Law in the U.S. Updates: Conversion Therapy, Birthright Citizenship, Pam Bondi is Gondi

A flurry of updates from the U.S. legal landscape have expanded recently; from cases examining birthright citizenship and conversion therapy to Pam Bondi’s bye-bye, Jessica Mason Pieklo, Executive Producer of Legal Content and Advocacy at Rewire News Group and host of Boom! Lawyered, sits down to talk with us about both the latest developments at the Supreme Court and Trump’s ousting of Pam Bondi, former U.S. Attorney General.

The Supreme Court heard a challenge to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy (Chiles v. Salazar), in which the justices ruled 8-1 in favor of Chiles and sent the discussion of conversion therapy as “protected speech” back down to the lower courts. It represents a large shift in what the court considers “speech,” particularly “medical speech.” In Trump v. Barbara, the court scrutinized an executive order seeking to redefine birthright citizenship—specifically to restrict the citizenship of children who are U.S.-born but have non-citizen parents. The Supreme Court taking this case in the first place is concerning. 

For more information, check out Sex Ed with DB: https://podcasts.apple.com/zw/podcast/sex-ed-with-db-smart-science-backed-sex-education/id1819071622

Transcript

Jennie 1:03

Welcome to rePROs Fight Back, a podcast on all things related to sexual and reproductive health, rights, and justice. [music intro] Hi, rePROs. How's everybody doing? I'm your host, Jennie Wetter, and my pronouns are she/her. So y'all, I am so excited. Last week we released our 50 state report card on sexual and reproductive health. It was so great to get it out in the world and send it out to people. It has been wonderful to talk to people about it. And I just it it makes me so happy to have it appreciated and see what people think about it and see what they are learning new about their state and how their state is doing when it comes to sexual and reproductive health. It all makes me so happy. I hope it's a tool that people find useful and we are already, you know, thinking about ways that we can expand its reach this year. And so I'm really excited to see what we are going to do with it for the next year. I'm really looking forward to developing some state partnerships and working with some local states about their scores. So, I'm just really excited about the report card. I hope you all get a chance to check it out. We'll make sure to include a link in our show notes, but otherwise it is at reportcard.reprosfightback.com and you can see how your state is doing overall. You can click on the various indicators to see how your state is doing compared to other states on sex ed or abortion or many of the other measures we have on our report card. So, I hope you enjoy it and find it a useful tool for you. Let's see, I'm trying to think. I just got back from New York when I am recording this. I had a quick overnight trip that I went up to New York for, and it was a reception to get to meet some other judges for the Signal Awards. I'm gonna be a judge again this year. So, it was so wonderful to meet other people in the podcasting industry. I this is just like part of my job, and so the vast majority of my job is actually not the podcast. So I'm not in the like podcasting world and going to a lot of having to have a lot of podcast connections. So it was always nice when I get to go to these things and meet other people who are doing podcasting and finding out ways that maybe we can collaborate. It was so much fun, and I got to meet some really wonderful people. So I'm really grateful that I was able to do that. And it was always fun to go up to New York. I um was there for this short time I missed out on seeing some people that I would have liked to have seen, but it was still it was still a lot of fun, and I'm glad I was able to do it. And then for recording this interview, I had like just got home. My train, my first train I was supposed to be on got canceled, and then the one I got after it got delayed. And so I uh got home not that long before I did the interview with Jess. And so my poor kitties were like beside themselves for having been alone for like, I don't know, 40 hours without me. And so they were very we need attention now. So you may hear a couple of little meows in the background. They were uh very uh needy at the moment, but they'll get all the snuggles when I'm done recording this and have some time to spend with me. Let's see, what else? Oh, at the end of the interview, Jess and I talk a little bit about books, and I botched the name of one of the books that I had just read. It's The Teller of Small Fortunes by Julie Leong. So, I don't know what I said, but it was not The Teller of Small Fortunes. It's like a cozy little fantasy, and I really enjoyed it. I have been doing a I mean, I always am doing a lot of reading, and I always have multiple books going, generally like one work-related one, and then like a fun one, and then something on audiobook, whatever that is. So recently I read the book on the Challenger, which was really great by Adam Higginbotham. And that was fascinating to listen to. I think I had talked about before that my dad had done some consulting with NASA, and so hearing his stories from when he was working on the Moon Rover and about NASA culture and stuff, it was really fascinating to then read read the Challenger book or listen to it because I did it on audiobook, and hearing a lot of that kind of echoed still in what NASA culture was at that time, which was decades later. So it was just really fascinating. It made me miss my dad and think about my dad a lot and how much I would have loved to have talked to him about this book after I had read it. So I don't know, it was very, it was a bit of a bittersweet read, but very good. Okay, I think with that, we will go to my interview with Jessica Mason Pieklo at with Rewire News Group and the podcast Boom! Lawyered. It is always so much fun to have Jess on and have great conversations. We had plans for what we were going to talk about, and then last week happened, y'all. And there's so many things happened at the Supreme Court that we had to switch our topic and talk about everything that happened on the Supreme Court last week and about Pam Bondi getting fired. So that is what we are going to talk about this week. With that, let's go to my conversation with Jess. Hi, Jess. Thank you so much for being here. Thanks so much for having me back. And it was like such a calm, quiet week, like nothing happened. I just have no idea what we're gonna talk about. No, you know, book recommendations, I think. Ooh, that sounds great. Actually, compared to the news cycle, it does sound phenomenal. Okay, before we get too far off the rails, do you want to take a second and introduce yourself or any of our audience who doesn't know you already?

