UNBIASED - May 28, 2026: DHS Proposes Removing CBP From Sanctuary City Airports, Biden Sues the DOJ, North Carolina's Controversial "Life at Fertilization" Bill Explained, and More.

Episode Date: May 28, 2026

Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: DOJ Opens Criminal Investigation Into E. Jean Carroll (0:12) Former President Biden Sues DOJ to Block Release of Audio Recordings (6:18) DHS Secretary Proposes Pulling CBP Agents from Airports in Sanctuary Cities (~18:12) Quick Hitters (~23:10) Rumor Has It: North Carolina's Controversial "Life at Fertilization" Bill Explained (~32:04) Critical Thinking Segment (~46:10) ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on ⁠Instagram⁠ and ⁠TikTok⁠. All sources for this episode can be found ⁠here.⁠  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, May 28th. Let's talk about some news. The DOJ has launched a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the woman who accused Donald Trump of sexual assault and defamation. So this investigation is reportedly focused on whether Carol committed perjury in testimony tied to her two civil suits against Trump. So what we'll do is what we usually do. We'll back up a little bit so that we have the full context. Back in 2019, E. Jean Carroll wrote a book. In that book, she accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in a dressing room at Bergdorffs in New York City in either 1995 or 1996. Trump then came out and said he never knew her, that she wasn't his type, and that she made up

the allegations in order to sell books. So Carol then sues Trump for defamation. in a New York state court. She argues that Trump's statements were not only false, but they hurt her reputation. And this initial case was pretty complicated procedurally, at least, because Trump was president when he made those statements. So the DOJ actually tried to substitute the United States as the defendant in that case. And it argued that Trump was acting within the scope of his. federal employment when he made those statements because if the United States replaced him as a

defendant, then Carol's defamation claim likely would have been thrown out because of what's called sovereign immunity. So that issue bounces around the courts for the next roughly five years. But then in in 2022, so amid this bouncing around in the courts as it pertains to the sovereign immunity issue, New York State passes a new law called the adult survival. Act. And what that law did is it opened a temporary window for adult survivors of alleged sexual assault to bring civil claims, not not criminal claims, civil claims, even if the usual statute of limitations for those claims had expired. So under the Adult Survivors Act, Carol brings a second lawsuit against Trump for battery. Now, battery is an umbrella term, okay? But in a

general sense, it's when someone touches you in a harmful or offensive way without your consent. That's battery, generally speaking. Underneath the umbrella of battery, you have things like rape, forcible touching, predatory sexual assault, sexual abuse, etc. So Carol actually accused Trump of rape in the first degree, rape in the third degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual abuse in the third degree, sexual misconduct, and forcible touching. So once it came time for trial in 2023, the jury had to consider first whether Trump was liable for defamation, and then also whether Trump was liable for any one of those sex crimes that

I just listed. And ultimately, the jury found Trump liable for defamation and for sexual abuse, but not rape. So that's the backstory with the claims that were brought against Trump. And I actually have a whole special episode from back when it's called a special report back in 2023 when that verdict, you know, came down. I did a whole episode specifically dedicated to that situation. But the reason that it's relevant to the story we're talking about today is because as with any lawsuit throughout the course of litigation, there were depositions. So that's where the attorneys from either side will ask the opposing party questions under oath related to the lawsuit. Here, the DOJ is looking into whether Carol lied during a 2022 deposition when she said that no one

else was paying for her legal fees. Two weeks before the start of trial, Carol's attorneys told the judge and Trump's lawyers that they had secured funding from billionaire Reed Hoffman's nonprofit. Now, whether Hoffman had paid any legal fees or expenses at the time of Carol's deposition in 2022 or whether his payments came later is unclear. We, we, that's presumably what the DOJ is looking into. We do know that one of Trump's lawyers said in court at the time, you know, when it was, when it was revealed that Reed Hoffman had provided funding, that Carol's legal team, quote,

conspired to conceal the truth for nearly six months. and quote, that's what that's what one of Trump's lawyers said. Upon making that accusation in court, the judge actually allowed Trump's attorneys to depose Carol again. But that deposition has not been made public at this point. However, when the trial started two weeks later, the judge actually blocked Trump's lawyers from asking about Hoffman's funding. The judge said he saw no issue with Carol's credibility.

