Unpacking the Presidency’s Power, TikTok’s Future, and Abortion Bans

Hello Fam, 
       This episode addresses several critical issues in the United States, starting with the legal controversies surrounding former President Donald Trump's claim of immunity in his Supreme Court case and its potential consequences for presidential powers. It also delves into the proposed nationwide ban on TikTok due to security concerns and ownership by the Chinese company ByteDance. The potential nationwide TikTok ban is examined, considering its implications for users, freedom of speech, and the legal challenge TikTok plans to mount against such legislation.
        Furthermore, it discusses the repeal of Arizona's Civil War-era abortion ban, reflecting on the broader implications for abortion rights and accessibility in the state and potentially across the nation. Lastly, the episode touches on Speaker Mike Johnson's political turmoil over aid for Ukraine and the pushback he faces from within his party, highlighting the complex dynamics of support for foreign aid in the current political climate. 

0:00 Unpacking the Presidency’s Power, TikTok’s Future, and Abortion Bans

01:19 Trump

17:43 Speaker Mike Johnson

28:03 Tik Tok

36:28 Arizona

50:30 Goodbye For Now

To all my Melanated People (Black & Brown), it's never a sign of weakness to ask for help when you really need it. Life is not cupcakes and rainbows—struggles are what make us stronger!

Transcript

Stephan: 0:01

Hello to all of my conversationalist out there. As you can hear in my voice, I have a cold. I've had a code for this past week now. Which has. Dramatically affected me. Doing a show. Essentially. But I will try and do this the best that I can. In this episode, here's a, we are going to talk about first. We're going to talk about Trump's. Supreme court case about his immunity. We'll talk about that. Next, we're going to talk about the ban on Tik TOK. Now I want to make sure you understand exactly what's happening with the ban on Tik TOK. The third thing we're going to talk about is Arizona's civil war error, abortion ban. Recently as of today. May 3rd. It has finally been repealed. So. And tastic news. Those are what we're going to talk about. Endless episode. The best I can do. Welcome to. The last conversation. So, if you don't know, by now, Former president Donald Trump is going through too. Court cases currently he has the criminal trial. That's currently in New York right now about the hush money. And. Many he has the Supreme court case. Because he believes that as president, he has immunity now. Most of you would be like, well, Stephan why don't she talk about the hush money? To be honest, I don't necessarily care about the hush money. I w look, we've all paid off a prostitute or two. He just did it the wrong way. He should have just went the Walgreens. And bought a go in that car and put the money on there and gave it to her. Like I don't. This isn't rocket science. Okay, sir. We we've all done it. And that's the end of that. I want to focus on. The immunity. Because essentially this is going to go down in the history of what presidents actually can do, right. Can Presidents actually given official order to kill someone? Let's say that. Political opponent. Could the present legally. Give a order to kill that political Ponant. All right. And the president of Cuba. Well, I'm immune. Like I have immunity because I'm the president and it's the official orders of the president United States. So that's what we're going to focus on. I do have some audio that I do want to share with you, so you can listen to some of the. Critiques that the Supreme court justices or making at the argument. If. The present actually has immunity. cause Jack Smith was like, well, if you give him immunity, What. Falls under that immunity. And if you don't give him immunity, then he's responsible for all of it. And right now the Supreme court is kind of like tiptoeing around what they want to do. Because as I said, it will set a precedent. Of what a president of the United States could actually do. It could actually turn the oval office into eight criminal organization. And the person holding that office could be like, well, I can do all this because I have immunity. Right. Let's go into the story. About the case: Throughout Thursday's marathon oral arguments in Trump versus the United States, which lasted more than two and a half hours, mostly United States Supreme court, nine justices. Provide at least some clue as to how they're likely to win a rule on whether January six criminal. Prosecution. Against former president Donald Trump frugal forward. Trump has denied any wrongdoing related to the case. Obviously that's with every case. At its core, the question in the Trump case is relatively straightforward. Can Trump be criminally prosecuted for his alleged role in the events leading up to. And on January 6th, 2021. Lower courts resoundingly said yes, without given to harder questions of whether. There's ever a circumstance in which criminal law. Can not be applied to actions by a president. The Supreme court could have done that question to either by not taking your up Trump's appeal. In the first place or by holding that whether or not there is ever a case, a little chain president is a mean for criminal prosecution. The January six prosecution against Trump camp proceed. Essentially, they had two options. They could be like, we're not going to answer this. Or they could have been like, well, just let the lower courts proceed with, as it is. If they, you know, if the lower courts are like, Hey yeah, he can be held responsible. Let the lower courts. But obviously came to this. Let's go on.. Four of the justices, Clarence. Thomas Samuel Alto, Neil Gorsuch and Brett. Tabernash butchering all their names. Express support for