The Daily Beast Podcast - This ‘Terrifying’ Court Case Could Change Abortion Access - Again

Episode Date: February 21, 2023

On this week’s episode of The New Abnormal, Mini Timmaraju, who is the president of  NARAL Pro-Choice America talks about a court case that has implications for the nation. Plus, The Lever’s Julia Rock gives us some less discussed details of the Ohio train derailment. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi, I'm Andy Levy, former Fox News and CNN-HLN guy, and current cable news conscientious objector. I'm a former libertarian who now sits pretty comfortably on the left. Hi, I'm Danielle Moody, former educator and recovering lobbyist. But today, I'm an unapologetic, woke commentator on America's threats to democracy. And I'm producer Jesse Cannon, and I'm here to make sure things don't go too far off the rails. We're here to have fun, smart conversations with some of the most knowledgeable and entertaining people in politics, media, and beyond. Our goal is to try and make sense of our current crazy world, our new abnormal, and hopefully even make you laugh through the tears. What an excellent show we have today.

First, we're going to us talk to Minit Timurajou, and she's going to talk to us about the latest threat to abortion pills nationwide. Then we'll talk to Eric M. Conway, the author of The Big Myth, how American business taught us to loathe government and love the free market. But first, let's have some fun. Danielle, President Donald Trump is a demonic force, a destroyer, but he's not going to destroy us. You agree? No, I'm pretty sure he's going to destroy us, Andy. But... Okay, well, those were the words of one Tucker Carlson. But you may know as a host on Fox News, I believe it's the number one rated show on cable news. So on Friday, a whole bunch of juicy texts and emails and what have you from Fox News people were released as part of the lawsuit

that Dominion Voting Systems has against them. And boy, it is just a... treasure trove of examples of outright lying. And so I'm not talking here about shading the truth or only presenting one side of things or being biased. I'm talking outright lying. There's no other word for it. We saw message after message from Fox News stars about how they did not agree that the election was stolen, that they thought that various guests they were having on were bat-shit crazy. And yet they put them on anyway. And we saw quote after quote about how this was all about ratings and money. We saw a quote from Tucker Carlson about how they were losing viewers to Newsmax because Newsmax was being perceived as more pro-Trump and that stock prices were going down because of stuff like this.

It is truly unbelievable. This came out on Friday and immediately we saw some people saying, oh, we already knew that. And it's like, no, we knew that. in quotes, but this is them saying it. And that's a huge difference. This is them in black and white, straight up admitting that they lie for a living and that they basically detest their viewers, but at the same time, understand that they have to cowtow to their viewers. To me, it was just jaw-dropping, just one revelation after another of how they just blatantly lie and admit that they blatantly lie. You know, on one hand, I agree with folks who are just like, but we've known this.

Because any sane person that is aware of how Fox News works and what they've been doing and how they've been able to create a multi-billion dollar empire is very aware of what it is that they're doing. They've created an alternative universe with alternative facts. It is something else, though, to see text messages in black and white from the likes of Tucker Carlson talking about Donald Trump in the way that the rest of us talk about Donald Trump, but for him, it's good for ratings. For him, it's good for whatever stock options he has in Fox. For him, it means more viewers.

And so what I think is amazing about this case, though, is that this could be potentially groundbreaking. This could be what finally brings down Fox. Now, we know that they have decided, after Rupert Murdoch was supposed to be making his last deal as the evil puppeteer behind Fox was supposed to re-merge News Corp and Fox News back together, but then decided that he wasn't going to do it. The shareholders didn't want it. He was pushing for it anyway. And this could be one of the reasons why. This lawsuit is $1.6 billion. And the fact is that you have all of these text messages,

all of this evidence that goes to show that these people knew exactly what they were saying when they went on air. This isn't like an, oh, we didn't know that the coronavirus was a thing. We didn't know that Donald Trump didn't win the election. Like, we're just reporting on the facts. They knew what they were doing. They have it in black and white. And I'm like, and if you don't bring down an entity like Fox News, then what the fuck are we doing? Do you know what I'm saying? Like, It's similarly how I feel about Merrick Garland, the Justice Department, and Donald Trump altogether. It's like if this is not the case that you bring to bring down a criminal-ass president,

then just say that everybody can do whatever the fuck they want. And we don't have any laws. Yeah. No, it's truly unbelievable. So many examples involving Sidney Powell, who was a lawyer and Trump ally. People kept referring to her as the Cracken and saying they're going to release the Cracken and all this stuff. So Maria Bartaromo, who I know it's hard for people to believe, was one sort of a respected business reporter. She had Sidney Powell on to talk about all the voting

irregularities with Dominion software, that there was fraud. And then Barteromo tells lawyers under oath that Powell's source was nonsense. Sean Hannity did the same thing, had her on to talk about it. And then, according to these legal documents, Hannity already knew that it was quote unquote obvious that Powell's allegations were false. He referred to her as an effing lunatic. And these are the people that as they were saying this, they were having these people on the air and giving them credence and giving them, I don't want to say respectability because it's Fox News, but the veneer of respectability and pretending like they respected them. All because they knew it's what their viewers wanted to hear, which of course is what you want

in a news channel. You want the anchors to just be telling people what they want to hear as opposed to, you know, the news. So it is absolutely incredible. And look, I agree with you. I'm, I'm cynical about the ultimate effect of this, but I'm cynical about everything. And as always, I have to sort of qualify my cynicism by saying I would be happy to be wrong. And this is just like, look, I worked there for 12 years. I know some of the shit that went on behind the scenes. But I have to say, to the extent that I knew anything, it was not like this at that time. It was bad, but it wasn't like this. Andy, let me ask you this then, right? Like, what do you think happened? This type of quote unquote journalism, this type of TV, you know, four ratings, four clicks, clickbait, all of that

has been the way for well over a decade. So what is it? Was it just Donald Trump? Like, what do you think just gave them the permission to be the absolute worst and like make bank? I think so. As one example, before Trump got elected, I was there when Trump got elected. In the run-up during the primary season and the general election season, Lou Dobbs used to have me on his show every week. And he loved me. And I would go on that show and make fun of Trump. I would make fun of people who like Trump and talk about how, you know, there was a strain of conservatism that needed a daddy figure. and I would just openly mock stuff like that. And he got a huge kick out of it.

