At Liberty

Last year, the LGBTQ community faced an onslaught of scrutiny and threats, from bills banning trans youth from participating in sports, to bans on gender-affirming care for trans youth. Towards the end of the year, another front for legislative and violent attacks emerged: drag shows. As drag reality competitions and drag brunches become increasingly popular, backlash in the form of armed protests and intimidation of drag performers has followed. In November, an Oklahoma bakeshop had a molotov cocktail thrown through its window after hosting a drag show. Later that same month, a shooter entered a Colorado Springs drag show and opened fire, killing five people and injuring over 20 more. In December, far right groups such as the Patriot Front and Proud Boys showed up to a drag story hour in Columbus, Ohio, armed while others held up signs with slogans like "groomers not welcome" and "groomers are child abusers." These are, unfortunately, not one offs. GLAAD reported that drag events faced 141 protests and serious threats in 2022. Towards the end of 2022, lawmakers in six states proposed bills to ban drag in public or in the presence of minors. Amidst this wave of anti-drag legislation and violence, drag performers and host venues across the country are moving to higher security or cancel performances altogether. Despite this risk, drag performers are mobilizing to resist this most recent wave of discrimination and can count on the ACLU to support the fight against drag censorship. Here to talk with us about drag censorship and the tools to defend this expression are Peppermint, notable drag performer and ACLU's Artist Ambassador for Transgender Justice, and Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Speech Privacy and Technology Project.

Happy New Year. It's so good to be back with you. Often on At Liberty, we detail what is happening in the field of civil rights and public interest law, from an issue perspective. This week we're doing something a little different. We're highlighting the people behind that work, specifically the contributions of women and non-binary people to the movement of resistance law. Women weren't always allowed to be lawyers. In fact, in 1873, the U.S. Supreme Court said that women had no constitutional right to practice law. Thanks to women who fought back, that is no longer our reality. And actually, it's quite the opposite. Women are now seen, celebrated and remembered at the highest levels of the practice. This advancement is due to the work of hidden figures throughout history, like Pauli Murray, for example, who you'll hear more about today. We're sharing a conversation between two women lawyers. ACLU's very own senior staff attorney, Gillian Thomas, is in conversation with Dahlia Lithwick, legal journalist and author of the new book Lady Justice. Together, they discuss Dahlia's new book that traces the history of women in law and highlights the work of women lawyers, most notably since 2016, who've taken up the mantle to fight back against injustice that oppresses the most marginalized and threatens all of us. Dahlia argues that in a constitutional democracy, like our own power is for the taking and that women have heeded that call and stepped into their arena to fight.

For this special holiday episode, we handed the reins over to the ACLU kids. Together, with their adults, they talk about what we do to fight for civil rights and civil liberties. You’ll hear from our ACLU family all across the country and they have some pretty interesting insights to share. We hope you enjoy!

As we near the end of the year, we are bringing you an episode of reflection. A lot has happened in the world, in our country and in our work at the ACLU. While we have weathered devastating losses like the overturn of Roe v. Wade this past summer, there are still meaningful victories we can celebrate this year and build on in the coming year. We’ve successfully fought back in courts all across the country on behalf of abortion access, racist and homophobic education gag orders, immigrant rights, voting rights and so much more. So today we are regrouping with the ACLU’s National Legal Director, David Cole, to talk through where we can find hope this year and also where we can continue to press forward.

In August of this year, President Biden followed through on a campaign promise to help debt-drowning college students pay off their loans. He announced a loan forgiveness program acknowledging that the total cost of both four-year public and private college has nearly tripled over the last 40 years…and that’s after accounting for inflation. A variety of court cases have been brought against Biden’s plan blocking the U.S. Department of Education from moving forward. Just last week, the Supreme Court agreed to weigh in on one of them -- Nebraska v. Biden, that will determine whether or not the Biden administration overstepped its authority in using the HEROS Act -- an act that allows the administration to change payments on student loans during times of national emergency -- to cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt for nearly 40 million Americans. The oral arguments are set for February. Thankfully while this issue pends in court, the administration extended a pause on federal student loan payments so that borrowers are protected. At the ACLU, we believe the student debt crisis is a racial justice issue depriving Black and Brown Americans important social and economic mobility. Here to discuss how we got here, the litigation at hand, and why this issue is one of racial justice and systemic equality is Persis Yu. She is the Deputy Executive Director and Managing Counsel at the Student Borrower Protection Center, a group leading the charge in advocating for forgiveness.

When Ice-T and his band, Body Count, released the song “Cop Killer” in 1992, it spurred outrage. At the time, Bill Clinton and George Bush were running for president, and condemning “Cop Killer” was among the handful of stances where they found common ground. Officials and police departments called for a complete boycott of Time Warner Inc. for refusing to halt the sales of the song. In response, Time Warner publicly stated its unshakable commitment to stand by freedom of expression and argued that “Cop Killer” is an "artist's rap on how a person in the street feels." "It's a shout of pain and protest," and "raw with rage and resentment." Professor Carrie Fried of Winona State University conducted a long study that year in an attempt to contextualize this dialogue in research; she found that participants exhibited several implicit biases. they were more likely to find one of two songs with the same lyrical content more threatening and offensive if they thought it came from a Black artist or fell under the genre of rap. She also found that participants were quick to pin violent lyrics on the rap genre, even when they came from folk songs. So what happens when these implicit biases sit on the jury in a real criminal case? Across the country, rap lyrics are on trial as prosecutors pull from the expressive words of artists, and judges deem these songs to be admissible evidence in court. Joining us today to discuss this evolution of this practice is Erik Nielson, professor at the University of Richmond and co-author of the book Rap on Trial: Race, Lyrics, and Guilt in America. We are also joined by New Orleans rapper, songwriter, and former member of the 504boyz Mac Phipps, who experienced firsthand how the use of lyrics on trial can lead to a wrongful conviction.

