THE SUPREME COURT TAKES A CASE ON MAJORITY-BLACK DISTRICTS.

DO WE STILL NEED THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT?

A NEW YORK BILL BANS ANONYMOUS TIPS ABOUT CHILD ABUSE.

WILL IT DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD?

AND A STATES' RIGHTS BATTLE OVER ABORTION PILLS.

STAY TUNED, IVORY TOWER IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

I'M JOINED THIS WEEK BY NINA MOORE, FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY, ANIRBAN ACHARYA FROM LEMOYNE COLLEGE, SARAH PRALLE FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, AND RICK FENNER FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

WHEN PART OF THE VOTING RIGHTS DEPEND REVAGUES OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, BUT THERE WAS A 1982 AMENDMENT TO THE ACT WHICH ALLOWS INDIVIDUAL GROUPS TO COME AND MAKE A CLAIM OF GROUP DILUT.

THAT IS ABOUT GROUP RIGHTS.

THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT THE LOUISIANA STATE LEGISLATURE, UNDER COURT ORDER WAS NOT ONLY ENGAGED IN RACE-BASED DISTRICTING BUT ALSO TRYING TO PRESERVE REPUBLICAN CONTROL.

BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THE STATE IS ROUGHLY 30% BLACK, ONLY 1 OUT OF THE 6 SEATS WERE A MAJORITY BLACK DISTRICT.

SO I THINK WHAT IT IS GOING TO COME DOWN TO IS SOME THINGS WE'VE SEEN THE COURTS SORT OF TALK ABOUT IN A SIDE WAY, AND THAT IS WHETHER YOU CAN GIVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO GROUPS, AND GROUPS THAT ARE BASED ON RACE, BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION REALLY TALKS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

THE OTHER THING IS WHAT ROBERTS HAS CONSISTENTLY REFERRED TO AS RACIAL STEREOTYPING, WHEN FOLKS ASSUME THAT BLACK FOLKS WILL VOTE BASED ON CERTAIN BLACK INTERESTS.

AND SO THE COURT WILL, I THINK, TACKLE THAT HEAD ON.

AND I THINK IT WILL CONTINUE TO PERMIT LAWSUITS THAT ARE BROUGHT TO PREVENT INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION.

BUT THE REQUIREMENT TO PUT IN PLACE MAJORITY BLACK DISTRICTS, I THINK IS GOING TO GO THE WAY OF THE WIND.

>> SO I MEAN RACIAL GERRYMANDERING IS NOT ALLOWED BUT POLITICAL GERRYMANDERING IS.

AND IN SOME CASES, AREN'T THEY HOPELESSLY INTERTWINED.

>> THEY ARE HOPELESSLY INTERTWINED.

BUT TO YOUR FIRST POINT, RACE-BASED GERRYMANDERING HAS BEEN ALLOWED BECAUSE THE WAY CONGRESS CHANGED SECTION 2 OF THE 1965 RIGHT SAID THAT A CLAIM CAN BE MADE NOT ONLY WITH REGARD TO INTENT BUT ALSO IMPACT.

IMPACT BEING DILUTION.

SO YOU CAN, IN FACT, CHALLENGE IF YOU ARE BRINGING A CAUSE FOR A BLACK GROUP AND SAY THAT YOU DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENT REPRESENTATION OF BLACKS AS BLACKS, AS A GROUP.

>> BUT HASN'T CLARENCE THOMAS SAID THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.

SO THAT CERTAINLY SEEMS WHICH SIDE HE IS GOING TO FALL ON.

BUT I AGREE WITH YOU, I MEAN HOW IS IT IN OUR BEST INTERESTS TO ALLOW, YOU KNOW, THIS GERRYMANDERING FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES TO PROTECT INCUMBENTS?

WHY IS THAT THE BEST WAY TO DECIDE, YOU KNOW, HOW WE ARE GOING TO GET OUR REPRESENTATION?

>> BECAUSE THE COURT SAID IT IS, RIGHT?