Jess 7:00

Sure. I am Jess Pieklo. I am co-host of the Boom! Lawyered Podcast with Imani Gandy over at Rewire News Group. And I am executive producer of legal content and advocacy there. So exciting stuff going on at Rewire. And I am thrilled once again to be talking with you, Jennie. You always uh seem to bring me on when things are super chill.

Jennie 7:20

Yeah, no, I wait for this like real quiet moment. Actually, it was supposed to be kind of a chill conversation.

Jess 7:26

It was. [laughs] It was.

Jennie 7:29

But the Supreme Court had other plans. Other plans. Okay, so let's start with what happened with the Child's case. And maybe we should start with like what was the case.

Jess 7:40

Sure. So, I think you had me on the show way back to talk about um sort of upcoming cour uh cases that were on my radar at the court. And this was one that I had tagged, and it's Chiles v. Salazar, it's a case out of Colorado, and it is it involved a therapist's challenge to a Colorado statute that bans conversion therapy. And there's a lot to break down here. So, the Colorado law issued bans a lot of practices that fit into an umbrella term called conversion therapy. Among the practices banned in Colorado includes talk therapy. There's others that, you know, like a whole bunch of it. So that's one form. And the Alliance Defending Freedom, no surprise there, always found a Christian talk therapist to challenge the Colorado's ban on conver on conversion therapy as it applies to her practice. So, this wasn't a challenge on the statute writ large, the whole thing, you know, kit and caboodle. This was the part that says no talk therapy for purposes of trying to change somebody's gender, identity, sexual orientation, the things that we understand, the harms to be around talk therapy and conversion therapy. So it was a narrow, narrow challenge to begin with. The Supreme Court took up the case, uh, heard oral arguments. Gosh, a couple months ago, I mean, this was a quick decision. And on Tuesday, March 31st, released an eight-to-one opinion in favor of child's. And I say it's in favor of child because they didn't strike the Colorado ban. And I'm seeing a lot of that reporting, and I want to sort of parse through that. What the justices did was say that the lower court was incorrect when they didn't apply strict scrutiny to the Colorado law because it involved, they bought the idea that it involved targeted uh viewpoint discrimination. Chiles is a Christian, has a particular belief. You know, so they bought that. So that is that is a big red flag. But what they didn't do is say, ergo, the Colorado conversion therapy ban is unconstitutional. What they did is direct the case back to the lower court to apply that strict scrutiny standard to Chiles' claims. What that means is that part of the ban will likely fail. Like at some point, that part of the Colorado law will get struck. And at some point, other states that have similar bans on the books may find themselves wrapped up in uh legal challenges because, as you and I know, Jenny, that's how the Alliance Defending Freedom works. But the Colorado case was not the case that struck down in one fell swoop, conversion therapy bans across the country. And I also, this isn't to minimize the harm that happens in those places because it's significant. There are other avenues for people who have been harmed by conversion talk therapy practices, in particular medical malpractice claims. One of the things that's really important about the Colorado fight and statute and the Child's case is that in Colorado it involved state licensed therapists. So the argument that Colorado made was you can do all the conversion talk therapy you want, just don't be expected to be licensed by the state. And that was not persuasive to eight justices. The only one who dissented was Justice Jackson. And so we will definitely see more of these kinds of cases. And it may, you know, that framing and the way the court is thinking about speech and conversion therapy may sound familiar to folks who remember the fight over uh crisis pregnancy centers that went to the Supreme Court ultimately in NIFLA v. Becerra. And in NIFLA v. Becerra, California had tried to regulate under consumer protection laws crisis pregnancy centers that and have them have certain mandated disclosures like, oh, they're not medical clinics, they're not licensed to provide medical care. And the conservative legal movement challenged successfully that targeted regulation and said that that was a you know, that was a speech ban. And so what we are seeing once