Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 390 | Kristi Noem Betrays Girls' Sports; the PRO Act Betrays Freelancers | Guest: Kelsey Bolar

Episode Date: March 23, 2021

Today we’re talking to Kelsey Bolar, senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum, about two important topics. First, South Dakota governor Kristi Noem’s decision to backtrack on legislation that would protect girls’ and women’s sports. This has disappointed many conservatives, wondering if she’s "sold out" to the NCAA. Then, Kelsey talks about the PRO Act, a piece of federal legislation that would make working as a freelancer or independent contractor unnecessarily difficult. It aims to bring California’s "ABC Test" to the national level, even after it has devastated that state’s gig economy.  --- Today's Sponsors: Patriot Mobile never sends any money to the Left - they will never silence you & they're America's ONLY Christian conservative wireless provider. Get free premiere activation where they set up the phone for you & a special gift ==> go to PatriotMobile.com/Allie & use promo code 'ALLIE'! ABC - Life in the Womb is a fun & educational alphabet book for kids to learn how babies grow & develop in their mother's womb. 40% of all proceeds go to pro-life pregnancy centers across the US! Find out more at LittleLifeStages.com. --- Past Episodes Mentioned: Ep 389: Anti-Asian Crimes & Our Obligation to the Truth https://apple.co/3rfMB7I Ep 387: What's a Woman? Culture's Confused; Christianity Is Clear https://apple.co/2NJeUxt --- Show Links: The Federalist: "Bowing to Corporate Demands For Watered-Down Bill, Gov. Krisi Noem Sells Out Women's Sports" (March 22, 2021) https://bit.ly/31816Qg South Dakota H.D. 1217: "Promote Continued Fairness in Women's Sports:" https://bit.ly/39bTTTQ The Federalist: "Democrats Want to Take California's Freelance Job Destruction National" (March 12, 2021) https://bit.ly/3cZ70c7 --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Tuesday. Hope everyone has had a wonderful week so far. If you haven't listened to yesterday's long episode, then I encourage you to do so. There is still a lot of conversation, a lot of vitriol right now and understandably a lot of sadness about the events in Atlanta last week. And we remember those victims and we remember the humanity that should always remain the center of these kinds of discussions. And we also talk about what is true behind these trends or what is being reported as a trend of anti-Asian hate crimes. There's a lot of accusations about that. And we look at the data. We look at the studies to see what is actually true. So I really encourage you to go listen to yesterday's episode if you need clarity on that. There's another huge crisis and controversy going on right now with what's happening at the border. You guys might have listened to last Thursday's podcast kind of giving us.

the explanation I interviewed an expert on this of what is actually going on with illegal immigration, with these migrants at the border. They're being transferred to different parts of Texas, different parts of the United States on the taxpayer dime, thousands and thousands being relocated and put into hotel rooms. And remember, the National Guard in January, when they were tasked with guarding the Capitol after the Capitol riot, we saw pictures of them being placing basically a parking garage without any beds sharing apparently one bathroom without any food or water. But now we are paying for illegal immigrants to be put up in hotel rooms and different convention centers around the country. And we talked about, again, how we approach this issue with compassion, but also how we have to look out for the safety of our citizens and how we have to protect our borders.

It is a humanitarian crisis that has been, it's lasted for a long time, but it's been exacerbated. by Biden's policies. We talk about how exactly it's been exacerbated by Biden's specific policies. Now there is basically a gag rule, it seems, for journalists. They're not allowed to, they're not allowed to have access to parts of the border. They're not allowed to talk to particular agents. They're really not allowed to see what's going on. And that is a demand. That is a command from the Biden administration, that they're basically not allowed to really report on what's going on at the border. I mean, if that were happening under Donald Trump, if the Trump administration basically said, hey, sorry, you can't have access to what's going on at the border, I mean, there would be so much outcry about fascism and about the concentration camps at the border. I mean, we've seen some pictures of these kids put in, again, what look like cages cramped. A lot more of them are there now than we're under Trump because, again, of Biden's policies.

It's just a terrible, terrible situation that's going on in the same people that said that they voted for Biden because of this, quote, holistically pro-life issue of kids in cages and wanting to protect migrants. They're not saying anything right now. They're not saying anything. The whole thing is just a farce. It was a farce, at least before the election. And it's very sad. But we'll be talking more about that in the coming days. But go back and listen to Thursday.