different arguments that would each post serious. If not fatal obstacles. To the closely watch criminal case. For the justices, Sonia, Elena, Amy. And Katon. Angie. Seemed to support a ruling that will allow most, if not all of the charges in January six to go forward. If that holds the fate January six, prosecution lightly rest my hands, the justice. Who spoke first. And last on Thursday. But who did the least to reveal his views was Chief Justice John Roberts and he has quite a mess in front of him. It became clear early in Thursday's arguments that there was little support across the bench for a male ruling. That would be good for only in this case. Gorsuch, put it at one point, the court needs to articulate a rule for the ages. Never not mine, that we've never had a criminal indictment of a former president before. The concern seems to be about the need to articulate a forward looking rule. So that future presidents will know when they should be worried about future from an old prosecutions. And when they shouldn't. Once the court articulates that rule presumptively, it would send Trump's case back to the district court or judge Tanya check-ins would be expected to apply it before proceeding to the trial. Essentially. Whatever they rule. Would go back down to the lower courts. So Tanya check-ins can rule, but as I said, it's going to be a rule. For the ages. It's going to set standards up when a president should be worried. Hey look. You do. ABC. And D there is a very good chance that you could be criminally prosecuted, if you do. X Y and Z you're immume. Now let's move on. All of this may sound plausible enough in the abstract. But there are two complications, both of which paint the chief justice into a pudding tight corner. First. Where exactly is aligned between acts that are immune from prosecution and those that aren't. One of the few. Dialogues during Thursday's argument, which featured. The chief justice included his. Effort to underscore this problem. And how the same acts might fall on one side of the lime or the other, depending on the presence, motive or other. On a specific issue. Second. If even five or more justices ultimately agree on where the line ought to be, how long would it take them to get there? If the courts doesn't hand down a ruling until late June or even early July. That may have the effect on plastically impugning Trump, even if the majority holds that he can stand trial. That's because there may not be enough time for the child to be held before the election. And there's no way the trial would happen. In a world in which strong winds. Whatever else might be said about Roberts. He is not oblivious to this. Mel storm of legal and political consideration. I mean, he knows as well as anyone. At many of the Supreme courts, most celebrated decision historically have come to rulings. Bye. Chief justice. It was chief justice, Earl Warren, who wrote for an anonymous court in the biggest civil rights case. Not just brown V board of education. But copper V. Aaron. Loving versus Virginia and a host of others. It was chief justice, Warren Berger. Who wrote for Ava anonymous court in the Watergate tapes case, in which the courts held that president Richard Nixon. Who had appointed Berger. Had to turn over the Watergate's tape. Not what standing executive privileges a Ruly MetLife directly to Nixon's. Brexit nation. It was chief justice, William. Ryan quest who wrote for the court and a technical, but essential 2000 ruling reaffirming that only the court and not Congress. I could overrule Miranda versus Arizona, even though. Chief justice, William. Himself. Didn't like that ruling, which mandated that a suspect must be advised of their rights to remain silent. M a have maternity present. In order. For that suspects profession to be used the court. Of course. That could also work out poorly. As and Dred Scott versus Sanford. The famous 1857 ruling in which chief justice. Roger B. Tanny effectively held. That enslaved people. We're not and never could become citizens. Further helping us set the stage for civil war. But for better or worse in all these cases, the chief justice, wasn't just speaking for the court. He was speaking for the country. The Roberts. The question. Is whether there's any way to actually do that in this case. Whether there is some way to make it possible for Trump's trial to proceed before the election so that the court isn't accused of effectively taking the former present side. And an opinion that sets out a clear or looking standard to govern this in a future cases. We may not know the answer to that question for another two months. But the one thing that seems most clear, I mean, from Thursdays arguments. Is that the answer only the broader legacy of Robert's court will ultimately be up to him. Now I want to play. Some audio for you. So you can kind of. Here, what the justices were talking about. The first one you're running here is Kentaji Brown Jackson and the, her thoughts on the case.

Kentaji Brown Jackson: 12:22

If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority. Could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the oval office into you know, The S the seat of criminal activity in this country, if the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table. Wouldn't there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandoned while they're in office. It's right now, the fact that we're having this debate because. OLC has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents from the beginning of time have understood that that's a possibility that might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I'm envisioning. But once we say. No criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want. I'm worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he's in office. If someone.

