The Rehumanize Podcast

In this episode, our host Emiliano is joined by Rehumanize founder Aimee Murphy to discuss a recent Alabama Supreme Court ruling and how pro-lifers should approach embryo destruction and IVF.   —   Learn more about our stance on human embryos: rehumanizeintl.org/embryos

Maria and Kristin discuss the US v. Handy trial, the incarceration of pro-life rescuers, and what they expect in the coming months. Follow Kristin's work at @KristinTurnerLife on Instagram and @KristinForLife on Twitter/X. — Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org.

Recorded live from the 2023 Rehumanize Conference: Having made the choice to place her son for adoption over 20 years ago, Marcia Lane-McGee knows the joy among the pain of a lifelong decision. She shares the five things we as pro-lifers need to know as we accompany women, understand the reality and the realness of making an adoption plan, and how the narrative falls short.   Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org.

This episode brings together Rehumanize founder Aimee Murphy and adoptee Sarah L. to discuss the intricacies of adoption and all it entails.   Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org.

Our hosts Herb Geraghty and Emiliano Vera are joined today by Allie Frazier, a pro-life activist from Ohio, to discuss the current push to amend the state's constitution.   Learn more about Rehumanize International at https://www.rehumanizeintl.org/.

Anastasia is an animal and human rights activist and board member of the Rainbow Pro-Life Alliance. They join our hosts in this episode to share about intersex conditions, what it's like being an LGBTQ+ pro-life activist, and more! Learn more about Rainbow Pro-Life Alliance at https://twitter.com/RainbowProLife, and follow Anastasia's work at https://www.instagram.com/anaxoxy_prolife/.   Learn more about Rehumanize International at https://www.rehumanizeintl.org/.  

Missy Martinez-Stone is the national leading expert in abortion facility closures. Missy began her pro-life career with Students for Life of America and became their National Field Director. She oversaw the growing team of Regional Coordinators and helped Students for Life cross the threshold by helping over 1,000 student groups. Missy has traveled the country working with young people, training and equipping them to be revolutionary pro-life activists. She’s been featured in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Christian Broadcasting Network, and many other media outlets. In 2020, Missy helped incorporate Reprotection, a national pro-life watchdog group that investigates and shuts down abortion facilities that violate state health and medical codes. Reprotection has shut down two abortion facilities in the past two years, stopped three abortion facilities from opening, and has ongoing investigations in over 30 states. Learn more about Reprotection at www.reprotection.org.   Learn more about Rehumanize International at https://www.rehumanizeintl.org/.  

George White and his wife Charlene were shot multiple times and left for dead during an armed robbery at his place of business in Enterprise, Alabama, on February 27, 1985. George lived — his wife did not. Thus began a 7-year legal nightmare as George was charged, convicted, and ultimately exonerated of his wife's murder. This grisly experience led George to meet other murder victim family members, and he now works with Journey of Hope from Violence to Healing, a crime victim advocacy group that seeks to abolish the death penalty and replace it with effective, constructive solutions. Learn more about Journey of Hope at https://www.journeyofhope.org/.   Learn more about Rehumanize International at https://www.rehumanizeintl.org/.  