It gives a lot of insight today. What we're going to talk about is Governor Christy Noam of South Dakota. She has decided to backtrack on a piece of legislation. She said she was excited to sign it, but apparently she's not excited to sign it anymore, and it has to do with protecting girls' sports. And so we'll talk a little bit about why she has decided that she doesn't want to sign this bill anymore. And then we're also going to talk about a very important piece of legislation, and that is called the pro act.

The pro act would absolutely wreck our economy by making it nearly impossible for you to be a freelancer, to be an independent contractor. And we'll talk about how it actually stops most people who are freelancers from being freelancers and what that would actually mean for the country, what that would mean for you specifically if you are a freelancer. And so we'll get into all of that today. I'm going to talk to Kelsey Buller. she is a journalist, she is a commentator, she's got a lot of insight on both of those two issues.

But first, before I get into that interview, I do want to give you a little background about Christine Oam, the governor of South Dakota, and this bill, which is HB1217 and what her apparent hesitations are about this bill. So this is according to the Federalist, an article by Margot Cleveland. bowing to corporate demands for Watertown Bill, Governor Christy Noem sells out women's sports. So the article says, after promising to sign HB at 1217, Noam instead took to Twitter on Friday, March 19th, to state why she had changed her mind and instead returned to the bill to legislators for modifications.

Noam elaborated on her reasoning in a letter to legislators. She balked on signing House Bill 1217. The article says, when the bill to promote fairness in women's sports crossed her. desk instead of vetoing the legislation, she returned the bill to the house with what she called recommendations as to style and form. So she is still saying, look, I believe that women's sports should be protected. They should be exclusively for women. But there's just some part to this bill that I just don't think are great. But critics of Noem, conservative critics of Noam are saying, your changes, your proposed changes are actually a lot bigger than just style and form.

You're actually kind of hollowing out this bill so it doesn't really really. protect women's sports. And let me give you some examples of that. So there are four sections of this bill. The article explains it is finalized by the South Dakota legislature section one of HB1217, provided that athletic teams in sports in the state, including at institutions of higher education must be expressly designated as male, female, or co-education. It also stipulated that teams or sports designed as female must be available only to participants who are female based on their biological sex. In other words, section one demanded schools, including colleges, limit women's sports to women. If an education institution violated that mandate and allowed a male student to join a

female team, Section 4 provides that a female athlete injured by that violation could sue the school and obtain an injunction to prevent a continued violation and damages to remedy the harm, which makes sense. This is how it is protecting women in sports. But Nolam asked the South Dakota legislature to admit Section 1 so that the bill applied only to elementary and high school student athletes while then denying those students any remedy for violations of the law. So not only did she say, hey, I don't want this to actually apply to colleges. But even though it's applying, even as it applies to elementary and high school student athletes, I don't want them to be able to have any legal recourse. I don't want them to be able to sue the students. So if you're asking yourself what protection is.

does this actually give if these amendments are made? That's a good question to be asking. Noem requested the legislature strike section two of the bill, which would have required students to annually verify their age biological sex based on genetics and reproductive biology and attest that they had not taken performance-enhancing drugs, including anabolic steroids, in the preceding 12 months. The most striking changes Noam demanded came in her insistence that the legislature strike collegiate athletes from the bill's protection and eliminate section 4's promise of a remedy to girls and women harmed in a violation of the bill or who were retaliated against four complaining about violations of the law. Section 4 added a second

protection for South Dakota student athletes. It also protected students from retaliation if they report violations of the act to a school representative athletic association or a state or federal governmental entity with oversight authority. Thus, for instance, if a female basketball player complained to an athletic department that a coach had allowed a male athlete to join her team and the school responded by banning the complaining student from school-sponsored sports. The female student would be entitled to sue for the school for retaliation. But in sending the bill back to the state legislature, Noam made two requests related to these interrelated provisions.