And I will say when I left Fox and I asked to be let out of my contract, I wasn't fired or anything like that. He came up to me and said, can't you stay? I want you to stay. I cannot imagine the Lou Dobbs post-Trump being like that. And that to me is like just a small example of how they just went completely over to the dark side. And again, it's not that it wasn't leaning there before that.

it's not that it came out of the blue. But my God, it is just the way it is now. And what we saw from these statements in the lawsuit, it didn't feel like that back then. You know, it felt bad, especially towards the end once Trump got elected. That's when I sort of looked around. I think I had a year and a half left on my contract. I was just like, man, I don't need to be here anymore. And I can't go on these shows. Like even during the Obama era, when they were clearly anti-O Obama and there were people that said horrible things, it's almost like there were. was a line. And I'm not saying the line was in the right place, but there was still a line. And the line just got erased. It got completely erased. And if anything, it went the other way, as we see

from these documents, where the line then became, oh, well, we can't be too honest. It wasn't a question of what lies can we get away with. It's like, we need bigger lies. So it really is sort of unbelievable what's happened there. It's just wild to me that these people go on air every single day and lie to tens of millions of people. Like the reason why folks decided to go to the Capitol on January 6th isn't just because of Donald Trump's tweet. It was reinforced through Fox News. A quarter of the nation did not get vaccinated because of Fox News, because they believed whatever Q&on bullshit lie that Fox News was taken, repackaging, and spin. And And so people died.

Like people have died. And so the fact that this is just like a defamation lawsuit to me. And it's not like a criminal lawsuit against this company is wild. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm like, people have lost their lives because they believe the shit that comes out of Fox News. It's not entertainment for them. They're not turning this on like they turn on fucking law and order or Nickelodeon or the cooking channel. They turn on Fox because they believe the people. that are sitting down in front of these fucking cameras and telling them like about the world

around them. It's sort of the equivalent of nailing Al Capone through the taxes, I think. It's sort of like, you know, oh, they got them from the bookkeeping. And with Fox, it's like, oh, we got you from your emails and you text. Like it's, you know, there's sort of a similar thing here. Look, it's almost impossible to legally prove. I don't disagree with anything you just said, But the First Amendment sort of wouldn't let you hold Fox News legally accountable for January 6th and stuff like that. So you got to go after them in different ways if you can, if they have broken any laws or whatever. And it does look here like, you know, again, not a lawyer, but Danielle, you pointed out before we went on air that Lawrence Tribe, tell us what he said. I mean, he basically has said that like if there ever was a case, right?

Like, you're to your point. defamation is something, it is really hard to prove what people knew when they knew it. And he's like, but when you look at these text messages, when you see that what these people said in one space, when they're off air and then all of the footage, all of the things that they've said when they're on air, they know what they were doing. And he's like, outside of that, like, this could change journalism. This could change how we see news outlets and how accountable they can be to what essentially comes out of their mouths and rightfully so. So we'll follow this and see where it goes.

But like if there was ever a case, basically Lawrence Tribe said, this is it. Yeah. It is kind of ironic that Fox News can do as much damage to the country as it wants and legally is nothing you can do. But if they damage a company, then suddenly it's like, whoa, whoa, there's, we got to get the justice system involved. So it's like the ultimate in capitalism, I guess, that you can harm the country, but don't fuck with a company. And I got to tell you, Like the fact that back in the day, Janet Jackson's nipple was more dangerous to the American public than fucking fucks news. Right? Like the FCC had to fucking hammer in on that.

But like not pervasive lies that have caused like death and damage to our democracy. Just, you know, whatever. Yeah. The FCC doesn't regulate cable. So can somebody regulate something, Andy? Can somebody write? Can anyone? Can anyone regulate anything?

Well, I mean, look, the good news for Republicans is they have found an outlet for 41,000 hours of capital surveillance footage that was taken during January 6th. Kevin McCarthy has given this footage exclusively to Tucker Carlson. It's absolutely amazing. As always, Kevin McCarthy just has incredible instincts and just amazing timing. So it's like literally three days after Tucker Carlson has been shown to be a liar. Kevin McCarthy says, oh, this is the guy I should give the tapes to. It's like, oh my God. You sat there and you said, man, I got to give these tapes to someone who won't be honest about them. And then this news came out with all the Tucker Carlson and the Fox News stuff. He's like, oh, perfect.

This is perfect. I know exactly who to give the footage to. They'll put out whatever story isn't true. So it's just, it's absolutely unbelievable. Kevin McCarthy is just, you couldn't make a weaker, more vile type of character. Like, you couldn't make up Kevin McCarthy if you tried. Like, he just is the absolute fucking worst. Just remind everybody that right after January 6th, right, that day, Kevin McCarthy is on the floor

talking about how this is Donald Trump's fault and my God, like how far we have fallen, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and then got on a plane, but a few hours later to go down to Mara Lago to kiss Donald Trump's ass. Yep. Like, there is no fucking drug deeper than power in white supremacy. And there just really is not. It is really quite astonishing to me. Yeah, Kevin McCarthy is a character that Aaron Sorkin would make up to make Democrats look good.

I mean, I'm not a huge West Wing guy. like there's so many problems with that show. But this is, this to me is like, this is how you write a character when you want the other side to look really smart. You write him like Kevin McCarthy. And so that he can be utterly destroyed by President Bartlett or whoever and just made to look like a complete and utter clown. And here we are in real life.

