy Thursday everyone, this is Garrison Hardie stepping in for the Chocolate Knox for Thursday, July 21st, 2022. We’ve got a lot to get to today, so let’s just jump right in shall we? https://www.actionidaho.org/post/mayor-mclean-boise-city-council-make-boise-a-sanctuary-city-for-abortion Mayor McLean, Boise City Council Make Boise a Sanctuary City for Abortion Boise City Council voted 3-2 to approve RES 385-22 limiting the enforcement of Idaho’s abortion ban. The measure directs police to allocate their resources to every other priority in law enforcement but the crime of abortion. Idaho has a state criminal code, passed by legislatures and approved by governors. This code governs the entire state, so that crimes like arson, conspiracies, burglary, bigamy and polygamy, and others are uniform across the state. Each part of the criminal code defines the crime and punishments for each specific crime. Local law enforcement is then charged with enforcing these laws. City police investigate. County sheriffs investigate. District attorneys and county attorneys accuse and prosecute. Judges oversee trials. Idaho’s Criminal Code defines the physician or abortionist guilty of a felony called "criminal abortion" punishable by imprisonment if he or she performs an abortion. On July 19, 2022, Boise City Council passed a resolution to stop Boise city police from enforcing Idaho’s law against criminal abortion. The city council’s resolution holds that “investigations for the purpose of prosecuting abortion providers will not be prioritized, and additional resources or personnel will not be assigned” to crimes of criminal abortion. The city will not cooperate with other entities to enforce Idaho's ban on abortion law either. The City Council is not passing the law because the Boise Police Department is faced with a shortage of resources. The resolution was passed in order to undermine Idaho’s abortion ban, enshrined in its criminal code. Idaho's ban on abortion, the resolution reads, abrogates “the fundamental liberties of its people,” especially the “right to make reproductive health decisions for themselves.” Three members of the city council supported the resolution, while two opposed it (Elaine Clegg and Luci Willits opposed). The move provides sanctuary or a safe place for abortion providers in Boise. While Planned Parenthood has moved its abortion clinics out of Boise (Planned Parenthood’s only Idaho clinics are in Meridian and Twin Falls), the city of Boise’s passage of this resolution opens the door for its return. Other providers could move in as well. In other news… https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2022/07/19/house-passes-gay-marriage-bill-with-47-republicans-in-favor-n483850 House passes gay marriage bill -- with 47 Republicans in favor the “Respect for Marriage Act” (RFMA), which will take you all of 30 seconds to read. It doesn’t create any federal right of gay marriage. Rather, it repeals the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act signed by Bill Clinton and requires states to give full faith and credit to any lawful marriage performed in another state. So if SCOTUS ends up overturning the Obergefell case that recognized a constitutional right of gays to marry, gay couples from red states could get married in blue ones and then demand that their home states recognize the validity of their union under the RFMA. Pelosi’s strategy in forcing the vote is obvious. She’s keen to scare swing voters by leveraging Clarence Thomas’s concurrence in the Dobbs case, where Thomas called for overturning various landmark “substantive due process” cases touching on sexual autonomy, including Obergefell. And she knows that support for legal gay marriage polls remarkably well, which left House Republicans here between a rock and a hard place. If they voted for the bill, they’d be siding with Pelosi and the libs over social conservatives, angering the base. If they voted against the bill, they’d be angering the great majority of American voters. That’s a tough one for a Republican in a swing district. Especially since, according to Gallup’s poll last year, a majority of *Republican voters* now support legal gay marriage as well. A more recent Gallup poll published last month found national support ticking up to 71 percent. Normally a 71 percent issue is easy for politicians, but House GOPers know that it’s not moderates who tend to turn out in party primaries. Because it’s such a knotty dilemma for righties, Kevin McCarthy and his leadership team decided not to whip against the bill. House Republicans were free to vote their conscience, and in this case “conscience” included “whatever you need to do to maximize your odds of getting reelected.” Let’s shift our eyes overseas for a moment… https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/07/russia-has-lost-50000-soldiers-in-ukraine-u-k-military-chief-says/ Russia has lost 50,000 soldiers in Ukraine, U.K. military chief says Russia has lost some 50,000 killed or wounded soldiers in its invasion of Ukraine and nearly 1,700 tanks have been destroyed, the head of Britain’s armed forces says. But Admiral Tony Radakin told the BBC in an interview broadcast on July 17 that any speculation the losses could bring down the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin was just “wishful thinking.” “As military professionals, we see a relatively stable regime in Russia. President Putin has been able to quash any opposition. We see a hierarchy that is invested in President Putin and so nobody at the top has got the motivation to challenge President Putin,” Radakin added. The British military chief said that, with the setbacks in Ukraine, Russia’s land forces may now pose less of a threat than they did before the war. Along with the losses in personnel and tanks, Russia has seen some 4,000 of its armored fighting vehicles destroyed since its February 24 invasion, according to his estimates. Club Membership Plug: Let’s stop and take a moment to talk about Fight Laugh Feast Club membership. By joining the Fight Laugh Feast Army, not only will you be aiding in our fight to take down secular & legacy media; but you’ll also get access to content placed in our Club Portal, such as past shows, all of our conference talks, and EXCLUSIVE content for club members that you won’t be able to find anywhere else. Lastly, you’ll also get discounts for our conferences… so if you’ve got $10 bucks a month to kick over our way, you can sign up now at flfnetwork.com https://nypost.com/2022/07/18/gofundme-allows-page-for-minneapolis-gunman-after-axing-one-for-nyc-bodega-clerk-jose-alba/ GoFundMe allows page for Minneapolis gunman Andrew Sundberg after axing one for NYC bodega clerk Jose Alba GoFundMe is allowing a small fortune to be collected for kin of the Minneapolis gunman fatally shot by cops after he fired at neighbors, while hard-working Manhattan bodega clerk Jose Alba’s fund got the ax, critics rage. The fund-raiser for the family of dead Minnesota shooter Andrew “Tekle’’ Sundberg, 20, surpassed its goal of $20,000 within three days, hitting $20,500 by Monday afternoon. Yet the GoFundMe page for Alba — who killed an ex-con attacker in apparent self-defense at the store — got pulled a day after his case came to light. Sundberg allegedly fired like a madman Wednesday in his building, including through the wall of an apartment of a mom cooking for her two kids, before being shot dead by cops during a standoff. His family said he was having a mental-health crisis at the time. It’s unclear why police snipers finally shot him dead after six hours of negotiations, but the head of the Minneapolis police union said in a statement last week that “to prevent death or great bodily harm to another, officers used deadly force.” When Black Lives Matter protesters showed up at the young man’s building over the weekend to decry the cops, the fired-upon mom had some strong words… https://youtu.be/n6IbcxbKIL8 - PLAY VIDEO - 0:27 - 1:16 According to Fox News the mother did get an apology from the shooters’ family. A GoFundMe set up by Foss-Yarbrough’s sister for her sibling had raised more than $56,000 by Monday evening. The set goal was $10,000. The page says the gunman who shot into the victim’s home “had been harassing her and stalking her for months.” The GoFundMe for Sundberg’s family says, “His life was taken too soon by the Minneapolis Police Department.” Relatives have retained noted civil-rights lawyer Ben Crump. Meanwhile, the GoFundMe page for Alba — whose supporters run from New York City Mayor Eric Adams to former NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton — was yanked nearly as fast as it went up. Alba fatally stabbed an ex-con attacking him behind the counter of the store July 1, an incident caught on video — and which prompted controversial slay charges against the worker. He and his hordes of backers say his actions were clearly self-defense, with the clerk even seen in footage telling his assailant, “Papa, I don’t want a problem.’’ But GoFundMe said in a statement defending the move, “Our terms of service prohibit fundraising for the legal defense of a violent crime. “At this time, the fundraiser has been removed and all donors have been refunded.’’ The page had raised around $20,000 for Alba when it was removed, the Daily Mail reported. GoFundMe told The Post on an emailed statement Monday, “The fundraiser, “T.S. Family Funds”, states donations will go toward funeral, food, and family expenses. “Fundraisers for these types of expenses are allowed under GoFundMe’s terms of service.” Gold River Trading Co. Are you tired of buying sugary drinks and coffee from large woke corporations? Throw a tea party! Gold River Trading Co. is an American company that offers premium alternatives for Americans who enjoy a delicious cup of tea. Start your day with Gold River’s invigorating American Breakfast Blend, cool down with a pitcher of crisp & refreshing Iced Tea, or unwind with Chamomile Herbal tea. Explore a variety of high-quality blends and enjoy a healthy, flavorful alternative from an American company that shares your values. Go to goldriverco.com and save 10% off all orders using discount code CROSSPOLITIC at checkout. Now it’s time for the topic that I love, sports! https://www.themix.net/2022/07/university-of-michigan-coach-jim-harbaugh-the-unborn-are-amazing-gifts-from-god-to-make-this-world-a-better-place/ University Of Michigan Coach Jim Harbaugh: “The Unborn Are Amazing Gifts From God To Make This World a Better Place” Now, before I dive into this, I tried to find coach Harbaugh’s speech on youtube so you could hear the audio, but it was nowhere to be found! So I’ll have to do… Harbaugh was the keynote speaker at the event that was themed “We Were Made to be Courageous” according to Detroit Catholic. “I believe in having the courage to let the unborn be born,” Harbaugh declared during his speech. “I love life. I believe in having a loving care and respect for life and death. My faith and my science are what drives these beliefs in me. Quoting from Jeremiah, ‘Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart. I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.’” He also discussed the recent Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade and an upcoming ballot question that could enshrine the right to murder unborn children in Michigan’s Constitution. “Passions can make the process messy, but when combined with respect, it ultimately produces the best outcomes,” the University of Michigan coach said. “This process has been passionate and messy, but I have faith in the American people to ultimately develop the right policies and laws for all lives involved. I recognize one’s personal thinking regarding morality of a particular action may differ from their thinking on whether government should make that action illegal. There are many things one may hold to be immoral, but the government appropriately allows because of some greater good or personal or constitutional right.” “Ultimately, I don’t believe that is the case with abortion,” Harbaugh professed. “Yes, there are conflicts between the legitimate rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn child. One resolution might involve incredible hardship for the mother, family and society. Another results in the death of an unborn person.” Harbaugh would also state, “In God’s plan, each unborn human truly has a future filled with potential, talent, dreams and love.” Harbaugh has been outspoken on his pro-life stance in the past. Back in 2020, Harbaugh spoke with Jay Nordlinger on his podcast, where he shared, “Even now, as we all go through what we’re going through now with COVID-19, I see people more concerned about others. More prayerful. As I said, God has virtually stopped the world from spinning. I don’t think it’s a coincidence. “My personal feeling, living a faith-based life, this is a message or this is something that should be a time where we grow on our faith in reverence and respect for God. You see people taking more of a view of sanctity of life. And I hope that can continue. I hope it continues, and not just in this time of crisis or pandemic,” he added. Harbaugh then said, ““And lastly, abortion. We talk about the sanctity of life, yet we live in a society that aborts babies. There can’t be anything more horrendous.” I don’t know about you, but Harbaugh has a fan in me. This has been your CrossPolitic Daily Newsbrief, if you liked the show, share it for me would ya? If you want to sign up for a club membership, a magazine subscription, or sign up for our conference, you should head on over to fightlaughfeast.com… heck, sign up for all three of them! Why not? And as always, if you want your company to be the next Accountable2You, the next Story Real Estate, the next Armored Republic, you get the idea, if you want to be a corporate partner, email me at garrison@fightlaughfeast.com. For CrossPolitic News, I’m Garrison Hardie. Have a great day, and Lord bless.