She excluded collegiate athletes from the bill's coverage and then directed the legislature to strike or delete section four in its entirety. And so basically any protection that this bill tried to provide women in sports, she wanted to change. She wanted to take out. And I am flabbergasted by that. If you look at the actual change, if you look at the actual legislation, which we will link to, and you look to the changes that she wanted to propose, basically it makes this piece of legislation meaningless. And if you're wondering why that is, I'm going to talk about it with Kelsey Boller, but it has a lot to do probably with the NCAA and wanting tournaments to be able to come to South Dakota. It's,

It, you know, helps the economy. It's a money thing. Now, she denies this. Tucker Carlson pressed her on this last night. And I'll show you just a snippet of that. When they took punitive action against us, we would have to litigate. And legal scholars that I have been consulting with for many, many months say that I would very likely lose those litigation efforts. And I don't think that families in South Dakota, I don't think that people should have to sue many times over and over again.

But wait, wait, so you're saying the NCAA threatened you and you don't think you can win that fight. They said if you sign this, we won't allow girls in South Dakota to play. And you don't think you can win in court, even though the public overwhelmingly supports you nationally. And so you're caving to the NCAA. I think that's what you're saying. So we couldn't play the whole clip. But on the one hand, she says, okay, this has to do with, I don't think that this piece of legislation is going to be able to legally hold up. And I just don't think it's, we're going to be able to legally hold up.

And I just don't think we're going to be able to defend it in court. But she also says, look, we want tournaments to come to South Dakota. So which one is it? Is it that you don't want to fight the legal battles? Or is it because you want the tournaments to come to South Dakota or both? In either case, is it really not worth the fight? And that's what we're going to analyze with Kelsey Bowler in just a second. She's got a lot of good insight for us into this bill and the implications of not signing the bill.

And also possibly the why behind Governor Kristy Nome. deciding not to sign it. Kelsey, thank you so much for joining me. A couple things I want to talk to you about today. The first is Governor Christine Noam, South Dakota. She has disappointed some conservatives by not signing a bill that would ban boys identifying as transgender girls from girls' athletics. Can you tell us what this is, what's going to?

on and why she won't sign this bill? Absolutely. Well, thanks for having me. It's great to be here. This is a really important issue. And to be frank, I am quite disappointed by Governor Nome in her decision to send this bill back that would protect fairness in women's and girls' sports back to the legislator for proposed changes. Now, look, perhaps there were some quibbles. Perhaps there are some legitimate concerns that she is raising. The problem is that she's been in politics for quite some time. And she knows enough that if she had changes to this bill, she should have raised them earlier and worked with members in her state Congress to get the bill in a position where she would be ready to sign it. If protecting

Girls and Women's Sports was really her priority. She could have and should have addressed any of these proposed changes earlier. Now, let's get into what these proposed changes are and whether they are legitimate. So one of the changes she wants to do is remove protections for college sports, but keep protections for K through 12 sports. Now, I'm glad she's keeping protections for K through 12 sports, But to emphasize those over protections for college athletics is backwards because when is this issue more important other than protecting the scholarships that are supposed to be meant for girls and women at the college level? You know, girls aren't getting scholarships for their fifth grade soccer team.

And that's the real danger here that women are going to be stripped of their college athletic scholarship opportunities because they are being beat out by biological boys who are identifying as girls. So it should be very concerning that she removed that provision in the law. And that is why a lot of critics right now are pointing out that it sounds like she's selling out to the NCAA and other woke corporate interests, which were lobbying against this legislation. That is part of the reason why I am personally disappointed in her decision because if Trump changed anything in our political landscape, he sort of ripped the Band-A off and was the first leader to say, I am not bowing to these woke corporations anymore. I am not going to fear a lawsuit from the NCAA and use that as an excuse not to take a stand for. for issues I believe in.

So she really believes in the need to protect girls and women's sports. You would think that she wouldn't let the fear of lawsuits intimidation by the NCAA or Amazon, which is building facilities in her backyard, enable her to turn her back on this legislation. Now, right, go ahead. Well, I just want to quickly bring up the second piece. of this legislation that's kind of being debated, you know, does she, is her criticism legitimate? She took away legal recourse for girls who are forced to compete against biological boys.