It's time for a crash course in the legal history of religious liberty! Can a "Satanic abortion ritual" trump pro-life legislation? How does religious liberty impact efforts to protect life in the womb? Kelsey Hazzard, founder of Secular Pro-Life, provides a valuable introduction to a new frontier in abortion litigation. Below are the legal opinions cited in the presentation. Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 250 (1993) Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) Jehovah’s Witnesses in the State of Washington v. King County Hospital Unit No. 1 (Harborview), 278 F.Supp. 488 (W.D. Wash. 1967) In re Clark, 185 N.E.2d 128 (Ohio Ct. of C.P. 1962) Hoener v. Bertinato, 67 N.J.Super. 517 (1961) Learn more about Secular Pro-Life at secularprolife.org.   Transcript: Kelsey Hazzard: Hello everyone and welcome to Religious Liberty Justifications for Violence: a Legal Analysis. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Kelsey Hazard. I am the founder and president of Secular Pro-Life. SPL is an atheist led organization advancing secular arguments against abortion and uniting people of every faith and none to protect prenatal human beings. I'm really excited about this presentation. Although I am an atheist, I have always taken a strong academic interest in religion. My undergraduate majors were religious studies and psychology, and then I went to law school where I just devoured all things First Amendment. So I wanna thank Rehumanize International for giving me this wonderful opportunity to, to geek out with an audience. You have probably seen headlines about satanist groups and pro-abortion Jewish synagogues filing lawsuits against pro-life legislation planning that it violates their religious freedom. And maybe you've thought, well, that's ridiculous. You can't just kill somebody and say, Oh, but it's my religion. And if that was your reaction, Your intuition is correct. I am going to conclude that these lawsuits, these lawsuits ought to fail. But to discuss this issue intelligently beyond just our intuitive reactions requires understanding some key concepts of religious liberty law. So, this session is your crash course. I have five housekeeping matters before I begin. One, I have a lot of citations. You can find all of them in the most recent post at secular pro-life dot org slash blog. I've also dropped it in the chat, and if you're watching the later recording, there should be a link in the description. Two. A disclaimer. I am a attorney. I am not your attorney. This presentation is for general educational purposes only. It is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, you should contact a lawyer who's licensed in your jurisdiction to give you advice that's tailored to your situation. Number three, I realized that this conference attracts attendees. From around the world. In fact, I think I saw a poll earlier that about a quarter of you are from outside of the United States of America. I am focused here. This presentation is specifically about US law. Number four. If you have questions or comments, please put them in the Q and A tab. I'll circle back to them at the end if we have time. If you put them in the general chat tab, I might miss them. So please use that Q and A tab. Finally, number five. This session is going to touch on quite a few beliefs. Satanism Judaism, Native American Spirituality, Santeria, Evangelical Christianity, Jehovah's Witnesses. In the Immortal words of Stefan from Saturday Night Live, this club has everything. If you happen to belong to any of the religious communities I just mentioned, I apologize in advance for how cursory and surface level my comments are going. You could devote a lifetime of study to any one of the religions I mentioned, and many people have. We have 45 minutes. It is what it is. And I'm sorry. So all of those housekeeping matters are done. Let us dive in with a Native American church and the case of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon versus Smith. That's mouthful. We usually just say employment division versus Smith. Mr. Smith ingested peyote for sacramental purposes during a Native American ceremony. Somehow his employer, a drug rehab center, found out about that and fired him. He applied for state unemployment benefits and he was denied. Oregon's position was using hallucinogens is illegal in our state. You used them. There is no religious exception, so it's your own damn fault you lost your job. We're not paying you unemployment. Mr. Smith argued that this violated his first amendment right to free exercise of religion. The case went all the way to the us Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled against him. The court supported Oregon's position. Their reasoning, and I'm paraphrasing here, Was, what are you nuts? We can't start making religious exceptions to drug laws. Every heroin addict in the country is going to take advantage of that. Laws would mean