So that's really the only, you know, hint as to, that's the only hint. we have as to how that second deposition went. The second deposition, like I said, was never released publicly. So who really knows what happened here? But that is what the DOJ is looking into, whether Carol lied in that first 22 deposition about having any outside funding. Something else worth mentioning is that acting attorney general Todd Blanche has actually been recused from this particular matter because he worked as one of Trump's personal attorneys on the Carroll appeals. And because of that, the investigation is reportedly being overseen by other officials in the deputy attorney general's office. Two sources familiar with this matter have also said that DOJ leaders refer to the investigation to federal

prosecutors in Chicago because even though the deposition at issue took place in New York, Reed Hoffman has a nonprofit based in Chicago and that nonprofit is presumably where the funding came from. So that's what's going on with that. some more DOJ adjacent news. Former President Biden has filed a lawsuit against the DOJ to stop the release of audio recordings and transcripts of his private conversations with the ghostwriter for his memoir. So back in 2016 and 2017, President Biden had many conversations with a writer named Mark Zwanitzer who helped write Biden's memoir, which is called Promise Me Dad.

then if you remember in 2022 classified documents were found at the Penn Center in D.C. and at Biden's Delaware home in his garage and in his office. Soon after those documents were found, former special counsel Her was appointed to investigate the situation. So her job was basically to investigate whether there had been what's called unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or other records from, you know, Biden's time as vice president and senator because unauthorized removal and retention of classified material is illegal. Hers report ultimately said that while investigators did find evidence that, you know, Biden had willfully retained and disclosed classified material after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen, criminal charges were not warranted

because the evidence wasn't strong enough to prove Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what's required for criminal conviction. So hers conclusion was essentially, yes, there's evidence of a crime here, but not enough evidence to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. And her gave a few reasons for deciding not to charge Biden. First, he said that some of the documents might have been moved or stored by mistake, not willfully. Willfulness is required for, you know, the crime at hand.

second, he said Biden cooperated with the investigation, returned materials, you know, when, when requested and allowed these searches to happen. And then third, he said that some of the evidence would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt because Biden, you know, could argue that he forgot about these documents or he didn't know that they were classified or he thought that certain writings were personal property, things like that. And then fourth, her said that, Biden's age and memory would likely affect how a jury saw him. So Her wrote in his report that Biden could present himself to a jury as this sympathetic older man with memory problems and therefore a jury would be less likely to convict him. So ultimately, as we know, Biden was not charged. But as part of that investigation, one of the things Her looked into was these recorded conversations that Biden had with his ghostwriter. Why? Because during the search, investigators found notebooks from Biden's vice presidency that contained classified information. And according to her, there was evidence that Biden had read some of that classified material to his

ghostwriter as part of the writing process for his memoir. So the recorded conversations between Biden and the ghostwriter became an important aspect of this investigation. Fast forward to 2024. And then I should also note another reason that the transcripts and the record, sort of came into the light is because when special counsel Herm mentioned in his report that, you know, there were instances where Biden kind of showed that his memory was failing. That kind of created this firestorm. Biden came out and said that wasn't true. But then, of course, you had GOP lawmakers in Congress who were like, give us the transcripts,

give us the recordings. We want to see what these instances were of Biden's memory failing. So the recordings and the transcripts really became. a notable part of the investigation in the sense that people wanted access to them. So fast forward to 2024, the Heritage Foundation submits a FOIA request for the records tied to Biden's ghostwriter. And separately, the House Judiciary Committee requested the audio of Biden's interviews with special counsel heard.

Now, the DOJ did end up giving the committee redacted transcripts in March 2024, but not the audio. So that led to the committee suing the DOJ for the actual recordings, the audio recordings. Then the most recent request was made in March of this year. The House Judiciary Committee went ahead and again requested all audio recordings of any interviews or conversations between the ghostwriter and Biden related to the ghostwriting work on Biden's memoirs. That request includes roughly 70 hours of memoir recordings. And it was that request that prompted this lawsuit from Biden because the DOJ came out and said in response to the committee's most recent request that it was going to release the materials with redactions, of course, on June 15, 2026 to both the House Committee and the Heritage Foundation. And for those of you that are wondering why there would still be redactions, why I said, of course, the answer is because those interviews and conversations allegedly include classified information. So that information would have to be redacted.