In real life. It's unbelievable. Speaking of things that are unbelievable, isn't Marjorie Taylor Green actually going through a real divorce? Yes, yes. So she has decided to take that to a national stage, which is that her new proposition is that she wants blue states and red states to get a divorce. Now, before we started taping, I said, so what the fuck is the difference between that and a civil war? I guess one would be violence and also logic.

So Marjorie Taylor Green's proposition is that she's so sick to death of. wokeness that apparently is being jammed down her throat, that she wants to stop having to watch our TV, stop having to read our books, and just wants to be done with it all. You know, the undivided states of America. Funny thing, though, is that I'm happy to do this and take my fucking blue state money with me. Because I would love to see what these quote unquote rent states look like without being subsidized by blue states. Yeah, all of that is true. And particularly on the culture stuff, it's like, please, go ahead.

Make your own culture. We've seen what happens when conservatives try to do that. You get shit culture, which is not to say that no conservatives can create good works of art, but let's just be honest, the majority, the vast majority of people who create actual good art are not on the right. But that's one thing. I know I get the economic argument and, you know, Keith Oberman said something similar recently. Here's my huge problem with that is that no state is 100% red. No state is 100% blue. And a lot of states are barely one or the other. And that means you have a lot of folks in those states that did not vote for that government and do not want any part of this. And in particular, there are states in, you know, know, I don't know, the South, that it seems every year do everything they can to make it harder and harder for people of color to vote, for poor people to vote. And they basically have

been trying to disenfranchise everyone that doesn't look like them. So what we've got is a situation where, say, you know, poor folks in Mississippi, poor black folks in Alabama, poor Latino folks in Texas, it's not easy for them to vote. And those states, like, like to make it harder for those people to vote. And so I have a problem with punishing those people, which is inevitably what you do if you punish a whole state. So this is just, you know, we've been hearing this sort of civil war talk. You know, she's one of the more prominent people to say it, but I've seen commentators say it and things like that. And it's just, it's one of those statements that has, I get the emotional appeal. And, you know, my first reaction is very similar to yours,

Danielle, where it's like, you know what? Most of the. these red states, people have done studies on this. If you look at money taken in from the government versus money given out to the rest of the country, they're at a net deficit. They take in much more than they give out. So I get that. But it's just, again, it's just unworkable. And the whole can't make an omelot without breaking a few eggs thing bothers me here. And I just don't think it's workable. I mean, the only thing I could think of is, and obviously this isn't workable either, but you need like, if you're going to take this seriously, you'd need like a year grace period where you say, okay, anyone who wants to move to a blue state, you have a year. And anyone that wants to move

to a red state, you have a year. But you'd also have to pay for those people to do that because let's face it, a lot of people who would want to move can't afford to pick up and move. So it's honestly, it's completely unworkable. But that is the only thing I can think of where it's like, if you really want to do this, then you got to make it so that everyone who lives in a red state wants to live in a red state and everyone who wants to live in a blue state lives in a blue state. I guess I'm just so confused

by the reality that Marjorie Taylor Green exists in. The people who follow her and listen to her and believe the things that she says. When you're walking through parts of Georgia, like are you just inundated with wokeness?

Like is it on billboards? Is it leaking out of the fucking air conditioner? Like, is it coming out of the water? Is the water now like rainbow color? like what the fuck is actually happening right like to drive them so crazy like is everybody in the state of Alabama just you know queer and non-binary like skipping through with throwing sprinkle bombs up in the air like what the fuck is actually happening serious like I just don't get it I'm like what are you being inundated with just walking down the streets of Birmingham covered in glitter yeah just covered in

glitter. You know, everybody just singing Christina Aguilera from the top of their fucking lungs. It's just driving everybody crazy. I think Marjorie Telegreen, I think she went to Atlanta once. And then they kicked her out. I mean, I get it. And that did it for her. She was there for 10 minutes and she was like, oh, we need a civil war. I mean, I'll tell you that Atlanta is the blackest and the gayest place I've ever been to. I loved it. I loved it. Folks, I am really excited to welcome to the new abnormal. Minnie Timurajou, who is the president of Nairal pro-choice America and has over 20 years of experience leading federal state and local campaigns, has worked in the Biden administration, worked on the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and is now fighting for

reproductive rights and is on the front lines. Minnie, I want to jump right in because there is a case right now that has implications for the nation. I think that since we have seen Roe v. Wade be overturned, we have watched all of the southern states, states in the Midwest, trigger their anti-abortion laws. Some of them zeroing out completely. Others having, quote unquote, the false heartbeat bills. Some going so far as Glenn Yonkin to allow police to monitor or be able to ask for the menstruation history of women and people with uteruses in that state. But folks that are in blue states seem to think that they are safe. But this latest case with regard to medical abortion says otherwise. Can you tell us a bit about what is happening

with Mitha Pristone and how this case that is happening, I believe in Texas, can affect the rest of us? Yes, such a great question. And Danielle, thanks for all your great coverage of this issue, but also for having me on today. So Miffy Pristone is one of two medications. that is used to end an early pregnancy by medication. And that means it's what's commonly known as the abortion pill, although it is really a two-step regimen, Miffy Pristone and another medication called mysoprostol. Medication abortion care has been safely used for over two decades.

So the FDA approved this drug 20 years ago. And in fact, it has a safety record of over 99%. So medication abortion is actually safer than time. Tylenol, which is something we really need to make sure everybody understands because there's so much misinformation about it. And medication abortion is now used to provide more than half of all abortion care nationwide. That means the rest of abortion care tends to be in surgical abortion centers, in clinics, etc. So this has become, with the advent of telemedicine, particularly with, you know, a divided country, with some states with abortion bans, one of the safest and most effective ways to

get abortion care to the majority of folks seeking that care. So this case, it's a really crazy story and it's such a good example of why we need an overhaul of our court system. We need a thorough review of court ethics. There is a specific court in the northern district of Texas in Amarillo. There's a Trump appointee there. His name is Casmeric. And he was the deputy general counsel at the far right First Liberty Institute, which is famous for fighting LGBT equality, abortion and contraception. He was a Trump nominee confirmed. This suit was filed in his division specifically to get this outcome by a new organization, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine,

it's kind of comical name, but don't laugh too hard because they're doing scary stuff. In less than three years, this judge has seized control over border policy, repeatedly defy the Supreme Court's decision protecting LGBTQ plus employees and restricted minors' access to birth control and many more. So he once said being transgender is a delusion, for example.