Happy Thursday everyone, this is Garrison Hardie stepping in for the Chocolate Knox for Thursday, July 21st, 2022. We’ve got a lot to get to today, so let’s just jump right in shall we? https://www.actionidaho.org/post/mayor-mclean-boise-city-council-make-boise-a-sanctuary-city-for-abortion Mayor McLean, Boise City Council Make Boise a Sanctuary City for Abortion Boise City Council voted 3-2 to approve RES 385-22 limiting the enforcement of Idaho’s abortion ban. The measure directs police to allocate their resources to every other priority in law enforcement but the crime of abortion. Idaho has a state criminal code, passed by legislatures and approved by governors. This code governs the entire state, so that crimes like arson, conspiracies, burglary, bigamy and polygamy, and others are uniform across the state. Each part of the criminal code defines the crime and punishments for each specific crime. Local law enforcement is then charged with enforcing these laws. City police investigate. County sheriffs investigate. District attorneys and county attorneys accuse and prosecute. Judges oversee trials. Idaho’s Criminal Code defines the physician or abortionist guilty of a felony called "criminal abortion" punishable by imprisonment if he or she performs an abortion. On July 19, 2022, Boise City Council passed a resolution to stop Boise city police from enforcing Idaho’s law against criminal abortion. The city council’s resolution holds that “investigations for the purpose of prosecuting abortion providers will not be prioritized, and additional resources or personnel will not be assigned” to crimes of criminal abortion. The city will not cooperate with other entities to enforce Idaho's ban on abortion law either. The City Council is not passing the law because the Boise Police Department is faced with a shortage of resources. The resolution was passed in order to undermine Idaho’s abortion ban, enshrined in its criminal code. Idaho's ban on abortion, the resolution reads, abrogates “the fundamental liberties of its people,” especially the “right to make reproductive health decisions for themselves.” Three members of the city council supported the resolution, while two opposed it (Elaine Clegg and Luci Willits opposed). The move provides sanctuary or a safe place for abortion providers in Boise. While Planned Parenthood has moved its abortion clinics out of Boise (Planned Parenthood’s only Idaho clinics are in Meridian and Twin Falls), the city of Boise’s passage of this resolution opens the door for its return. Other providers could move in as well. In other news… https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2022/07/19/house-passes-gay-marriage-bill-with-47-republicans-in-favor-n483850 House passes gay marriage bill -- with 47 Republicans in favor the “Respect for Marriage Act” (RFMA), which will take you all of 30 seconds to read. It doesn’t create any federal right of gay marriage. Rather, it repeals the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act signed by Bill Clinton and requires states to give full faith and credit to any lawful marriage performed in another state. So if SCOTUS ends up overturning the Obergefell case that recognized a constitutional right of gays to marry, gay couples from red states could get married in blue ones and then demand that their home states recognize the validity of their union under the RFMA. Pelosi’s strategy in forcing the vote is obvious. She’s keen to scare swing voters by leveraging Clarence Thomas’s concurrence in the Dobbs case, where Thomas called for overturning various landmark “substantive due process” cases touching on sexual autonomy, including Obergefell. And she knows that support for legal gay marriage polls remarkably well, which left House Republicans here between a rock and a hard place. If they voted for the bill, they’d be siding with Pelosi and the libs over social conservatives, angering the base. If they voted against the bill, they’d be angering the great majority of American voters. That’s a tough one for a Republican in a swing district. Especially since, according to Gallup’s poll last year, a majority of *Republican voters* now support legal gay marriage as well. A more recent Gallup poll published last month found national support ticking up to 71 percent. Normally a 71 percent issue is easy for politicians, but House GOPers know that it’s not moderates who tend to turn out in party primaries. Because it’s such a knotty dilemma for righties, Kevin McCarthy and his leadership team decided not to whip against the bill. House Republicans were free to vote their conscience, and in this case “conscience” included “whatever you need to do to maximize your odds of getting reelected.” Let’s shift our eyes overseas for a moment… https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/07/russia-has-lost-50000-soldiers-in-ukraine-u-k-military-chief-says/ Russia has lost 50,000 soldiers in Ukraine, U.K. military chief says Russia has lost some 50,000 killed or wounded soldiers in its invasion of Ukraine and nearly 1,700 tanks have been destroyed, the head of Britain’s armed forces says. But Admiral Tony Radakin told the BBC in an interview broadcast on July 17 that any speculation the losses could bring down the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin was just “wishful thinking.” “As military professionals, we see a relatively stable regime in Russia. President Putin has been able to quash any opposition. We see a hierarchy that is invested in President Putin and so nobody at the top has got the motivation to challenge President Putin,” Radakin added. The British military chief said that, with the setbacks in Ukraine, Russia’s land forces may now pose less of a threat than they did before the war. Along with the losses in personnel and tanks, Russia has seen some 4,000 of its armored fighting vehicles destroyed since its February 24 invasion, according to his estimates. Club Membership Plug: Let’s stop and take a moment to talk about Fight Laugh Feast Club membership. By joining the Fight Laugh Feast Army, not only will you be aiding in our fight to take down secular & legacy media; but you’ll also get access to content placed in our Club Portal, such as past shows, all of our conference talks, and EXCLUSIVE content for club members that you won’t be able to find anywhere else. Lastly, you’ll also get discounts for our conferences… so if you’ve got $10 bucks a month to kick over our way, you can sign up now at flfnetwork.com https://nypost.com/2022/07/18/gofundme-allows-page-for-minneapolis-gunman-after-axing-one-for-nyc-bodega-clerk-jose-alba/ GoFundMe allows page for Minneapolis gunman Andrew Sundberg after axing one for NYC bodega clerk Jose Alba GoFundMe is allowing a small fortune to be collected for kin of the Minneapolis gunman fatally shot by cops after he fired at neighbors, while hard-working Manhattan bodega clerk Jose Alba’s fund got the ax, critics rage. The fund-raiser for the family of dead Minnesota shooter Andrew “Tekle’’ Sundberg, 20, surpassed its goal of $20,000 within three days, hitting $20,500 by Monday afternoon. Yet the GoFundMe page for Alba — who killed an ex-con attacker in apparent self-defense at the store — got pulled a day after his case came to light. Sundberg allegedly fired like a madman Wednesday in his building, including through the wall of an apartment of a mom cooking for her two kids, before being shot dead by cops during a standoff. His family said he was having a mental-health crisis at the time. It’s unclear why police snipers finally shot him dead after six hours of negotiations, but the head of the Minneapolis police union said in a statement last week that “to prevent death or great bodily harm to another, officers used deadly force.” When Black Lives Matter protesters showed up at the young man’s building over the weekend to decry the cops, the fired-upon mom had some strong words… https://youtu.be/n6IbcxbKIL8 - PLAY VIDEO - 0:27 - 1:16 According to Fox News the mother did get an apology from the shooters’ family. A GoFundMe set up by Foss-Yarbrough’s sister for her sibling had raised more than $56,000 by Monday evening. The set goal was $10,000. The page says the gunman who shot into the victim’s home “had been harassing her and stalking her for months.” The GoFundMe for Sundberg’s family says, “His life was taken too soon by the Minneapolis Police Department.” Relatives have retained noted civil-rights lawyer Ben Crump. Meanwhile, the GoFundMe page for Alba — whose supporters run from New York City Mayor Eric Adams to former NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton — was yanked nearly as fast as it went up. Alba fatally stabbed an ex-con attacking him behind the counter of the store July 1, an incident caught on video — and which prompted controversial slay charges against the worker. He and his hordes of backers say his actions were clearly self-defense, with the clerk even seen in footage telling his assailant, “Papa, I don’t want a problem.’’ But GoFundMe said in a statement defending the move, “Our terms of service prohibit fundraising for the legal defense of a violent crime. “At this time, the fundraiser has been removed and all donors have been refunded.’’ The page had raised around $20,000 for Alba when it was removed, the Daily Mail reported. GoFundMe told The Post on an emailed statement Monday, “The fundraiser, “T.S. Family Funds”, states donations will go toward funeral, food, and family expenses. “Fundraisers for these types of expenses are allowed under GoFundMe’s terms of service.” Gold River Trading Co. Are you tired of buying sugary drinks and coffee from large woke corporations? Throw a tea party! Gold River Trading Co. is an American company that offers premium alternatives for Americans who enjoy a delicious cup of tea. Start your day with Gold River’s invigorating American Breakfast Blend, cool down with a pitcher of crisp & refreshing Iced Tea, or unwind with Chamomile Herbal tea. Explore a variety of high-quality blends and enjoy a healthy, flavorful alternative from an American company that shares your values. Go to goldriverco.com and save 10% off all orders using discount code CROSSPOLITIC at checkout. Now it’s time for the topic that I love, sports! https://www.themix.net/2022/07/university-of-michigan-coach-jim-harbaugh-the-unborn-are-amazing-gifts-from-god-to-make-this-world-a-better-place/ University Of Michigan Coach Jim Harbaugh: “The Unborn Are Amazing Gifts From God To Make This World a Better Place” Now, before I dive into this, I tried to find coach Harbaugh’s speech on youtube so you could hear the audio, but it was nowhere to be found! So I’ll have to do… Harbaugh was the keynote speaker at the event that was themed “We Were Made to be Courageous” according to Detroit Catholic. “I believe in having the courage to let the unborn be born,” Harbaugh declared during his speech. “I love life. I believe in having a loving care and respect for life and death. My faith and my science are what drives these beliefs in me. Quoting from Jeremiah, ‘Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart. I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.’” He also discussed the recent Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade and an upcoming ballot question that could enshrine the right to murder unborn children in Michigan’s Constitution. “Passions can make the process messy, but when combined with respect, it ultimately produces the best outcomes,” the University of Michigan coach said. “This process has been passionate and messy, but I have faith in the American people to ultimately develop the right policies and laws for all lives involved. I recognize one’s personal thinking regarding morality of a particular action may differ from their thinking on whether government should make that action illegal. There are many things one may hold to be immoral, but the government appropriately allows because of some greater good or personal or constitutional right.” “Ultimately, I don’t believe that is the case with abortion,” Harbaugh professed. “Yes, there are conflicts between the legitimate rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn child. One resolution might involve incredible hardship for the mother, family and society. Another results in the death of an unborn person.” Harbaugh would also state, “In God’s plan, each unborn human truly has a future filled with potential, talent, dreams and love.” Harbaugh has been outspoken on his pro-life stance in the past. Back in 2020, Harbaugh spoke with Jay Nordlinger on his podcast, where he shared, “Even now, as we all go through what we’re going through now with COVID-19, I see people more concerned about others. More prayerful. As I said, God has virtually stopped the world from spinning. I don’t think it’s a coincidence. “My personal feeling, living a faith-based life, this is a message or this is something that should be a time where we grow on our faith in reverence and respect for God. You see people taking more of a view of sanctity of life. And I hope that can continue. I hope it continues, and not just in this time of crisis or pandemic,” he added. Harbaugh then said, ““And lastly, abortion. We talk about the sanctity of life, yet we live in a society that aborts babies. There can’t be anything more horrendous.” I don’t know about you, but Harbaugh has a fan in me. This has been your CrossPolitic Daily Newsbrief, if you liked the show, share it for me would ya? If you want to sign up for a club membership, a magazine subscription, or sign up for our conference, you should head on over to fightlaughfeast.com… heck, sign up for all three of them! Why not? And as always, if you want your company to be the next Accountable2You, the next Story Real Estate, the next Armored Republic, you get the idea, if you want to be a corporate partner, email me at garrison@fightlaughfeast.com. For CrossPolitic News, I’m Garrison Hardie. Have a great day, and Lord bless.