again is the anti-abortion playbook, particularly when it comes to litigation, working itself out in LGBTQ spaces. So it was a bad decision for what it brings, for what it portends ahead, for the idea that even the liberal justices, with the exception of Justice Jackson, couldn't wrap their head around the bad faith nature of these kinds of free speech and First Amendment claims that are happening right now. They very much are, you know, I mean, Justice Kagan was basically like, you shouldn't be upset. It can apply, you know, to talk therapy practices that actively, you know, promote and endorse supporting your own gender and sexual identity. But we all know, Jennie, that's not how it works right now. And so I think that's the like disappointing part of it. But if you are LGBTQ, a family member of a trans kid, if you are a trans person yourself, uh this is an opportunity to fight. It's an opportunity to advocate. The Colorado legislature is already working on a fix. It's in this session now. So this is not a moment to give up. And it's really one of the reasons why I think I am digging down into the details of this, is the Alliance Defending Freedom wins if we all think the fight is over already. And it's not, like we're seeing here in Colorado. Our legislature is like, okay, well, let's fix that then. And and we have every reason to think that in this legislative session or the next, that will happen. Is that gonna stop the Alliance Defending Freedom? No. But in the interim, in that political process and in the in that time is the opportunity to advocate for more change, to, you know, bring more communities together. This will not be a popular decision if it becomes broad-scale practice. And so, it was a terrible way to start the midweek and honestly, March. Like we very much expected this decision later in the term. It was one of the more marquee cases. They dropped it on Trans Day of Visibility, which I do think is like a coincidental, but just terrible mean-spirited timing, regardless by the universe there. And so, it is another part of the conservative legal movement's attempt to rewrite familial rights and who counts as a family, what kinds of families count, what kinds of families don't count. And I don't know that we're really talking about childs in a familial law or you know, parental rights kind of way, but I do very much feel like it fits the vibe.

Jennie 14:48

Yeah, I'm so glad we talked through this because so much of the reporting or, like, we released our report card this week. So, my week was chaos and, like, not having time to do a bunch of the reading and like digging in on things. So just seeing like the headlines on Bluesky or like what some of the the people were saying, it sounded much bigger than it was, and then a couple hours later, like coming back and seeing that it was eight to one, just like my stomach dropped, and I was like, seriously, only Jackson? But yeah, and then I was able to one listen to Boom! Lawyered on my way back from New York today. And then also had listened to strict scrutiny to like get a better idea of like what actually happened.

Speaker 15:38

Yeah, and I am by no means minimizing what this opinion sets up. It is a big shift in the way that the court has considered speech, and in particular uh medical-related speech. It's not that big of a shift, again, if you put it in the context of NIFLA v. Becerra and the idea that like, you know, sort of conservative Christians in this country are really successfully reworking the First Amendment so that it is both a sword and a shield for them. But what will be interesting is to see if this kind of decision bleeds into other areas of medical speech because that's really going to be dicey. Are you a naturopath who, you know, wants to, you know, can sort of like advocate for your patients in terms of a homeopathic way to treat a cancer diagnosis? And does that receive strict scrutiny if the state says, you can do that, but just don't do it as a licensed professional? That's where it starts to, you know, really you can see how how bad the thinking is that the court adopted there. And it is. It's disappointing from Sotomayor, who usually is very good at recognizing the individual harms that these kinds of laws really fit or, you know, really create. And Justice Kagan was just like, hey, everybody can, you know, like everybody has viewpoints and it will be neutral. But again, they seem to have their heads in the sand in terms of the both like the structural realities and the real world implications on this case. And that's unfortunate.

