Baby Got Brief

David and Sarah hit a ton of topics in today’s podcast, but with an emphasis ...

By and

David and Sarah hit a ton of topics in today’s podcast, but with an emphasis on state law, including some terribly drafted state laws. They start with the latest on that abortion law in Texas, move on to an abortion law in Missouri, and then discuss the avalanche of misleading commentary about Florida’s so-called “don’t say gay” law (including how “don’t say gay” is itself misleading). They wind up talking about teachers’ free speech rights, pronouns, and critical race theory.

Show Notes:

–Baby Got Brief lyrics

–New York Times: “Most Women Denied Abortions by Texas Law Got Them Another Way”

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By and
Comments (157)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Blaine

    Can we get a confirmation hearing-inspired MC Isgur rendition of Outkast's Ms. Jackson?!? "I'm sorry, Judge Jackson, unripe for appeeeaaaaal . . ."

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Damon Preston

    Just listened to the conversation about poorly written and overbroad legislation with good "intentions". In Kentucky, a bill is pending that would outlaw all expenditures by any state employee (including employee time) to challenge the constitutionality of any legislative enactment. The purpose of the bill is to prevent members of the minority party from challenging the new legislative districts.

    The problem of the bill is that it is badly overbroad. If passed, no public defender could ever raise a constitutional challenge on behalf of a client. When I contacted the sponsor, his response was... "That's not our intent." When I played Sarah's role and said, "I don't care about the intent; that's what it says," fortunately he agreed to a limited amendment exempting public defenders. Unfortunately, I'm sure there are other government employees who may also have legitimate grounds to challenge laws sometime in the future history of Kentucky and they will not be so fortunate as to have an exemption.



    Collapse
  3. John Townson

    I choked up listening to Sarah's story. Sarah, Im so sorry you had to go through that!

    I wish David could find more balance on the recent Republican legislative initiatives. It's clear he is tired of the argument but the case he makes just is not convincing.

    On the anti CRT laws, if the script was flipped and the teaching profession ( granted not all teachers are pro CRT but clearly the movement is in favor of CRT here) was pushing a curriculum that encourages children of color to be ashamed of their skin color, and blue states starting passing laws to counter the movement, how would David react? Would he just say " file a civil law suit instead"? Or would he be more empathetic and understanding of the reaction, and not dismiss those dreaded feelings of the parents fearful of the education their child was getting?
    If a white supremacist teacher was exposing 3rd graders to hate, would David's reaction be to defend the teacher's right to free expression?
    It seems that the court advantage here goes to the CRT advocates who can espouse the CRT perspective without any bulky or inelegant law making involved: they can just start doing what they are doing, and shift their approach on the fly as needed. Concerned parents don't have many useful options, legislation being one of them. The CRT advocates can shift their ground quickly, but parents have to try to write a law that will be effective and fair. Its like battling mosquitoes by draining a swamp with a bulldozer. You can do it, but it will sure have side effects you didn't intend.
    I maintain the best course of action: ban teaching any of the hot button controversy stuff: CRT, transgender, etc. In grades 11-12, introduce these topics as debatable issues and debate them. By then the kids will have enough of their own critical thinking skills to judge for themselves.

    Collapse
  4. Travis Brown

    Here you go. Ms. Isgur-a-Lot Baby Got Brief. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Kn3e-3NoRU

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Daniel Standage

    Pausing the podcast so I can slide into the comments and give some mad props to Sarah for that ̶h̶i̶l̶a̶r̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ awesome performance.

    Collapse
  6. Sean Smith

    David & Sarah: I'm practically vibrating with anticipation of your forthcoming discussion about the litigation involving Northern Spotted Owls (NSOs) vs. Barred Owls. I'm in the wood products business in the Pacific Northwest and have been embroiled in the "Forest Wars" longer than I care to contemplate. It's hard to know where to begin in describing the asininity of a program to shoot the "wrong" kind of owls as they proliferate throughout the region, but I'll take a . . . er . . . shot at it. Barred Owls are a species closely enough related to NSOs that they can breed with them and produce viable and--if I'm not mistaken--fertile hybrids. They're so closely related, in fact, that it's thought they only became separate species roughly 10,000 years ago, when the last glaciation isolated two populations of the same bird from one another. The differences between them, however, all favor barred owls, and none of this has anything to do with anything humans have done. Barred owls are more fecund, more adaptable to a much more varied range of habitats, and far less picky about prey than NSOs. They're also larger and more aggressive. So every place their ranges have overlapped, they've displaced NSOs because they're more adaptively successful and, in a word, more FIT.