The news of Texas covered today includes:Our Lone Star story of the day: O'Rourke takes $1 million from one of the most radical Leftist donors in the U.S: George Soros who backs district attorneys who will not prosecute many criminals. And, the racism and bigotry of the Texas Democratic Party flares up in the RGB where Republicans have been making gains.Our Lone Star story of the day is sponsored by Allied Compliance Services providing the best service in DOT, business and personal drug and alcohol testing since 1995.Homosexual marriage, Obergefell vs. Hodges, and a Congress intent on taking away the right of the people of the states to decide their own laws.More Uvalda massacre fallout.Crime, guns, and…. COVID? Austin crime report shows guns aren't really the problem but does lay some blame at the un-American lockdowns for high violent crime rates.And, other news of Texas.Listen on the radio, or station stream, at 5pm Central. Click for our affiliates.www.PrattonTexas.com

The House today passed a bill that would recognize same-sex marriages at the federal level, as 47 Republicans joined Democrats in support of a measure responding to growing concern that a conservative Supreme Court could nullify marriage equality. The Respect for Marriage Act would codify the federal protections for same-sex couples that were put in place in 2015, when the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges established same-sex marriage as a right under the 14th Amendment. The legislation would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which defined a marriage as the union between a man and a woman, a law that was struck down by Obergefell but has remained on the books. The legislation, which passed in a vote of 267 to 157, faces an uncertain future in the evenly divided Senate, where most Republicans have opposed gay rights measures. But Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader, declined on Tuesday to state a position on the measure. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When Justice Thomas mentioned Obergefell in his concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, what did he mean that? We're talking about how Dobbs is related to past cases and everything that's wrong with New York and Gun Control.Also, don't judge me for the way I pronounce Obergefell.CONNECT WITH ME: https://linktr.ee/thisissavvySupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/sellout. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said the end of Roe v, Wade meant a number of other landmark cases should be revisited as well. Among them: Obergefell v. Hodges, which determined the right to same-sex marriage. Ali had a chance to talk about how we maintain hard-fought rights with Senator Derek Kitchen and Jim Obergefell, both of whom were plaintiffs in cases that enshrined the right to marry. Looking to advertise on City Cast Salt Lake? Check out our options for podcast and newsletter ads at citycast.fm/advertise. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

To kick off the new season, we're back with friend and colleague Brittany McCants Garcia to talk January 6, Roe, Loving, Obergefell, the wild west of gun deregulation created by the Court and just where we're at in the state of our democracy. There's a few laughs, but if you're looking for a pep talk, this isn't it! Buckle up before you get this one started...

This episode of the Inclusive Life Podcast is an intimate conversation between Nicole and two members of her Inclusive Life team, Christina Hernandez and Laura Halpin. We convened to talk about our personal responses to the overturn of Roe v. Wade. We began with our own reactions, exploring our immediate sense of how each of our lives and our loved ones will be impacted. The Dobbs v. Jackson decision impacts all of us, and yet it is vital that we place this decision in a historical, social, and political context: the overturning of Roe v Wade is a massive step in a long history of reproductive oppression targeting Black, LGBTQ+, and other marginalized communities, who will be — and already are – most harmed by the protections that Roe v. Wade ensured. Forced pregnancy is a human rights violation, defined by the United Nations as a crime against humanity. Without access to abortion, all people with a uterus lose their ability to control their own destiny. We are seeing the immediate and chilling effects as it interferes with people, including children, getting the protection, health care, and medications they need. The political landscape has shifted dramatically in the past few weeks as Supreme Court decisions have eroded many of our basic rights. And we know that more rights are on the chopping block. In this conversation, Nicole refers to Clarence Thomas's “stand back and stand by” concurring opinion in which he offers a road map for what the court will overturn next: the right to contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), same-sex consensual relations (Lawrence v. Texas), and same sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges). We must remember – in our desire to respond in the chaos created by this decision – there is a web of reproductive health and reproductive justice organizations working to connect folks in need of reproductive care with protection and services. This is no time to reinvent the wheel which has the likely outcome of putting people in need of abortions at incredible risk. Voting is essential, but we must not stop there. If we are not mobilized beyond voting, we are as good as giving up. As Nicole shared, “Our actions need to be aligned with our values.” Values without action are empty and meaningless. At Inclusive Life, we know that we cannot act effectively or sustainably alone. We must be embedded in community, working against the forces that are designed to keep us isolated and fragmented. And so, in the next weeks, we will be creating a structure to build community around the strategies for the ground war ahead previously defined by Nicole. We are eager to tap into the expertise and leadership of Inclusive Life members. We are in this fight for the long haul because we must win.   Pertinent Links: • The War on Our Bodies: The Phase of Cold Clarity • There's No Equity Without Reproductive Justice from the Adaway Group • Operation Save Abortion: It's Not a March, It's Your Training Day a day long training offered by Abortion Access Front on Sunday, July 17th. In this Episode Nicole, Christina and Laura touch on: • Where we were and what our initial reactions were when we first heard that Roe v Wade has been overturned • Shame and the way it made conversations about abortion avoidable • The implications of Dobbs for women's healthcare • Clarence Thomas's “Stand Back and Stand By” message • A court run amok: where are the checks and balances? • Democrats: what's the plan? • Aligning actions with our values, no matter how the actions poll • The next steps for each of us • The implications of Dobbs on our parenting • The next steps for Inclusive Life in light of Dobbs

We tend to react to the issue of the right to abortion according to moral, religious, or political convictions. But what we often tend to overlook is that the debate surrounding Roe v. Wade is primarily a legal one. So according to the US constitution, is the US Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade legally sound? Prof Jay Mootz (University of the Pacific) and Prof George Taylor (University of Pittsburgh) are legal philosophers who discuss key problems and questions relating to the recent decision.Living Philosophy is brought to you by Philosophy2u.com.Host:Dr Todd MeiSponsors:Philosophy2u.comHermeneutics in Real LifeLinks Related to this Episode:Jay Mootz (University of the Pacific)George Taylor (University of Pittsburgh)Hermeneutics (Philosophy2u Video)Rhetoric (Wikipedia)Paul Ricoeur (SEP)Hans-Georg Gadamer (SEP)Virtue Ethics (SEP)14th Amendment (1868)Alito on Abortion Rights (Reuters)Legal CasesCalder v. Bull (Wikipedia) [1798]Lochner v. New York (Wikipedia) [1905]Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Wikipedia) [1954]Poe v. Ullman (Wikipedia) [1961]Griswold v. Connecticut (Wikipedia) [1965]Roe v. Wade (Wikipedia) [1973]Planned Parenthood v. Casey (Wikipedia) [1992]Obergefell v. Hodges (Wikipedia) [2015]Dobbs v. Jackson (Wikipedia) [2022]Music: Earth and the Moon, by KetsaLogo Art: Angela Silva, Dattura Studios