Jennie 17:23

Okay. So the other thing I learned about today on Boom! Lawyered, because again, I had a quick trip up to New York, so my day was like not involved looking at all the things other than going through Union Station in DC and seeing people leaving the Supreme Court protests. So, I had their all of their birthright citizenship signs, but I hadn't really had a chance to dig into the case. So, that was the first I had heard any breakdown was listening to Boom! Lawyered this morning. What happened in the birthright citizenship case?

Jess 17:51

It is. Jennie, I've been covering the court for a long time.

Jennie 17:55

Yeah.

Jess 17:55

A long time listeners. And, I said it on our on our podcast, Boom! Lawyered, and I really think it to be true. This is one of the most consequential cases of the court's history of our lifetime, and for an understanding of the Constitution. So the case is Trump versus Barbara, and you know, back in January, Trump had issued an executive order that purported to try to limit birthright citizenship for certain folks and um, you know, with a certain with a date cut off, and it it was a mess. You don't do that. The Constitution, the 14th Amendment, very clearly states, you know, how that goes. We have 150 years of precedent very clearly stating this, but a premier project of the conservative legal movement, of the Heritage Foundation, of Project 2025 and 2026 now is to rewrite the 14th Amendment in a way that reunderstands personhood in this country, whether it is citizenship and who is a person by birth, by blood, we heard in the oral arguments all of this, like sui juris and jus sanguinis, like you know, these deep old, old, old principles of: do we track fidelity by who you're born to or who your leader is in the at the moment? So, but all of this is about who counts. And I really focus in on that idea of rewriting an understanding of personhood because you know where this goes, right? This is this is hand in hand with the same conservative legal movement that's trying to recognize the that life begins at conception under the 14th Amendment, and that there are the idea of fetal personhood and fetal rights. And so, the good news from oral arguments, at least in this case, is that this argument seemed to be a bridge too far for most of the justices. Justice Sam Alito is your Fox News watching grandpa. He is only going to believe what he hears from this administration and Fox News hosts. That's not an exaggeration at all. And Clarence Thomas is along for the ride. So, that's unfortunate. But everybody else seemed to understand that this was a radical proposition. They dug up a hundred some odd-year-old argument that was designed to keep Chinese Americans out or Chinese immigrants out and from becoming Americans. And it didn't work. And I mean, you know, not the Solicitor General not even being able to tell Justice Gorsuch whether or not he thought indigenous people and Native Americans would qualify for birthright citizenship when they're literally like indigenous. That's the point. I saw a thread, I think it was on threads, a comment that someone said, like not being able to answer well, are Native Americans subject to the birthright citizenship test? Daniel Gorsuch is like not being prepared to talk about cookies with Cookie Monster. But so but you know, so that's all good, except for the fact that the court took this case to begin with. And that is not good. And this is why I really, you know, I was concerned when I saw they took it, because as you know, I've said on this podcast a lot of times, the only reason the court takes these kinds of cases is to make a statement to do something. That's what they did with Dobbs, right? What are they trying to say here? And as much as I want the administration to lose, and based on oral arguments, it sounds like that's gonna happen. I am skeptical that the constitution is gonna win. Just because the administration loses, I don't necessarily think that the constitution wins in this case. And I worry that the press, much along the lines of what we saw with the Chiles v. Salazar and sort of, you know, getting the like broad stroke kind of right, but like the deep missing the details are important, the press is gonna say that this was a check on Trump. And if it was a check on Trump, they wouldn't have taken the case. What this does is allow John Roberts to launder the court's reputation when they're the reason we're in this mess. So, when the birthright citizenship decision comes down, and should it come down against the administration, celebrate that, but do not hand it to John Roberts for anything because he's the reason we're here.

Jennie 22:25

Oh yeah, there will definitely be a handful. I mean, a handful is being like way minimalist. I'm sure there'll be quite a few of like they're being reasonable, like look at how moderate the court has been, and I can already I can already hear it.