But getting back to the lawsuit, Biden's lawsuit against the DOJ, it is brought under the Administrative Procedure Act or the APA. This is the federal law that allows people to challenge certain agency actions when they believe that the agency either acted unlawfully or irrationally or, you know, maybe without proper justification, something along those lines. So Biden is essentially arguing that the DOJ's decision to release. the recordings is an unlawful agency action. And the first part of his argument is privacy. He argues that these are private conversations that he had with his ghostwriter while working on

a memoir. These were not public government interviews or official White House records in the usual sense and that the recordings include these deep personal conversations about his life. So releasing them would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Foya is also part of the backdrop here. So FOIA stands for the Freedom of Information Act. That is the vehicle through which the Heritage Foundation made their request for these documents. And FOIA is the federal law that gives the public the ability to request records from federal agencies. However, FOIA doesn't mean every government held record automatically becomes public, right? The law comes with nine exemptions, including exemptions for personal privacy and certain law enforcement records.

Biden's point, though, is that the DOJ had previously relied on those FOIA exemptions to keep the materials from being released in the Heritage Foundation's FOIA lawsuit. So those same exemptions should apply here. According to Biden's complaint, the DOJ had previously argued that the privacy interests were, quote, undoubtedly enormous, end quote. But then under the Trump administration, the DOJ reversed course and decided to go ahead and release them. So Biden is using that reversal to argue that the DOJ's decision was arbitrary. It's legally flawed and it's not it's not properly explained. Then third, Biden takes issue with the House

Judiciary Committee's actual request for these recordings. He argues that this request is pretextual. In other words, the congressional request may not have actually been the thing that triggered the DOJ's decision to release these recordings. According to Biden's complaint, The DOJ told his lawyers on March 19th that Congress had requested the recordings. But the written request from the House Judiciary Committee was dated March 23rd, four days later. So Biden's basically saying, how did the DOJ know about a congressional request four days before the written request supposedly existed? To him, that raises questions about whether this was a normal congressional oversight request or whether this was just kind of a workaround to justify releasing materials that the DOJ. had previously resisted releasing through FOIA.

And then finally, Biden is arguing in this lawsuit that the DOJ's decision is unlawful because of the Privacy Act, which generally limits when federal agencies can disclose certain records about a person without that person's consent. We actually just talked about this law in last Thursday's episode when we were talking about whether an individual's information would be publicly known with this new anti-weaponization fund. nonetheless, you know, Biden says he did not consent to the DOJ releasing these materials and that the usual exception for disclosures to Congress should not apply here because in his view, the House judiciary's request is pretextual. It's outside the committee's legitimate powers and it's not really a valid congressional request. So at the end of the day, what he's asking the court to do is a block the DOJ from releasing the recordings and declare that the DOJ's decision to release. the recordings is unlawful. His lawsuit also says he plans to seek emergency court orders, preliminary injunctions, both in this new case and in the related Heritage Foundation FOIA case

in order to stop the release before it happens. Now just one last thing I want to point out here, Biden's lawsuit is specifically in response to the House committee's most recent request. As we talked about, there's already litigation going on surrounding the Heritage Foundation's request, which came earlier. This new lawsuit filed by, Biden doesn't speak to the Heritage Foundation's request at all. This new lawsuit is just to stop the release in response to the House Judiciary Committee's request. Let's take our first break here when we come back. We still have much more to get to. Now that I'm in the thick of postpartum, I have been back on my Nutraful game because in the past, whenever I've dealt with hair shedding,

which usually happens once a year for me, you know, just like outside of postpartum, Neutrofo has been a game changer when it comes to seeing better hair growth and less shedding. And the thing is, there's a lot of skepticism in the hair growth industry. I was one of those people that was like, eh, I don't know. There's just like a ton of products out there that they all say they're going to help. And then it's hard to know what to trust. But I saw so many people using NutraFold that I was like, you know what, let's try it. And I'm so glad that I did. I love that it's just something I take with my daily vitamins every day. I don't even have to think about it. It makes it really easy. It's so much easier than applying a serum or a mask or something like that. So like I said, I take Nutrafol