And then this means like in Connecticut where in college, is this like strictly in college? She said, okay, you can't sue a college for this reason? Well, the problem is she's taking out the protections for colleges. So how are you going to sue on those grounds? women's sports isn't protected in colleges. So this really now applies to K through 12. So in Connecticut, you know, we have already had biological boys beating out girls on the girls track team there. And this takes away the ability of someone like a Selena soul to bring a lawsuit and, you know, fight for her fairness. So so are, okay, so she is saying, like she's saying on the one hand that she's protecting

K through 12 girls' sports, but she's saying if a school decides, okay, actually this boy who identifies as a girl can play on the sixth grade soccer team, that girl's parents, according to the changes that Governor Noah made cannot sue. Is that what you're saying? Right. So how effective can this law be if they don't have the ability to pursue damages? And just to be fair to her, some legal experts are saying, you know, maybe this opens the door for trial lawyers and a lot of unnecessary lawsuits. But a lot of others argue that, no, this provision is necessary in order for this law to have teeth. So again, if this was a legitimate concern she had, she could have and should have raised it earlier. Yes. And it's just there are so many different, there's so many different pieces to this.

because like you said, it seems like she's selling out to the NCAA. She did go on Tucker Carlson last night to her credit to try to kind of like defend herself on this. And Tucker said, okay, it looks like you're selling out to the NCAA. And she said, no, no, no, I'm not doing that. It has nothing to do with that. I'm not allowing them to bully me. But what else could possibly be the reason? Because she also explicitly said in that interview, hey, we want tournaments to come here.

We want tournaments to come to South Dakota. So my question is, what is it? Is it because you don't think that this has enough, like, it's not legally substantive enough to hold up in court? Or is it a money issue? Is it because you're afraid that the NCAA isn't going to bring their tournaments there? And in either case, is that really worth not protecting girls sports? But now she is doing this whole kind of like PR move, it seems, to, you know, she's trying to, you know, she's trying to get people together and say, we're for fairness in girls sports and please sign this petition.

What's that about? I'm kind of confused about what seems like conflicting messages. Ali, the petition aspect of this is really salt in the womb. What she did after backtracking on this legislation is create this website about a petition to protect Title IX and protect women's and girl sports. While a petition is kind of meaningless, I hate to admit that, but it is. We have a national figure who was in a position to actually do something that would protect girls and women's sports, and she backed down. She was unwilling to be the face of that issue.

She was unwilling to take the bullets, which inevitably would have come. But in doing so, she really, you know, kind of exposed herself to, you know, the entire country as someone who is willing to sell out to the NCAA and Amazon and other type of lobbyists who we know were pressuring her. This petition is calling for Republican governors or any governors across the country to ban together to stand up to the NCAA and ensure that girls and women sports are protected girls and women. But again, she could have done that she could have been the national leader in South Dakota by actually, you know, passing signing legislation that would have protected girls and women sports. And now she's out

there promoting a petition that sounds nice, but doesn't really do anything. I don't disagree with her that we do need a national coalition. We need more states that are doing the same thing as her. And there are around 30 other bills similar to this one in South Dakota across the country to protect girls and women's sports. She could have been a national figure, sort of how Ron DeSantis wasn't Florida leading on reopening and stuff. She could have been a face for this issue. As a woman, I was excited about that prospect. And unfortunately, she's saying, no, I'm not willing or able to do this until I have others surrounding me. Right. What's also interesting is that She did just a day ago.

And I mean, I don't want to be cynical and say this probably has to do with trying to like take attention away from what happened with the women's sports legislation. But she did announce an abortion ban on World Down Syndrome Day. And so I think that this ban has to do with not being able to get an abortion just because you get the diagnosis that your child has down syndrome. Well, that is probably going to present some legal. obstacles as well. She's probably, this is going to be brought to court, but she's willing to fight this battle, which is amazing. As a pro-life person, I'm so glad that she's willing to fight this battle. But why is it, I wonder, when it comes to women's sports, something that I believe that she probably is passionate about. I believe that she believes that women's sports are for women. It seems like

she's complicated it, though, for some reason in a way that she is not worried about when it comes to abortion legislation. And I've just got to think it has to do with exactly what you're talking about, the NCAA and making money and not, I guess, wanting to make a statement on this issue. We also know that the LGBTQ lobby is very powerful. And so we don't know what's behind that too, but it really is a shame. Because if she's not going to stand up for this, then who is? Like, do we have a whole lot of politicians, governors standing up for this issue in a way that is brave? Or is it just people like you and me that are talking about it? Well, I think other governors across the country are now recognizing what an opportunity this is to fight the culture war and stand up and be a face for that.