Wow. Okay. So this is confirmation. He's gained a representation. is probably the most lawless jurist in the country, and this case on medication abortion is in his court, and it was forum shopping. Now, what this case is about is the FDA's approval of Mithy Pristone. And if he rules in the favor of the right-wing extremists who filed the case challenging the FDA and their authorization of Mithy Pristone, it could halt production, domestic protection of this important medication abortion drug and immediately cease distribution.

So when we say that this is in some ways a backdoor abortion ban that would affect blue states, to your point, what we mean is if you rely on medication abortion and the vast majority of Americans do, and you're in New York or California or Illinois, Minnesota states that have codified protection of row, this is a way for them to get around that codification by halting access. So it is terrifying. We've been working over time with our colleagues across the reproductive rights, health and justice coalition to educate the press, educate consumers, educate voters. But it's a tough, I mean, it took me like a few minutes to explain the whole situation, right?

It's hard to explain. Right. It kind of defies logic. But how is it, many, that these right-wing organizations, these right-wing activists, are able to go and shop cases to judges that they know are going to rule in their favor? And how does that happen? And how are we, the opposition, not then taking a... a page out of this very obvious playbook and doing things in the right way and looking for judges that we know are going to side on the right side of the law, which is to protect reproductive

care. So I think there's a really robust litigation strategy. And I would say, you know, are good friends at the Center for Reproductive Rights, if when how lowering for justice, ACLU have been taking those types of tactics. The challenge is we don't have enough justices and we don't have enough judges. One of the things, I know there's a lot of frustration from a lot of our friends with the Biden administration and the Senate, but one of the most important things they've done is confirm a record number of judges in a very short period of time. And the reason that's so important is precisely because of cases like this. Unfortunately, it won't quickly address the bigger crisis of, you know, nominations and appointees to the circuit courts and the Supreme Court.

We have a really big problem with the Supreme Court. It has now been packed by extremists, thanks to Trump. And these are young judges who are going to be justices who are going to be there for a very long time. So our organization, along with many others in Washington, are deeply, like, involved in court ethics, court reform debates. We want the United States Senate Judiciary Committee and the whole Senate to conduct a vigorous investigation as to leaks in the Supreme Court, you know, the Hobby Lobby and Dobbs League, the infiltration of the courts by these right-wing extremists, because we can't wait for those judges to age out of the court. We have a tough conversation about strict oversight by Congress of the courts. And I think every conversation's on the table from

term limits to court expansion. We have to talk about all of it. Do you think that this administration, though, while they have been able to pass record confirmations, do you think that they are doing enough to talk about the importance of the courts? You know, I think we can always encourage them to do more. I think it's such a big crisis. I think what the challenges with the administration, but also our friends in the Senate, is on our side. I think this is the point you're alluding to, and I follow your commentary closely, we have a lot of traditionalists on our side. Part of our job is advocates who represent the people, and at NARAL we represent four million reproductive rights advocates and members, is to let them know that we need them. We demand that

they take their responsibility of oversight over the courts more seriously. And that really is Congress's job. And I think this president is beginning and this White House is beginning to pay closer attention because so many of their big agenda items are being upended by these courts. So I think we can always do more. And our job as the representatives of the people is to push them to do more. You know, Minnie, my producer just sent over an article. It's essentially talking about what I just mentioned, which is why are we not choosing the judges that we want in order to hear the cases? And apparently there's a case with U.S. District Judge Colleen Coler Cotelli seemed to open a new front, according to Slate and confounding post-Dob's battleground over when and where and whether abortion is still actually legal in this country.

This is an article that was written by Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern asking whether or not abortion is actually still legal. Is this a case that you all are also looking at and this is coming out of D.C.? I am familiar with the case. I will confess that we are not, we're not a litigation shop and an illegal shop. Right, right. But I think, look, it's an intriguing question. The challenges, and Dali is the expert here, and I deeply trust her analysis, the challenge is everything's going to go back to the same Supreme Court. It is incumbent on us to explore all legal theories. We need to be thinking about bigger, bolder approaches to writing ourselves back in the Constitution. As my friend Alexis McGill Johnson says, at Planned Parenthood, we've got to think about other legal bases and other protections to state constitutions, for example, into the federal constitution. You know, there's going to be

a hearing in a couple of weeks on the ERA again. There's been state ERAs that are being, you know, discussed. There's lots of different ways for us to approach this issue. That being said, again, And it all comes back to this Supreme Court. Everything's going to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. And this Supreme Court is a group of radical extremists who have made it very clear where they stand on this issue. So it's a challenge, which is why we have to tackle all of these issues at the same time. We have to be trying innovative litigation strategies, getting in front of judges who are

more innovative in their approach, passing ballot initiative, constitutional amendments, and legislation that challenges the basis of these rights and attacking the core structure of the court. You know, one of the things that happened right after the Dobbs decision was that people took to the streets, many, and it was a diverse group of people that took to the streets, not just women. Then you had Kansas put on their ballot

restriction to abortion, which was overturned in the state of Kansas, which was shocking. And this was before the midterm elections. I would have thought, though, I'll be honest, that the overturning of Roe v. Wade would have not only had people out in the streets

right after, but it would have kept them out in the streets. Do you think that there is outrage fatigue right now where the radical right is winning in many ways because they are throwing everything at us except for the kitchen sink? Everywhere that you look, whether it is putting a target on the backs of church children, whether it is denying AP black history in the state of Florida and then watching other states follow suit, whether it is the entire, erasure of the BIPAC experience in America, whether it is abortion or any type of reproductive care, this country is going backwards and I don't see the protests matching the zeal with which the radical right is overturning our rights. Am I wrong here? Are you seeing something different?