postpartum, but there's also just a regular women's supplement, a regular men's supplement, and then there's a few others too. Nutriful is the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand and it's the number one hair growth supplement brand personally used by dermatologists. Nutriful's hair growth supplements are peer reviewed, NSF certified for sport, and clinically tested. Let your hair become one less thing, taking up space in your head and see thicker, stronger, faster-growing hair with less shedding in just three to six months with Nutraful. For a limited time, Nutraful is offering my listeners, $10 off your first month's subscription, and free shipping when you visit Nutraful.com and enter promo code unbiased. That's Nutraful.com,

spelled N-U-T-R-A-F-O-L dot com promo code unbiased. So I just paid my tax bill, okay? And when you pay your taxes, you're forced to look at your finances. and it became very clear to me that I was really just swiping my card and hoping for the best last year. So I thought to myself, what was I spending my money on? Like where did my money go? And thankfully, I have rocket money. I am so happy I downloaded Rocket Money last year. I was never someone who was on top of my finances, but Rocket Money has made it so easy. It puts my checking savings and investments into one simple dashboard. It automatically categorizes transactions across my accounts so I can actually see where my money's going and I can customize categories and tags to

get an even better picture of how I'm spending my money. It also helps me set goals. So we're actually planning on tearing up our backyard soon and putting in cement pavers in a percola. And I've been using rocket money to help me save towards that because rocket money has automated savings. So I just set the amount. I want to put away every month and it does it for me. I don't even have to think about it. Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps find and cancel unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps lower your bills so you can grow your savings. Let Rocket Money help you reach your financial goals faster. Join at RocketMoney.com slash unbiased.

That's rocketmoney.com slash unbiased. Rocketmoney.com slash unbiased. Welcome back. DHS Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen says his office is drawing up plans to pull CBP agents from airports in sanctuary cities and effectively halt customs and immigration processing at these airports. Now, as of now, this is not a finalized policy. There is no public DHS directives, CBP field order, DOT order, FAA order, or, you know, federal register notice that officially shuts down international arrivals at any airport. This is a proposal at this point. Despite that,

we obviously have to talk through it and talk about what it actually means. So when an international flight lands in the United States, passengers and cargo generally have to be processed by Customs and Border Protection, or CBP. CBP is part of DHS. So if DHS were to remove or suspend CBP processing at an airport, that airport could not function as a normal international arrival point, right? So what's happening here is it's not necessarily that the federal government would be saying international planes are banned from landing here. It's more like if there are no federal officers to process international travelers and cargo, then international arrivals can't operate as they normally would and therefore wouldn't land here. That's why people are describing this as

DHS potentially pulling international flights from sanctuary city airports. Now, why sanctuary cities. Well, sanctuary jurisdictions are, of course, cities, counties, or states that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, right? So some places limit when local law enforcement will honor ICE detainer requests, some limit information sharing, some restrict when local jails can transfer someone to federal immigration custody without a judicial warrant. It varies by place. But in this case, the argument from DHS seems to be if a jurisdiction limits cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, then the federal government should reconsider whether that jurisdiction continues to receive federal customs and immigration processing at its airport.

Essentially, the DHS would argue that if sanctuary policies make immigration enforcement harder once someone enters the country, then the federal government has a legitimate reason to limit or reconsider international entry points in those jurisdictions. Of course, as with anything, you have supporters and critics. On one hand, supporters argue that immigration is a federal responsibility. CBP officers are federal personnel, and the federal government has broad discretion over where and how it deploys those officers. They argue that this isn't the federal government forcing cities to do anything.