absolutely nothing. It would be chaos . So he lost, he lost his case. And the legal standard that was announced in Smith was that if a generally applicable, incidentally burdens religious exercise that is not a First Amendment violation. The law will be upheld and the state does not have to create an exception or an accommodation for that religious person. So what does the Supreme Court mean by generally applicable law? The best way to illustrate that is with a counter. Let's talk about Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye versus city of Hialeah. I love this case, not just because it's fun to say, although it it definitely is Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye. I also just find it super interesting and my favorite law professor Douglas Laycock, happens to represent the church. So, first some background. This is where Santeria makes an appearance. And if your only familiarity with Santeria is the Sublime song, you have excellent musical taste. Don't practice Santeria ain't got no crystal ball — just don't pop a cap in Sancho, this is a consistent life ethic conference. By the way, I have no way of knowing if my stupid jokes are landing. So please, please be gentle. Santeria is most commonly practiced in Cuba. It arose from the interaction of African religions brought by enslaved people, and Catholicism brought by colonizers. When Cuban American refugees settled in South Florida, they brought Santeria with them. Santeria worship sometimes involves ritual animal sacrifice, which makes it a very foreign and objectionable, scenario to a white American audience. When a Santeria priest announced that he was opening the Church of the Lukumi Babalu in Hialeah, a Santeria congregation, it did not go over well. As the Supreme Court put it in its opinion, the prospect of a Santeria church in their midst was distressing to many members of the Hialeah community. And the announcement of the plans to open a santaria church in Hialeah prompted the city council to hold an emergency public session on June 9, 1987. That session and some later ones produced numerous resolutions and ordinances, which taken together prohibited the Santeria animal sacrifices. So this went up to the US Supreme Court. And the, the justice said the justices had no trouble figuring out that this was not a generally applicable law. It was a unanimous decision. The city argued, Hey, they we're just promoting animal welfare, and we have legitimate public health concerns as far as the animal remains go. But that was unconvincing because the ordinance. Were just riddled with exceptions for commercial meat production, for hunting, for pest control, and even for kosher slaughter. The court called it a religious gerrymander. I'll quote again from the opinion. The net result of the gerrymander is that few, if any, killings of animals are prohibited other than Santeria's s. Which is prescribed because it occurs during a ritual or ceremony, and its primary purpose is to make an offering to the Orishas, not food consumption. Indeed, careful drafting insured that although Santeria sacrifice is prohibited, killings that are no more necessary or humane in almost all other circumstances are unpunished. In other words, this law was discriminatory. And since the law was not generally applicable, The Smith's standard did not apply. Instead, the court used a much tougher standard, what we call strict scrutiny. There must be a compelling interest in support of the law, and the law must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest with the least religious burden possible. Remember that test: compelling interest, narrowly tailored. That's strict scrutiny. And there's a saying in the legal community: strict in theory, fatal in fact. Meaning hardly anything is going to pass the strict scrutiny test. Hialeah's anti sacrifice — anti sacrifice law, certainly did not, and the church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye emerged victorious. So at this point you might be wondering how this is relevant to anti-abortion laws. After all, we aren't targeting a particular religion. We didn't convene an emergency city — city council session to ban the satanic abortion ritual. We aren't trying to save only the babies conceived by mothers of a particular faith group. We wanna save as many babies as humanly possible. That's how pro-life laws are written. They're broad. They're generally applicable. Yes. Yes. That, that is right. However, The American public really did not like the outcome in Employment Division versus Smith. A lot of people on both sides of the aisle felt that Smith should have won that case, and it's not hard to see why. Right? He's a very sympathetic plaintiff. He wasn't hurting anybody. Native American use of peyote is thousands of years older than the United States itself. The war on drugs really has run a muck here. Why couldn't have Org — why couldn't Oregon have just made an excepti