    Query: Isn't this is how things are SUPPOSED to work? The purpose of the ESA is not to preserve some "ideal" snapshot of biodiversity that existed at some randomly, arbitrarily selected point in time. It's to preserve animals from extinction due to human negligence or overexploitation. Being outcompeted by a similar but more successful species is not something one can legislate against, and is, at least to my way of thinking, the reason 99.9 percent of species that have ever existed are now extinct, most of them having run their course long before humans could have been a factor.

    So yes, the owl-shooting program is at least as dumb as it sounds, and probably dumber.

    HOWEVER, the litigation AGAINST the owl-shooting is, if anything, just as dumb, as it's based on the pretext that this could somehow harm the NSO. Uh, no, but it might actually allow the NSO to endure for a while longer as a separate species (though ultimately it will be a losing battle). So why are the greens against it? Pretty obvious, really--it'll help the NSO in a way that doesn't involve locking up habitat, and that dog won't hunt. It's quite analogous to the reason they oppose nuclear power: It'll solve the climate crisis in a way that doesn't require us to return to pre-modern energy use. The greens are, let's face it, people who refuse to take yes for an answer. Sure wish the world would wise up to this.

    Oh, and I love the podcast, and both of you. Seriously, I listen to you so often throughout the week (since I also listen to The Dispatch Podcast and The Remnant) that I feel like I'm hearing the voices of old friends. Keep up the stellar work!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      I don't even know what "wood product business" means--but you know your owls. And yes this has long been an issue with species work. At what point was that species headed for the exit anyway. And you run into all the more with hyrbidization stuff as you point out. Regardless, freezing the planets biodiversity at 1973 is not going to work.

      Collapse
      1. Sean Smith

        Ha! It means I run a sawmill!

        Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Ian Fillmore

    I'd love to hear David and Sarah talk about prosecutorial discretion vs prosecutorial nullification. Here's a law review article:

    https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/52_4/02_fairfax.pdf

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Sarah D.

    I have not commented before, although I have been listening to AO for about 1 1/2 years, and have been a Dispatch member for a year now.
    I just wanted to say, Sarah, that your story brought me to tears. Thank you for sharing your story. I know there are a lot of us who have similar stories, whether ectopic pregnancies, or miscarriage, and I want to thank you for making it "personal." As David said, "the law is not what's written in your heart!" I appreciate your podcast so very much, look forward to every episode, and recommend it every chance I get, even though I am not a lawyer, nor a legal scholar, nor someone who has even been very interested in the law before I started listening to your podcast!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      Thank you for the heartfelt note. Appreciate the support! Even though I didn't share it at the time, I knew I would at some point and hearing from folks like you has exceeded even my very very high expectations from my dispatch family.

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Sarah, thank you for sharing your story with us. We’re glad you’re okay. I suppose it might be dumb for me to say that we AO listeners had no idea (since you didn’t tell us, so of course we’d have no idea), but that was my first reaction.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      I thought about saying something at the time--but the truth is that it wasn't like a one day thing. I thought miscarriages were like on the movies...you see blood and then you sit in bed sad for a weekend. But it was a 6 week schedule of multiple doctors visits a week and then after that still not being "quite right." So I figured I wouldn't say anything until I was in the all clear...and by that point it felt weird because it was 3 months later!

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ben Connelly

        I understand. A close family member had a similar story with an ectopic pregnancy. Thanks again for sharing and glad you’re okay.

        Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Amy Talbott

    I would like to tell you guys how much I appreciate your work here on Advisory Opinions. I know that most of your listeners are lawyers or those who are closely associated with law. I am not that. I am a former Respiratory Therapist now stay at home, homeschool mom. I am learning a ton via your podcast and appreciate your transparency and perspective. Sarah, your willingness to to be so vulnerable in this podcast was powerful. Thank you for your perspective. I find it very helpful to hear how you both break down these different cases, laws and Supreme Court issues. Thank you.

    Collapse
Load More