THE TEXT These are the statutes and judgments, which ye shall observe to do in the land, which the Lord God of thy fathers giveth thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the earth. Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods . . . ” (Deuteronomy 12:1-8) INTRODUCTION Many saints don't know what to do on earth. They view life on earth as something like a train station at which they're waiting. They have a ticket to ride to heaven upon death. But in the interim, there is not much to do here at the train station, at least there's not much to do that has any relationship to the final destination. They need to be holy in this train station, they understand that much. And they need to read their Bibles and pray to the God who awaits them at their final destination. But they don't have a strategy for life at the train station. And they have no sense that the glory of the heaven to which they indeed are going is coming upon the train station. The good news is that the glory of that heaven is indeed coming upon the train station. That is why we pray in faith, “Your kingdom come and your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Once you realize that the kingdom of God is coming upon earth, coming upon this train station, then the words of Moses in Deuteronomy 12 can make sense. Moses delivered marching orders to Israel who was soon to cross the Jordan River to conquer and possess the Promised Land. And the marching orders that he delivered to them are the same marching orders we have today. Some things have changed. But the marching orders have not changed. SURVEY OF THE TEXT Moses tells Israel that they must observe and do the statues he was giving them when they entered the land. And it was the LORD God who was giving them the land to possess. The statues Israel received were to be done “on earth” (v. 1). Israel was to utterly destroy all the places where the adherents of Canaan served their gods: the high mountain places, the hills, and under every green tree (v. 2). Not only the places, but the altars also had to be destroyed. Their pillars had to be broken, their groves torched with fire, their graven images cut down. The destruction of these idols resulted in the “names” of these false gods being destroyed and erased from “that place” (v. 3). Moses ordered the opposite concerning the LORD God. His “name” was to be put in a special place of his choosing. This place would be his habitation, where he would dwell in the midst of Israel. And Israel would routinely come to this central place (v. 5). When they came, Moses instructed Israel to bring a variety of sacrifices and offerings: routine burnt offerings and sacrifices, tithes, and heave offerings (which were a certain portion set aside for the priests), vows and freewill offerings (which were offerings freely given over and above the required ones), and the firstlings of their herds. Moses had already instructed Israel back in Exodus 13 regarding these first born offerings. When Israelite children asked why the firstborn of the herds and flocks were sacrificed, parents were to tell their children about God striking down Pharaoh and the firstborn of Egypt. Israel was to eat before the LORD, which is a pattern we see many times in Scripture when Israel gathered for covenant renewal. Israel was to rejoice in their work with their households, whatever it is was they laid their hand to do (v. 7). As they lived in the Promised Land, they were not to live as they had before, every man doing what was right in his own eyes (v. 8). THE SAME MARCHING ORDERS The marching orders from Moses to Israel were clear. So many years later when the Israelites heard that Dagon, god of the Philistines, had fallen down before the ark of the Lord, and his head and hands were cut off, they knew that the LORD had cut down an idol. We must read our times in the same way. In the New Covenant, some things change: The Old Testament saints ate Passover, we eat the Lord's Supper. They circumcised their children, we baptize them. But the substance of things stays the same. God cut down idols back then, and charged his people to do the same. And none of that has changed. So the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade was an idol that God cut down. Planned Parenthood clinics are the altars where the sacrifices are offered. The unborn children are the sacrifices. The whole operation is simply modern day Molech worship. After God struck down Dagon, the Philistines picked him up off the ground and set him up again to be worshipped. And, in the same way, many will attempt to keep up abortion. But the fact that they will offer their blood sacrifices in California and across the border in Washington State does not negate what God has done in our midst. The battle rages on, yes. And that is the point. You must heed God's commands for life and battle in the land that God, the God of your fathers, has given you. THE LAND WHICH GOD GIVES In Moses' day, God gave Israel the land of Canaan. And many make the mistake of thinking that God has only given us heavenly real estate. They think the train station in which they find themselves belongs to the devil. But as Jesus was headed to the cross he said, “Now shall the prince of this world be cast out” (John 12:31). Moreover, Christ has told us to baptize the nations, teaching them to obey all that he has commanded. He speaks as if the nations belong to him, and that is because they do. Our new covenant terrain has not been diminished or unrealized. Rather it has been expanded. Israel of old stood on the banks of the Jordan and Moses told them how they were to live in Canaan. And you stand in the world that has been promised to Christ. Indeed, it has not only been promised to him. It has become his possession. The Apostle Paul shows just how this point shakes out for the saints when he says, “All things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. (1 Corinthians 3:21-23). DESTROYING IDOLS How then should you live in the world that is yours in Christ? You should destroy idols like Israel of old. There is nothing wicked or fleshly about doing so. Paul says, “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:3-5). When idols pop up, that is not a time to be afraid. That is a time to do your job. All of the idols will be gone one day. And then Christ will return, having made all of his enemies his footstool. In the meantime, you're not allowed to sit back and think that the world is going to hell in a hand-basket. You're to put hell in a hand-basket. Cut down the idols, and deliver them over to Christ. That operation can only be done by the Word of God. Now where do you start cutting down these idols? You look around and say, “Boy they're all over.” Yes, they are. So start right at home. Start with your idols. John says, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21). And then intercede for your children. And then your church. And then the Moscow Christian community. And then the whole kingdom of God. And then the idols manifest outside of the kingdom of God like Roe v. Wade, and Obergefell, and all of the other pillars that state legislators are toiling away at right now in the wake of Roe's fall. WORSHIPPING GOD Another duty you have, here in the land God has given you, is to attend the LORDs house to worship him. Moses told Israel there was to be one place, a central place. And we hear the same language when the LORD spoke to Solomon after he completed the temple in 2 Chronicles 7. The LORD told Solomon that he had chosen this house and his name would remain there forever. But like with the increase of land, so with the increase of our place of worship. Paul says in Ephesians 2 that the Church of God is now this holy temple. And we are being “built together for a habitation of God by the Spirit” (Ephesians 2:22). Every baptism is the addition of another brick in this temple. And God's “name” is upon us. You assemble here to offer sacrifices to God. And the sacrifices that you offer are yourselves. You present your bodies as a living and holy sacrifice (Romans 12:1). If you feel “stretched out,” that is because you are. If you feel cut by his Word, that is because you are. If you feel “poured out,” then praise the Lord, you are right there alongside the Apostle Paul. As you have heard before, worship is the central engine that drives cultural reformation. People struggle to see this because they have either become pragmatists or pietists. The pragmatists can't understand the point because he wants to rig up and run the reformation according to humans blue prints and ingenuity. The pietists can't understand it because he wants to worship God in a sky theatre with no earthly manifestation of God's name. But the Christian way is to worship, knowing that while Baal cannot send the rain or the fire, Yahweh can. And Yahweh does. He really is building up his kingdom on earth. And you baptized, covenant people, are his kingdom. If the kingdom grows, and it will grow, then pagan temples fall. What this means is that the worship of the Triune God was the central driver to the fall of Roe. And there are many other idols that need to have their “name” destroyed. So keep up the public worship of our Triune God. REJOICING IN WORK Moses said that Israel was to rejoice in all that they put their hand to do. And they were to do rejoice in their work as households. I do not have to tell you that such joyful work is going on around here. The saints in Moscow are known far and wide for covenant households and joyful labor. So this is a reminder to keep it up and grow not weary in doing good. What kind of works ought you to lay your hand to? The answer is: any kind, all kinds. Laundry and writing and teaching. Cleaning teeth and learning and building. Legislating and marketing and painting. Coaching and kid-transporting and a thousand other things: “The earth is the LORD's and the fullness thereof,” remember. Some think that work is too big. And others think the promise of Christ's worldwide conquest is too good to be true. But the Apostle Paul has already addressed this and we should take it to heart: “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things” (Romans 8:32)?

In the past few weeks alone, the Supreme Court has delivered a firestorm of conservative legal victories. States now have far less leeway to restrict gun permits. The right to abortion is no longer constitutionally protected. The Environmental Protection Agency has been kneecapped in its ability to regulate carbon emissions, and by extension, all executive branch agencies will see their power significantly diminished.But to focus only on this particular Supreme Court term is to miss the bigger picture: In the past few decades, conservative court majorities have dragged this country's laws to the right on almost every issue imaginable. Shelby County v. Holder gutted the Voting Rights Act and opened the door for states to pass restrictive voting laws. Rucho v. Common Cause limited the court's ability to curb partisan gerrymandering. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission unleashed a torrent of campaign spending. Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 weakened unions. A whole slew of cases, including some decided on the shadow docket during the Covid-19 pandemic, undercut federal agencies' power to help govern in an era of congressional gridlock. And that's only a partial list.Kate Shaw is a law professor at Cardozo School of Law, a co-host of the legal podcast Strict Scrutiny and a former clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens. In this episode, she walks me through the most significant Supreme Court cases over the past 20 years, from the court's decision to hand George W. Bush the presidency in 2000, to the dismantling of the Voting Rights Act, to the assertion of an individual's right to bear arms.Along the way, we discuss the right's decades-long effort to transform American law from the bench, how Republican-appointed judges have consistently entrenched Republican political power, the interpretive bankruptcy of constitutional originalism, how the Warren Court radicalized the conservative legal movement, what might happen to decisions like Obergefell v. Hodges now that the court majority seems to be so comfortable throwing out precedent, what cases to watch in the Roberts Court's next term, and more.Mentioned:“After Citizens United: How Outside Spending Shapes American Democracy” by Nour Abdul-Razzak, Carlo Prato and Stephane Wolton“The Most Important Study in the Abortion Debate” by Annie LowreyBook recommendations:The Turnaway Study by Diana Greene FosterTorn Apart by Dorothy RobertsWho Decides? by Jeffrey S. Sutton51 Imperfect Solutions by Jeffrey S. SuttonThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast, and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.“The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Annie Galvin and Rogé Karma; fact-checking by Michelle Harris, Rollin Hu, Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair; original music by Isaac Jones; mixing by Isaac Jones; audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Our executive producer is Irene Noguchi. Special thanks to Kristin Lin, Kristina Samulewski, David A. Kaplan, Ian Millhiser, Aziz Rana and Kate Redburn.

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

Thursday on Political Rewind: As Pride Month comes to an end, our special panel looks at the state of affairs for LGBTQ+ Georgians. While the legislature is more diverse than ever, issues including hostility to trans athletes and Clarence Thomas' call to reexamine Obergefell (the case that legalized same sex marriage) bring concern. The panel Chanel Haley, Gender Policy Manager, Georgia Equality Demarcus Beckham, Executive Director, Reach to Impact Group Inc. Jeff Graham, @JeffGrahamATL, Executive Director, Georgia Equality Kevin Riley, @ajceditor, Editor, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Timestamps 0:00- Introductions 5:51- Some of the gains that Georgia has made in terms of LBGTQ equality 29:07- Jeff Graham speaks about changes he's seen in politics 36:31- Reflections on how the state of Georgia has received the LGBTQ community 40:39- Chanel Hailey reflects on being a transgender woman in the South 41:53- Demarcus Beckham reflects on HIV prevention work in Georgia Please be sure to download our newsletter: www.gpb.org/newsletters. And subscribe, follow and rate this show wherever podcasts are found.

There's a long history of federal cases, like Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, that eventually lead up to Windsor v. U.S. as well as Obergefell v. Hodges, which are really the federal Supreme Court marriage equality cases that all really focus on two particular elements of the U.S. constitution. Center for Civic Education

First, an announcement! A brand new co-host is joining the podcast for a chunk of episodes! They're going to join for some mailbags, answer your questions, become our collective money guinea pig reporting in the field, and learn about financial topics from their unique, beginner's POV (you know, one that isn't Gaby's). Then, to honor the 7th anniversary of the passage of Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, Gaby and their partner Mal Blum have a frank discussion about the long history of gay marriage, where we were when gay marriage passed, our future as a couple, and what the recent overturning of Roe V. Wade means for queer and trans people.  tw: homophobic language, trauma, the AIDS crisis, abortion and death, racism Gaby Dunn Instagram: @GabyRoad BWM Instagram: @bwmpod BWM Facebook group: http://tinyurl.com/badwithmoneyfb The BWM Discord channel: https://discord.gg/dAdxj4JMER Find Gaby on Patreon: patreon.com/gabydunn Shop gabydunn.com/shop for merch! Bad with Money is produced, edited, sound engineered and mixed by Cumulus Podcast Network, The theme song was performed by Sam Barbara and written by Myq Kaplan, Zach Sherwin, and Jack Dolgen. Additional music by Joey Salvia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Greg Bourke and Michael de Leon discussed the case they were a part of the case that led to same sex marriage being legalized in the U.S. and Clarence Thomas' opinion, that was given while overturning Roe v. Wade, that the Obergefell case and others should be looked at again. They talked about the stress they feel if that opinion moves further and the ramifications that could occur for families if the case is overturned...