I MEAN THAT'S... I MEAN... THE COURT TOOK THAT ON-- EXCUSE ME, SEVERAL YEARS AGO IN ANOTHER CASE.

AND THEY SAID IT'S OKAY.

>> IT'S OKAY.

>> SARAH?

>> WELL, I WAS STRUCK IN THE ORAL ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE OBSESSION AMONG SOME JUSTICES THAT THERE HAS TO BE A TIME LIMIT TO SOME OF THIS.

A SUNSET.

THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT WAS SET TO ENFORCE THE 14th AND 15th AMENDMENTS, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

I'M NOT SURE WHY WE EXPECT THAT HAS TO SUDDENLY DISAPPEAR.

I WAS IN MY CLASSES THIS YEAR.

I HAVE BEEN TEACHING ABOUT FREEDOM RIGHTS, FREEDOM SUMMER.

THIS WAS ONLY 60 YEARS AGO THAT PEOPLE RISKED THEIR LIVES IN ORDER TO GET THE 1965 VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

AND I THINK THE JUSTICES ARE EITHER WILLFULLY NAIVE OR JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THIS IN THE SENSE THAT, I THINK STATES CAN FIND VERY CREATIVE WAYS TO BRING BACK SOME OF THESE RESTRICTIONS ON VOTING, YOU KNOW, SUBTLE CREATIVE WAYS TO TRY TO DEPRIVE PEOPLE OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE.

IN PART BECAUSE THEY DO WANT TO SECURE ONE PARTY RULE IN THE SOUTH.

AND SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS IDEA THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO GO BACKWARDS AS A RESULT.

YOU KNOW, THERE IS THIS OBSESSION THAT THEY HAVE WITH ENDING THIS AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> COULD I JUST RESPOND TO SOMETHING THAT RICK SAID ABOUT READING OF THE ACT.

WHERE WE SEE THOMAS GOING HERE IS IN CLOSING THE DOOR BECAUSE PREVIOUSLY ALL OF THE OTHER DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE COURT WERE INTERPRETING THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AS, YOU KNOW, HAVING TO DO WITH CONGRESSIONAL INTENT.

BUT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IS GOING TO HAPPEN HERE IS THEY'RE GOING TO FIND THE ACT IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND SO IN THAT CASE, CONGRESS CANNOT COME BACK AND EFFECT A LEGISLATIVE REVERSAL OF IT AS IT HAS DONE IN THE PAST BECAUSE ONLY THE COURT GREETS TO INTERN-- GETS TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION.

>> ANIRBAN, GO AHEAD.

>> I ENTHUSIASM IT'S VERY INTERESTING BECAUSE IN 2023, WHEN ALLEN VS.

MILLIGAN CASE, I THINK, THE SUPREME COURT CAME DOWN AGAINST ALABAMA'S REDISTRICTING PLANS AND KAVANAUGH AND ROBERTS JOINED THE LICIALT JUSTICES AND AFTER THAT, LOUISIANA CHANGED TO CREATE THIS ONE EXTRA SEAT IN SHE HAVES PORT AND OF COURSE SHREVEPORT AND THE GROUP OF NON-AFRICAN-AMERICANS AS THEY CALL IT, THEY STARTED TO DISPLACE WITH LOUISIANA AND THE CONFLICT IS WHETHER THE SECTION 2 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT VIOLATED THE 14th AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

BUT IN THIS CASE IN 1981, THERE IS A THORNBURG CASE, THE THREE-POINT FORMULA THE COURT SAID THAT IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE VRA.

WE WILL SEE THAT WHETHER WHAT THE SUPREME COURT THINKS AT THIS MOMENT THAT WHETHER STEMMING OR STOPPING RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN VOTING ALSO VIOLATES THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OR NOT.

AND TO THAT COUNT, I JUST WANT TO GIVE OUT SOME STATISTICS.

IN 1950s, I THINK THERE WERE ONLY LIKE SIX BLACK REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE SOUTH.

NOW WE HAVE 29.