I think you're diagnosing something very important for us to be talking about as movement leaders. actually just wrapping up a couple of days of meetings with other political leaders in the women's rights movement. And I will say we have a crisis, a couple of levels of crisis. And I want to point something out about our opposition. You know, we are the majority. Eight out of ten Americans are with us on abortion issues about the right to save legal access to abortion. We've known this for a long time. And the Kansas ballot initiative, Montana, Kentucky, you know, places you didn't think we were going to win where we won, the midterm elections, all were proof points. about how popular our issue is.

But the radical right has always been so smart about weaponizing the moral outrage of an incredibly extremist, small group of Americans, and they are very good at punching above their weight. They create a lot of sound and fury in smoke and mirrors, giving the appearance that most Floridians

are outraged about quote-unquote wholeness, which we know is not the case. The challenge on our side is it's harder to organize the majority, when, for example, let's talk about abortion up until recently with Dobbs, we had a believability gap. Abortion access was being a road in Cair and V. Casey decades earlier. And in places like Mississippi, there was only where Dobbs, the Dobbs case is based in, there was only one abortion clinic left in the entire state. But no matter how hard we were trying to organize around it, a lot of

people were like, well, I'm protected by the Constitution. I'm protected by Roe. So that's why the fall of and Dobbs was so immediately impactful in that flashpoint of a moment and why it's so much harder to sustain the outrage. That's not me making excuses. That's just our analysis of what's happening. That being said, our membership went from 2.5 million to 4 million. You know, all of our organizations have seen significant bumps in participation. It is hard, however, to sustain that outreach. And it's also hard to give people hope when you have a divided Congress and you have a lot of action that cannot be taken strictly by the executive branch. So part of our challenge as organizers is how do you give people tangible actions that they can

take and wins at the local level and the state level? And how do we show that progress can be made and not just through protest, but through ongoing engagement and local organizing? So, for example, we talk often about 17 states have abortion ban, some sort of abortion ban. But we also don't talk enough about 17 states have codified some sort of. sort of protection to abortion access post-obs. So there is hope, and we have to lean into that hope. But the other big piece of it is, as a progressive movement, we just don't invest enough in organizing. And it's not just on repro. It's across the board on all of our issues. So we're having serious conversations with funders and, you know, with ourselves and our own, you know, members. How do we

increase capacity? How do we really build back the muscle of organizing and protest and action? It's a recognition, I think, of the point you're making that the outrage should be higher and we've got to engage in the structures that will allow us to organize in that way. You know, I think that one of the most, I guess, hopeful moments that I've had in a while was midterm elections at the end of last year, was seeing black people, people of color, and particularly Generation Z, come out in mass and say that they're not going to just sit idly by. while the Republican Party, this white supremacist party, tries to turn our country backwards, come hell or high water, by choosing of their judges, by sneaky cases, by just undermining any bit of progress everywhere and creating these faux outrage campaigns, which we know, to your point, are not the majority of Americans. It is the 25% of this country that have megaphones and an echo chamber. But what about the 75% of us that are left? living here on Earth 1. I wanted to get your thoughts on Generation Z, this younger generation, this generation that understands the terminology around activism, around, you know, repro rights, around LGBTQ rights, that Black Lives do matter, that are fundamentally different in a lot of ways,

have experienced since they were three years old mass shooter drills. Like, this is a generation that is way different than anyone. that it came before it. And I wonder what faith and hope you have in their understanding of the battles that they're up against. It's so wonderful that you ask me that question because that's literally the dialogue I've been having the last couple of days with colleagues. There's really brilliant research done by Tressa Undham, the researcher, and it was digging into why we still have this big reproductive freedom bias in our country that even though eight out of ten American support access to abortion, there's still deep, deep, deep sexism in our society. And we're still deep, deep, deep sexism in

our society. And there's still, like, almost 40-some-odd percent of Americans still judge women for having an abortion, even if they support their legal right. And what was fascinating in this research is that this is mostly a Gen X and maybe an elder millennial issue. It shifts dramatically when you go to Gen Z. They are the first generation that's truly, deeply intersectional in their analysis and their framework and whether they know they have a framework at all. They approach everything from a different lens, they are significantly less sexist, significantly less

racist, and they are able to view all these issues as compatible and they understand that the root cause of all of these issues is white supremacy, power and control. So what that tells us is we have to invest in their leadership for the future of all of our movements

and the sad truth is most organizations that focus on those populations are the least funded. So we have to have a serious dialogue. about what that looks like for the progressive ecosystem and how we invest in them and and not overburden them with the work because we've created this mess, right?

We can't just dump the problem on them. We have to invest in them and support them and create that pipeline for them. Minnie, with just a few seconds that I have left with you, I want to give you the opportunity to tell people who are listening how they can get involved with NARAL, what they should be doing for people who feel hopeless. They feel like if they're living inside of red states,

that are just far gone, what they can do in order to feel like they are contributing to progress on this issue? Great questions. And thank you for giving me a second to pitch. You can go to prochoiceamerica.org. Right on our homepage is more information on how you can support our work to fight back on this medication abortion ban and learn more about the case. You can sign them to be an ARA member.