Mike breaks down the recent US Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. We discuss the impact of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the role of due process in granting rights, and the similar decisions that are now at risk: Lawrence v. Texas, Griswold v. Connecticut, Obergefell v. Hodges, and (the noticeably absent) Loving v. Virginia.

If you're a regular listener of this program,  you may have noticed that we didn't publish an episode last week. As I'm sure you are all aware, on the day that we usually record, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling that overturned Roe vs Wade and effectively ended Americans' right to abortion in more than half of the country, including here in Oklahoma. If you want to learn more about the specifics of Oklahoma's abortion laws, including the four that were added this year, listen to episode 210, called “Why so many abortion bans?”  which was published just a few weeks ago, on May 29th. It features an interview with Tamya Cox-Toure, who is the executive director of ACLU Oklahoma and co-chair of the Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice.  While this Supreme Court ruling was expected because the decision was leaked a few months ago, the reality of it actually happening has left millions of people feeling heavier, angrier, and more despondent than I think we anticipated. The ruling is unequivocally harmful to every person who can become pregnant and to our society at large. American women, including my daughters, are now growing up in a world where they have more risk and fewer rights than did their mothers and grandmothers.  This ruling will have a disproportionate impact on black and brown communities and people who are in poverty. Abortion is still legal in many states, but that doesn't mean it is accessible. Thousands of people who will need abortions are now unable to get one.  In addition to its overt harm, this ruling is remarkable for a number of reasons - the contemputous tone taken by the author, Justice Samuel Alito, for example. Also the fact that several members of the court have been credibly accused of sexual harrassment and were appointed by a president who was also credibly accussed of sexual assault. Or that nearly all the justices, when asked during their Senate confirmation hearings if they would overturn Roe v Wade, stated that they would not, agreeing that Roe was settled precedent. And yet, here we are. And then there is the concurring opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, which openly advocates for the overturning of the precedent set by three other Supreme Court cases - Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell - which provide protections for access to birth control, consensual sex, and same-sex marriage, respectively. Justice Thomas is regarded as one of (if not the) most conservative justices on the bench, and these type of comments should give all Americans reason for serious concern. This kind of approach, often called “orginialist” or "textualist,” is dangerous to the American way of life because it implies that every right and privilege that is conveyed to us by legal precedent but not specifically outlined in the Constitution is now at risk. There is a lot of prededecent that all of us take for granted because  it has been settled for years or even decades.  Abortion isn't just a partisan issue, it's a power issue. People of all political affiliations need and receive abortions every year. The issue is about who has the power over women. Who gets to make decisions about their health needs, about what happens to their bodies, about their freedom and independence and autonomy.  The people opposed to abortion have been very open that this fight is not about science or reason, it is about values. Public policy is rooted in values, and sometimes  values cut across partisan lines in ways we don't expect. But we don't usually talk about our values with one another, we usually just talk about policy. Why is that? To explain, I'm going to borrow (and extend) an analogy from my friend Eric Liu, founder and CEO of Citizen University and the author of several books, including “The Gardens of Democracy.”  Consider our democracy to be a garden. Our values are the soil and policy are the flowers and fruit that grow from that soil. We...

Co-Hosts: Adam Sommer, Rachel Parker, Sean DillerAdam's OpenTalkin' PoliticsSUPREME COURT TERM ENDINGDOBBS V. JACKSON - STATES CAN MAKE ABORTION ILLEGALMissouri is first in the nation: https://www.newsweek.com/missouri-bans-all-abortions-minutes-after-scotus-ruling-overturning-roe-1718967Josh Hawley Wants You To Move Out: https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article262849238.htmlWhat is a “D&C”https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-therapies/dilation-and-curettage-d-and-cMissouri statute Sec. 1.205: Life Begins At Conception, unborn have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being, natural parents have protectable interest in the life, health and well being of unborn child - those are real actual words in missouri lawUnborn child is defined to include all unborn children or the offspring of human being from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development MO Stat, Sec. 188.015 defines abortion, 188.017 makes them illegal, updated June 24, 2022"Conception", the fertilization of the ovum of a female by a sperm of a male;Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no abortion shall be performed or induced upon a woman, except in cases of medical emergency. Any person who knowingly performs or induces an abortion of an unborn child in violation of this subsection shall be guilty of a class B felony, as well as subject to suspension or revocation of his or her professional license by his or her professional licensing board. A woman upon whom an abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subsection shall not be prosecuted for a conspiracy to violate the provisions of this subsection.  3. It shall be an affirmative defense for any person alleged to have violated the provisions of subsection 2 of this section that the person performed or induced an abortion because of a medical emergency. The defendant shall have the burden of persuasion that the defense is more probably true than not."Medical emergency", a condition which, based on reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert the death of the pregnant woman or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman;THOMAS'S CONCURRANCE: “For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including: Griswold - contraceptive useLawrence - right to engage in private sexual acts (same sex)Obergefell - marriage equalityhttps://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization/MAINE - PUBLIC MONEY TO RELIGIOUS SCHOOLShttps://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/carson-v-makin/Holding: Maine's “nonsectarian” requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments to parents who live in school districts that do not operate a secondary school of their own violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.Actual opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdfMaine residents in places with schools that don't provide secondary education can use tuition assistance for kids to attend other schools - previously could NOT use that money for religious schoolsRuling is that it violates the free exercise clauseAllows for use of public funds for religious instructionThe Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects against “indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion, not just outright prohibitions.”Missouri case Trinity Lutheran v. Comer about using public money for playground equipment in 2017The “unremarkable” principles applied in Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza suffice to resolve this case. Maine offers its citizens a benefit: tuition assistance payments for any family whose school district does not provide a public secondary school. Just like the wide range of nonprofit organizations eligible to receive playground resurfacing grants in Trinity Lutheran, a wide range of private schools are eligible to receive Maine tuition assistance payments here. And like the daycare center in Trinity Lutheran, BCS and Temple Academy are disqualified from this generally available benefit “solely because of their religious character.” 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 10). By “condition[ing] the availability of benefits” in that manner, Maine's tuition assistance program—like the program in Trinity Lutheran—“effectively penalizes the free exercise” of religion. Ibid. (quoting McDaniel, 435 U. S., at 626 (plurality opinion)).BREYER: The First Amendment begins by forbidding the government from “mak[ing] [any] law respecting an establishment of religion.” It next forbids them to make any law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Court today pays almost no attention to the words in the first Clause while giving almost exclusive attention to the words in the second. In a word, to interpret the two Clauses as if they were joined at the hip will work against their basic purpose: to allow for an American society with practitioners of over 100 different religions, and those who do not practice religion at all, to live together without serious risk of religion-based social divisions. We have previously found, as the majority points out, that “a neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause.” Ante, at 10 (citing Zelman, 536 U. S., at 652– 653). We have thus concluded that a State may, consistent with the Establishment Clause, provide funding to religious schools through a general public funding program if the “government aid . . . reach[es] religious institutions only by way of the deliberate choices of . . . individual [aid] recipients.” Id., at 652. But the key word is “may.” We have never previously held what the Court holds today, namely, that a State must (not may) use state funds to pay for religious education as part of a tuition program designed to ensure the provision of free statewide public school education. What happens once “may” becomes “must”? Does that transformation mean that a school district that pays for public schools must pay equivalent funds to parents who wish to send their children to religious schools? Does it mean that school districts that give vouchers for use at charter schools must pay equivalent funds to parents who wish to give their children a religious education? What other social benefits are there the State's provision of which means—under the majority's interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause—that the State must pay parents for the religious equivalent of the secular benefit provided? NEW YORK - STATES CANNOT REGULATE GUNShttps://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-bruen/NEW YORK LAW required permit for conceal and carryRuling is that BASED ON THE 14TH AMENDMENT (YEAH THAT SAME ONE) it is an individual liberty interest protected by the 14th (that's not a joke) https://heartlandpod.com/Twitter: @TheHeartlandPODChange The Conversation