Jess 22:41

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. A "check on Trump's power," kind of like they did with the tariffs case, and it's like... no, that that cat is gone, right? Like that horse has left the barn. Whatever your sort of metaphor is here. And this is also an administration that's shown it has no interest in obeying court orders. Orders that aren't convenient for them. So, I think there's a lot to watch here. And the State of the Union, John Roberts looked like a very sorry, sad man. And again, I think he should be. Trump was there at the argument.

Jennie 23:15

Okay, so I didn't even heard that until because again, I was like in my own world, and I was saw some like weird reference like on social. I'm like, he mob bossed it up.

Jess 23:26

Yeah, no, he mob bossed it up, like, oh, I'm gonna like go intimidate and sit in the front. And the thing about oral arguments to anybody who's either listened to them or had the privilege of being in the courtroom for, it sounds really sexy, Supreme Court oral arguments, but 99.9% of the time, it is a dull experience. It's really not the kind of fireworks and you know, every you'll get the quip and whatnot, but you gotta understand, like that one little pithy quip by John Roberts where it's like, oh, it's a new country but the same constitution. You had to listen to almost three hours of oral arguments to get that one soundbite. Trump lasted like 20 minutes and then he dipped out. So, it's just it was a bad look. And has that ever happened before? No, no, this is the first time in the history of everything that that has. It's so wildly unprofessional. I mean, forget like proper, improper, or whatnot. It's just, you know, this is a mafia state administration, and that's how they treat everything. And he was trying to like shake down and intimidate the justices, and he just looked like a a sad old man.

Jennie 24:41

My office is right behind the Supreme Court, and so I have talked about, ever since I started working there, of someday just like going to like hear an oral argument, but like... I mean, it's- I'm not trying to like, you know, be like, oh, it's no big deal. I mean, it can be really cool, but just you know, usually the court is hearing very precise arguments. Like you don't, even in the marquee like the big marquee cases, you're you know... No, I would have to go to the little one. So uh no, I mean you could but uh it's just it it often, you know, if you can live stream them, then you can at least like do other things and so or like have a you know cup of coffee while you're listening to it or something, you know. Um so you don't necessarily need to subject yourself, but like experience history, but also protect your peace. I can just look out the window. I'm okay with that.

Jess 25:41

I will say, Justice Jackson, again, just to keep sort of tootin' her horn, was phenomenal. I mean, she was asking Solicitor General Sauer, like, real nuts and bolts questions, like, okay, so tell me how does this work? Are we deposing pregnant people? Are we having folks claim their allegiance? Because it wasn't to the country, it was to the presidency, which is just bananas. Are we having them do that every four years? How is this gonna operate, sir? And Sauer couldn't answer because they didn't think through any of this. They just act. And, you know, that's the real shame is that it used to mean something to do all of this, and the institution of the Supreme Court is so corrupt and so debased at this point that it's hard to take it anything from them seriously, despite the huge stakes on people's day-to-day lives.

Jennie 26:30

Okay, that leads us to the big news of today when we're recording, which is Thursday, April 2nd. Pam Bondi is out. I would say surprising, but not surprising. Like, she's been such a like faithful foot soldier, but also that doesn't protect you in this administration.

Jess 26:51

No, not at all. And I mean, you know, byeeee is sort of like... it feels good to say. I have to remind folks that it was gonna be Matt Gates originally as attorney general before Pam Bondi. I mean, I'm not expecting someone so it's like, you know, she was really bad. And I'm honestly kind of surprised she lasted as long as she did. The first Trump administration, he was rolling through appointments. People probably memory hole that, but like it was everything was chaotic, but you know, his cabinet in particular was very, very chaotic. And by comparison, Trump 2.0 has been more stable in terms of the turnover from an HR perspective. What's interesting is there's a subpoena that Pam Bondi has for later on this month to testify related to the Epstein Files. That subpoena doesn't go away just because she got canned. So, that's interesting. She was a very good loyalist, but I think at the end of the day, whoever does replace her will be more than a loyalist. It will be somebody who is very acutely and keenly interested in upending voting in elections and prosecuting political enemies. I don't think it's necessarily a great sign that we're gonna bring in somebody new and an attorney general when Trump just dropped a dumb, terrible, unconstitutional executive order purporting to ends limit mail and ball mail in voting. Whatever Kash Patel is going to do at FBI and the constant pressing the boundaries of um military occupation and domestic spaces. First, we saw it with DC and then the National Guard, which they haven't left, right? I don't need to tell you that.