AND IF THIS GOES THROUGH, PARTISAN WISE, THE REPUBLICANS STAND TO ADD SOMETHING LIKE 12 AND 19 SEATS WHICH WOULD BASICALLY REWRITE OR ERODE ANY DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT IN THE SOUTH.

>> THE END OF RECONSTRUCTION UNTIL 1965 WAS ESSENTIALLY A ONE-PARTY SYSTEM.

ALTHOUGH IT WAS DEMOCRATIC.

SO IS THERE A RISK THAT IF THIS -- IF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IS, GOT IT, ESSENTIALLY, THAT WE WOULD GO BACK TO A ONE-PARTY SYSTEM BASICALLY?

>> I'M NOT SURE IF IT WOULD BE A ONE-PARTY SYSTEM BECAUSE OF THE RACIAL MAKEUP BUT WHAT I WILL SAY IN THIS CASE IS THAT THERE ARE 60 BLACK REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS PRESENTLY.

BUT ONLY 15 COME FROM MAJORITY BLACK DISTRICTS.

SO THE U.S.

DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL USED THOSE NUMBERS TO MAKE THE CASE THAT YOU DON'T NEED TO DO THIS INTENTIONALLY.

THAT IT HAPPENS.

THAT YOU GET BLACK REPRESENTATION.

>> I ARGUE THE GERRYMANDERING CASES ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE AIMED AT MONOPOLY POWER.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

SECURE REPUBLICAN MAJORITIES >> GOVERNOR HOCHUL HAS UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR TO SIGN A BILL THAT WOULD REJECT ANONYMOUS REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE.

THE BILL WAS WRITTEN TO REDUCE FALSE AND VINDICTIVE TIPS.

IN NEW YORK CITY, LESS THAN 7% OF ANONYMOUS REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE WERE CONFIRMED.

THE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES OPPOSES THE BILL, AFRAID IT WILL DETER LEGITIMATE TIPS AND PLACE CHILDREN IN HARM'S WAY.

SO ANIRBAN, SHOULD HOCHUL SIGN THE BILL?

>> I WILL THROW OUT SOME STATISTICS I LEARNED FROM THE ARTICLES YOU SEND ME THAT, YOU KNOW, ABOUT ONLY 7% OF ALL THE CALLS THAT WERE MADE WERE ANONYMOUS.

AND OF THOSE 7% CALLS, 96% WERE NOT VALID, RIGHT?

SO GIVEN THE STATISTICS, YOU KNOW, I AM FLUMMOXED.

THERE ARE TWO SIDES TO IT.

ONE, IF YOU ACTUALLY STOP THE ANONYMITY, SOME LEGITIMATE CASES WOULD NOT PEOPLE AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE A SITUATION WHERE A CHILD IS BEING UNNECESSARILY HARMED.

BUT THE HISTORY SHOWS IT'S NOT ABOUT REPORTING.

IT'S ACTUALLY ABOUT FOLLOWING UP THE IMPORTANT CASES THAT WE SEE OF CHILD ABUSE, IT'S ABOUT THE FOLLOWING UP ON THOSE CASES THAT CREATED-- THE LACK OF FOLLOWING UP THAT CREATED THE PROBLEM FOR THE CHILD.

YOU CAN TAKE A DIFFERENT TACT.

WE ARE MANDATORY REPORTERS FOR TITLE IX.

WHEN A STUDENT COMES AND TELLS US, WE TELL THEM LOOK, THIS WILL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL BUT I CANNOT REMAIN ANONYMOUS.

I HAVE TO REPORT IT TO THE TITLE IX COORDINATOR AND WE WILL PROTECT YOU.

IT'S OUR MAIN JOB IS TO PROTECT YOU.

I DON'T KNOW WHY WE CANNOT HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND IN THIS CASE, THERE IS ALSO A FELONY CHARGE, IF YOU FALSELY REPORT.

SO I THINK CONFIDENTIAL ROUTE IS OKAY.

TITLE IX WORKS.

I DON'T SEE WHY IT SHOULDN'T WORK HERE.