And, you know, again, I think this was a huge misopportunity on her part. Sure, she would have faced, you know, financial consequences potentially in her state, but the grassroots would have had her back. The vast majority of Americans, according to multiple polls I've seen on this issue, support protecting fairness in girls and women's sports. It's a basic idea. We all know that men and women are biologically, physically different from one another. and it is patently unfair for a biological boy to take a scholarship opportunity away from a biological girl to compete in her own sports.

And so the abortion example is kind of exposes why a lot of people aren't buying into her excuse for not signing this bill. We can't have leaders who will refuse to put into place policy. that the vast majority of their voters support simply because they fear political or legal retribution by woke organization bodies such as the NCAA. Yeah. I saw one commentator on Twitter say that this is not only about girls sports. It's just about basic sanity. Like you said, biologically, girls and boys are different.

We had an episode last week where we talked about some of the studies, one by Duke Law School, for example, that talked about the differences between men and women, and they looked at track stars, Olympic track stars, women versus high school and college age and adult men. The Olympic track stars were beat by high school boys when it comes to their time on certain track events, like 15,000 times. There was no event in which these elite female runners could beat the best time for high school and college age boys when it comes to track. And so when you look at that kind of disparity, of course, the military has done these kinds of studies as well. I mean, it's just basic sanity.

And I think I know I'm not in her position and thank goodness, I'm not a politician, but I think it's worth the cost. And gosh, it could have just given her so much political capital as well. But I think that she has kind of thrown that under the bus. But we'll see what happens. I do want to move on to this next issue. That is a piece of federal legislation, and that is called the Pro Act. And I first heard about this from you, from an article that you wrote in the Federalist, and I'm worried, I'm really worried about it. And I know a lot of people out there, this could possibly affect them as freelancers as independent contractors. So can you talk to us about what that is? Absolutely. So the Pro Act, the protecting the right to

organized act is a federal piece of legislation already passed by Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives that is modeled after legislation that was already enacted in California called AD5. I want to first note that the Pro Act goes earlier than AB5 in the fact that it also includes a lot of pro-union provisions. This means that the right-to-work laws that have passed in a number of different states now would essentially be gutted. Workers would be forced to hand over private information to their union. So that aspect of this legislation is problematic enough. That's for another podcast, another time. But it's interesting when you hear the left endorse the pro act, talk about the pro act, including President Joe Biden, who issued a

bringing endorsement of this legislation. He makes no mention of the problems that I'm about to bring up that directly would impact the livelihoods of anyone across this country who works in an independent contractor or freelance gig. Those two independent contractors and freelancers essentially are the same thing in the legal ways when we talk about this legislation. So the Pro Act would force the vast majority of American workers who work as independent contractors or freelancers to work as formal employees, regardless of whether they prefer that type of arrangement or whether they prefer the independent contractor status. So let me tell you how this bill actually works and then we can get into the motivations behind it. So this bill would

nationalize what's called the ABC test. The ABC test is infamous in California and is used to determine if a worker should be classified as an independent contractor. The standard establishes that a worker is an employee unless she meets three criteria. A, is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity. B performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business and C is engaged in trade occupation or business of the same nature. So the B-prong is what has proved to be so problematic in California to the point that it is devastated the gig economy. Multiple carve-outs have had to be addressed to give special exemptions to different sectors of California's freelance economy. This bill did not work in California.

Lawmakers have backtracked on it, passing cleanup legislation. And yet lawmakers want to take it nationwide. It really makes no sense, but it does make a lot of sense why Democrats in promoting it make no mention of the impact it would have on freelance and independent contractors. So let me give an example of why this B-prong is so problematic. And can you restate the B-prong just in case people might have forgotten? So performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business. So if you perform work that is outside of the usual course of the hiring entity's business, you cannot be hired as a freelance worker or an independent contractor.