This week as we approach the Thanksgiving holiday, we want to challenge our listeners to acknowledge and honor the day as a National Day of Mourning for indigenous people. The truth of this holiday isn’t that white people from Europe and the Wampanoag people in Plymouth, Massachusetts sat down to eat a nice meal together, celebrating a fall harvest. The true story of Thanksgiving is one of brutal genocide, theft of land, and the beginning of a relentless assault on native people and culture. This is a hard truth, but it is one we must acknowledge in order to reconcile our past and do better in the future. As we gather with family and friends, we encourage you to bring this conversation to bear. Today we’re running a conversation from our archive featuring indigenous artist and educator Josué Rivas in conversation with Molly Kaplan, one of At Liberty’s old hosts. Josué is a visual storyteller, educator, creative director, and self-described “Indigenous futurist.” He descended from the Mexica Otomi peoples. He aims to challenge the “mainstream narrative about Indigenous peoples,” and to “be a visual messenger for those in the shadows of our society.” His work has appeared in The Guardian, The New York Times, and National Geographic — to name a few publications. He is also the founder of the 2018 Standing Strong Project, a tribute to the Water Protectors at Standing Rock, North Dakota, and co-founder of Natives Photograph, a database for photo editors looking to hire indigenous photographers in North America.

This week, we are re-airing a conversation we had with Alok Vaid-Menon in early June, before we had the final Dobbs decision. Alok’s work is always salient but with the recent midterm election results showing an overwhelming affirmation of reproductive access, we believe their call for transformative thinking around gender essentialism and bodily autonomy is a way both to celebrate the wins at the polls and drive us towards a more expansive and imaginative vision of what’s possible from here. Alok Vaid-Menon is a nonbinary writer, performer, public speaker, activist and artist exploring the themes of trauma, belonging, and the human condition. They are the author of Femme in Public, Beyond the Gender Binary, and Your Wound/My Garden. Alok has done a lot of work to interrogate their history, our collective history, and to probe beneath the surface of what we’ve come to accept as the norm. They challenge us all to use our imagination to re-wire what we believe is possible for ourselves and society around us. This is a really special conversation and our team, quite honestly, all felt gob-smacked by Alok’s perspective. We let this conversation run long because we wanted you all to experience it and take it in as we did.

This week, voters went to the polls to elect their representatives at every level of government. Most notably for us at the ACLU, the midterms are the first opportunity to get a national sense of where voters are sitting on abortion access since the June overturn of Roe v. Wade. We are also on guard watching for voting rights violations and are eager to make sure every ballot is counted. So far we are cautiously optimistic and hopeful about the positive progress for civil rights and civil liberties and so today we are checking in with the experts, the morning after election day, to see how they’re feeling about the future of our reproductive freedom and voting rights work. Joining us are J.J. Straight, the ACLU’s Liberty Division Deputy Director and Zara Haq, a Senior Campaign Strategist, both J.J. and Zara sit in our National Political Advocacy Department. Text ACT to 82623 to sign up for ongoing, automated text alerts from ACLU and its affiliates about ways to take action and support the ACLU Organizations. Msg & Data Rates May Apply. Text STOP to cancel or HELP for info. https://www.aclu.org/privacypolicy

The midterm elections are just around the corner. On Tuesday, November 8th, all across the country will vote for our representatives in Congress and in our state government. On the ballot, we have 435 House seats, 35 Senate seats, 27 secretary of state seats, and many more positions to vote for. We know that midterms can be hard to piece through. There's so much information. Down ballot races don't get a lot of airtime, and many states have important ballot initiatives to consider. The ACLU is a nonpartisan organization, so we don't tell voters who to vote for, but we do inform voters about what's at stake in an election. So here is what's at stake. Abortion access is on the ballot, and so are LGBTQ rights, voting rights, immigrant rights, and criminal, legal and criminal legal reform. To help break it all down. We have a special episode today that will arm you with all that you need to know in order to vote your values at the polls. Joining as our resident guide is Kary Moss, the ACLU's Acting National Political Director and the Director of Affiliate Support and Nationwide Initiatives. Additional Resources: https://go.peoplepower.org/signup/vote-your-values/?redirect=volunteer https://www.aclu.org/vote-your-values?redirect=voteyourvalues

On November 9th, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Brackeen vs. Haaland. At the center of the case are the future of Indigenous rights and tribal sovereignty. The case involves the Indian Child Welfare Act, otherwise known as ICWA, an act that was passed in the 1970s to protect native children from removal from their community and culture and to keep families together. Texas, together with individual plaintiffs, allege that ICWA is unconstitutional because they say it violates the Equal Protection Clause and discriminates against non-native families looking to adopt native children. But honoring tribal sovereignty isn't about discrimination or race. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of Indigenous rights. To learn more about the case, the threat to Indigenous rights and the reasons that ICWA was enacted in the first place, we spoke with Jamie Nelson, a Choinumni Yokuts man and a survivor of pre-ICWA separation abuse, and Stephanie Amiotte, Legal Director for the ACLU of South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming.

The Supreme Court is set to hear a case this term that could upend the very foundation of our democracy: free and fair elections. In the case of Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court will decide whether the North Carolina Supreme Court has the power to strike down the legislature’s gerrymandered congressional map for violating the state’s Constitution. The North Carolina legislators are arguing for an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution — known as the "independent state legislature theory” — that would render the state’s other branches of government and their checks and balances powerless in matters relating to federal elections, giving full power to partisan-majority state legislatures to determine how votes are cast and counted. While this all may sound a little weedy, the stakes loom large. If the court sides with the North Carolina State legislature, Moore v. Harper, could change the face of our national elections and the rules that govern them. Joining us today to help break it all down are the ACLU’s National Legal Director David Cole and Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, Ari Savitzky, who also happened to write the ACLU’s amicus brief for the case.

It’s October, which means it’s LGBTQ History Month, a time to remember, look back and celebrate the history of LGBTQ activism and the resulting progress. It’s also a time to acknowledge the work still to be done and understand the roots of systemic discrimination and inequality. To that end, our fight continues. On October 17th, the ACLU is headed to District court in Arkansas to argue the case of Brandt v. Rutledge, where we are challenging Arkansas’s law banning health care for transgender adolescents. Today, we have a special conversation for you. We’re hearing from Gillian Branstetter, communications strategist for the ACLU’s gender justice work in conversation with Chase Strangio, Deputy Director for Transgender Justice at the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project and Jules Gill-Peterson, an Associate Professor of History at Johns Hopkins University and author of The Histories of the Transgender Child. Together, they’ll break down the case ahead of us and the history that brought us here.