>> YES, I THINK THE GOVERNOR SHOULD SIGN IT FOR THAT VERY REASON.

IT DOES NOT ELIMINATE CONFIDENTIALITY.

THAT IF I MAKE-- IF I CALL IN, THEY'LL TAKE INFORMATION ON ME SO THAT THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, IF IT TURNS OUT THAT I CONTINUE TO MAKE FALSE STATEMENTS OR THAT I'M DOING THIS, YOU KNOW, TO HARASS SOMEONE, THAT THEY CAN ENFORCE THE LAW.

BUT MY NAME ISN'T MADE PUBLIC, ISN'T GIVEN TO THE PERSON THAT I'M ACCUSING.

PRO-PUBLICA DID A GREAT JOB LOOKING AT A NUMBER OF CASES WHERE YOU KNOW, FAMILIES ARE FACING VISITS EVERY MONTH BECAUSE SOMEONE IS CALLING IN, CLEARLY HARASSING.

THEY NEVER FIND ANY EVIDENCE.

BUT THEY FEEL PROTECTIVE-- PROTECTIVE SERVICES FEELS THE NEED TO GO THROUGH.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE DAMAGE TO THE CHILD?

THERE WAS A WOMAN WHO FACED 24 OF THESE WHERE THEY COME IN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AND INTERROGATE THE CHILD.

AND SO I THINK THE GOVERNOR SHOULD SIGN THE BILL BECAUSE IT WALKS THAT FINE LINE BETWEEN ENCOURAGING PEOPLE, GIVING PEOPLE THE CONFIDENCE TO CALL IN , KNOWING THAT THEIR NAME WON'T BE MADE PUBLIC, BUT STILL GETTING INFORMATION ON CASES.

>> THE BILL DID PASS WITH BROAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.

>> I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE BILL, BUT I DO THINK ABOUT THE ROUGHLY 735 KIDS WHO WOULD BE LEFT OUT; THAT IS, OF THE 150,000 OF THOSE , I THINK IT'S 735 THAT ACTUALLY HAVE SUBSTANTIATED REPORTS, ANONYMOUSLY.

SO MY THOUGHT IS SOME ADDITIONAL PRECAUTION SHOULD BE TAKEN.

IT WAS A PERSON WHO WROTE INTO THE POST STANDARD THAT SAID EXCEPTIONS SHOULD BE MADE FOR FAMILY MEMBERS AND FOR NEIGHBORS BUT SOMETHING THE POST STANDARD EDITORIAL BOARD SAID I THINK IS IMPORTANT, ALSO, AND THAT IS THAT THE PUBLIC HAS TO BE EDUCATED ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONFIDENTIALITY AND ANONYMITY BECAUSE OTHER WUZ YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THE OPPOSITE PROBLEM OF FOLKS BEING AFRAID TO DO THE ACTUAL REPORTING.

>> THAT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A REAL ISSUE THERE, THAT PEOPLE WON'T WANT TO CALL IN BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO-- THEY'RE AFRAID OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN TO THEM.

>> ONLY 7% ANONYMOUS PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO CALL AND PROVIDE INFORMATION.

IT'S A FAIRLY SMALL NUMBER OF THE 150,000 CALLS.

ONLY 10,000 OF THEM ARE ANONYMOUS.

>> BUT BECAUSE THE BAR IS LOW NOW, RIGHT?

BUT YOU RAISE THE SPECTER OF POTENTIALLY BEING EXPOSED AND THAT NUMBER COULD GO UP SIGNIFICANTLY.

>> I THINK IF YOU EDUCATE PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT CONFIDENTIALITY MEANS AND THE PROTECTIONS OF THAT, I THINK YOU ARE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE THOSE PEOPLE BEING WILLING TO GIVE THEIR NAMES.

I MEAN IF IT IS A SERIOUS CHARGE I THINK PART OF IT IS A LACK OF EDUCATION ABOUT WHAT THAT ACTUALLY MEANS, CONFIDENTIALITY.