It's the federal government deciding where to allocate federal immigration and customs resources. On the other hand, critics argue that this would be in. an improper attempt to either pressure or penalize cities and states simply because of their local immigration policies. Their argument is that DHS wouldn't simply be making a neutral staffing or operational decision here. It would be specifically targeting airports because of the sanctuary policies. And DHS shouldn't be able to use federal leverage against these jurisdictions without clear congressional authorization. Obviously, this policy proposal comes with practical. practical concerns as well. The airports being discussed are major international airports,

airports like Newark, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston. So if CBP processing were suspended at any one of those airports, it would have effects not just on immigration processing, but also on the airlines themselves, cargo, tourism, local economies, etc. In fact, some of the airline industries are raising the concern about the World Cup, which is obviously coming up in L.A. So, you know, if immigrants, were to be, if immigration processing were stopped at LAX, how would that affect World Cup attendance? So there's definitely practical effects here as well. Legally speaking, this would almost certainly end up in court if DHS tried to actually implement it. Because although DHS does

have broad authority over immigration enforcement and inspection staffing and CBP generally, there is an argument to be made that this isn't about staffing as much as it's about using federal airport processing as leverage against sanctuary cities, which might violate federal law. It could possibly exceed DHS's authority. So there's definitely a legal question here as well. But again, this is still a proposal at this point. Nothing has been finalized. There actually appears to be some disagreement within the administration on this issue. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy publicly distanced himself from the idea. He said, quote, we shouldn't shut down air travel in a state that doesn't agree with our politics, end quote. So who knows what will happen here?

but I know a ton of you wanted me to address this. So that is the situation. Now let's do some quick hitters. We have quite a few today. This might be a record-breaking quick hitters segment. The United States and Iran are trading more strikes despite a ceasefire. On Tuesday, the United States said it launched quote-unquote self-defense strikes against Iran, targeting missile launch sites and Iranian boats.

It said we're trying to place mines near the Strait of Hormuz. Iran condemned those strikes as a ceasefire violation and later, claimed it shot down a U.S. drone and fired at other U.S. aircraft. More recently, U.S. officials accused Iran of targeting a U.S. base in Kuwait, while Kuwait said it intercepted hostile missiles and drones and reported no injuries. Both sides are accusing the other of violating the ceasefire. Those more recent strikes come after President Trump held his 12th cabinet meeting amid these ongoing negotiations with Iran. Trump said Iran might be trying to wait him out until the midterms, but that he's not feeling political pressure to rush a deal. The president also

maintained that Iran wants to make a deal, but that the United States is not yet satisfied with the terms. Separately at that cabinet meeting, Secretary of State Marco Rubio discussed the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo. He said the United States is focused on preventing cases from entering the country and containing the outbreak overseas. Officials on Wednesday actually expanded the Ebola screening program for travelers arriving in the United States who recently traveled to the Congo, South Sudan, or Uganda. Any passengers who have been to those areas within the last 21 days can now only enter through George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Washington Dulles International Airport, and Hartsfield Jackson, Atlanta International Airport.

President Trump visited Walter Reed on Tuesday for what the White House says was a routine medical and dental evaluation. This was his third scheduled medical appointment there in the last 13 months. A White House official said the visit lasted about three and a half hours. And Trump said afterward that the exam, quote, checked out perfectly, end quote, that official doctor's report has not yet been released. Former Attorney General Pam Bondi says she was diagnosed with thyroid cancer after leaving the DOJ in April. Bondi told CNN she's undergoing treatment. She had surgery a few weeks ago, and she's still recovering, but quote unquote, doing well. Bondi is also expected to testify tomorrow Friday before the House Oversight Committee as part of its Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

And also wanted to mention this too, Bondi was recently appointed to the White House's Science and Technology Advisory Council, where she will focus on AI policy. The Trump administration is suing UCLA, alleging the university violated federal civil rights law by allowing a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students during pro-Palestinian campus protests, especially around the 24 encampment. The lawsuit claims UCLA failed to respond adequately to anti-Semitic harassment, threats, and restricted access to parts of campus. However, UCLA denies the allegations and says it has taken significant steps to improve campus safety, address anti-Semitism, and enforce protest rules. A whistleblower claims the CIA explored using a genealogy database

like 23 and Me and Ancestry to search for people with alleged extraterrestrial DNA. The claim centers on a theory that certain genetic markers could identify human-alian hybrids. This has not been confirmed by the CIA, and there's no public scientific evidence proving this claim. A Google software engineer has been charged with commodities fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering for allegedly using confidential Google data to make more than $1.2 million in profits on policy. market. Prosecutors say he used an account called Alpha Raccoon to bet on who would be among Google's most searched people of the year before that information was public. In AP investigation, found that at least 10 ICE detainees have died by suicide since January 2025, including