If you live in a state where abortions have been banned since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, accessing abortion is a huge challenge. But unfortunately, access is not the only challenge -- pursuing an abortion without leaving a trace poses another huge hurdle. If you search for resources online, if you get in your car and travel, who you text, if you ship pills to your house -- will the state find out? In our daily lives, many of our actions are tracked for consumption and utilization by various companies and organizations. That data could now be used against you if you seek an abortion. We are used to hearing people shrug off data surveillance concerns. The saying from digital privacy naysayers goes: if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. But now, we maybe have something new to hide, and therefore maybe something new to fear. Today, we are digging into data privacy in a post-Roe world and learning both what we individually can do to best keep our data safe and what we can ask of data collectors and government officials to help us in our pursuit of privacy. Joining us is Jennifer Granick, Surveillance and Cybersecurity Counsel, for the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. Additional Resources: From the Digital Defense Fund, How to Keep Your Abortion Private & Secure: https://digitaldefensefund.org/ddf-guides/abortion-privacy From the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Surveillance Self-Defense: https://ssd.eff.org/en

On October 4th, the Supreme Court is set to hear Milligan v. Merrill, a case that would undermine Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. At question is Alabama’s new congressional map, a map that underwent what is called racial gerrymandering or racial redistricting, diluting Black Alabamans’ voting power. The case’s outcome will determine the future of voting rights in America. Joining us today, our plaintiff in the case Shalela Dowdy, Organizer, Veteran, law student and resident of Mobile and Davin Rosborough, Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project who is on the litigation team for the case.

On August 2nd, voters in Kansas came out in droves to protect abortion access in the state through a ballot measure. It was the first opportunity for voters to cast their support for abortion access since the overturn of Roe v. Wade. For many, Kansas was proof in the pudding: Americans overwhelmingly support reproductive rights. This November, a slew of other states have ballot measures that will similarly allow the people to decide if abortion will be protected in their state. In Michigan, the measure was only just recently added to the ballot after 750,000 people signed a petition to ensure that Michiganders would have a choice to protect abortion access in their state Constitution. To protect abortion access in a post-Roe reality, we need to pursue every avenue possible, including at the ballot box. Today, we’re speaking with Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for Kansans for Constitutional Freedom who led the ballot measure to a sweeping victory for reproductive rights. And, also, Connie Kross, a retiree-turned-repro-rights-champion who volunteers for Reproductive Freedom For All, the ballot measure campaign in Michigan. These two have rolled up their sleeves and recruited their friends, family and neighbors to do the same. They are not turning back. And neither are we.

It’s back to school season! And, this week we are digging into the wild world of dress codes. Clothes, like most things, have the power we give them. Sometimes they are a way to craft or express identity and sometimes they are just pieces of fabric stitched together to help us get through our days. In school, certain kinds of clothes are given more power and more scrutiny than others. In school, certain kinds of clothes and style can get you in trouble. At the ACLU, we believe that school dress codes are tricky and they can be ripe venues for the discrimination and censorship of young people. In this episode we will hear from Kayla, a track athlete originally from Albany High School who found herself and her teammates suspended for their dress code violation. We’ll also chat with Linda Morris, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project who will break down why we got involved.

It’s September and we’re back! Did you miss us? We missed you. So happy to be back and bringing you a very timely episode for the back to school season. In August, the ACLU along with partner organizations, filed a challenge to Florida's Stop W.O.K.E. Act, a censorship law which restricts educators and students from learning and talking about issues related to race and gender in the classroom. This isn’t the first law we’ve seen like this: education gag orders have been introduced in 40 states, and nearly 20 states across the country have passed these kinds of laws. Florida’s law, we argue, violates the First and 14th Amendments by imposing viewpoint-based restrictions on educators and students that are both vague and discriminatory. Additionally, the laws violates the Equal Protection Clause because it was enacted with the intent to discriminate against Black educators and students. Today we’re digging in and speaking with two of our clients who are impacted by this law as well as one of the ACLU’s lead attorneys on the case.

Last month, the California Reparations Task Force released an interim report detailing California’s history of slavery and its impact on the state. The task force was created in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder. Its goal is to examine what a reparations program in the state could look like. The idea of reparations for slavery itself is not new. It stems from the value of enslaved labor, which, in 1860, was estimated at over 3 billion dollars. This forced labor built the backbone of the American economy but enslaved people nor their descendants have ever seen the economic benefit from their labor. In fact, Black Americans have systematically been denied opportunities to build and accumulate wealth since the country’s founding.Advocates of reparations argue this is one of the most effective ways to decrease the racialized wealth gap. Joining us today Tammerlin Drummond, a communications strategist at the ACLU of Northern California and Brandon Greene, director of the racial and economic justice program at the ACLU of Northern California, Brandon Greene. Tammerlin is also the host of Gold Chains, a podcast that explores California’s ties to slavery, and Brandon worked with the California Reparations Task Force, helping build the interim report. To learn more about the Gold Chains project, visit: https://www.aclunc.org/sites/goldchains/index.html

Today, we are bringing you a conversation celebrating Disability Pride Month, which is July. This conversation with actress and singer Ali Stroker was recorded last year, but we think it has the same resonance today. We talk to Ali about disability identity and representation in the media. We hope you enjoy the conversation. Roll the tape! Across the top 100 movies of 2019 only 2.3% of all speaking characters had a disability. What’s more, the rare times we do see a character with a disability, they aren’t played by someone with a disability. In fact, one study found that in the top 10 TV shows for 2018 only 12% of disabled characters were played by disabled actors. In contrast, around 133 million Americans live with visible or invisible disabilities — that’s 40% of the public. To put it plainly, there’s A LOT of room for improvement. Enter Ali Stroker, a singer and actress phenom who became both the first person using a wheelchair to perform on Broadway and the first person using a wheelchair to win a Tony award. Ali, in many ways, has put disability on the media map, landing roles in film, television, theater and even writing a children’s book. She joins us on At Liberty to discuss the importance of the representation and celebration of disability in the entertainment industry and beyond.