You'll get text alerts on actions you can take. And you can share our social media. We've got a lot of public education. you'd be shocked or not shocked, Danielle, how many Americans don't know the difference between medication abortion, the morning after pill, and just the birth control pill. There's just basic education we have to do in our own communities to get to the point where folks can organize around some of these issues. So those are all some ways you can get involved. In a lot of states where we have activists on the ground, we're doing lobby days, we're doing

meetings with legislators. It's not just about Congress. It's more and more important that we're talking to state and local leaders. So NARAL members are, parts of action councils. If you're not in the state with staff on the ground, we've got online and virtual organizing happening and training. We just reinvested and kickstarted a national investment in training our most active activists on a host of organizing issues and on how to be better at intersectional organizing. So there's a lot of work to be done. There's a lot of opportunity to be engaged. Minnie, I appreciate you so very much, so thankful that you are at the helm of Nayrell, and I hope to have you back on the new abnormal soon, and hopefully we talk about some

wins and not just the consistent fight. I can't wait. Thank you, Danielle, for everything you do. Appreciate you. Nothing is more abnormal than the rise of the radical right. Fever Dreams is a Daily Beast podcast, taking you inside the rights push to retake power from the Maga Acolytes to the straight-up grifters. They recently released their 100th episode, so there's no better time to listen. Head to beast. pub slash fever dreams to check it out. My next guest is the co-author, along with Harvard's Naomi Oreskes, of a new book with the somewhat strange-loving title, The Big Myth, How American Business taught us to loathe government and love the free market.

It traces the overwhelmingly successful efforts by American businessmen beginning in the late 19th century to instill in Americans the belief that the free market is always the best and most moral solution to every problem. Joining me now is historian of science and technology, Eric Conway. Eric, thanks so much for being here. Thanks for having me. So in the very first paragraph of the book, you describe the book itself as a true story of a false history, which that just struck me as such a brilliantly concise description. So let's jump off from there.

How did America begin down the path of market capitalism or to use the term you prefer, I guess it was George Soros' term, market fundamentalism? What kick started this false history? Well, what started this false history in the way our telling of the story is really we begin the story with the effort of the National Association of Manufacturers to prevent the passage of child labor laws so that they could continue to exploit the cheapest, most vulnerable labor available to them. And they began crafting the message of the free market that government regulation of business was a slippery slope to dictatorship, totally. totalitarianism and et cetera. So I have to confess that I spent many decades as a libertarian. So as I was reading the book, I was constantly like, yeah, I used to think that or, oh God, that sounded like me. And it was highly embarrassing. But I thought it was interesting that you sort of start the book proper by talking about child labor, as you just said, because just this past week, we spent

some time on this podcast talking about bills that are currently in Iowa and Minnesota state legislatures that are aimed at rolling back child workplace protections. And it was fascinating to learned that back then, one of the main charges leveled against the people who wanted stricter child protections was that they were Bolsheviks or socialists. And it's just that line of attack has been so successful, it's still used 100 years later. And you'd think that Americans would have learned, but the story we tell is one of how Americans actually did learn for kind of a brief period, from really the 30s to maybe sometime in the 70s. And then we began to unlearn the lesson again. You mentioned NAM earlier, but there were predecessors to NAM that you talked about in the book.

I don't know if it's just any L.A. or NILA. What was NILA and how big of a role did it play in spreading this false history? So NILA, that's the way we pronounced it to, the National Electric Light Association, was like NAMM, a trade group, in this case for the then national electrical industry who wanted to prevent regulation, federal, state, or local, if they could possibly avoid it, of the utility business. And they embarked in one of the largest propaganda campaigns of their era, including things like drafting curriculum for public schools and textbooks and so forth, extolling the virtues of private industry and really demonizing, attacking and undermining the idea that public power, municipal power, sometimes it's called, or state-owned utilities, etc., really attacking the idea that they could provide better service and also undermining

the idea that the countryside should be electrified. In contrast, most other European countries in Canada pursued various kinds of state-led electrification campaigns and often achieved lower costs and electrified much more quickly than the United States did, even though we invented most of the technology. And then we saw, as the book points out, Nila's arguments or propaganda, however you want to describe them, were then echoed by opponents of the New Deal, people like Wendell Wilkie, etc., right? Yep. Well, Wilkie, unsurprisingly, was utility executive, right? Right. So that line of attack from NILA becomes a line of attack against the larger New Deal project. And it's probably worth mentioning that one of the things FDR campaigned on was utility regulation, because when he had been governor of New York, it wrestled with the problem of fair pricing of electricity, and some of the major New Deal laws were very specifically and explicitly about both financial and technical regulation of electrical utilities. And then after Nilo, there was the rise of the similar organizations like the American Liberty League and then ultimately

NAM, the National Association of Manufacturers, as you point out, all of which sort of had similar goals. There was an interesting quote in the book from historian Wendy Wall about NAM saying that they tried to convince the American public that their interests and those of the nation's largest corporations were virtually indistinguishable. And basically, they referred to that as the American way. And it's just, it's amazing to think about how long that was basically the motto of the Republican Party. Like certainly for the majority of my lifetime, that has been the de facto motto of the Republican party. Yeah, and I think that's right. Well, of course, was a big influence on both of us. Her study of how the idea of the American way came to be is fascinating and troubling in some

ways. But that's right. Their goal was to convince us that our interests as citizens were the same as the interests of utility executives. And they were incredibly successful. How did they manage to be this successful? You mentioned, I think it was early in the book you talk about the people like Adam Smith, who are often held up by proponents of the market. But you point out that Adam Smith was not in any sense a 100% free market guy. He thought that there should be guardrails or whatever you want to call them to help people out. How were these organizations able to be so successful at pushing their message? One way they were so successful was that they had many organizations singing the same tune in many different media outlets.

And yet it still took them decades to change the American mind after the New Deal and the Great Depression and so forth. But that, I think, was one very powerful approach. So they weren't just hearing it from G or from GM. They were getting it from all sorts of more trusted avenues, I guess you would say. So one story we tell in the book is of the way some of our utility business executive tried to build free market capitalism into the curriculum of seminary so that Americans would get the free market message in church. Weren't there like books for kids and stuff like that that these organizations put out? Absolutely.