27 de junio | Nueva YorkLeer esta newsletter te llevará 12 minutos y 54 segundos.📬 Mantente informado con nuestras columnas de actualidad diarias. Tienes un ejemplo en este boletín que enviamos el pasado miércoles sobre la victoria de Gustavo Petro en Colombia. Puedes suscribirte a través de este enlace:No todas nadan bien. Bienvenido a La Wikly.⚖️ Una amenaza realLo importante: el Tribunal Supremo estadounidense puso fin este pasado viernes al derecho constitucional al aborto al anular un par de sentencias previas de la Corte, sacudiendo a millones de estadounidenses que creen que este es solo el primero de más retrocesos.La decisión Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health amenaza con poner peligro otros derechos reconocidos por el tribunal, incluidos aquellos que protegen las libertades que la comunidad LGBTQ ha conquistado en las últimas décadas.Contexto: el Tribunal Supremo está ahora mismo formado por seis jueces conservadores y tres progresistas, lo que desequilibra la balanza de forma trascendental y abre la veda a que la mayoría conservadora atente contra derechos que se creían asegurados.La composición actual de la Corte es algo en lo que el movimiento judicial conservador de Estados Unidos lleva luchando desde hace décadas. Emilio repasó la historia de ese proceso en un artículo para Newtral.Explícamelo: la base argumentativa de la sentencia que el Supremo publicó este viernes se puede leer en decisiones judiciales del Supremo que se remontan a mediados del siglo XX. Si ha caído el aborto, otros derechos fijados por la Corte hace años podrían estar ahora en peligro.En esta newsletter, explicamos cuál es la base argumentativa que reconoció el derecho al aborto, por qué es controvertida y qué implica que la mayoría conservadora actual del tribunal haya arremetido contra ella de forma tan contundente.📜 El quid constitucionalLa sentencia Roe v. Wade de 1973 es parte de una serie de decisiones del Supremo que interpretaban la Constitución de una forma desconocida en los primeros 100 años de historia de Estados Unidos. Y todo tiene que ver con un extracto de la Sección Primera de la Decimocuarta Enmienda de su Constitución:“Ningún estado podrá […] privar a una persona de su vida, libertad o propiedad, sin un debido proceso legal”.La Decimocuarta Enmienda es una de llamadas Enmiendas de la Reconstrucción aprobadas tras el final de la Guerra Civil que enfrentó a los Estados Confederados que defendían la Esclavitud contra la Unión que encabezaba el gobierno federal.El objetivo de la Enmienda era proteger los derechos de los antiguos esclavos. Tanto su ratificación como la interpretación que los tribunales han hecho de sus cláusulas ha sido motivo de debates constitucionales profundamente controvertidos.En particular, la llamada Cláusula del Debido Proceso que hemos detallado arriba se ha litigado de forma constante en el último siglo de historia. Y todo tiene que ver con los derechos que la cláusula garantiza en todos los estados del país, según un análisis del Constitution Center:Protecciones procesales. Por ejemplo, requieren que el estado notifique acordemente a un ciudadano si va a dejar de percibir un seguro médico público y que facilite una audiencia en la que ese ciudadano pueda argumentar por qué debe seguir recibiendo ese seguro.Derechos individuales listados en la Carta de Derechos como la libertad de expresión, la libertad de religión o la libertad de prensa.Derechos fundamentales que no están específicamente enumerados en otras partes de la Constitución, incluidos el derecho al matrimonio, el derecho al uso de anticonceptivos o, hasta este pasado viernes, el derecho al aborto.La Quinta Enmienda ya protegía esos derechos, pero solo aplicaba contra el gobierno federal, con lo que los estados podían seguir vulnerándolos tal y como ocurría con la Esclavitud. La Decimocuarta incorporaba esos derechos contra los estados.Eso incluía los derechos protegidos bajo el debido proceso sustantivo, la categoría en la que se enmarcan los derechos no enumerados en la Constitución.Y cabe señalar que la Novena Enmienda sugiere que los derechos enumerados en la Constitución no niegan “otros retenidos por el pueblo”.La base de la controversia de ese debido proceso sustantivo es que los jueces de la Corte pueden concluir que un derecho emana de la Constitución pese a que no esté específicamente mencionado en el texto. Es de ahí que algunas de las decisiones más polémica del Supremo basen parte de su argumentación en ello:En Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), la Corte anuló las prohibiciones al uso de anticonceptivos en los estados porque entendía que estaban vulnerando el derecho a la privacidad de las parejas.El Supremo determinó que ese derecho no estaba explícitamente mencionado en la Constitución, pero que podía inferirse de otros derechos como el de reunión, protegido en la Primera Enmienda; el de acuartelar soldados en tiempos de paz, protegido por la Tercera; y el de ser libre de registros irrazonables del hogar, protegido por la Cuarta.En las décadas posteriores, el Supremo también usó en parte el debido proceso sustantivo para proteger el derecho al matrimonio entre parejas interraciales (1967), el derecho a que personas no casadas usaran métodos anticonceptivos (1972), el derecho al aborto (1973), el derecho a mantener conductas sexuales íntimas (2003) y el derecho al matrimonio para parejas del mismo sexo (2015).🏛 Una corte conservadoraEl reciente fallo de Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health no solo deja de reconocer el aborto como un derecho constitucional, sino que también abre la puerta a cambios en la forma en que la Corte Suprema venía interpretando la Cláusula del Debido Proceso de la Decimocuarta Enmienda.Hasta ahora, el debido proceso sustantivo era interpretado como la garantía de protección constitucional a derechos que no necesariamente están explícitos en la Constitución o que son estrictamente procesales.En la opinión mayoritaria de la Corte, el juez Samuel Alito escribe que “nada en esta opinión debe entenderse como que pone en duda los precedentes que no tienen que ver con el aborto”. Sin embargo, el razonamiento legal que esgrime la mayoría para revocar Roe v. Wade y Planned Parenthood v. Casey podría aplicarse a otros fallos.El principal argumento de Alito es que no existe una protección constitucional explícita para el derecho al aborto, y que cualquier derecho no enumerado explícitamente en la Constitución debe estar “profundamente arraigado en la historia y tradición de esta nación” y estar “implícito en el concepto de libertad ordenada” para poder acogerse al amparo constitucional.Los requisitos de este método, que a menudo se conoce como la prueba Glucksberg por el fallo Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), impiden inferir la constitucionalidad del derecho al aborto.Ante este razonamiento, el juez Clarence Thomas advirtió en una opinión concurrente del fallo que, bajo ese razonamiento, el derecho al aborto no es el único que ha sido mal protegido. Fallos como Lawrence v. Texas (2003), que ampara constitucionalmente la libertad de personas del mismo sexo a mantener relaciones sexuales consentidas, serían susceptibles de revocación.“En casos futuros, debemos reconsiderar todos los precedentes sustantivos del debido proceso de este Tribunal, incluidos Griswold, Lawrence y Obergefell. Debido a que cualquier decisión enmarcada en el debido proceso sustantivo es “evidentemente errónea”, tenemos el deber de “corregir el error” establecido en esos precedentes”, dice un pasaje de la concurrencia de Thomas.Aunque el razonamiento del juez Thomas es mucho más extremo que el de la mayoría de los jueces, su lógica muestra que es difícil marcar el límite en los derechos que revierte este fallo cuando estos se encuentran conectados por la misma lógica de interpretación. Este es, a la vez, uno de los argumentos que esgrime la minoría liberal de la Corte, disidente del fallo.“No fue hasta Roe, argumenta la mayoría, que la gente pensó que el aborto estaba dentro de la garantía de libertad de la Constitución. Sin embargo, lo mismo podría decirse de la mayoría de los derechos que la mayoría afirma que no está manipulando. La mayoría podría escribir una opinión igual de larga mostrando, por ejemplo, que hasta mediados del siglo XX, “no había apoyo en la ley estadounidense para un derecho constitucional a obtener [anticonceptivos]”. Así que una de las dos cosas debe ser cierta. O bien la mayoría no cree realmente en su propio razonamiento. O si lo hace, todos los derechos que no tienen una historia que se remonta a mediados del siglo XIX son inseguros. O la mayor parte de la opinión de la mayoría es hipocresía, o los derechos constitucionales adicionales están bajo amenaza”, declaran en conjunto los jueces progresistas Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer y Sonia Sotomayor.🧑‍⚖️ Base de arenaDurante muchos años, el juez Anthony Kennedy fue la figura fundamental en la lucha legal por la igualdad de los homosexuales. En Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) y United States v. Windsor (2013), la Corte sostuvo que el gobierno federal debe reconocer los matrimonios entre personas del mismo sexo.Ambas fueron decisiones 5-4 escritas por Kennedy, como resultado de su incómoda alianza con los cuatro jueces liberales.En ese tipo de casos, cuando las opiniones están muy divididas, a menudo se asigna la redacción de la sentencia mayoritaria al juez más indeciso. Sigue la teoría de que es poco probable que dicho juez cambie su voto si puede adaptar la opinión de la mayoría a sus propios puntos de vista.El resultado es que las argumentaciones que esgrimió Kennedy para la defensa de estos derechos no son muy sólidas. Ignoran doctrinas que podrían haber fundamentado una prohibición de discriminación por motivos de orientación sexual y se centran en defender que son derechos constitucionales no enumerados amparados por la doctrina del debido proceso sustantivo.Algo que, como vimos con Roe v. Wade, deja al fallo más vulnerable a ser anulado por una mayoría conservadora dedicada.El fallo Dobbs de Alito y su confianza exclusiva en el marco de Glucksberg para determinar qué derechos no enumerados están protegidos por la Constitución puede interpretarse como una estrategia del juez a largo plazo. Es decir, podría estar usando una terminología jurídica que pueda usarse para justificar otra victoria conservadora en el futuro.A esto se suma que Alito protagonizó una de las opiniones contrarias al fallo de Obergefell que reconocía el derecho al matrimonio homosexual.Con aquella argumentación, demostró su nivel de desdén por los derechos LGBTIQ+ con una elección retórica que lo apartó incluso de varios de sus compañeros jueces conservadores.La decisión de Obergefell “se utilizará para vilipendiar a los estadounidenses” que creen que las parejas del mismo sexo no merecen los mismos derechos y las personas que expresan puntos de vista anti-LGBTQ “correrán el riesgo de ser etiquetadas como intolerantes”, sostuvo Alito.¿Entiendes ahora el miedo de la comunidad LGBTQ+ a perder derechos?¿Desea saber más? Los artículos del Constitution Center sobre la Decimocuarta Enmienda son muy esclarecedores. Y los análisis judiciales de SCOTUSblog sobre las sentencias del Supremo son al mismo tiempo profundas pero fáciles de leer para no-expertos.🎬 Una recomendaciónCon la colaboración de FilminBy Emilio Doménech120 pulsaciones por minuto es una película francesa de 2017 dirigida por Robin Campillo. Cuenta la historia de un grupo de activistas galos a primeros de los 90 en su lucha por reivindicar los derechos LGBTQ en el contexto de la epidemia del SIDA.La película ganó el Gran Premio del Jurado y el premios FIPRESCI de la crítica en el Festival de Cannes de su año. Acabaría arrasando en los Premios César franceses con seis galardones entre los que se incluyeron Mejor Película, Mejor Actor de Reparto y Mejor Guion Original.Campillo logra una pieza que se siente a la vez informativa, pedagógica y profundamente emocional. Porque pese a retratar el día a día del activismo, con reuniones y debates ideológicos que a priori pueden resultar poco atractivos para el espectador, en realidad el filme hace un trabajo fantástico equilibrando dosis de intensidad dramática con episodios de exploración temática que inspiran por su lucidez.Cero sorpresas con que Campillo se llevara el premio al Mejor Montaje en los César, pues la labor de edición es el logro más incontestable del filme.Campillo era editor antes de ser director. Y también fue el guionista de una película con la que 120 pulsaciones por minuto comparte esa facilidad para convertir conversaciones con sustancia informativa, histórica y discursiva en diálogos que también tienen peso dramático: la extraordinaria La clase, de Laurent Cantet, ganadora de la Palma de Oro en Cannes en 2008.En una era en la que la comunidad LGBTQ+ en países como Estados Unidos teme por sufrir un retroceso en materia de derechos, largometrajes como el de Campillo ilustran lo difícil que fue luchar por conseguirlos.Y en la historia de los personajes de 120 pulsaciones por minuto están también la de otras tantas miles de personas que reivindicaron su igualdad en tiempos bastante más oscuros, pues la película muestra los coletazos más duros del SIDA.120 pulsaciones por minuto está disponible en Filmin.🥊 Otro récord de IbaiBy Marina EnrichLo importante: Ibai organizó este pasado sábado La velada del año 2, una noche dedicada al boxeo y a la música en el Palau Olímpic de Badalona (Barcelona) en la que varios streamers combatieron entre sí. Ah, y David Bustamante, también.La clave. Ibai logró el récord histórico de 3,3 millones de espectadores simultáneos en el stream (2,4 millones de media). El récord anterior lo tenía TheGrefg, otro streamer español, con un pico de 2,5 millones de espectadores cuando presentó su skin de Fortnite (un ‘look’ que había diseñado para el juego online).Ten en mente que el minuto de oro en la televisión española el pasado viernes se lo llevó Pasapalabra con 2,7 millones de espectadores, mientra que la Voz Kids congregó una media de 1,3 millones de espectadores durante la noche.Los highlights.Ibai anunciando dos días antes la escaleta del evento vía Twitch usando Paint. Ni comunicados de prensa, ni publicaciones estándares para sus seguidores. Lo que nos gusta.Las actuaciones de Bizarrap, Nicki Nicole, Duki o Rels B. Puedes verlas aquí.La asistencia de AuronPlay o ElRubius, sobre todo porque nunca suelen ir a este tipo de eventos.

El Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos anuló el pasado viernes la sentencia conocida como Roe contra Wade, que desde 1973 reconocía el aborto como un derecho amparado por la Constitución. Eso implicaba que ninguno de los Estados de la unión podía legislar en contra. Con esta decisión, respaldada por 5 votos contra 4, queda el camino libre para que el aborto pueda ser ilegalizado en los estados que así lo decidan. Es aún una incógnita, pero se cree que aproximadamente la mitad de los Estados o implantarán nuevas restricciones o directamente prohibirán abortar. Algunos Estados como Misuri han sido especialmente rápidos. Este Estado, ubicado en el medio oeste y donde los republicanos gozan de una amplia mayoría, fue el primero en prohibir el aborto tan pronto como la decisión del Supremo se convirtió en firme. No tardó mucho en seguirle Texas. En ambos estados se habían preparado con tiempo aprobando previamente unas leyes que entraban en vigor si el Supremo se pronunciaba en una dirección concreta. Ya hay siete Estados que lo han prohibido o limitado a tres supuestos (peligro para la madre, malformación y violación) y otros tantos harán lo propio a lo largo de las próximas semanas, El fallo del viernes supone la revocación completa de un fallo anterior del propio Tribunal Supremo, algo no muy habitual por lo que es posible que esto sea el origen de grandes polémicas que sacudan a EEUU durante los próximos años. La batalla, de hecho, ya ha empezado, y lo ha hecho desde arriba. El presidente Joe Biden criticó con duramente el fallo, al que calificó como la "materialización de una ideología extrema y un trágico error del Tribunal Supremo". Biden es de confesión católica y, al menos en esto, no sigue el magisterio de la Iglesia, que se opone de plano al aborto. El fallo puede desencadenar una avalancha de litigios políticos de todo tipo. En estados donde no hay una postura clara sobre el aborto -como Pensilvania, Michigan o Wisconsin- que sea o no legal podría cambiar en función de las mayorías en las cámaras estatales. Aparte de eso, tendrán que decidir si las mujeres de un Estado pueden abortar en otro o si es legal pedir medicamentos abortivos por correo. Por último, muchos se están preguntando si la marea llegará más lejos aún y termine alcanzando al matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo o a los anticonceptivos. En los dos casos se trata de derechos amparados por la Constitución gracias a dos sentencias del Supremo: Grisworld contra Connecticut de 1965, que garantiza el derecho a la anticoncepción y la Obergefell contra Hodges de 2015, que reconoce el derecho constitucional al matrimonio entre homosexuales. También podría suceder que un futuro Tribunal Supremo con un equilibrio de jueces distinto revierta esta decisión y regrese a la de 1973. Pero para eso quizá hay que esperar otros cincuenta años. Por de pronto los Estados han recuperado una prerrogativa que perdieron hace medio siglo y eso muchos estadounidenses lo celebran. En La ContraRéplica: - La deuda pública - Funcionarios liberales - ¿Por qué nos cuesta entender Andalucía en el resto de España? · “La ContraHistoria de España. Auge, caída y vuelta a empezar de un país en 28 episodios”… https://amzn.to/3kXcZ6i · “Lutero, Calvino y Trento, la Reforma que no fue”… https://amzn.to/3shKOlK · “La ContraHistoria del comunismo”… https://amzn.to/39QP2KE Apoya La Contra en: · Patreon... https://www.patreon.com/diazvillanueva · iVoox... https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-contracronica_sq_f1267769_1.html · Paypal... https://www.paypal.me/diazvillanueva Sígueme en: · Web... https://diazvillanueva.com · Twitter... https://twitter.com/diazvillanueva · Facebook... https://www.facebook.com/fernandodiazvillanueva1/ · Instagram... https://www.instagram.com/diazvillanueva · Linkedin… https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernando-d%C3%ADaz-villanueva-7303865/ · Flickr... https://www.flickr.com/photos/147276463@N05/?/ · Pinterest... https://www.pinterest.com/fernandodiazvillanueva Encuentra mis libros en: · Amazon... https://www.amazon.es/Fernando-Diaz-Villanueva/e/B00J2ASBXM #FernandoDiazVillanueva #RoevsWade #Aborto Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Here's what we're talking about today: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (VOX // Oyez) Vega v. Tekoh (CNN // Oyez)Carson v. Makin (Slate // Oyez)Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization(NY Times // Oyez)-Griswold – can married couples use contraceptives?-Lawrence – can same-sex couples have sex?-Obergefell – can same-sex couples get married?Sherrilyn Ifill Quote (twitter): “Remember that we have never seen the America we've been fighting for. So no need to be nostalgic. Right on the other side of this unraveling is opportunity. If we keep fighting no matter what, take care of ourselves & each other, stay strategic & principled, & use all our power.”

Our last Pride Month episode of 2022 comes to you on the anniversaries of United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decisions that made marriage equality the law of the land. What better way to celebrate than with a tribute to HEARTSTOPPER, a new Netflix series that has forever raised the bar for depictions of queer men and their love. Swoon along with Christopher and Eric as they talk about the importance of representation and their own sometimes rocky paths towards self-acceptance.