It was a few days after the overturn of Roe v. Wade when a doctor in Louisiana prescribed a medication to make the insertion of an IUD, a form of birth control, less painful for a patient. The medication has several uses. One of them is to act as the second part of a two-drug protocol used to terminate a pregnancy. The pharmacy called the prescribing physician to ask if the prescription was for an abortion. When she told them it was for an IUD insertion, the pharmacist still refused to give out the medication, leaving the patient without the medication for her procedure. This is one of the ways Roe’s overturn has already impacted access to other kinds of reproductive care. We worry this will not only continue but get worse. Today we are going to dig into the new landscape of reproductive healthcare in a post-Roe world by talking with two physicians who have dedicated their lives to helping people who can get pregnant navigate their vast pool of healthcare needs. From deciding how to prevent pregnancy and how to manage harmful periods to how to recover from a miscarriage and how to deal with infertility, these doctors know better than most, and certainly better than the Supreme Court, that the full spectrum of reproductive care is of vital importance to the lives of millions of Americans. Joining us today are Dr. Colleen Denny, the Medical Director of Women's Health Services at Bellevue Hospital in NYC and an Assistant Clinical Professor at the NYU School of Medicine who provides OB-GYN care that includes abortion, and Dr. Lucky Sekhon, a double board-certified OB-GYN and Reproductive Endocrinologist & Infertility Specialist at RMA of New York, a fertility clinic. She is an assistant clinical professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. To donate to support our fight against the attack on reproductive autonomy and all the attacks that follow. Please visit aclu.org/keepfighting. To get involved in our people power effort to protect abortion access, please visit aclu.org/abortionactivist.

It’s a precarious time for American democracy. This year, the Supreme Court term resulted in a number of concerning opinions that rollback civil rights and civil liberties across many facets of American life, most notably the decision in the Dobbs case that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion. At the same time, the congressional hearings around the violent attack on the capitol on January 6, 2021, have revealed a dangerous and unabashed attempt to subvert our electoral system. When people don’t have trust in their government or its institutions, when our electoral system is riddled with fractures, it can be hard to mount meaningful change. One of our most powerful mechanisms of change is voting. So... we’re at an impasse, and we’re going to acknowledge that today and explore ways to surmount the challenges ahead of us. Joining us to discuss is the ACLU’s Executive Director, Anthony Romero. Anthony has been at the helm of the organization since 2001 and has seen our work through a number of inflection points. He knows, better than most, that progress is possible, even after major setbacks. RSVP to the ACLU’s Abortion Activist Training: www.ACLU.org/abortionactivist To donate to support our fight against the attack on reproductive autonomy and all the attacks that follow, please visit: https://www.aclu.org/keepfighting To get involved in our people power effort to protect abortion access, please visit: https://aclu.org/abortion-pledge

On Friday, June 24th, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and with it, the constitutional right to an abortion. In the immediate, we spoke with our legal experts Louise Melling, Jen Dalven and Ria Tabacco Mar, about the opinion and the legal concerns ahead. Check out that episode. It’s called Post Roe: The Supreme Court Won’t Stop at Abortion, and it’s worth a listen if you missed it. But today, we are doing something a little different. We are talking with Jessica Arons, senior policy counsel for the ACLU, about all the different avenues we, as individuals, can explore when trying to plug in and do something to help. We know it’s confusing. There’s a lot of information out there. It’s also so easy to feel dejected and disempowered. It’s understandable to feel like our efforts won’t matter when there is so much we are up against, but we need you in this fight. So today we’re going to walk through the different avenues you can use to fight back whether that’s through voting, donating, volunteering, or just talking with your loved ones. You’re going to want to share this episode with your people. RSVP to the ACLU's Abortion Activist Training: www.ACLU.org/abortionactivist Other organizations mentioned in this episode: https://keepourclinics.org/ https://www.ifwhenhow.org/ More resources listed here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRqbxh96ynlqdYUInUZB5GWrE2GIcW3FEXdtxO_n2BXMAd2HOkNssn3aP77zSXBN43TIJ3Xab2ih9vE/pub?s=04&fbclid=IwAR0OJetoWqvi9lKb-N-OYEuACRuCCOC7WpCZVyIo-Sv47mHVlHB5R9VcSbk

In a landmark decision in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court has voted to overturn both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, eliminating a 50-year precedent and the constitutional right to an abortion. We expect half of the states across the country to ban abortion either immediately or in the coming days, weeks or months. Pregnant people in these states will now be forced to carry their pregnancies to term. This decision was expected in some ways, a draft opinion for the case was leaked in May, revealing the intent to overturn the right to access an abortion in the U.S. but I’m not sure anything could truly prepare us for the reality we are now facing. So much is at stake. Joining us to help us break down the decision and discuss what we all can do in response are Jen Dalven, Director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, Ria Tabacco Mar, Director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, and Louise Melling, Deputy Legal Director and Director of Ruth Bader Ginsburg Center for Liberty at the ACLU. To donate to support our fight against this attack on reproductive autonomy and all the attacks that follow, please visit aclu.org/keepfighting. To join our new abortion activist training RSVP at aclu.org/AbortionActivist.

Over the last few weeks, a surge of texts and phone calls have gone out from local politicians. Most of them focus on one issue: crime. Worried about the rising crime? Want to keep you and your family safe? Vote for me. I'll make sure to fund the police and get the riffraff off our streets, direct quote. Crime is being used as a wedge issue this midterm season, and candidates are stoking fears in hopes to mount a meaningful backlash to recent progress in both policing and criminal legal reform. At the same time, state and national leaders are hard at work seeking to criminalize access to healthcare for trans and pregnant folks. This interest in criminalizing new behaviors while holding the line on age old crime and punishment tactics is a worrying trend. Joining us today to discuss is Somil Trivedi, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. Loyal listeners of At Liberty will remember Somil from his time guest hosting earlier this year.

This week, we are bringing you an important conversation about the state of abortion care in Texas. In September, Texas passed SB8, a bill that banned abortions at 6 weeks of pregnancy and deputized private citizens to enforce the ban. Since then, it’s been an “all hands on deck” operation to provide care to those in Texas still eligible in-state, while also helping shuffle others to states still with broader access. We can look to Texas to see some of what a world post-Roe v. Wade could look like for many other states. To that end, we’re enlisting Cecile Richards, former President of Planned Parenthood and native Texan to speak to folks on the ground in Texas, those mobilizing and creating systems that we can all learn from as we all seek to navigate abortion access in a new legal climate. Joining Cecile we have Anna Rupani, the Executive Director of a Texas abortion fund called Fund Texas Choice, Dr, Bhavik Kumar, an abortion provider in the state, and Reverend Dr. Daniel Kanter, Senior minister of First Unitarian Church of Dallas.