seven since October. ICE typically records one or zero suicides per year. AP reports those suicides make up nearly 20 percent of the 51 total deaths in ICE custody since January. January 2025. ICE's detained population has increased by about 50% to 60,000 people. DHS says suicide deaths in ICE custody remain quote unquote extremely rare and that staff follow self-harm protocols and that detainees receive health care, including mental health services. Former First Lady Joe Biden says she was worried Joe Biden was having a stroke while watching his performance during the June 2024 presidential debate against Donald Trump. In an interview with CBS News promoting her new book, she said, quote, I don't know what happened.

As I watched it, I thought, oh my God, he's having a stroke and it scared me to death. End quote. She also said, quote, I was frightened because I had never, ever seen Joe like that before or since. Never. And quote. The sex one is interesting. Longtime comedy writer Dan Greeney, who has written for The Simpsons, the Office, and Borat, and who in one of those Simpsons episodes predicted,

Donald Trump one day becoming president, that was more than 20 years ago, has announced that he himself is running for president. He announced his candidacy on Tuesday, describing himself in a press release as a progressive Republican, quote, in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, end quote. Greenie's platform includes restoring democratic norms alongside progressive policies, such as universal health care and the Green New Deal. President Trump has refiled his 10 billion dollar defamation suit against the Wall Street Journal over its reporting on a disputed 2003 birthday note allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein. A federal judge had previously dismissed the case for failing to sufficiently allege actual malice, but did allow Trump to file an amended complaint.

Trump denies writing the note, says the article damaged his reputation, though the Dow Jones says it stands by the journal's reporting and will defend the case. In speaking of lawsuits, a group of 35 retired federal judges appointed by presidents of both parties is asking a U.S. district judge to reopen the lawsuit. Trump and his family brought against the IRS over leaked tax records. In their filing, the former judges argue that the court should look into whether the unusual settlement ending the case involved fraud. They claim Trump and the other plaintiffs misled the court by voluntarily dismissing the lawsuit without disclosing the settlement. All right, we'll take our second and final break here.

When we come back, we will finish with rumor has it and critical thinking. Welcome back. It is time for rumor has it, my weekly segment where I address rumors submitted by all of you and either confirm them, dispel them, or add context. This week we have one because similar to a story from last week, there was one viral video in particular that I was sent hundreds of times and asked to fact check. So rumor has it that a bill has been. filed in the North Carolina legislature that could treat abortion as murder and allow people

to use deadly force against women for using birth control. So we got to add a lot of context to this one. North Carolina House Bill 1232 was filed two weeks ago on May 13th. What it does is it proposes a state constitutional amendment that would do three things. Number one, it would declare that life begins at fertilization and that this new human life is an individual person under state law. Two, it ties intentional destruction of that life to homicide liability. In other words, it says a person who willfully seeks to destroy the life of another person shall be held accountable for attempted murder or for first degree murder. And then three, it has this deadly force clause. It says any person may defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force,

if necessary, from willful destruction by another person. So let's break that down even further. Essentially, if this proposed constitutional amendment were to pass, not only pass the legislature, but also pass voters, it could create a legal framework where the intentional destruction of a fertilized emberts, or fetus is treated as attempted murder or first degree murder. And because of that third clause about defending another life, it could be read to create a defense for someone who uses force, even deadly force, to stop what they believe is the willful destruction of a fertilized embryo. That's actually one of the biggest reasons the bill is getting a lot of attention. It's one of the more controversial parts of the bill. Now, there's this viral video going around right now.

where a nurse named Jen Hamilton is explaining the bill. And as you guys often do, you've asked me to fact check it. So that's what we're going to do. As a reminder, I'm not here to tell you if the bill is good or bad. I'm not here to tell you whether this is scary or not. I'm not here to give you my opinions. I am just here to interpret the bill as a lawyer myself and tell you what's accurate and what's not

so that you can be as informed as possible. So here's the video. I will stop every so often and let you know if certain things are true or I will add the necessary context. Before a certain someone got elected, I said out loud to family members that what I'm about to show you is happening. I was afraid it was going to happen.