There were curriculum developed for public schools. They would send posters and films and all kinds of educational materials into the school systems for free, figuring that most teachers are desperate for materials and would take what they got. And so they went to great lengths to ensure that the material being provided supported the free market mantra. This goes back to at least Nila. Nilo is doing that as well. I knew this would happen with a book of this size and scope, but I'm going to jump way ahead to the 1980s, aka the era of Reagan.

Was there a more pivotal figure than Reagan in terms of the latter 20th century spread of this market fundamentalism? Well, that's a tough question because Reagan depended on the existence of prior people. Of course. Reagan drew heavily on Hayek and on Milton Friedman and so forth. But I think the reason we considered him to be such a pivotal figure is that he spent the 50s spreading that message already through his work for GE, both in person, going to GE's company towns and spreading the gospel in person, but also through GE theater and spreading it into American household every week. So he built both the propaganda of the free market as well as building his own political career. So when he finally left acting, of course, he became the governor of California during an interesting

era in which California was attempting to restore the right to segregate housing. He ran on the side of what they would call property rights, but essentially the property right they wanted to protect was the right of property owners to not sell the minorities. He rode that train into the governor's office. And then, of course, in the 70s, spent the decade outside of politics by and large, but also selling the same sorts of free market messages until, of course, he runs against Carter, who was not exactly a strong new dealer himself. He had already begun, as we talk about in the book, quite a number of free market reforms

and yet loses to Reagan anyway. As someone who lived through the Reagan years and all of that stuff, You couldn't hope for a better messenger for market fundamentalism, could you? No, you couldn't hope for a better messenger. He was very good at selling it. I mean, he managed to sell it to me by and large. You know, I graduated in high school for 83, so I was still young and naive. And it took me well into the late 90s to figure out how thoroughly wrong set of messages was.

But he was good at it. Let's face it. And so I think we titled our story of Reagan, a love story. Right. Because that's what he sold. And he's probably better than anybody at it. But you could see that coming historically, but he was Barry Goldwater's best spokesman during Goldwater's presidential campaign. And that is probably where his business allies came to the

realization that he was their guy if they could only cultivate him and keep him in the public eye somehow. Yeah, it really was an unbelievable story of how he was able to do that and just project it to coin a more modern phrase. I guess it was market fundamentalism with a human face. And he was just incredibly good at it. There's an interesting part of your book. And it was interesting to me, even though I was aware of it, but I don't think a lot of people are aware of it. As I said, I'm a former libertarian, so I'm kind of steeped in this stuff. But you talk about Little House on the Prairie and Laura Ingalls Wilder, and then, of course, her daughter, Rose Wilder Lane. Talk about sort of the libertarian or, you know, classical liberal roots of Little House

on the Prairie. So the Little House in the Prairie books, and Naomi loved them as a child. I didn't read them until I was an adult. And this is research of other people that we drew on very heavily were kind of ghostwritten by Rose Wilder Lane. And if you go through and read them now, they're beautiful in a sense. There are some lovely stories in them. But many stories have been adjusted to suit libertarian fantasies, really. So you never see the federal government in these books portrayed in any kind of positive light, even though the prairie settlements were only possible because the federal government drove the natives out. So there's an enormous national investment in making possible those stories. But you never would know that from these

books. Right. As I said earlier, they pursued many different avenues to spreading the free market message and the anti-government message. And this was just one. Rose Wilder Lane's work as a writer is what brought her in the circles, for example, of Jay Howard Pew and made them allies in the cause of spreading libertarian economics really throughout the land. But it really is amazing because I think I asked you earlier how we ended up in a country where market fundamentalism became this sort of, well, the big myth, as you call it. And it does seem to me that a lot of the underpinnings for this lie in the, and I don't think I'm saying anything unusually intelligent here, but the entire westward expansion of the United States is sort of girded by that. And that's what we were taught

growing up that these hardy band of settlers, you know, these rugged individualists pushed west, and tamed nature. And that all ties in, I think, at least in my mind, with the whole market fundamentalism thing, which is, you know, basically the only moral thing is to leave people alone. People know what's best. And it seems to me that there's a huge link there. And things like Little House on the Prairie played a huge role in that. Oh, I think that's right. And I was, I was largely taught the same things in my public school education. You know, the hardy settlers, etc., etc., except there was still an army. They still carried out campaigns against the natives. Of course. There are fortifications throughout the West, in some cases that still exist, that were set up to defend these supposed hardy settlers against the natives. Part of that propaganda, we don't really go into this in the book. It's one of the things that perhaps we could have explored a little more but didn't, was that our whole mythology of the rugged settler kind of depends in part on believing that there was a pristine landscape. In other words, nobody was there. It was free for the taking, except that we also know that that wasn't really true.

And so that belief system depends on another mythology, another whole set of mythologies we don't engage in, which is the myth of the empty frontier. Yeah. No, that's 100% true. And I mean, it's fascinating to me how these myths overlap and reinforce each other. Yeah. We're almost out of time. But I guess my exit question is sort of looking to the future. Where does market fundamentalism stand in the 2020s? Because if, you know, looking around, and I'm wondering, has the rise of right-wing populism put it, at bay in a way that left-leaning politics never could. So I think there's some merit in what you're saying. It sure looks to me like market fundamentalism is at least wobbling pretty strongly

because neither political party in the U.S. believes in it anymore. It's still, I think, somewhat of a centrist position. But I think because of both right and left reject it, what's going to be really interesting to see is what comes out of this, what kind of new hybrid capitalism we get. I'm a historian. My job is to figure out the past and not figure out the future. So I don't know where it's going to go. But you're not the first person to ask me that question. I don't think market fundamentalism is very healthy right now. But I also can't count it out because it's so strongly held as an American belief. And it's not just by the