June 12th, 2022 marks the 55th anniversary of the landmark case Loving v. Virginia which made interracial marriage legal across the United States. We also know this day as Loving Day. This year, Loving Day has a bit of a weightier feel to it. In the recent Supreme Court leaked draft opinion on the Dobbs case, the legal reasoning that Justice Alito used to overturn Roe could be applied to undo Loving v. Virginia, signaling a new threat to interracial marriage as we know it. To those who say Loving v. Virginia will never be overturned, be cautious and vigilant. The United States has a long history of criminalizing, surveilling, and controlling Black and brown families and the mixing of races. We must both celebrate and honor our right to marry whomever we want and work to ensure its protection in the future. Today we’re celebrating Loving and discussing its connectivity to the broader attacks on our ability to build our families how we see fit. We’re joined by Dr. Michele Goodwin, a constitutional law scholar at the University of California, Irvine School of Law where she started and runs the Center for Biotechnology and Global Health Policy. She’s the host of On the Issues, a podcast by Ms. Magazine. Michele is also an ACLU Executive Committee member.

This year brings an unprecedented surge of anti-trans legislation banning everything from sports participation to healthcare access. So far, we’re tracking roughly 280 state bills that have been filed ahead of or during this legislative session. At the same time, the Supreme Court is on the precipice of delivering a final decision that will likely overturn Roe v. Wade, blocking people who can get pregnant from abortion care. These attacks are actually all part of the same movement, a movement against bodily autonomy and our ability to live freely no matter our model or make, a movement to re-entrench gender hierarchy and binary thinking. To that end, we’re bringing you a conversation with Alok Vaid-Menon, a nonbinary writer, performer, public speaker, activist and artist exploring the themes of trauma, belonging, and the human condition. They are the author of Femme in Public, Beyond the Gender Binary, and Your Wound/My Garden. Alok has done a lot of work to interrogate their history, our collective history, and to probe beneath the surface of what we’ve come to accept as the norm. They challenge us all to use our imagination to re-wire what we believe is possible for ourselves and society around us. This is a really special conversation and our team, quite honestly, all felt gob-smacked by Alok’s perspective. We let this conversation run long because we wanted you all to experience it and take it in as we did. To donate to support our fight against the attack on reproductive autonomy and all the attacks that follow, please visit: https://www.aclu.org/keepfighting To get involved in our people power effort to protect abortion access, please visit: https://aclu.org/abortion-pledge

Supreme Court decision season is upon us, and with that, we wait for the final opinion in the Mississippi abortion ban case that could overturn Roe v. Wade. The idea of living in a post-Roe world is terrifying, the impacts will be broad and almost everyone will feel them in one way or another. This is the truth that activists and organizers on the ground in states like Mississippi, Florida, and Texas know all too well. They’ve been warding off anti-abortion attacks for decades, all while mounting a resistance focused on community conversation and education. They are, in many ways, the leaders of the reproductive rights movement. Amidst all the reasons to quit, they continue to fight -- individual action turns into collective action turns into political action. We can learn a lot from activists and organizers like Tyler, Crishelle, and Vienna, which is exactly why we are having them join us today. We’ll discuss how they have weathered the hardest of times on the ground in their own communities and highlight their work as a playbook for us all moving forward. To donate to support our fight against the attack on reproductive autonomy and all the attacks that follow, please visit: https://www.aclu.org/keepfighting To get involved in our people power effort to protect abortion access, please visit: https://aclu.org/abortion-pledge

May marks Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month and Mental Health Awareness Month. To mark the importance of this month and how it intersects our work at the ACLU, we are bringing you this conversation with Malaysian American award-winning writer and audio producer, Stephanie Foo. Stephanie is the author of the new book, What My Bones Know, a memoir about intergenerational trauma and complex post-traumatic stress disorder, or c-PTSD. In the book, Stephanie details her path of healing from the physical and emotional abuse she endured from both of her parents and explores the kind of trauma that she says had a widespread impact on her immigrant community growing up. She joins us to discuss how learning her ancestors’ history and the history of her community helped her reconcile her individual struggles.

Last week, the draft opinion for the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was leaked. Justice Alito wrote the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Everything about what has happened is remarkable: the leak, the decision, and the reasoning. The repercussions for what it means for people who can get pregnant are dire, and if that wasn’t enough, the repercussions may extend far beyond. Last week, we focused our conversation on what the draft opinion would mean for reproductive access. Today, we’re going to focus on the second tier of impact: what this precedent could mean for other civil rights and civil liberties and what this means for the institution of the court itself. For this episode, we’re bringing in our resident constitutional expert, David Cole. David is the national legal director of the ACLU and has argued a variety of cases before the Supreme Court himself. To donate to support our fight against the attack on reproductive autonomy and all the attacks that follow, please visit: https://www.aclu.org/keepfighting To get involved in our people power effort to protect abortion access, please visit: https://aclu.org/abortion-pledge

This is “Ask an Expert,” a special mini-series where our constitutional experts answer your civil rights and civil liberties questions. For our first edition, we are diving deep into Free Speech, and talking to expert Ben Wizner, the Director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology project. We have been sourcing free speech questions from you over email, social media, and our phone line. We’ve sorted through the questions and categorized them into a few episodes. So far, we've found our free speech footing and also logged in to how speech plays out online. For our final episode, Ben is back to educate us on the speech that happens on school grounds, education and book bans, student speech and more.

On Monday night, the news publication Politico leaked a draft of a majority Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Alito. The draft details the highly anticipated decision in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, known to the public as the case that could overturn Roe v. Wade. Supreme Court decisions typically don’t come out until June, but this leaked draft, confirmed by Justice Alito himself, has sent early shockwaves across the country. In the draft majority opinion, Justice Alito writes that both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decisions that have been on the books for up to 50 years, are overturned, making access to abortion no longer a legally protected right. Should this draft hold, this decision would turn back the clock on progress for people who can get pregnant and call into question much more than access to abortion. Joining us to help us understand is Brigitte Amiri, the Deputy Director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. We have a long fight ahead of us—but the ACLU was made for moments like this. To donate to support our fight against this attack on reproductive autonomy and all the attacks that follow, please visit aclu.org/keepfighting. Thank you for stepping up and working together with us.