Stephan: 13:33

So the second recording that you're going to hear is from justice. Kagan. And she asks if the present would be immune after ordering a coup. One of those words, I'm sick. Let's hear what she has to say.

Justice Kagan: 13:48

So it was a nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary. Is that. I immune. That sounds like similar to the bribery example, likely not immune. Now, if it's structured as an official act, you would have to be impeached and convicted first before. What does that mean? If it's structured as an official app? Well, I don't know, in the hypothetical, whether or not that would be an official act, you'd probably have to have more details to apply the blazing game. Analysis or even the Fitzgerald analysis that we've been talking about. How about if a president. Orders the military to stage a coup. I think that as the chief justice pointed out earlier, where there is a whole series of. Sort of. Guidelines against that. So to speak like a UCM Jade. For prohibits the military from following a playfully unlawful act. If one adopted justice, Alito is tasks that would fall outside. Now, if one adopts, for example, the Fitzgerald test that we advanced that may well be an official act and he would have to be, as I'll say, in response to all these kinds of hypotheticals. Has to be impeached and convicted before it can be criminally prosecuted. But I emphasize to the court. He's gone that say this president who ordered the military to stage a coup. He's no longer president. He wasn't a PhD. Couldn't be impeached. But. But he ordered the military to stage a coup and you're saying that's an official act. I think it went to bed at noon. I think it would depend on the circumstances, whether it was an official act. If it were an official act again, he would have to be employed as on me and depend on the circumstances he was the president. He is the commander in chief. He talks to his generals all the time and he told the generals, I don't feel like leaving office. I want to stage a coup is, is that immune? If it's an official ads, there needs to be impeachment and conviction beforehand because the framers viewed the re that that kind of. It's an official act. Isn't an official act. If it's an official act, it's impatient and official. On the way you've described that hypothetical, it could well be. I just don't know. You'd have to, again, it's a fact specific context is very determined. That answer sounds to me as though it's like, yeah, under my attest, it's an official act, but that sure sounds bad. Doesn't it.

Stephan: 15:48

So essentially that's what. The courts have been hearing. Throughout their time. Discussing my case is back and forth hypothetical. What's an official app. What's non official. At what process do we have to go to make an official app? Right. If the president of United States says, Hey, I want to, I want the military. To blow up this guy's house. Is that an official at, oh, well, yes. Now it's a back and forth, right? And then the guy was like, oh, well he would have to be impeached. And so he has to go through all of this before we can. Officially. Criminally prosecute. And even the impeachment doesn't kick them out of office. So I don't. So this case is going to be something that we all have to watch. No matter what your political background may be, if you are Republican Democrat, independent, whatever. You need to pay attention to this case because it's ultimately going to decide how much, how are a present truly does have. Depending on how this goes and God forbid, if he wins again, it's over. It's completely over. He's going to do shit that we are like, what the hell? So pay attention to it. As I said, the hush money. Yeah. You can watch it. It's important. But at the same time, watch the Supreme court. We need to know if he's going to get immunity. If he doesn't get immunity or how much immunity does he get? And what's the standard. Four. Future presidents moving forward. So the next topic we're going to talk about. Is actually going to be about merged really Taylor green. And how that she still is drying up papers for. I'll steam speaker Johnson. There was some audio in the list as well. I'll see you guys in a few minutes.