Jennie 28:52

Still here. They're supposed to be here through the end of the administration.

Jess 28:55

Right? And so, and then, you know, Minneapolis and other places where there were ICE raids, and now we're seeing that extended to airports across the country. That's not a rollback, right? Like I remember before 9-11, and none of these offices even existed yet. But the once they're there, it's really hard to pluck them out. So as happy as I am to see her go— and she was terrible , and I hope the perp walk that we will all get to witness that involves Pam Bondi at some point will be worth it— but I do think for everything right now, it it feels very fraught in terms of what's next. I've seen some people say, oh, it'll be Ken Paxton from Texas or something like that. And I mean, you know, on the one hand, it absolutely could be, you know, who knows? And he's certainly proven himself an eager lapdog for the administration, and he's got a lot of hot water in Texas right now. Who are the Dems who would vote? Fetterman, I don't know. Like it's so it's gonna be a ride, but yeah, and in particular, I think it is once again a lesson to white women, especially that carrying water for fascists, for white supremacy isn't ultimately gonna protect you. Your proximity to power is proximity, it's not power itself, and so stop doing it, be better, like you know.

Jennie 30:28

Yeah, and I mean she did so much damage within the Department of Justice that I think some of the like really big things that people see in like the Epstein files and things like obviously take a lot of the attention, but thinking through like the civil rights division and in the the various areas that she has really attacked, you know, the Justice Department not doing face violations anymore, except for Don Lemon, like... so much.

Jess 30:59

So much. And I feel bad for folks who had previously worked in that office. There are a lot of good lawyers who left the Department of Justice because it is such a mess there, and that just you know, it's very it is very like, you know, page two in the conservative playbook: break government and then tell everybody, see, government doesn't work. And so, she took a hammer to that department, and it's gonna take lifetimes probably to rebuild it. And in terms of the ability to build back any trust interdepartmentally across agencies, I think we're a long ways from that.

Jennie 31:48

Yeah, I mean, I really just feel that with just this administration in general, so much has been broken and destroyed. And can will it be built back? Can it be built back? And it will take so long for it to happen. As you know, I do a lot of work in the global space. So I mean, USAID is gone. There is no just bringing back those people or that organization and all of the amazing work that it was doing. And people are dying.

Jess 32:19

Yeah, and you know, generations of trust building in those communities, you know, because it's not like USA would come in and be like, and everybody would be like, sweet, you're here! There's relationship building, and once and once that happens, then we saw, I don't need to tell you, we saw great gains, but it's not sustainable for a couple more years.

Jennie 32:47

Okay, this has all felt really like bleak and dark. I mean, even the like fun Pam Bondi is gone, it's still like dark because it's like gonna probably be worse. What is something that is bringing you joy right now? Let's do that instead.

Jess 33:00

I'm out here in Denver, and if anybody has seen my social media in even the least bit, you will know that I am the Denver Summit FC's self-appointed super fan. We have a women's soccer team for the first time in a long, long, long, long time in this league. And went to the home opener with 63,000 of my closest friends at Mile High Stadium. It was a blast. So, like, really, that's amazing. I have given myself the challenge of going analog on my reading for 2026. As not that, no, no shame, no anything. Audiobooks are phenomenal, but I am really, as I told you before we started recording this, I am on a mission to slow myself down. Urgency serves authoritarians, and I will not participate in it. So that is my frame for 2026: your urgency is not my problem. And so, that's really something that I am finding joy in is taking some time. And yeah, women's soccer, go summit. I'm gonna like, it's all I'm gonna talk about.

Jennie 34:09

I was had great joy from, as you know, I went to the University of Wisconsin, University women's hockey team continuing their dominance with back-to-back championship. The men are in the Frozen Four right now. I guess we'll give them their props too, but I was just so excited to watch the women's hockey team after they had so many Badgers playing in the Olympics and winning gold and silver in the Olympics to see them then also win the National Championship was pretty amazing.

Jess 34:38

Oh, I love it. You I think you know I'm a Badger.

Jennie 34:41

Yes.