So this is a real life example. This is a woman who I've gotten to know over. the past year who has been devastated by AB5 in California. She lives outside San Diego. Her name is Monica Wyman. She's a Hispanic mother and she's also a florist. She did not have any higher education. She really struggled to find any sort of work after taking time off to raise her young kids. She eventually found work in a local flower shop and decided to be an entrepreneur and start her own flower business designing floral arrangements for weddings and other special events. This was, she had a lot of success for this and she began hiring fellow moms who couldn't or

didn't want to take on a full-time job. Right. But they did want to contribute to their family's income. and, you know, fulfill their lives with a side gig, such as helping to design flower arrangements. So she hired them as freelancers. But because of AB5, she's now being forced to shut down her business because of that B-prong. These freelance workers do not perform tasks that is outside the usual course of her business. So just to clarify, B-prong says that in order for you to qualify as an independent contractor, you do have to be providing services that the business that hired you is not typically

providing. So for example, if I were an independent contractor for a Blaze TV, I'm hosting a podcast. I probably wouldn't qualify under this as an independent contractor because this is kind of what Blaze TV does. They do media. They do podcast. They do podcasts. and things like that. And so I probably wouldn't be able to say maybe if I were like a freelance plumber or something like that coming in, I would qualify as a freelancer. But because I'm doing something that is within the scope of what Blaze TV does, I wouldn't qualify under this B-prong as a freelancer. This would force the Blaze to, you know, hire me as a full-time employee. That's what, that's what you're saying, correct? Exactly. And this already happened in California.

with Vox, which ironically was touting the legislation before it went into effect. Vox had a bunch of freelance writers based in California who would contribute from time to time and make a decent amount of income. But AB5 in California, not only did this B-prong, you know, not work out for these freelance writers, but they also kept the number of articles, these freelance writers. were allowed to submit for any one organization. And so Vox had to let go of hundreds of freelance writers in California, which of course was devastating for them to the point that, you know, these writers actually lobbied for their own special carveout from AB5 in California

so that they wouldn't have to operate under AB5 and lose those opportunities. There have been a number of industries similar to freelance writers who have successfully lobbied for these exemptions in California to the point that very sadly, it's the less influential industries that have been left out that didn't have all the money to spend on expensive lobbying campaigns. They didn't have the political connections. You know, writers could use their voice to push back against this law selfishly. They only got carve outs for themselves. They didn't get it for everyone in California. And even worse, now they're enabling this law to spread to the entire country through the pro act. So this could be absolutely devastating for so many independent contractors, many of whom are working moms who would rather prioritize their caregiving responsibilities, you know, not always just for children,

but for their aging parents. There are so many reasons. that Americans prefer not to go after a traditional W-2 job and need that side income, but can only work certain hours or only want to work certain hours. You know, I view it as an attack on the American dream, quite frankly. Yeah. The ability to work for yourself. Right. And I also think if we get into the why behind it, of course,

what's being said, I'm sure what was said in California and what is being said right now is that this protects the American worker. This makes sure that you get benefits because they, Democrats almost cast freelancing is something that people fall into. They don't want to be there. But that's actually not true. I think that it was you that said in your article that 70% at least of freelancers are voluntarily freelancers. Like they might be able to get a traditional job and employee job, but they don't want to. They like the flexibility. They like the income. They like the freedom of being a freelancer. And now Democrats are saying, well, no, like, you deserve access to a union. You deserve benefits. And so we're going to force your employer to actually,

or we're going to force the person who hired you as a freelancer to make you an employee. Well, that's not going to be the result. The result is going to be these companies saying, well, I'm not going to hire you as an employee. I can't afford to. I'm going to have to pay you a different salary. I'm going to have to provide benefits for you. And I just can't afford that. So what this is going to lead to is not freelancers all of a sudden getting hired by these companies and getting benefits and a higher salary and access to a union. It's going to be that they're going to be out of work because these companies aren't going to be able to afford to hire full time all of these people who are currently functioning as independent contractors.

That is like what you said, exactly what happened in California. That's what's going to happen on a national scale. And I'm guessing the why behind it is because Democrats want more people paying union dues. They want more union power because the Democratic Party is backed by the unions. Is that like, is that an okay assessment of the why behind it, the stated why and then possibly the actual why? Yes, I'm going to get into the why, but what you just said brings me full circle to the Monica Wyman example that I mentioned earlier, where she did not have enough income to provide traditional

benefits to the freelance moms she used to rely on to run her business. Now that she can't hire these freelance moms to help her, she cannot fulfill the orders for floral arrangements for weddings by herself. She also, by the way, has a health condition where she's physically unable to do some of the installment of these floor arrangements at weddings, for example. So her business relied on the support of her fellow freelance moms to run. She did not have enough income to provide them the benefits that AB5 in California required. And so now she's out of work. She's shutting down her business.