From abortion to police brutality and the death penalty, Black Americans suffer disproportionate amounts of state-sanctioned lethal violence. This roundtable discussion from our 2022 Rehumanize Conference brings together Black activists who hold a Consistent Life Ethic to discuss the critical importance of challenging racial injustice as we advocate for human rights for all human beings.   Watch the video version of this session on our Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j91o_IL63Kw   Transcript: Herb Geraghty: So this session is titled Black Lives Matter from Conception to Natural Death. I am so grateful to be joined by these three individuals. I'm going to just briefly introduce each of our participants and then hand the conversation over to them. First, Jack Champagne is a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. He currently works as an educator in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He formerly worked for the Capital Habeas Unit of the Federal Public Defender's Office, the Innocence Project, the Project, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. He is also a staff writer for Rehumanize International. Cherilyn Holloway is the founder of Pro Black Pro-Life. She specializes in initiating tough conversations surrounding racial equity, including in the womb. She travels the country, educating her community about the negative messaging they receive regarding motherhood and the sanctity of life. Finally, Gloria Purvis is an author, commentator, and the host and executive producer of the Gloria Pur podcast. Through her media presence, she has been a strong Catholic voice for life issues, religious liberty, and racial justice. She has appeared in numerous media outlets, including The New York Times, the Washington Post, PBS News Hour, npr, Newsweek Live and she hosted Morning Glory, an international radio show. She recently debuted a video series entitled Racism, Human Dignity, and the Catholic Church through the Word on Fire. I. Again, I am so, so grateful for each of our participants. With that said, I am going to get out of here and give them the opportunity to discuss their work and tell us what Black Lives matter from conception to natural death means to you. Thank you all. Thank you.  Jack Champagne: Thank you, Herb.  Gloria Purvis: Jack, why don't you start us off.  Jack Champagne: Oh man, . I was, I'm, I'm a,  Cherilyn Holloway: I was gonna vote for Jack.  Yes. .  Jack Champagne: Ah, alright then. So yeah, I was, I was, I, I've spent most of my life kind of with the sort of mainstream understanding of, uh, of life issues, of kind of being, you know, kind of, not super, uh, decided on the issue. It was actually working at the capital habeas unit that I actually, developed a, I mean, you try working with condemned prisoners and not develop a healthy respect for human life. It's, you know, dealing with, you know, prisoners who do not have living victims and who are themselves usually scheduled to die at the hands of the state. Having to advocate for these people and, you know, if you don't have an opinion on the death penalty going in, you will definitely have one coming out. And, I mean, it, it's a, it's a powerful experience, you know, just looking at the conditions they live in, the legal issues, that, uh, that surround capital punishment, and, uh, you know, just working under, Marshall Diane, who I think is still working there, who was a, who was a very, you know, loud voice against the death penalty. Just kind of, just kind of, you know, uh, formed my thinking on that. And of course it's, you know, Uh, very short distance from there to, you know, you know, concern about the lives of the disabled and the unborn. And you know, that, that, that of course interacts with my, my perception of race, both as, uh, both as a black man and as somebody who was clientele was almost always black men as well. So, you know, that's, that's. Uh, you know, that's, that's, I I have a very tangible, you know, grasp on what that looks like for me. I don't know about the, I don't know about you, uh, you all, but that's kind of where I come from with it.  Gloria Purvis: Uh, you know, I, I think, I'm a child of south. I mean, I grew up in Charleston, South Carolina. Which is where the Civil War started. Long history of bad race relations, . Still, we have people having a love affair with the lost cause mythology that the South had race relations, uh, correct by subjugating black people and that we were happier with the way that it was and that they had it right in terms of human relations between men and women. Uh, right in terms of the race question, but it wasn't. And, this — growing up in that environment, but at the same time, growing up in a very strong black community, in that environment, in a strong black community of people who, despite all the obstacles were achievers, were people who created things within the black community. And so while I grew up down there, I also had an environment where black excellence was normal, was normative. And, encountering people there that thought that, you know, I shouldn't think so highly and be so sure of myself. And that was their problem, not mine, but at the same time also seeing the uneven application of law enforcement, the uneven application of good healthcare. You know what I mean? Things like that, that you just as a black person moving through the world is paying attention. You see these things. And then, as a person of faith, also as a person that, believed in the science, you know, and I studied biology, uh, I understood that the human person. It, you know, is a human person, is a human life, a member of the human family from that moment of conception. And it just made sense to me, that we'd wanna protect and defend that life from the moment of conception all the way through natural death. And it was inconsistent to me to, in, on the one hand, say, we wanna defend lives in this instance, and yet in another instance, get rid of that life it in as a means of empowering others. So it just seemed illogical to me, some positions that I've seen in different justice movements. So it made me question, well, what is justice really? And as a, a person of faith and studying with the Catholic church understands justice, being justice means every human person — life being, uh, gets what they, you know, they merit something their life merits, protection, nurturing, flourishing. And that's what each of us is entitled to. Whether we're, whether we're the condemned on death row, whether we're in the womb, whether we're on our deathbed as a sick person, our lives of worthy of protection. And, and, and now even I think people are struggling with the notion that the death penalty should be no more. You know, we, we have this idea that really is really vengeance if you ask me. It's not justice. This idea that, you know, people need to get what's coming to 'em in a negative way without ever looking, also, at the way racism influences how the death penalty, who gets the death penalty. How, someone's wealth or lack thereof, influences who gets the death penalty, influences who even gets arrested and prosecuted. So, uh, there's so much uneven in our legal system. I've learned to call it the legal system instead of the justice system. There's so much uneven in our legal system that, it, it, it really, in terms of fairness, makes no sense to have the death penalty. Not to mention that each and every person, no matter what they've done, has made the image and likeness of God and is worthy of dignity and respect. And we as believers, I'm speaking as myself, are called to respond differently to persons who have harmed the community. We want restorative justice, not, not vengeance. And I think that's a difficult thing for people, but we can get into that and, and all, uh, later, but just as a high level, that has influenced, you know, my views and understanding of the human person and, and the dignity and why their lives need to be respected and protected. Cherilyn Holloway: Yeah, that's, both of those are like, spot on. So I, got into this. I was a community outreach director for a pregnancy center. I had made two previous abortion choices and I came outta those really feeling duped. Like I wasn't given all my options. And had I been given all my options, I would've made different choices. And I didn't want another woman to have to go through that. I had no idea that there was like a pro-life, pro choice. I had no clue. I was completely ignorant. And even when I joined the first pregnancy center, it wasn't something that they talked about. Nobody ever talked about Roe versus Wade. Nobody ever talked about the March for Life. It was just kind of like hand to the plow. We're just helping women. And it wasn't until I moved back to Ohio. I'm originally from Oberlin, Ohio, where the college is, and I grew up just with this, bubble. And in the bubble we were all like working towards justice. And so , you know, racial justice, food equity, everything you could think of, you know, Oberlin College was a first college to openly accept gay and lesbian couples. It was before like, I don't know, there's a session earlier where someone was saying that like being trans really was, wasn't a big deal in the 2000s and now it's a big deal. Like that is, that was my world and. So I grew up in a very different community that was surrounded by all white rural communities that were extremely racist. And so it wasn't that we were going out somewhere far to do work. We were, had work to do right where we were in our county. And so I moved back to Oberlin. and, uh, became the executive director of my local pregnancy center. And that's where I learned about this pro-life, pro-choice, uh, overturning Roe versus Wade. But the biggest thing I learned about was the disparities of abortion in the black community. And I couldn't wrap — I'm very li I'm not very sensational. Like I'm not, nobody would describe me as sensitiv