AND I ALSO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE FEED TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO-- WE NEED TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE LAWS THAT ARE NOT WORKING.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS BROAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AS YOU MENTIONED.

AND ALSO AMONG PROFESSIONALS, CHILD ADVOCATES, IT'S BIPARTISAN.

A LOT OF LAWYERS, PEOPLE ARE WEIGHING IN ON THE SIDE OF CHANGING THIS LAW.

AND TO ME, THAT SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS SOMETHING ACTUALLY WRONG, RIGHT?

AND WE CAN'T JUST HAVE LAWS THAT HAVE NEGATIVE EFFECTS THAT OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS AND NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THEM AND LEAVE THEM ON THE BOOKS BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO CHANGE THINGS.

>> WHEN YOU SAY CHANGING THE LAW, WHAT YOU REALLY MEAN IS PASSING THIS NEW LAW.

>> PASSING THE NEW LAW WHICH CHANGES THE OLD POLICY WHICH MEANS WE HAVE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO EVALUATE POLICIES AND READJUST BASED ON... >> THERE IS A COST TO GOING AND INVESTIGATING ALL OF THESE CLAIMS.

>> SURE.

>> BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE SO MANY THAT ARE UNSUBSTANTIATED, THEN THAT TAKES AWAY RESOURCES FROM REALLY GOING AND INVESTIGATING THE CASES THAT ARE TRULY CHILD ABUSE.

>> AGAIN THAT'S 735 OF SUBSTANTIATED CASES.

THOSE MATTER.

>> MY MATH WAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

I HAD 420 BUT THAT'S STILL 420 AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS REAL CASES.

>> YOU WERE TRYING TO JUMP IN ON THIS.

>> THE CRITIQUES ARE POINTING OUT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT GUARD RAILS TO PROTECT SIBLINGS, VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND CLOSE NEIGHBORS FROM RETALIATION.

THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE CAN THINK ON WHEN THEY'RE DOING THIS LEGISLATION THAT WHAT ARE CERTAIN GUARD RAILS THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR VULNERABLE POPULATIONS THAT REALLY FEAR FOR THEIR LIFE AND THEY DON'T WANT TO-- THEY WANT TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS AS A RESULT.

>> HOW DO YOU DO THAT?

>> VERY FAIR QUESTION.

>> YOU CAN'T SAY I AM THE SISTER OF, THEREFORE I SHOULD BE ANONYMOUS BECAUSE TO PROVE YOU ARE AN EXCEPTION, YOU HAVE TO BE PROVIDING INFORMATION.

SO THAT'S... >> IT'S DIFFICULT, DEFINITELY.

>> OKAY.

A STATES RIGHTS BATTLE IS BREWING OVER ABORTION PILLS.

NEW YORK AND SEVERAL OTHER STATES HAVE PASSED SHIELD LAWS PROTECTING HEALTH WORKERS WHO PRESCRIBE AND MAIL THE PILLS TO PATIENTS IN STATES WHERE ABORTION IS AGAINST THE LAW.

TEXAS HAS SUED A NEW YORK DOCTOR, SAYING NEW YORK'S LAW VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION.

STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL LETITIA JAMES IS DEFENDING THE SHIELD LAW.

RICK, DON'T STATES HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS OF OTHER STATES?

>> YES, WHILE I MIGHT BE SYMPATHETIC TO THE FACT THAT TEXAS IS NOT ALLOWING WOMEN IN THAT STATE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE ABORTION PILLS FOR.

FOR NEW YORK DOCTORS TO BE SENDING THEM TO TEXTA LET'S TURN THEM AROUND.

TEXAS LAW PUTS NO RESTRICTION ON THE NUMBER OF ROUNDS A GUN MAGAZINE CAN HOLD.

NEW YORK DOESN'T ALLOW MAGAZINES THAT HOLD MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS.

WHAT IF TEXAS GUN SHOPS START SENDING, MAIMING OF THESE-- MAILING OF THESE MAGAZINES TO NEW YORKERS.

WOULDN'T WE COMPLAIN AND NEW YORK ALSO HAS A LIST.