Global Policy Watch: Woe Vs RaidInsights on policy issues making news around the World - RSJOn Friday, Justice Samuel Alito along with the conservative bloc of the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) overturned the landmark Roe v Wade judgment that had granted women a federal right to terminate a pregnancy about half a century ago. The conservative raid into the SCOTUS that started with the efforts of Bush Jr and concluded with Trump appointing three judges during his term has delivered to the great woe of the progressives. The learned judges searched for the word abortion in the Constitution. And to their surprise, they figured it just wasn't there. To quote:We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”  The right to abortion does not fall within this category. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy. The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “liberty.” Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being.”Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.Strong stuff. But with a minor problem. I’m not sure SCOTUS has always stayed away from subjects that don’t have a reference to them in the Constitution like the learned judges have claimed. I mean I have gone through the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence document a few times. I could have also told them they won’t find a reference to abortion there. But I didn’t find the word woman in them either. No idea how that section of the human species got all sorts of rights in the US then. Also, missing from the Constitution are references to wild house parties involving strippers, or to tomatoes, home video recording, or swats to your bottom with a paddle to name just a few of my favourite things. But these are all things on whom the Court has delivered verdicts. Read them if your life is as boring as mine: Wild house parties involving strippers. Is the tomato a fruit or vegetable? The Betamax case of using a home recording device. And the case of the Principal who delivered 20 swats with a paddle to his pupil James. The SCOTUS has opined on them all. So, you see the judges aren’t exactly being consistent with precedence here. And they are setting new dubious benchmarks. There have been numerous instances of the Court striking down past judgments to grant more rights. Not to take them away. This is a repudiation of a lot of truths that progressives take for granted. That the arc of history in the long term bends towards moral justice. Or, that gains on individual liberty that survive more than a generation become irreversible. Apparently not. So, we have the US now joining El Salvador, Poland and Nicaragua in the list of countries that have rolled back abortion rights in the last three decades. About 26 states will make abortion illegal or restrict it on the back of this judgment with immediate effect. It is all quite remarkable. Some days you try and make sense of the pitched battles on the US cultural landscape: on how to use pronouns - he, she, they, it, them, their; or the definition of woman; or cancelling J.K. Rowling because she is a TERF. The terms of such debates are so rarefied that you need a primer first to understand the language being used before you can come to the substantive issues. And while they busy themselves in an ever-splintering contest of being ‘purer’ than the other, the rug gets pulled from under their feet with a judgment that rolls back years of hard-fought wins on women’s autonomy on their bodies, individual liberty and female reproductive health and safety. Now more than half the states are readying themselves to implement it tomorrow. It reinforces my view that any ideology or “-ism” isn’t threatened by its rival but by the absolute section of its own adherents. The desire to finish off the ‘near enemy” is stronger than fighting the real one. Some day the ‘trads’ and ‘raitas’ of Indian wrong wing will also get there. It is a point I have made a few times in explaining Schmitt’s notion of an enemy being essential for a political ideology to flourish.It is not that progressive are alone in this kind of hypocrisy. The same conservatives who value the life of a foetus or of those who are ‘unborn’ don’t see any problem in defending the ‘gun culture’ that takes away more than fifty thousand lives every year. For some convoluted reasons, those lives are an acceptable cost to pay for the right to possess firearms. It is sad yet funny to an outsider looking in.  This won’t stop here. The conservative majority in the SCOTUS took decades, and a lot of good fortune, to come to fruition. They will make the most of it. Justice Clarence Thomas gave a sense of what is to come in his concurring note to this ruling:“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”Quick reminder. Griswold v Connecticut is about a married couple’s right to use contraception without state interference. Lawrence v Texas restricts the states from criminalising sodomy, and Obergefell v Hodges established the right for same-sex couples to marry in 2015. Justice Thomas might be alone now in raking these up. But something tells me that the genie is out now.For all its pretensions, ideology reduces itself to three functional truths. Find something to hate viscerally, over-extend the shadow of your ideology to all realms of a citizen’s life and protect yourself by sanctifying a core principle within the ideology that cannot be made profane. You will enjoy the fruits of power while future generations will foot the bill. We are now on an overdrive of ideology on both sides of the partisan divide.  Stepping back there are three points I want to make here about what this reversal could mean from the seemingly ineluctable path the American society was marching on since the civil rights movement of the 60s. First, the tyranny of the well-organised minority in a democracy is real. American society isn’t as divided on the issue of abortion as it was decades back. Roe v Wade didn’t ‘deepen division and enflamed debate’ as Justice Alito puts it. I went through Pew and Gallup surveys over the years on people’s attitudes towards abortion. It is safe to say anywhere between 60 - 80 per cent of Americans are against the idea of making abortion illegal. Most of the remaining too don’t hold extreme positions on this topic. Maybe there’s a 15 per cent minority of evangelicals and Catholics concentrated in certain states that hold views that have been upheld by the SC. Yet they have prevailed because single-issue voters like them matter in the Republican primaries and in winning the swing states. This is what explains Trump’s base among these groups despite his standing for everything they abhor on moral grounds. And once you establish this ‘tyranny of minority’, you can override the silent majority. Because the benefits are concentrated with them while the costs are diffused among the majority. It is not as if the founding framers of the US Constitution were unaware of this risk. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Papers #22 (1788) had cautioned:“To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser.If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.” This is the reality. The only way to deal with this is for the opponents to mobilise themselves into a single issue minority that counters this or to wait for this to splinter on its own. Neither seems possible at this time in the US. But the broader message on how a minority cause can overturn a majority consensus will not be lost on many who champion fringe causes. And this is also the reason one shouldn’t casually dismiss any voice even in India as fringe as we tend to do. Fringe swings votes and influences the social and cultural agenda of political parties. It is wise to remember that when considering the statements of Yati Narsinghanand or Nupur Sharma. Second, the concurrence note by Justice Thomas that refers to other hot-button conservative cultural causes will play out in a certain way. It is important to understand this. As he wrote:“we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents …. After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.”What Justice Thomas has done is in public policy called ‘shifting the Overton window’. What was earlier not in the realm of discussion or consideration now comes into play. The terms of reference for the cultural debate to be played out in courts have been widened with those lines. This will have an impact on the decisions made in numerous lower courts. Lives will be affected. Lastly, I come back to a point I have made before about the sanctity of Courts directing social norms in a top-down fashion as it was first done in Roe v Wade and the manner of overturning it on Friday. A bit of context will help here.The conservative preference is for any social change to be gradual. Societal change is shaped through the many eddies of debates and protests that resist the flow of the mainstream. As they gain wider acceptance, they begin changing the course of flow of social norms. This could be painstakingly slow, but it makes change acceptable and sustainable. For the conservatives, the role of the judges is to apply laws, not to create them. Going beyond this brief becomes judicial activism. So, the original conservative view was that all issues of public or social policy should be discussed and debated by the legislative and executive branches of the state that represents the society. Courts resolve disputes following the written-down law while sending back any ambiguities to the legislative arm for approval.The liberal position, as it has evolved over time, is marked with suspicion of the society reforming itself. The classical liberal approach to this problem was to accelerate the process of change in society. This was to be achieved through a combined political, social and cultural assault on the bastions of conservatism in the society. This led to the portrait of a liberal as a perpetual activist in a constant state of mobilisation to upend existing norms. The liberal belief that society must change from within was no different from the conservative stance. The difference was between the need to induce change through proactive measures and the speed of change. This need for speed eventually led the liberals to the courts.Based on the evidence it can be argued the conservatives have lost the argument. The courts are at the front and centre of social policy-making today. The many historic judgments that cleave the US society are evidence of it. The legislative arms of the state representing the society aren’t drafting these laws.But here’s the irony. The conservatives have co-opted the liberal model. With a few strokes of good fortune, the single-minded agenda of turning the US SC bench into a conservative majority has been fruitful. The peril of pushing social change into the cabins of a powerful, centralised and autonomous institution is clear to the liberals now when the shoe is on the other foot. A blunt instrument doesn’t look blunt till it is in the hands of your adversary. The path of wresting back control to society will be long and arduous. Roe v Wade verdict in 1973 was ahead of its time. It was imposed on a society where the majority weren’t onboard. It bred resentment and a counter-movement. Justice Alito’s verdict on Friday takes us back in time. It too is imposed on a society where the majority isn’t with it. The Court is either ahead or behind the times in which they live.And it is on this subject, I come to the only line that I agreed with in Justice Alito’s 213-paged judgment:It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.”That’s the way it should always be. Back in 1973. In 2022. And in future.Addendum— Pranay KotasthaneI don’t follow American politics. I’m also cognizant of my ignorance of the context of the abortion debate. And so I’ll stick to three broader points of comparison between the Indian and American political systems. First, this case brings the Constitutional Immutability Dilemma into focus. The underlying reasoning of the judgment is that the American constitution makes no specific reference to a right to obtain an abortion. The cases Roe and Casey tried to link it with other rights, which the current Court did not find acceptable. As an Indian observer, one would think that the constitution should’ve been amended to insert this right expressly, but that’s where the Constitutional Immutability Dilemma kicks in — how amendable should a constitution be after all?To resolve this dilemma, India and the US pick opposite ends. Amending the American constitution requires fulfilling extraordinary conditions, and hence just 27 amendments have been made in its nearly 250-year-old history. On the other hand, amending the Indian constitution is far easier. The latter’s mutability often attracts criticism on these lines—“a document that flexible is a periodical, not a constitution”. However, I’ve always been sceptical of that view. Constitutions are neither sacred books nor indisputable words of a supernatural force. Allowing subsequent generations to alter the constitution through their elected representatives is perhaps a better equilibrium than relying on future judges’ interpretations of an inflexible constitution. Ambedkar, in fact, cited Jefferson in defence of this choice:“We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of the majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.”As this case illustrates, having rigid conditions for amendments open the door for partisan court benches to interpret the constitution as per their ideological worldviews. At the very least, I submit that a periodical is not worse than an immutable book. The working of a constitution is dependent on many factors outside the nature of the constitution itself. These lines from Ambedkar’s Constituent Assembly speech reverberate today:“..however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which the working of those organs of the State depend are the people and the political parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and their politics. Who can say how the people of India and their purposes or will they prefer revolutionary methods of achieving them?… It is, therefore, futile to pass any judgment upon the Constitution without reference to the part which the people and their parties are likely to pay.Second, every polity has its unique set of ‘sacred cows’—issues involving such deference and passion that logical arguments stand no chance. For reasons of historical path dependence, these issues over time become wicked, insurmountable problems. Guns and pro-life are two such sacred cow issues of the American polity. To an external observer, the solutions might seem absurdly simple. But to someone in the midst of it all, the issue seems intractable. India too has many such sacred cow issues, one of which is the sacred cow itself. Third, the judiciary often ends up confusing itself for the politician. These lines from the judgment are instructive: “And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.” Why should it be a court’s problem if its judgment has led to more division? Is it a Panchayat that needs to come to a mandavali (negotiated settlement) or should it only be concerned with the Constitutional provisions? These questions keep making a frequent appearance in India. Looks like they aren’t settled yet in the US as well. Course Advertisement: Admissions for the Sept 2022 cohort of Takshashila’s Graduate Certificate in Public Policy programme are now open! Apply by 23rd July for a 10% early bird scholarship. Visit this link to apply.India Policy Watch: Pension TensionInsights on burning policy issues in India— Pranay KotasthaneThe protests against the Agnipath scheme seem to have peaked. This gives us an opportunity to step back and look at the issue dispassionately. We have already looked at the Agnipath scheme in some detail last week. This time around, I’ll focus on the underlying motivation behind this scheme: India’s defence pension bill. In the Hindustan Times, I present a short history of India’s pension bill. "Before 1965, soldiers below officer ranks were recruited through a mechanism resembling Agnipath in the sense that they served seven years of compulsory service and didn’t receive a pension on retirement. This service period was first raised in 1965 to 10 years for bulking the armed forces after the 1962 defeat. Since a pension required a minimum service of 15 years, most soldiers still didn’t qualify.In 1976, this ten-year service term increased to 17 years, meaning every soldier in normal circumstances qualified for a pension on retirement. With the welcome development of a rising life expectancy, there was also a steady increase in the number of pensioners. The combined effect of these factors was a rapid rise in the pension bill. From Rs 228 crores in FY81, the pension expenditure galloped to Rs 5923 crores by FY99.The Kargil Review Committee (1999) set off the alarm bells over the pension issue, mooting the idea of reducing the service term to 7-10 years. As an alternative, the committee also proposed an inverse lateral induction mechanism, whereby a paramilitary force recruit would be deputed to the armed forces for seven years and repatriated back to the parent organisation after that. Through this mechanism, the experienced soldiers could be retained in the national security system longer while reducing the pension bill. None of these alternatives received the political nod. Meanwhile, in 2004, the union government was able to find a long-term solution for pensioners from the civil services cadre. While continuing to pay pensions of all current employees, the government moved its incoming employees recruited after 1 Jan 2004 to the National Pension System (NPS). NPS is a “defined contribution” scheme, where the pension is paid out of a corpus the employee and the government co-create over the employment period. Over time, this move will likely make the pension bill sustainable, as the liability is not being passed on exclusively to future taxpayers. However, armed forces personnel were kept out of this reform, mainly because non-officer rank soldiers retiring after a short 15-year service would not be able to build a robust corpus, unlike their civilian counterparts who were in service for twice that period. The lost opportunity in 2004 proved to be costly. By 2014, the public discourse had shifted in the opposite direction. Rather than customise the NPS to soldiers’ requirements—which would have been an ideal long-term solution—the NDA government implemented the One Rank One Pension (OROP) scheme. By agreeing to a “defined benefit” scheme that resets periodically based on current employee compensation, the union government unthinkingly committed itself to a perpetually fast-growing liability. While the government was happy to kick the can down the road, the COVID-19 pandemic was a wake-up call. On the one hand, government finances were thrown off balance. On the other, the border stand-off with China drove home the point that defence reforms are not just essential but also urgent. The creation of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) position was the first step. General Bipin Rawat repeatedly drew attention to the unsustainable defence pensions. During his tenure, a few alternatives were discussed. Each available option came with its own set of implementation challenges. Out of this imperfect set, the government chose to reduce the default service term to four years, labelling it as the Agnipath scheme.In the Times of India, I try to estimate the defence pension savings arising from Agnipath:Over the long term, it has the potential to reduce the pension burden substantially. At the same time, the scheme will not directly impact the allocations for modernisation in the short term. Here’s why.Agniveers recruited today are replacing soldiers who would have retired approximately 15 years from now. The purported pension savings would start accruing only after a decade-and-half. As for the size of savings, we created a basic model from publicly available data. Our thumb rule suggests that the net present value of all future pension outflows per soldier is Rs 1 crore. The actual savings might be higher. Reports on the initial proposal by the Indian Army for a three-year Tour of Duty put the prospective lifetime savings per soldier at nearly ten times our estimate.Arriving at an accurate figure is difficult as the government does not release the split-up of total pension expenditures between officers, soldiers, and defence civilians. To get around this data hole, we assumed that the average pension of a retiring officer is 3.5 times the average pension of a retiring soldier. To calculate the total pension outflow per soldier, we assumed that a soldier receives a pension for 29 years on average, i.e. the difference between average life expectancy (69) and the retiring age of a soldier (40). Further, since pension outflows happen over several years in the future, we use the Net Present Value (NPV) method to determine the current value of all future payments. For simplicity, we assume that the pension is indexed to the discount rate. Using even this extremely conservative model suggests significant long-term gains. Allowing 75% of the Agniveers recruited this year to let go after four years alone has a net present value of approximately Rs 34500 crores.As highlighted earlier, these savings will accrue only after 15 years. But just as today’s deficits are tomorrow’s taxes, today’s reforms become tomorrow’s savings. Through Agnipath, the government can manage pension expenditures over the long term.Finally, this entire defence pension debate has three important lessons in public policy.First, secrecy is the enemy of public policy. Kelkar & Shah, in their book In Service of the Republic, identify secrecy levels as one of the barriers to building state capacity. They write that it is harder to achieve state capacity in areas closed to o