And the fellow moms who she used to hire are also out of work. work. I just want to pause just one second because I think sometimes, you know, our progressive friends, when they think about a company refusing to, refusing to, you know, take on full-time employees and just keeping independent contractors or when they think about the hesitants of business owners raising the minimum wage, they think about these greedy millionaires, these greedy rich people who just don't want to help out the common man. They just, they don't want to raise the minimum wage because they're greedy. No, what we're talking about are small business owners who just like everyone else are trying to make ends meet. And the people that

they're hiring are also trying to make ends meet. So when you pass a bill like this or when you raise the minimum wage arbitrarily to $15, you're not hurting the rich millionaires. I mean, they can take it. They'll figure it out. They'll automate who you're hurting are these small business owners who are just trying to provide for their families, right? Right. And the freelance moms that Monica used to hire never asked for these benefits. They chose to work for her. Right. And it's just devastating. And there's just countless of these types of examples in California. It says a lot that lawmakers on the national level, again, are not talking about the impact that the Pro Act could have on freelance workers and small businesses nationwide. Because the consequences of those are looming in their own backyards, out in California where they actually enacted this type of legislation. I agree with you the motivations behind the Pro Act are to empower the unions. That's who's endorsing them. And, you know, it sounds a bit cynical, but, you know, the unions have lost a lot of power

and a lot of money over the past couple years. And you have to think, who stands to benefit from a legislation like this? It is the unions. They are the only, ones who stand to benefit. Poll after poll tells us the vast majority of freelance workers choose to work that way by choice. They're not asking for these benefits. They are getting them in other ways, whether that's through their husbands, whether that's through private organizations, whether that's through faith-based organizations. So it is the unions who stand to benefit. And this law, I have a lot of friends who work in freelance that have nothing to do with politics. They don't love talking politics with me.

And I have a hard time communicating with them about the dangers this legislation poses to their entire way of life. It would fundamentally transform the way Americans are allowed to work in this country. It would change your life overnight if you are a freelance worker who relied on a contract you had from, you know, a company that all of a sudden would be forced to comply with this law and could no longer keep that contract with you. It could have the effect of forcing you into a traditional nine to five job that a lot of Americans, specifically a lot of women don't want. Right. We are moving towards a more flexible workplace, which is especially impactful. for working moms to balance the priorities of being a caregiver and also keeping their foot in the door. The left constantly talks about wanting to keep, you know, increase women's labor participation

rates. Well, this legislation would make it more difficult to do that because it would force women and all Americans, for that matter, into an all or nothing position of you either work a traditional nine to five union job or you don't work at all. Or you rely on a. single income if you're married or which would dramatically change a lot of people's life. A lot of people make a good, you know, at least side income being a freelancer. If you no longer have that income and you say, you know what, I can't do a nine to five job. I don't want my kids to, you know, go to daycare. I want to be at home.

Then you rely on your husband's salary, which might be fine. But you might have to dramatically change where you live, you know, what your age. to actually afford, like you said, your entire way of life. What do you think the likelihood is of this passing? Of course, we would think that Republicans would be against it, that it wouldn't pass the Senate. But, you know, I never know. Sometimes Republicans just disappointing, disappoint me. Disappoint me. They surprised me. And so I guess I'm worried about this. I'm worried as well. So it was passed in the House already. The vast majority of Democrats supported it, but a small handful of Republicans also voted in favor of it. And so that should be concerning for it heading to the Senate where, you know, it's tied. And then Mala Harris would be the tiebreaker vote. We know that the Biden administration endorsed this legislation. Look, Joe Biden is supposed to hold his first press conference this. week. I know it's a pipe dream, but I really hope at some point he or his administration is

asked about the potential consequences of the pro act on freelance and independent workers because it would fundamentally transform the way Americans are allowed to work. And we're not just talking in hypotheticals here. Yeah. We have real examples from the state of California, which is liberal utopia that tell us this law did not work for, independent contractors there. Why does anybody think in that case that it would work nationwide? Yeah. You also have to wonder, and I know this is like especially cynical, but we talked about getting people out of the home, getting parents out of the home who would like to have that freelancing job or, you know, like they like that flexibility. You have to wonder if it also has to do