In this episode, Herb and Emiliano are joined by the founder of Rehumanize International, Aimee Murphy, who has just released a book with New City Press! Titled Rehumanize: A Vision to Secure Human Rights for All, this book includes a digestible yet systematic analysis of the ethics, history, and public policy surrounding modern issues of dehumanization and the Consistent Life Ethic. Learn more: rehumanizeintl.org/book-tour-2022

In this episode, our hosts Herb and Emiliano are joined by Serena Dyksen, who underwent an abortion after being sexually assaulted at 13. Now the founder of an abortion recovery ministry called She Found His Grace, Serena shares her story to bring hope and healing to others.   Learn more about She Found His Grace at shefoundhisgrace.org.   Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org.

To commemorate International Day in Support of Victims of Torture on June 26, our hosts Herb and Emiliano are joined by James Yee, a former Muslim chaplain to the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility.    Learn about Rehumanize International's stance on torture at rehumanizeintl.org/torture.

In this episode, our hosts Herb and Emiliano chat with Emily Albrecht of Equal Rights Institute to discuss the nation's reaction to the Dobbs v. Jackson leak and how pro-lifers can compassionately respond to misinformation.     Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org.   #ProLife #DobbsVJackson #RoeVWade   —

In this episode, our hosts Herb Geraghty and Emiliano Vera talk through their initial reactions to the leak of the Supreme Court's draft opinion on the Dobbs v. Jackson case.   AUTOMATED TRANSCRIPT: [00:00:00] Emiliano Vera: All right, everybody. Welcome back to the Rehumanize podcast.  [00:00:05] Herb Geraghty: It's happening! Roe v. Wade is coming down, or at least it looks like it. No guests today. Just going to be me and Emiliano. I'm Herb here as always. We have a lot to talk about when was the last time we recorded?  [00:00:19] Emiliano Vera: I think it was before I went on Easter break. Yeah, we're right after I came back. I don't know. I have no conception of time anymore. [00:00:30] Herb Geraghty: That's all right. But yeah, no, the, there obviously there's been a whole lot happening in the whole world, but I think the biggest piece of news is the leaked draft of the Dobbs decision by Politico, like two weeks ago. I time has been totally at a standstill for me since that's happened. I have, I have no idea how long it's been. I think it's been about two weeks since recording, since we have been recording this. And yeah, so, I mean, if you somehow follow Rehumanize and haven't heard there's been a draft of what looks to be the Supreme court's decision, the majority opinion. In the Dobbs V Jackson case, which for a while we've been saying has the potential to overturn Roe V. Wade. And the majority of justice says as of May 2nd have ruled in favor of overturning Roe and upholding the 15 week ban.  [00:01:29] Emiliano Vera: Have you read the the opinion and it's a super majority, right? It was six three, not five, four, right.  [00:01:36] Herb Geraghty: I  wait, I'm pulling it up now because I couldn't, I couldn't remember who, who signed onto it. No, as of the, the leak, it was only Thomas Gor Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett and Alito Roberts hadn't signed on, but it wasn't, we, we still don't know. We only have the draft of the opinion. Right. I don't know if he is. Concurring or joining a dissenting or doing something else that's funky, or if he just hasn't decided yet, and he's going to sign on to the majority. Obviously it wasn't supposed to come out. And so we we don't exactly know. We know that the justices can change their mind up until the day that it's released, that this was supposed to be sort of a long process of editing these drafts. So we, we have no reason to believe that the final that what has been published is the total final draft. But if it is what is going to be released as the official opinion, it rocks to answer your question. Yes. I read most of it. I'm not a legal scholar, but luckily my girlfriend is a law student then. And she has read the entire document and the, that first night that it really, it was released. She read the entire thing and was pulling out important quotes for me. And so that was extremely helpful to understand exactly what was going on because I read the Politico argument and basically the, the messages, the Roe V. Wade was egregiously wrong from the start and it's coming down. And this 15 week ban is constitutional which of course will open the gates to banning abortion in other ways and earlier in gestation because we no longer have the the precedent of Roe upholding the imaginary constitutional right to abortion. But yes, I've read most of it. But a lot of the kind of footnotes I'm like, this is all legal jargon. I don't fully need to understand because I'm not a constitutional lawyer. But yeah, what I've read, I like I'm excited. It seems good.  [00:03:40] Emiliano Vera: Yeah. I read probably like 20 pages of it. And like on Facebook and kind of like the, the week afterwards or not just Facebook, I'm not really on Facebook a lot. And the social media is there were like some, several kinds of like pro-choice people citing some of the, the language is used in decisions as kind of like apocalyptic. Like a harbinger of what's to come for other rights, like that were established by privacy's. So either LGBT rights or, or rights to birth control or something like that like things established by Griswold and other cases what do you make of those kind of interpretations that like, oh, the, this, this document that came out are setting up to just like knocked down like a whole other slew of anything that has to do with privacy is going to get overturned now. [00:04:49] Herb Geraghty: Yeah. So I think that. I when I first saw kind of the uproar about that from a lot of pundits I was also concerned because at that point I hadn't read the decision yet that the actual Monday night I I happen to already be in DC for other events. And so when it was released, the people I was with and some other people from rehumanize and partner organizations were outside the court within the hour demonstrating. And by the time we were there, I think the article came out at like eight 30 and we were there by nine 30 and there was already hundreds of people demonstrating almost all. Pro-abortion. I think that a lot of people just heard the news and immediately wanted to protest. And the pro-life movement had not come together yet. So it, it really was just kind of us out there at the Supreme court. And so I, I did not have time that night to actually read the opinion. And so that next day I also saw a lot of that, like Alito is coming for all of our rights there it's, it's not just abortion that we know there is no right to an abortion. There's no right to take the life of another human being. However, because of the sort of political movement that has championed the rights of the unborn I think people had some legitimate concerns about other rights that some people claim did build off of decisions like Griswold and Roe and Casey. And so like at rehumanize international, we don't really take official positions on things outside of issues of aggressive violence. And so. You know, in our capacity as an organization, we don't really take strong positions on things like birth control or LGBT privacy rights to yeah. Just don't hurt people. But as an individual, you know, I have political positions outside of the, the mission of rehumanize international. And so I was concerned about the, kind of the, the claims that the draft decision seems to be gearing up to come after other rights particularly LGBT rights that were determined in like Lawrence and Obergefell in terms of like, you know, same-sex sexual relationships and marriage. And so I think like if I spent a couple hours being like, oh no, should I be concerned about this opinion? Like, should, should I actually, you know, Advocate, you know, there's not much to do for the Supreme court. They're not there, they're an unelected body. So you just kind of have to hope that they do what you want. But I did share those concerns, but once I actually read most of the opinion I it's, it's hard for me to really see it that way that the Supreme court is coming after other privacy rights. I mean, in a leader's opinion  [00:07:35] Emiliano Vera: seemed like very, very like specific about like Roe vs Wade and abortion. [00:07:45] Herb Geraghty: Yeah. I mean, let me pull up some of it, because I think that Alito in the draft goes out of his way to be very, very explicit that this is only about abortion. In his discussion of privacy rights. Let me pull up the quote. Here it is, this was from the opinion. Roe's defenders characterize the abortion, right? As similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters, such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but a portion is fundamentally different as both Roe and Casey acknowledge because it destroys what those decision called fetal human life and what the law. Now, before us referring to the Mississippi law describes as an unborn human beings. At further distinguishing abortion from same-sex marriage. Alito says none of the other decisions cited by Rohan Casey involved, the critical moral question posed by abortion. And then he goes on to say that therefore, these are unrelated and do not take what we are saying about there not being a privacy, right. To dismember a baby to mean that other privacy rights are non-existent. In general, I mean, I'm not a constitutional layer. I know that a lot of people have, you know, even like LGBT affirming or LGBT people have sort of said like actually these decisions that we have, like trying to base them on the privacy, right. That were established in decisions like RO are actually not great legal precedent anyway, because a lot of these privacy rights always said like this doesn't it. Maybe I support the ruling, like plenty for 50 years pro abortion I'm pro choice legal scholars have been saying like, no, I think abortion should be legal, but the constitutional  [00:09:30] Emiliano Vera: thing, like a bad, badly determined decision. [00:09:35] Herb Geraghty: Exactly. And people, you know, sort of on all sides of the issue, I've said similar things about . And so I think that it Alito comes from a particular position on you know, LGBT marriage rights that I would, I would probably disagree with him on. However, when the court looks at previous court decisions to determine precedent, what they're looking at is what's actually written in the opinion, not, oh, well, what did Sam Alito think at the time that he was writing this? And the language in this draft decision is explicit that this is referring to abortion because it is distinct from other privacy rights, whether you believe in these privacy rights that they are found in the constitution or not, or if they're just good in and of themselves, and they're not explicitly in the constitution or they are or whatever. I think it's important to note that it is very different. Then, then these other rights, because they have the question of this unborn human being. I think that these past couple of weeks, since the decision has leaked, I I've seen from pundits and the media and, you