Microphone (MAONO AU-AM200) & Camo-8: 17:45

So speaker Mike Johnson. May not have his job. Much longer. Because our best friend, Marjorie Taylor green, AKA the green goblin. Doesn't like the fact that he's trying to get aid for Ukraine, which it baffles me because it's like, You know, we know plenty of people have said. You know, if we don't fund you claim, Russia's going to eventually take over Ukraine and we don't know where else they they're going to go. You know, they could go for Poland. They could go, who knows? Right. It's a, it's a guessing gamble game. In that type of region. So you want to fund Ukraine, give them the weapons so they can fight back Russia and Russian. Oh, Hey look, we're not going to, you know, we're not going to tolerate this. Your aggression is not going to. Invade. Another country just because you're like wallet. It are it always belong to Russia? Well, it doesn't now. It's a whole country. They got their own people, whatever the case, but Marjorie Taylor green that has said, Hey, if you pass this, that's it. We're going to call for although to. Kick you out. So here's what happens. Republican represent Marjorie tailored green on Sunday, said how speaker Mike Johnson, B trade. The Republican voters after the house approved a new 80. T crane. Threatening to call a vote for his ouster. If he doesn't resign. She goes on to say that Mike Johnson speakership is over, he needs to do the right thing to resign and allow us to move forward in a controlled process. If he doesn't do so he will be vacated. She doesn't care. She said, and I'll play it. She's like the speakership could be a revolving door. I don't care. After months of resisting putting a foreign aid bill in the house floor Johnson joined with Democrats on Saturday to advance a 95. Billion. Form a package which contains 61 billion for Ukraine and regional partners, the legislation which passed. With the support of two, 10 Democrats in 101 were publicans now heads to the Senate, which is expected to get final approval this week. As of today, they approved it. In that package, there's also the tick, top band that we were talking about earlier, too. Should clean and her supporters make good on their threats to full, to force a vote on ousting. The speaker Johnson will almost certainly need to rely on Democrats to bail him out. The Georgia hardliner is one of the least. Three Republicans who have said they will support a move to Alice Johnson. Who's majority is so slim. He can't afford to lose any Republicans on a party line vote. Johnson maintains that he has not asked any Democrats for their help, but senior Republicans believe that they will be able to count on support across the aisle to swiftly kill any motion. To vacate the speaker chair, a feeling that may have both. Johnson's confidence in pressing ahead with his plans. It's still unclear whether the Democrats will throw him a lifeline, but they have expressed a willingness to save him. Especially after he defied his right flank to move ahead with foreign aid package that closely resembles a Senate passed the version. Republican. Koa. Said Sunday that you'd vote against the motion to remove Johnson from speakership. He says I'm a progressive Democrat. And I think you would have a few progressive Democrats doing that. I disagree with the speaker Johnson on many issues. And I've been very critical of him, but he did the right thing here and he deserves to keep his job till the end of his term. Not everything on politics need to be transactional. Asked why she held off on the motion to vacate on Sunday green claim Sunday. That she's been. Responsible with this the entire time and suggests that the move will happen. She goes on to say that all of this was possible because of the betrayals of Mike Johnson. Johnson for his part, dismissed the prospect of ouster efforts on Saturday night. He says, I don't want to walk around the building being worried about emotion that vacate. After the foreign aid package past. He says I have the job to do. I have done a year. What I believe is the right thing to allow the house to work. Its will. And as I've said, you do the right thing and you let the chips fall where they may. As I've said that bill passed. Today, like literally a few hours ago that bill had passed. So I don't think Johnson should be worried. About being ousted, Marjorie Taylor green is a threat, But there was previous reports that have acid Johnson. If you would change the rules. To ousting a speaker. Because. This whole motion of vacay for one person. Remember one person. All they have to do is say, Hey, you're not doing your job. It's time out, Sprite, one person. And then the entire floor SOPs. It all halts, like everything stops. So, mm. You know, the house has to vote. So Johnson a few days ago was asked, well, would he change that? And he said that he would change that. Because. It's just too. It's it's too easy for someone to. To be thrown out. Now, Kevin McCarthy. He agreed to that because he wanted the speakership. So he wanted it so badly and they were like, Hey. Here's the apple, you take this apple, which was one person. And he was like, oh yes, yes. I use that apple against them. Johnson. Is talking with some of his higher ups to see if maybe they can change that to where you need. More than just one or whatever the circumstances may be. But definitely that one person to say, Hey, it's time for you to go. And everything stops. He says exactly that. Is where it needs to stop. I'm going to have you listen to an audio clip. We're Marjorie Taylor green talks about how she feels about Mike Johnson. The Speaker Chair That's a revolving door. If that's exactly what needs to happen, then let it be. But the days are over at the old Republican party. That wants to find foreign wars and murder people in foreign lands while they stabbed the American people in their face. Now on. We're only going to allow Republican leaders that understand the Republican agenda for this country is America first, not America last. And that's why speaker Johnson needs to resign. He needs to do the right thing and we need time to elect a new speaker of the house. This is. Basically a warning and it's time for us to go through. Through the process, take our time and find a new speaker of the house that will stand with Republicans in our Republican majority. Instead of standing with the so that's what Marjorie Taylor green had to say. About Mike Johnson keeping his job now. Here's what Johnson had to say in response. Why are you. Willing to risk losing your job. Over this Ukraine funding. Listen. My philosophy is you, you do the right thing and you let the chips fall where they may. I don't. If I operated out of fear over a motion to vacate, I would never be able to do my job. Yeah, look history, judges us for what we do. This is a critical time right now, a critical time in the world stage. I could make a. You know, I can make a selfish decision and do something that Th th that's different, but I I'm doing here. What I believe to be the right thing. I think providing lethal aid to Ukraine right now is critically important. I really do. I really do believe the Intel and. And the briefings that we've gotten that. I believe G and veterinary. Veterinary Putin and. And Iran really are an axis of evil. I think they're in coordination on this. I think that Vladimir Putin would continue to March through Europe if he were allowed. I think he might go to the Balkans next. I think he might. Have a showdown with Polander one of our NATO allies. To put it bluntly, I would rather send bullets. To Ukraine then American boys. My son is. Going to begin in the Naval academy. This fall, this. This is a live fire exercise for me as it is so many American families. This is not a game. It's not a joke. We can't play politics of this. We have to do the right thing and I'm going to allow an opportunity for every single member of the house. To vote their conscience and their will on this. And I think that's the way this institution is supposed to work. And I'm willing to take personal risk for that because we have to do the right thing and history of judges. So that's what Johnson said. And as I said, it's a. Pretty fair. Argument right. You know and time and time again, more higher Republicans and Democrats have said the same thing. If you don't find Ukraine, we don't know where else Russia's going to go now. Russia. That Vladimir Putin has said, oh, after you clean, I'm done. I'm not doing anything else. Do we really believe a criminal? I mean, all. I say, then you have a criminal right now. But we're not going to believe a dictator, right? Like come on. Like, it doesn't make sense. You go after Ukraine. We don't know if you're going to go off to Poland. You might try and go after one of our NATO allies, which means it would be world war three. Right. If he touches. Any of our NATO allies. Why do you think so many of these smaller countries have been joining up with NATO? Because they want that protection because they feel the Russia of blush. I don't know. I'm I'm like in limbo with, I don't think he's gonna lose his job. I think that the other side would save him. Be. In life, you know, Like it's been said. Not everyone agrees with Johnson. But he is doing his job, right. He's passing. He's he's very adamant of passing the, you know, the funding. That Ukraine needed. And now that it's past. We don't know. We'll see. Next. The house and the Senate have just passed the tick tock ban. Oh man, Tik TOK is it's coming. It's coming to an end. Let's talk about it next.