with that. Is it a desire from like a cultural standpoint to have more parents? And, working full time and to be able to lobby for other things like universally subsidized daycare and things like that. I mean, I know that might be seeming to go a little bit far, but when you think about the implications of that, taking more moms out of the home, which is exactly what's going to happen, you have to wonder if that's part of the motivation or maybe if that's just an unintended consequence. I don't know. It's safe to say it's an unintended consequence. I don't doubt, you know, it's part of the larger push by the left because, yes, if you force women out of, you know, work from home options where they have contracts that they're doing the work, you know, while taking care of their children at home, you know, they're forced to find those child care options. And hey, free daycare sounds pretty nice, right? Of course, it's not free. We're actually paying for it. And in effect, don't have much control over the quality of that daycare. But that's exactly. what would happen. And I really fear that freelance workers are going to wake up to the consequences

of this law too late like they did in California. You know, everybody passed this and liberals in California were very excited. You know, this is going to empower workers, get them more benefits. And within the first month, freelance workers realized that's not what has happened here. Instead, we've lost jobs all together. And so I don't doubt, if this legislation ever does pass and get signed into law, that it would receive so much pushback that eventually changes would have to be made. But I do not want to see that happen to all these freelance workers whose incomes would be wiped away overnight. So if you know any freelance workers, independent contractors who stand to be impacted by this legislation,

you know, we really need to have a conversation with them about its potential impacts. Because again, choosing the way you want to work, when you want to work, who you want to work for should be a fundamental right that we all have. And this legislation would take that away. Absolutely. Well, thank you so much for laying that out so clearly in both of these issues. Everyone can follow you on Instagram and Twitter, correct? And anywhere else that they can follow or support you? Absolutely. At Kelsey Bowler on both those platforms. And they can also follow. me by signing up for a bright email on get bright email.com. It's a morning newsletter for women by women. I have a feeling that your fan base would have a lot of fun with it. Yeah, for sure. Well, thank you so much, Kelsey. I really appreciate you taking the time to talk to us. Thank you. All right. So that pro act, guys, I just want to emphasize to you how important it is for you to call

your senator. Even if you're not a freelancer, this is going to have devastating. effects on our economy after a time that our economy has already been devastated by these arbitrary lockdowns. People have already suffered so much, especially freelancers, have suffered so much because a lot of people aren't paying for the freelance services that they were previously because they're trying to save their own money. Freelancers have had a tough go of it in some cases over the past year. And so if you care about anyone who is a freelancer, if you care about the American dream, if you care about entrepreneurship. If you care about the reason why one million immigrants come here every year to be able to have the freedom and flexibility to start their own business and to be able to

build a life here for their families that they couldn't have built from the country where they came, then you should care about this bill. I mean, this dramatically transforms our economy and not in a good way. And if liberals in California, we're complaining about it, we're complaining that this hurt their lives, then you know it's not good. But again, Democrats want to put it on a national scale. They want it to be national so they can get that power from the unions. And I also think it has to do with wanting to change culture and wanting to change families as well. And so this is a bill that you absolutely have to push back on it. It's not one that people are going to be talking about because it doesn't talk about, I don't know what other adjective to use, but it doesn't talk about

like these sexy topics that we talk about a lot that, you know, get a lot of attention or, are, you know, necessarily clickable or will go viral. It's not a cultural issue. It doesn't seem like, but it is so important. I mean, this affects people's lives. This will affect all of our lives, but especially freelancers. I guarantee you, every one of you knows a freelancer that you care about whose life would be directly and negatively impacted by something like this. I encourage you to read the legislation for yourself if you have any questions about it. But call your senator. Make sure that your senator is voting against this bill.

Again, whether it's Republican or Democrat, this is a very bipartisan issue. It really, again, does it have one of those like wedge social issues in there? Yes, Democrats are going to support it because of the unions. but if you live in West Virginia, maybe, for example, or if you live, or if Chris in Cinema is your senator in Arizona, you might be able to push them over the edge on this. So just make sure that you are reaching out to your senators, you're emailing, your calling, and you're stating your opposition to this bill in a very, you know, kind, respectful, and thoughtful way. And just make sure that they feel the pressure.

Because remember, these representatives work for you. the senators work for you. So push back on the pro act. It is so important. All right, that's all I've got for today. We'll see you guys back here tomorrow.