In this episode, our hosts Herb Geraghty and Emiliano Vera are joined by Mayra Rodriguez, the former director of 3 Planned Parenthood clinics who was Planned Parenthood’s 2016 Employee of the Year and courageously blew the whistle, winning a 2019 wrongful termination lawsuit against the abortion giant.   Tune in on Spotify, iTunes, or from our website at http://rehumanizeintl.org/podcast.   Follow Mayra's work: https://www.instagram.com/therealmayra.rodriguez/

In this episode, our hosts Herb Geraghty and Emiliano Vera are joined by the founders of Rehumanize DMV (DC/Maryland Virginia), Savannah and Ryan, to discuss their experience launching a Rehumanize chapter in the middle of the pandemic.   Follow Rehumanize DMV on all social media platforms at @RehumanizeDMV. Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org.

(CLE = Consistent Life Ethic) In this episode, our hosts Herb and Emiliano are joined by Phil Eddy, who is a member of the Rehumanize International board. Together, they have a wide-ranging chat about the death penalty, imperialism, news about abortion, and more.    —   Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org.

Terrisa Bukovinac returns to the podcast to introduce her new organization, the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising.   —   Learn more about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org.

In this episode, our hosts Herb and Emiliano are joined by David Swanson of World BEYOND War to reflect on the aftermath of 9/11 and the war on terror. _ Follow World BEYOND War at https://worldbeyondwar.org/. — Find more info about Rehumanize International at rehumanizeintl.org.