political classes, right? The whole point of our story is that it's been sold to all. all of us as individuals and there's still enormous numbers of Americans that believe in it. No, that's an excellent point. And what we could be in the middle of now could be seen in the future as just sort of a blip. Yes. And then, you know, the Republican Party. And I mean, hell, even the Libertarian Party now, it just sounds like right-wing populists. So it's, it's a very bizarre little period. And you're absolutely right. This could turn out to be the underpinnings of market capitalism, market fundamentalism are so ingrained in us that this could turn out to just be a blip on the radar that will go away. The book is The Big Myth, How American Business

taught us to Load Government and Love the Free Market by Naomi Oreskes and Eric M. Conway. And it's out on Tuesday, I believe. Eric, thank you so much for being here. Thanks for having me. This is great. Danielle Moody. Andy Levy. Who, Danielle, is your fuck that guy for today? Usually, I feel like the fuck that guy is we try and be a bit lighthearted, right, and a bit funny. But the fuck that guy that I for this week is the state of Florida, and there's nothing funny or lighthearted about it. Ever since Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court, we have seen protections for women and people with uteruses

just disappear. We have seen Republicans run rough shot over the access to an abortion, access to the abortion pill, access to reproductive care in general. And the story that I'm about to tell you, Andy, comes from the mirror and is horrible. because it feels like it should come from Black Mirror. And it is a story of the Doberts. Deborah and Lee Dobert were excited to find out

that they were going to have a second baby until they got news that that baby because of a series of fetal abnormalities was going to die soon after birth. And there was nothing that they could do about it. But because of the strict abortion bans in the state of Florida where they live, they are being forced to give birth,

to this baby so that it will then suffocate to death and die. Because that's the kind of inhumane fucking country that we live in right now. We're depending on where you are and the time of birth and who's giving your ultrasounds. This is not about the protection of the mother. This is not about the protection of a child. This has nothing to do with life whatsoever. Because to put people through this torturous kind of fucking pain to what? prove a political point to score, to own the libs here? This is real life. This isn't hypothetical.

Like, actual people are suffering. People with uteruses are dying and being forced into birth as if, like, this is some underdeveloped, you know, nation. I just, I don't understand it. And I know that regardless of the kind of outrage that we have or that these stories continue to just pile up and pile up. It's not going to change. Right? It's not going to change the right. It's not going to change their mind. Right. It's not going to make them assume some form of empathy or actually allow doctors to do what the fuck they went to school for, which is to care for people because they took a Hippocratic oath. I don't know what kind of fucking oath these Republicans took. I don't know who it was to. Maybe the devil, maybe Donald Trump. I don't know.

But these stories make me sick and they should make everybody sick that listens to them. So for that, Florida, Desantis, death Santis, fuck you, fuck that state, fuck all y'all. Yeah, I mean, amen to that. And like you said, cases like this aren't going to make any of them kind of stop and think to themselves, oh, wait, is this really what I want? Because yes, it is. It's absolutely what they want. And they don't care that at best a woman is going to have to go through the physical pain

of childbirth. And then there's the mental anguish that she and her husband will both feel. over watching their newborn baby die. And at worst, pregnancy and giving birth, that's a medical procedure. And things can go wrong in a medical procedure. And people can die. You are making it so that this woman now has a not zero chance of dying. Like you said, to prove a point or to own the libs or something

because there is absolutely no good medical or scientific reason for this woman to have to go through this. And so it's just, yeah, that's so disgust. It's disgusting. So Andy, can you top that? What is your and who is your fuck that guy? I can't top that in terms of making me want to throttle somebody, which I think is good. I think it's good that mine doesn't make me feel like that.

Mine is more an example of the sort of race to be known as the dumbest Republican holding office in the country. And it's a big field. but there is a state senator in Idaho, Tammy Nichols, who along with another state representative, Judy Boyle, they have co-sponsored a bill that will ban all MRNA technology in the state of Idaho. In other words, it will criminalize COVID vaccines. Not only will it criminalize the vaccines, it will criminalize anyone who gives it. So basically any doctor who gives someone a COVID vaccine will be involved. violation of the law. The law also doesn't just apply to humans. It applies to giving these shots to mammals.

It says any other mammal in this state, according to Forbes.com. Over 500,000 people got COVID in Idaho. Over 5,000 people died. A lot of Idaho was not vaccinated. It had the sixth lowest vaccination rate. It's beyond stupid. Again, it gets into like it's criminal, not under our legal system, I suppose, but I'm talking to like ethically or whatever. It is just criminal to say that you want to charge doctors with a misdemeanor if they give someone a COVID vaccine. And not just doctors. I mean,

you're talking about health care workers in general because a lot of times these shots are given by nurses or assistance or whatever. So you're talking about wanting to throw people in jail for trying to save other people's lives. And it's just all of this, the stupidity is the point I think is where we're, are. I know like in Florida, like the cruelty is the point. In that case, here I think it's just the stupidity is the point. For that reason, Tammy Nichols, state senator of Idaho is my fuck that guy

14. Why don't we just, you know, we'll ban books, we'll criminalize doctors, we'll throw teachers in jail. Why don't we just go back to living in cages? Why don't we criminalize like lights? Like, the lights are too woke. Let's all just start, you know, moving around in the fucking dark. You know, let's just ban everything. Yeah. The lights keep us awake. Right. And I want to be asleep.

And that's bad. Yeah. Exactly. If you're awake, you're woke. Woke and awake. Yeah. If you're awake, you're woke. You're on to something here.

You're on to something here. I know. Mm-hmm. Hope you enjoy checking out this episode of the new abnormal. We're back every Tuesday, Friday, and Sunday. If you enjoyed it, please share it with a friend and keep the conversation going. This podcast is a Daily Beast production with production. by Jesse Cannon and Seamus Calder.

Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at the Daily Beast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts

as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.