I was afraid that those of us who care for women during pregnancy would be criminalized for helping them when they need help. Welcome to North Carolina, where I live. This is House Bill 1232, which when I heard about it, I thought it was fake. I was like, there's no way that it says that.

No, you can Google it. I'm going to show it to you, but you can also verify it for yourself. Buckle the hell up. So this bill establishes life at fertilization. That is when the sperm enters the egg and criminalizes by death the act of interfering with that process. Okay, yes, it is true that the bill establishes life at fertilization, which is when the sperm enters the egg. However, that second claim is what we need to add context to. She says that the bill criminalizes by death the act of interfering with the process of fertilization.

There are two things to clarify here. First, the bill doesn't criminalize interfering with the process of fertilization. The bill criminalizes the willful destruction of an already fertilized embryo. Now, that might sound like we're picking apart the legal language, but that's what you have to do when you're reading the law. because this language can get really confusing. But that's the first clarification. Fertilization is the point at which the bill says legal personhood begins. The criminal language is about what happens after that.

So it's not interfering with the fertilization process that's being criminalized. It's what happens after fertilization. The second issue is the phrase criminalizes by death. It is true that this bill says someone who willfully seeks to destroy a fertilization. embryo or succeeds in doing so can be charged with attempted murder or first degree murder. But the bill doesn't explicitly say that this act is punishable by death. Now, in North Carolina, first degree murder can be punishable by death if one, the prosecution seeks the death penalty. And two, there are certain aggravating factors present like committing the murder during other

felonies or having a prior violent record or the murder being especially heinous or cruel. So yes, there is a theoretical world where someone charged with first-degree murder under this proposed amendment could face death penalty exposure, but the bill itself doesn't criminalize by death, quote-unquote, the willful destruction of a fertilized embryo. I have an IUD, which does not prohibit fertilization, but does prohibit implantation. That new human life is recognized by the state as an individual person entitled to the protection of laws of the state from the moment of, fertilization to the moment of natural death. Any person who willfully seeks to destroy the life of another person by any means at any stage of life or succeeds in doing so shall be held accountable for attempted murder or for first degree murder respectively. Yes, she just read the bill verbatim, so she is on point with that language. We will get to the birth control issue in just a minute. I'm not done. Here's the part you're going to feel like is made up. This bill,

allows you to murder people who you think are going to do that. Sounds made up, right? Any person has the right to defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force if necessary from willful destruction by another person. You can murder women for using birth control. This bill says that you can kill me. Okay, so the portion of the bill that she read verbatim is obviously true. The bill says that any person may defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force if necessary from willful destruction by another person. So yes, there is definitely an argument to be made here that this language could create a legal defense for someone who uses deadly force to stop what they believe is an abortion

or the destruction of a fertilized embryo. However, you definitely cannot leave. legally murder a woman for using birth control under this bill. Let me explain. As I mentioned earlier, this bill does not criminalize interfering with fertilization, right? It defines life as beginning at fertilization and specifically targets the willful destruction of that life after fertilization. And that's important because many forms of birth control work before fertilization happens. For example, many hormonal contraceptives work primarily by preventing ovulation, right? And then IUDs generally work by preventing sperm from fertilizing an egg. So if fertilization never happens, then under the tax of the bill, there is no quote unquote life yet for someone to claim their defending.

In other words, the deadly force provision would not be triggered by birth control simply because birth control prevents fertilization. Now, could the bill create a confusion or litigation around certain reproductive medications or IVF? Yes, definitely. But this bill does not let you murder women for using birth control. That's not all. The state has an interest and a duty to defend innocent persons from willful destruction of their lives and to punish those who take the lives of persons born or unborn who have not committed any crime punishable by death. What is going on? So the portion of the bill she's reading is about the state's duty to defend a life.