AND SO WHY NOT?

IN THE CASE OF WHERE SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT AS ABORTION IS CONCERNED?

AND I THINK GENERALLY THE WHOLE IDEA OF STATES RIGHTS IDEOLOGY, IN THE PAST USED TO BE FOR THOSE WHO WERE AGAINST CHANGE AND PROGRESSIVE MOVES.

BUT NOW IT'S BECOMING A REFUGE FOR LEFT LEANING STATES NOT ONLY IN REGARD TO ABORTION BUT ALSO IMMIGRATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES, HEALTHCARE POLICIES, DEI POLICIES AND SO WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THIS VERY CAREFULLY.

>> SO, CARE RA, THERE IS A FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

THAT'S WHAT USED TO SAY THAT WE HAVE TO-- WE IN NEW YORK HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THOSE LAWS IN TEXAS AND ELSEWHERE?

>> YEAH, I MEAN I DO THINK IF THIS COMES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO FIND THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, OUR SHIELD LAWS.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I UNDERSTAND THE PUSH BEHIND THEM.

I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO HELP WOMEN SAFELY GET ABORTIONS AND HAVE FULL REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS.

AND YOU KNOW, THE LARGER CONTEXT OF THIS IS THAT WHEN THE DOBBS DECISION WAS-- THE DOBBS DECISION WAS A BIG VICTORY FOR THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT LEGALLY, BUT PRACTICALLY SPEAKING NOT AWE LOT CHANGED ON THE GROUND.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS IN AMERICA HAS GONE UP SLIGHTLY SINCE THE DOBBS DECISION.

AND I THINK WHAT THIS SUGGESTS IS SOMETHING BIGGER, WHICH IS THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO TRY TO REDUCE ABORTION.

YOU CAN MAKE IT LESS NECESSARY OR LESS AVAILABLE, RIGHT?

AND THE ANTIABORTION MOVEMENT HAS REALLY PRIVILEGED THIS KIND OF LESS AVAILABILITY, RIGHT, TRYING TO CRIMINALIZE IT.

THESE ARE VERY HARSH PENALTIES THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO INFLICT, NOT ON PROVIDERS, FOR EXAMPLE.

IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO CUT TO THE WOMEN THEMSELVES AT SOME POINT.

THINKING THAT IS THE WAY TO REDUCE ABORTION.

I THINK THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO RETHINK THAT STRATEGY.

IF THEY'RE REALLY INTERESTED IN LOWERING ABORTION.

THERE AREERT BETTER WAYS TO DO IT.

THE BEST WAY IS TO MAKE CONTRACEPTION AFFORDABLE AND CHEAP.

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT REQUIRES THAT HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES COVER CONTRACEPTION.

THAT'S SOMETHING THE REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO DEFUND THOSE SUBSIDIES.

SOS THEIR EFFORTS ARE GOING TO LEAD TO MORE ABORTIONS IN THIS COUNTRY.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT GET MORE SERIOUS ABOUT WAYS TO ACTUALLY TACKLE WHAT THEY SEE AS A PROBLEM.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> I WANT TO REFER TO THE INTERESTING CASE CALLED VL VERSUS EL IN 2016 AND HERE THE SUPREME COURT ANSWERED THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT THE ALABAMA STATE RECOGNIZE GEORGIA'S ADOPTION STATE COURT ORDER.

AND UNANIMOUSLY THE COURT SAID YES, SO IF I ININTERPOE LATE THAT THERE, IT SAYS THE THE NEW YORK STATE BOARDS HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THE COURT ORDER FROM TEXAS.

SEEMS LIKE IT SHOULD BE YES.

RIGHT?

SO WE WILL SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS AND THE IDEA IS CLEAR THAT A STATE MAY ONLY REFUSE TO AFFORD FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO ANOTHER STATE'S JUDGMENT IF THAT COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTIONS OR JURISDICTIONS OVER RELEVANT PARTIES.

HERE THE COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTIONS, RIGHT?