Jess 34:41

So I have my somewhere back there in my little like Tchotchkey spot, I have a chair from, you know, a little mock-up chair from Memorial Union. So, you know, it's love, love, love, love. And yeah, Madison, Wisconsin, such a great hockey town. I know everybody thinks football, but it's really, it's, you know, it's a good place.

Jennie 35:03

When I was young, when Wisconsin football was terrible, so they weren't like televised, so it was like a one o'clock game. We used to go to the Wisconsin football games and then had the Saturday hockey tickets.

Jess 35:17

Oh, yeah.

Jennie 35:18

And so we would do both in the same day. It was delightful.

Jess 35:20

What a great day in Madison!

Jennie 35:22

I know.

Jess 35:23

Can't beat it, so so good. I'm glad you're finding some some joy too. And always books. Like I am a huge reader, so like what are you reading right now?

Jennie 35:33

Okay, so I just finished the was it magic of small no, the teller of small fortunes or something like that. It's like a cozy fan. I have really fallen into the like cozy genre. So delightful.

Jess 35:47

I love it.

Jennie 35:48

But I just started the third Unselected Journals of Emma M. Lion. It's just so delightful. How about you?

Speaker 35:59

I love it. I love it, I love it. I am currently reading Melissa Auf der Maur's memoir. She's the former bass player for Smashing Pumpkins and Hole. So it's like a love letter to the 90s in particular. And it is just, it's an easy breezy read. I love music histories and memoirs, all of that kind of stuff. And so, that's it. Barbara Kingsolver's got a new novel coming out this year that I'm really excited about. She's my top author by far. And so anytime, you know, I can dig in. And so I'm gonna splurge for that in hardcover, those kinds of things. It's the little things.

Jennie 36:41

I've been trying so hard. My toxic habit is I really love buying books and like looking for like what's new and what I have. So my TBR is like so obscene, and I have I read a lot on- I have an iPad mini that I use for my e-reader, and there are so many already on there, but then Barnes Noble was having a 25% off pre-order sale, and I bought so many books.

Jess 37:09

It's good. It's g ood.

Jennie 37:11

I was gonna buy them anyway at some point.

Jess 37:13

Exactly. And support authors.

Jennie 37:14

Yes.

Jess 37:14

You're supporting authors, very important.

Jennie 37:18

Yes. So, I have those, and then I feel like someone said something about like, and then I have my trophy books, so the ones I love that are then on my bookshelves.

Jess 37:28

Yes, very much so. Oh, good. Well, we'll read through this dumpster fire at least.

Jennie 37:37

Yes. Okay. We always end with like: what can people do? So, what are you suggesting for people to do right now? Because with all of the court stuff, it just feels so like what can we do?

Jess 37:49

Well, I think if folks are concerned about the status of conversion therapy bans in their state as a result of child's, now is a great time to reach out to their lawmakers and say, hey, what you know, is our bill protected? What do you think? Can we make those protections tighter? Now is the time to really advocate for going the distance for LGBTQ kids in particular. So, there's that. As always, direct aid is the lifeline of, and particularly in fighting back against authoritarianism. So if you do have the ability to contribute to direct aid in some ways, whether it's food shelves, whether it's volunteer time, whether it's just money for rides, do that. People need that right now a lot. And you know, uh community is really the antidote to authoritarianism. And so finding ways to be in community, know your neighbors, it sounds really corny, but checking in on each other is a radical act right now.

Jennie 38:54

I love that. Well, Jess, as always, it was so much fun talking to you. Thank you for being here, and I'm sure we will talk again soon.

Jess 39:05

We will, and as always, thanks for having us and just stay safe out there, folks.

Jennie 39:10

Okay, y'all. I hope you enjoyed my conversation with Jess. I had so much fun talking to her as always. It was such a chaotic week, y'all. So much happened, and I'm glad that we had Jess on so that we could dig through some of it. And with that, I will see everybody next week. [music outro] If you have any questions, comments, or topics you would like us to cover, always feel free to shoot me an email. You can reach me at jennie@reprosfightback.com, or you can find us on social media. We're at rePROs Fight Back on Facebook and Twitter, or @reprosfb on Instagram. If you love our podcast and want to make sure more people find it, take the time to rate and review us on your favorite podcast platform, or if you want to make sure to support the podcast, you can also donate on our website at reprosfightback.com. Thanks all!