And what it says is the state has an interest in a duty to defend innocent persons from willful destruction of their lives and to punish those who take the lives of persons born or unborn who have not committed any crime punishable by death. It's not saying the crime of destroying a fertilized embryo is punishable by death. It's saying the state has a duty to defend innocent persons from willful. destruction of their lives, whether born or unborn, unless that innocent person has committed a crime punishable by death. So the state has a duty to defend hypothetical Joe from being willfully killed unless Joe has committed a crime punishable by death. Then the state no longer has a duty to defend Joe's life. Similarly, the state is saying it has a duty to defend the life of a fertilized embryo unless that embryo has committed a crime punishable by death, which yes, is

impossible. But this portion of the bill is not saying that the crime of destroying a fertilized embryo is punishable by death. It's saying it has a duty to protect life unless that life has committed a crime punishable by death. So I guess just round up anyone who's ever worked on labor and delivery ever. Oh, you want to give a side attack to that 17-week pee promer with sepsis so that she can go ahead and deliver her non-viable baby so that we can save her life? Electric chair. How very pro-life? Okay, so let me get this straight. We can't feed kids in school and we won't give health care to people, but we will make it legal to murder women who use birth control.

Got it. As for her concerns about the medical field, those are definitely justifiable concerns that will, you know, almost certainly prompt litigation here if this bill actually becomes law, which we'll talk about in a second. but as for her last part, it is not legal to murder women who use birth control under the text of this bill. Okay. Now I just want to make sure we're all on the same page with what this is and what this says. North Carolina House Bill 1232 proposes a state constitutional amendment that would do three things. Number one, it would declare that life begins at fertilization and that this new human life is an individual person under state law. Two, it says a person who willfully seeks to destroy the life of another person shall be held accountable for attempted murder or for first degree murder.

And then three, it says any person may defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person. What I want to be very clear about is that this bill is not law. It's not even close to becoming law. As of today, the bill has been filed. it's passed its first reading and it's been referred to the House Rules Committee. That first reading is procedural. It does not mean the bill has actually passed in any meaningful sense. The committee has not yet voted on it.

It's possible the committee never votes on it. Similar abortion-related bills filed and sponsored by the same representative actually have stalled at this same point in the process. And House Speaker Destin Hall said just last year when a similar bill was filed that the caucus had no desire to hear it. But let's play it out. Let's say hypothetically, it did it do. advance out of the committee. For a North Carolina constitutional amendment to reach voters,

the state constitution requires approval from three-fifths of all members of each chamber of the general assembly. Then it would need majority approval from voters on the ballot. As of now, nothing in the official record suggests the bill is even close to that three-fifths threshold in the general assembly. In fact, one of the GOP lawmakers who was listed, as a sponsor has since publicly retracted his name from the bill. We don't see that often, but he did it following backlash. If this bill were to somehow pass the legislature, though, the amendment will go to voters in the 26th general election, and if voters approved it, it would become effective January 1st,

2027. Now, something else worth noting is the ballot wording. There could be a pretty significant legal or constitutional issue here because the proposed ballot question would simply ask voters. whether they favor a constitutional amendment, recognizing that life begins at fertilization and that this individual person is entitled to protection under state law until natural death. The ballot language, as it is currently written, as it is written in this bill, does not specifically mention attempted murder, first degree murder, or the use of deadly force at all. So if this bill

actually got to the ballot, opponents could certainly argue that the bill language is materially incomplete or misleading. And they most likely would argue that if this did get to the ballot. That's one possible legal issue. Other potential legal issues include a vagueness argument because the criminal language is too broad. There could be federal preemption arguments in certain emergency care situations because of EMTALA. So even if this bill made it to the ballot and it passed, it would almost certainly face legal challenges. But that's the gist of what's going on in North Carolina. So many of you wrote into me asking me to cover that. So hopefully I answered all of your questions. For today's critical thinking segment, we are going to stick with North Carolina's

proposed amendment. And here are my questions. Whether you support or oppose this bill, can you explain your position? Can you defend your position using the actual text of the bill? Not how people are interpreting it online, not what people are saying that it says or saying that it means, but the actual text itself. Then can you name one place where your own side might be overstating or understating what this bill actually does? That's what I have for you. I hope you enjoyed this episode. Thank you so much for being here. As always, have a fantastic weekend, and I will talk to you on Monday.