SO I DO THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS WILL END UP IN THE SUPREME COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT MIGHT WEIGH IN AS IT WEIGHED IN IN FAVOR OF TEXAS.

>> THIS IS GOING TO SOUND HARSH BUT THE RECOURSE FOR WOMEN WHO LIVE IN RED STATES THAT ARE AGAINST ABORTION IS TO LEAVE THOSE STATES, EXIT VOICE AND LOYALTY.

GO SOMEPLACE ELSE WHERE YOUR RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED.

>> A LOT OF THEM DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY.

THAT'S HUGE GENERALLY HIVE.

>> A LOT OF THEM DO.

FOR THOSE THAT DO, INCREASES THE POWER OF THE PROABORTION STATES BECAUSE YOU HAVE MORE POPULATION AND MORE REPRESENTATION AS WELL.

>> IT SEEMS LIKE THE STATES ARE SORT OF AMPING UP IN THEIR VERY DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO THIS.

BUT OF COURSE THERE IS ANOTHER ISSUE, TOO, WHICH IS USING THE COMSTOCK ACT, RIGHT, TO OUTLAW OR I GUESS IT WILL BE DETERMINED BUT DOESN'T THAT OUTLAW MAILING THESE PILLS ANYWAY?

>> IT COULD, YEAH.

>> CALIFORNIA HAS THIS LAW THAT THEY WANT TO MAIL IN WITHOUT ANY NAME AND COMPLETE ANONYMITY.

THAT CAN RUN AFOUL OF THE DIFFERENT LAWS.

NINA I WANT TO SLIGHTLY DISAGREE.

WE ARE SITUATED PEOPLE, RIGHT.

IT IS DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO UP END THEIR LIVES AND LEAVE.

>> OUR RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE CONTINGENT ON WHERE WE ARE.

>> BUT THEY ARE.

>> WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW IS TIME TO GO TO AS AND FS.

WE ARE GOING TO GO TO Fs, NINA WITH YOURS.

>> MY F GOES TO SECRETARY OF WAR PETE HEGSETH AND THE NEW RULES FOR JOURNALISTS WHO ARE BASED IN THE PENTAGON.

THE RULES IMPLICITLY THREATEN REPORTERS WITH PUNISHMENT IF THEY ASK PENTAGON SOURCES FOR INFORMATION THAT THAT SOURCE IS NOT EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZED TO DISCUSS.

THE RULES ARE OF APIECE WITH TRUMP'S STATEMENT THAT HE FINDS THE PRESS TO BE VERY DISRUPTIVE IN TERMS OF WORLD PEACE AND MAYBE SECURITY FOR OUR NATION.

I FIND THE RULES CONTRARY TO EVERYTHING THAT IS IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT THAT IS FIRST FOR A REASON.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> MY F GOES TO THE LEADERS OF THE YOUNG REPUBLICAN GROUPS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY WHO HAVE BEEN FOSTERING A CULTURE OF RACISM INCLUDING ANTI-SEMITISM AND SUPPORT FOR FASCISM AMONG THE GROUP CONVERSATIONS.

MOST OF THE MESSAGES ARE TOO VIOLENTED TO TALK ABOUT IN A SHOW LIKE THIS BUT CAN BE SUCCINCTLY SUMMED UP BY ONE OF THE COMMENTS BY A YOUNG REPUBLICAN LEADER WHICH SAYS "I LOVE HITLER.

I" I ENCOURAGE OUR VIEWERS TO LOOK AT THE EXPOSE BY POLITICO.

>> SARAH.

>> THE E.P.A.

THIS SUMMER IT CANCEL A 20 MILLION GRANT INTENDED TO PROTECT AN ALASKAN NATIVE VILLAGE AS PART OF THE ATTACK ON SO CALLED DEI PROGRAMS.

IT WAS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT IT FROM FLOODING AND JUST THIS WEEK THE VILLAGE FLOODED AND IT'S KEY INFRASTRUCTURE IS PERMANENTLY AT RISK BECAUSE PERM FROST IS MELTING BENEATH IT.