This is “Ask an Expert,” a special mini-series where our constitutional experts answer your civil rights and civil liberties questions. For this edition, we are diving into free speech and talking to expert Ben Wizner, the Director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology project. Last week for our first episode, we established our free speech footing, defining exactly what free speech is and isn't. This week, Ben is back to break down free speech as it exists online and on social media in 140 characters or less, just kidding. Social media has undoubtedly presented new free speech challenges to consider, and consider them we will. We have been sourcing free speech questions from you over email, social media and our phone line. We've sorted through the questions and we're ready to dive right in.

For years now, pain has been the leading cause of disability worldwide, affecting more than 50 million Americans annually. This isn’t the kind of pain you endure when you trip onto the pavement, scab, bruise and heal. It’s the persistent gnawing, aching, throbbing that happens over a long period of time. This is chronic pain. One of the most powerful and effective forms of treatment for pain is the safe use of opioids. Opioids in combination with other therapies have allowed those hindered by pain to live full and vibrant lives, but the stigma around opioid use was exacerbated in 2016 due to guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the CDC, that both seriously discouraged doctors from prescribing these drugs and also over attributed the prescription of them as the cause of addiction and overdose. While opioids are not a one-size fits all pain reliever, the rollback on prescriptions has disproportionately impacted people with disabilities, people of color, women, and incarcerated folks. Kate Nicholson, founder of the National Pain Advocacy Center, believes now is the time to course-correct. Pain relief, in her view, is a civil right. Listener Note: There is still time to submit a question for our “Ask an Expert” podcast series on all things free speech. To submit a question for our final episode on education and book bans, call us and leave us a message at 212-549-2558 or email us at [email protected].

This is "Ask an Expert," a special mini-series where our constitutional experts answer YOUR civil rights and civil liberties questions. For our first edition, we are diving deep into Free Speech, and talking to expert Ben Wizner, the Director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology project. Free Speech is widely considered the bedrock of democracy, but still, many Americans feel both conflicted and confused by what actually constitutes free speech, what we can say, where we can say it, and who can stop us. We have been sourcing free speech questions from you over email, social media, and our phone line. We’ve sorted through the questions and categorized them into a few episodes. On today's episode, we’re getting back to the basics with Free Speech 101 addressing hate speech, misinformation, government regulation of corporate speech, cancel culture, and why we defend free speech.

On June 1, 2020, Black Lives Matter protesters gathered in Lafayette Square Park near the White House to protest against police brutality and the police killing of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. In a violation of civil rights and what the New York Times named “one of the defining moments of the Trump presidency,” then President Trump and his administration called upon law enforcement to use force and violence to remove protesters from the area, without warning. A short while later, President Trump walked across the street to a nearby church St Johns for a photo opp. Protesters were hurt, media personnel were attacked, and church volunteers and clergy were pushed off the patio of St. Johns and tear gassed. In response, the ACLU of DC filed to sue President Trump, Attorney General Barr, Secretary of Defense Esper, the D.C. Metropolitan Police department and numerous other federal officials on behalf of Black Lives Matter D.C. and other plaintiffs affected. And while what happened on June 1st shocked many of us, for civil rights activists it was a very familiar story, something to add to a long list of similar incidents. Freedom of speech and assembly are important tools in the fight for civil rights, but these rights, when exercised by Black Americans, are frequently met with violent pushback from authorities. Today, we are looking back on this event in light of the ACLU of DC’s case against federal officials and in light of the Biden administration’s new policy changes meant to ensure that this never happens again. Case Update: https://www.acludc.org/en/press-releases/civil-rights-groups-push-appeal-hold-federal-officials-financially-accountable-attack Listener Note: We’re launching a three-week “Ask an Expert” podcast series about all things free speech: online censorship and deplatforming, campus speech and cancel culture and education and book bans. So here’s where you come in. We want to answer your questions! What does the law say about social media companies deplatforming users? Does our constitution support cancel culture? If you have a question you’d like us to answer, call us and leave us a message at 212-549-2558 or email us at [email protected].

Lawmakers, parents, think tanks, and conservative pundits have waged a war over how to teach students about systemic racism. As a result, school board members have been ousted, and some educators have resigned over the death threats, social media bullying, and harassment they’ve received from those who are adamant that teaching a more inclusive history harms students. These activists and lawmakers have centered much of their anger on a framework called Critical Race Theory. Though they’ve used it as a catchall for wokeness, political correctness, and leftist indoctrination, the term actually refers to a body of legal scholarship from the 70s and 80s that says racism is not just a result of individual prejudice, but something embedded in the legal system and in government policy. Kimberlé Crenshaw was among the scholars who developed the theory. She also coined the term “intersectionality,” a framework that takes into account how a person’s identities combine to create unique forms of discrimination or privilege. She is a Distinguished Professor of law at Columbia University and at UCLA, co-founder of the African American Policy Forum at Columbia, and host of the podcast “Intersectionality Matters.” Listener Note: We’re launching a three-week “Ask an Expert” podcast series about all things free speech: online censorship and deplatforming, campus speech and cancel culture and education and book bans. So here’s where you come in. We want to answer your questions! What does the law say about social media companies deplatforming users? Does our constitution support cancel culture? If you have a question you’d like us to answer, call us and leave us a message at 212-549-2558 or email us at [email protected].

April marks Sexual Assault Awareness Month and with that, we are bringing you a conversation today about Title IX. One of the protections against sexual assault within our education system and in our workplaces. In May of 2020, then Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos gutted Title IX protections for schools, particularly as they pertained to sexual assault adjudication, giving schools the leeway to evade accountability procedures and disempower victims. This action was fueled by conservative backlash and men’s rights groups who consistently claim that there is lack of “due process” when it comes to allegations of sexual assault. But is that really true? Or do we have a public misconception of due process? What does it mean for universities and employers to employ systems that are both fair and restorative? Alexandra Brodsky, Staff Attorney at Public Justice, asks these questions and offers up meaningful answers in her new book Sexual Justice: Supporting Victims, Ensuring Due Process, and Resisting the Conservative Backlash. Alexandra believes there is a system available to us all that empowers survivors and values due process, a process outside of the criminal legal system that can provide both accountability and reduce harm. She joins us today to break it all down. Listener Note: We’re launching a three-week “Ask an Expert” podcast series about all things free speech: online censorship and deplatforming, campus speech and cancel culture and education and book bans. So here’s where you come in. We want to answer your questions! What does the law say about social media companies deplatforming users? Does our constitution support cancel culture? If you have a question you’d like us to answer, call us and leave us a message at 212-549-2558 or email us at [email protected].

For over half a century, Affirmative Action has woven its way into the fabric of our society through nondiscrimination policies and initiatives aimed at establishing equal opportunity for women, people of color, and other minorities across schools and the workplace. Over the years, courts and colleges have repeatedly clashed over the role of race in admissions policies. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld Affirmative Action programs - most recently in 2016, and this year, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases on the question of whether race-conscious admissions programs are lawful. And with a conservative majority on the bench, there is a real risk that Affirmative Action will be found unconstitutional. Joining us today is Amber Hikes, the ACLU’s Chief Equity and Inclusion Officer, to talk about the potential impact of this decision on culture and practice, the importance of moving beyond “checking boxes," and how they’ve developed and lived these values in their own life. Listener Note: We’re launching a three-week “Ask an Expert” podcast series about all things free speech: online censorship and deplatforming, campus speech and cancel culture and education and book bans. So here’s where you come in. We want to answer your questions! What does the law say about social media companies deplatforming users? Does our constitution support cancel culture? If you have a question you’d like us to answer, call us and leave us a message at 212-549-2558 or email us at [email protected].

This week, we’ll be talking about something that’s on everyone’s mind: Ukraine. After weeks of building forces on the border, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Since then, the UN has reported that nearly 700 civilians in Ukraine have lost their lives - although the true figures are likely much higher. Over 3 million refugees have fled the country, while more than 2 million Ukrainians have been internally displaced from their homes. There has been an incredible outpouring of support for Ukrainian refugees, with many European countries opening up their borders and setting up systems to process the large influx of refugees. And the Biden administration recently granted Temporary Protected Status (or TPS) against the deportation of Ukrainians living in the United States. At the same time, many immigrants’ rights advocates and organizers have pointed out that these same protections and supports have NOT been extended to refugees and asylum-seekers from other majority-Black and Brown countries ,like Cameroon, Ethiopia, and up until very recently, Afghanistan. This contrast has been a startling reflection of the anti-Black racism and white supremacy embedded in our systems. There is no question that Ukrainian refugees must be given access to the protections and support that they need. And, those same protections and supports must be provided to all migrants - to all people who are fleeing dangerous conditions - regardless of their race, their religion, their language, or their nationality. Joining us today to talk about these disparities, how they came to be, and their impact is Omar Jadwat, Director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. Along with Omar, we are delighted to be joined by Daniel Tse who founded the Cameroon Advocacy Network and who works for the Haitian Bridge Alliance, and leads the Black Immigrants Bail Fund. Daniel also has firsthand experience with the asylum system - having come to the United States from Cameroon as a refugee, and having spent one year in ICE detention before finally gaining asylum.

This week, we’re bringing you a conversation about the recent surge of anti-trans bills that have been levied in state legislatures. 2020 saw 79 different anti-trans state bills dealing with everything from education to athletics, and healthcare to bathroom access. In 2021, that count nearly doubled, with 147 proposals aimed at trans people, and especially trans kids. And this year, in 2022, we’re tracking roughly 280 bills that have been filed ahead of or during this legislative session. Now, let’s be clear: Transphobia is not new, and neither is the rhetoric that fuels it. Anti-trans legislation has often been framed as necessary for the safety and protection of “women and girls” - and in particular, white women and girls. This weaponization of white womanhood and femininity has deep roots in this country’s history, and is prompting unprecedented consequences for the trans community. Joining us to share the history behind this crisis and what we can do about it, is Nikita Shepard, who studies and works at Columbia University. Their work explores histories of LGBTQ+ communities, gender and sexuality, and racial and social movements in the United States and beyond.

Today we’re speaking with music legend Jon Batiste. He’s an Oscar-winning composer, pianist, bandleader and singer who is going into the 2022 Grammy Awards with 11 nominations – the most of any artist this year. You may have seen him on “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” where he’s been the music director and bandleader since 2015. You may have heard him on the soundtrack of the Pixar-animated film “Soul” where he performed and composed the jazz portion of the score. Or you may have experienced his live performances in the streets of New York City with his band Stay Human during the pandemic lockdown, the protests of 2020, or during one of his “love riots” – a spontaneous show in the streets where the musicians stand among the crowd and exchange in the energy of the music and the moment. We’ll talk to him about his New Orleans roots, his most recent album “We Are,” and his commitment to creating music that celebrates his culture and aims to unite us all.

For some of us, simply living in our bodies is a daily act against oppression, against marginalization, criminalization and hate. This work is exhausting…most justice work is. That’s why finding what brings us joy is so central to both our individual and our collective liberation. While seemingly simple, when put in practice, pleasure can be revolutionary. This is the idea that Adrienne Maree Brown puts forth in her book, “Pleasure Activism: The Politics of Feeling Good.” Taking inspiration from Black feminist writers like Audre Lorde and Octavia Butler, the author, activist and doula demonstrates how we can tap into our desire to organize against oppression. Adrienne’s work is a gift for so many who don’t feel that pleasure is an accessible reality including: women, people of color, trans and non binary folks, queer folks, disabled folks, and survivors of sexual violence. Adrienne joins us today to share why finding pleasure should be centered in our justice work.