THE ADMINISTRATION IS NOT JUST DEPRIVING NATIVE ALASKA VILLAGES OF HEALTH, IT IS DENYING FEDERAL DISASTER RELIEF TO COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

IN THAT SENSE THEY'RE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY WHEN IT COMES TO NOT HELPING AMERICAN CITIZENS.

>> RICK.

>> TO THE BIG 10 FOR CONSIDERING TO SELL A 10% STAKE IN ITS SPORTS MEDIA IN SPONSORSHIP DEALS TO A PRIVATE EQUITY GROUP ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PENSION SYSTEM.

THE PROPOSED DEAL IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE THAT COLLEGE FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL ARE NOTHING MORE THAN PROFESSIONAL SPORTS LEAGUES AND IN MY ESTIMATION SHOULD NOT BE AFFORDED TAX EXEMPT STATUS.

IT ALSO SHOWS THAT DESPITE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF REVENUE, COLLEGE ATHLETICS ISN'T PROFITABLE FOR EVEN SCHOOLS IN THE BIG 10.

>> AS.

NINA.

>> YES, MY A GOES TO THE MORE THAN 100 NEWS ORGANIZATIONS AND JOURNALISTS THAT REJECTED THE NEW PENTAGON RULES.

THEY TURNED IN THEIR PRESS PASSES AND SIGNED A STATEMENT SAYING THE POLICY IS WITHOUT PRECEDENT AND THREATENS CORE JOURNALISTIC PROTECTIONS.

MORE IMPRESSIVE IS THAT THEY DID THIS IN SOLIDARITY WITH NOT ONLY "THE NEW YORK TIMES," WASHINGTON POST AND NPR JOINING IN BUT ALSO CONSERVATIVE NEWS OUTLETS LIKE FOX NEWS AND NEWS MAX.

KUDOS TO ALL OF THEM.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> MY A GOES TO BEND THE ARC JEWISH ACTION ENDORSEMENT OF SO RAN MAMDANI EXTENDING THE LONG TRADITION OF ACTION TO STAND FOR JUSTICE AND AGAINST REPRESSION.

THEY WROTE ON ROSH HASHANAH MANY OF US HAVE MEALS WITH LOVED ONES AND NEIGHBORS WE SOMETIMES DISAGREE WITH BUT SHARE CORE VALUES OF LOVE, JUSTICE AND A BETTER WORLD FOR ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS.

>> SARAH.

>> MY A GOES TO BROWN UNIVERSITY WHO THIS WEEK REJECTED A WHITE HOUSE PROPOSAL OF A SO CALLED COMPACT WHICH WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THEM TO SUBMIT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDING.

EARLIER THIS SUMMER THEY HAD NEGOTIATED WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND AGREED TO VARIOUS POLICY CHANGES.

SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THEY ARE DEFYING THEM NOW.

IT REMINDS US THAT BULLIES WILL NOT STOP BULLYING UNTIL YOU STAND UP TO THEM.

>> RICK.

>> PIGGY BACKING ON MY A GOING TO M.I.T.

BROWN, UP, AND USC FOR DECLINING TO SIGN TRUMP'S SO CALLED COMPACT FOR ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION.

FIVE OTHER COLLEGES HAVE BEEN OFFERED THE DEAL.

HOPEFUL THAT VANDERBILT, DARTMOUTH, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA AND OUTER OF VIRGINIA WILL ALSO SEE THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE SELLING THEIR ACADEMIC FREEDOM.

IT'S NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THEIR INSTITUTIONS.

HIGHER EDUCATION OR THE COUNTRY.

>> REAL QUICKLY.

AND YOUR AS AND FS ABOUT THE PENTAGON POLICY NOT ONLY FIRST AMENDMENT BUT HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE IS VERY IMPORTANT.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

FOR COMMENTS YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO VIEW THE SHOW AGAIN YOU CAN VIEW IT ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG., I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FOR ALL OF US AT IVORY TOWER, HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.