Our guest today is Imani Perry. Her latest book is “South to America: A Journey Below the Mason Dixon to Understand the Soul of a Nation.” In it she writes that understanding this country starts with the South. Imani challenges the idea of the South as a backward place, a repository for the U.S.’s shame over slavery, white supremacy, and poverty. To cast away the South, she writes, only props up a heroic self-mythology of the U.S. that fogs up the mirror of history. Imani is based at the department for African American studies at Princeton University as an interdisciplinary scholar of law, literary and cultural studies. In addition to South to America, her books include “Breathe: A Letter to My Sons,” “Looking for Lorraine: The Radiant and Radical Life of Lorraine Hansberry” and other titles. She was born in Birmingham, Alabama and while she’s lived much of her life elsewhere, she still considers Birmingham home.

Just weeks ago, Justice Steven Breyer announced his retirement from the Supreme Court, opening the door for President Biden to nominate a new judge to the bench. Keeping his campaign promise, Biden confirmed that he will be nominating a Black woman to replace Breyer, a historic move for a field that has not always welcomed Black women with open arms. Joining us to discuss the impact of this future nomination is Ria Tabacco Mar, Director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project and one of At Liberty’s most frequent guests. Ria leads the project that was founded and led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It should be noted before we begin this conversation that as a matter of policy, the ACLU does not endorse or oppose particular candidates for the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances.

It’s election season again and, in America, sadly, that means it is voter suppression season. Starting in 2020, 49 states proposed over 440 bills to make it harder for Americans to vote, and many of them have passed. In 2021, state lawmakers started using the newly released census data to draw state maps that lock up their political power – often at the expense of communities of color. And now in 2022, these tactics are almost certain to impact the midterm elections for Congress, as well as local and state elections nationwide. Federal legislation that would have addressed these tactics and reversed some of the Supreme Court’s gut punches to the Voting Rights Act has stalled. And Republican lawmakers in at least eight states are trying to strip away power from secretaries of state, governors, and nonpartisan election boards over how elections are run and counted–effectively giving political operatives the power to cancel your vote. My guest today, lawyer Janai Nelson, has spent her career battling these issues. At the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, where she currently serves as Associate Director-Counsel and will soon take over as president and Director-Counsel, she has overseen court challenges to racial and partisan gerrymandering, to overturn harsh voter ID laws, and to re-enfranchise folks who have lost their right to vote because of felony convictions. As a professor of law at St. John’s University School of Law, she has also taught classes on election law and political participation and has written extensively on the dismantling of the Votings Rights Act at the expense of communities of color. We’re catching Janai at a heady time, just as she is ascending to the helm of one of the nation’s foremost civil rights organizations, and just as those rights face threats we haven’t seen in decades, if not centuries. She joins us today to talk about all this and more.

February marks Black History Month, a time to recognize the significant achievements and culture of Black Americans–from bell hooks to Beyonce–and also to honor an accurate history about them, a history that we know is rife with discrimination and abuse -- think: slavery, Jim Crow, and the structural racism we’re still infected with today. Sadly, more and more, this history is being challenged and even erased in our culture and, right now, in our schools, through tactics like curriculum restrictions and book bans. Truths we once considered hard but self-evident are now being erased before our eyes. Over 30 state legislatures across the country have introduced bills to limit the discussion of racial history in a wave prompted by the emergence of critical race theory as a subject of political fear-mongering. But that’s just the beginning:, over 300 books by predominantly Black authors discussing race, gender, and sexuality, were also banned in the last year alone. Yes, you heard me right. We’re banning books again. When your history is banned, how do you learn about your ancestors? How do we learn from what’s happened in the past and how it affects our present? When your culture is banned, how do you see yourself? How do you belong? How do you celebrate the stories, music, food, and family that made you? At the ACLU, we believe that the first amendment is so fundamental because it should stop this kind of erasure in its tracks. That’s why we’re meeting this surge of censorship with new litigation and fierce advocacy. Joining us today to share more is Emerson Sykes, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project and longtime listeners will remember Emerson as one of At Liberty’s former hosts.

This week we’re going to talk about families, and a uniquely American hypocrisy surrounding them. On the one hand, politicians are always talking about supporting strong, nuclear families, and in some ways, we do. We give tax breaks to people who get married and have children. Kids eat free at Denny’s on Tuesdays. Yet, also in America, government officials at the federal, state, and local levels are tearing families apart by the thousands under the cover of our laws. For example, in the Trump administration, the Department of Homeland Security forcibly separated more than 5,000 migrant parents from their children – some as young as 4 months old – under Trump’s “zero tolerance” border policy. To this day, a thousand children and maybe more are yet to be reunited with their families. They remain stranded and alone. Candidate Joe Biden had called the policy “criminal. But in December the Justice Department walked away from settlement talks with lawyers representing those families. And immigration enforcement isn’t the only way we destroy families. The criminal justice system and the child welfare system do it too, in astonishing numbers, and usually to the most vulnerable among us. To discuss this double-standard–propping up some families while destroying others–the and the continued trauma and ongoing battle of separated families is Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who has steered the border separation litigation from the beginning. Joining him is Shanta Trivedi, assistant professor at the University of Baltimore Law School and faculty director of the Meyerhoff Center for Families, Children, and the Courts – a foremost expert on the law around family trauma.

Content warning: This conversation mentions sexual abuse. January 22nd, marks the 49th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court case granting the right to an abortion "without excessive government restriction.” Year after year, Roe has weathered legal attacks, but this year, due to the conservative majority on the bench, the threat to Roe v. Wade is at an all-time high. A case heard by the Supreme Court on December 1st addressing a Mississippi abortion law posed a direct challenge to the precedent set by Roe. The decision will come out in June, but scholars who listened to the arguments are deeply concerned that this could be Roe’s last anniversary. Back in 1973, Roe was an important step towards granting reproductive autonomy to people who could get pregnant. However, Roe itself, was never enough to address the long history of government surveillance over the bodies of the most marginalized. In her book, Policing the Womb: Invisible Women and the Criminalization of Motherhood, law scholar, Michele Goodwin, examines “the reproductive health and rights debate and explores how legislators increasingly turn to criminalizing women”, predominantly black women, for both proceeding with a pregnancy or for ending one. Today, Michele Goodwin, professor of law at the University of California, Irvine, the founding director of the U.C.I. Law Center for Biotechnology and Global Health Policy and its Reproductive Justice Initiative, and one of the ACLU’s very own Executive Committee Members joins us to discuss the lived experience of reproductive control and Roe v. Wade’s impact.