Stephan (2): 28:03

So, if you thought you were probably never go back to Instagram reels again, it looks like we're all going to probably have to go back to it because Tik TOK. It's on its way out of the country. It's not funny. It's so sad. So a few hours ago, the house and the Senate had just passed the bill to ban take top. Now, president Joe Biden has already said. And he would sign it if it made it to his desk. So it's making it up there. Let's go over some of the key details. So Congress finalized the legislation on Tuesday that could lead to a nationwide Tik TOK. Then escalating a massive threat to the company's us operations. The bill passed the Senate as part of a wide range of foreign aid package. And to support Israel and Ukraine. It was approved by the house on Saturday, and now it has to President Joe Biden's debts. If he signs the bill. As he is expected to do so tick tock would be forced to find a new owner within months or be banned from the United States. Entirely. What does it take tot legislation do? The bill approved this week is an updated version of a bill. That house lawmakers approved in March. It gives Tik TOK, Chinese parented, bite dance, 270 days to sell tick tock. Failure to do so with lead a significant consequences. Tick tock would be prohibited from us app stores and from internet hosting services that supports it. It would effectively restrict new downloads of the app and interactions with its content. If signed this week, the deadlines per sale with. Fall in January of 2025. Under the new legislation, however Biden could extend the deadline. And now they're 90 days. If he determines there has been processed. Toward a sale given Tik TOK potentially up to a year before. Facing a bay. So let's just clarify that. In theory, someone. Mainly a us company would have to buy. Tick tock, right. Take taught would have to sell. It's shares that have been owned by the Chinese government. You get 270 days. Which means. In January of 2025 now Biden could extend it as it said. If he sees that there's process, but if he sees no process, that's it. As of next year, Tik TOK is gone. Can't download it. Won't be able to download it. We won't be able to post anything. It's gone. So now you're probably wondering, well, how did this slip into the foreign aid bill? Like I thought they were going to do a separate one for it. In theory. Yes. But I don't feel like it would have passed if they did it separately. But they slipped it in. Remember, this is how Congress works. If they want something, they'll just slip it into an existing bill that they know they're going to get all the support for. And that's an easier way for things to pass. So the earlier take top bill had been passed by the house, but it stalled in the Senate. And a. Normal move house Republicans. This munch attacks, the revise tick tock bill to the foreign aid package in hopes of force in the Senate to vote on a tick out legislation. Bundling the bill with a foreign aid eight top us priority, fast track the tick tock bill and made it more. Use me. More likely to pass. As I said, it was on its own. Chances of passing. It would have been very slim, but you slip it in to the foreign aid bill. Everybody wants the foreign aid for you, claim everything else. That's it there. It's going to pass. So when we'll buy an assign the bill, since the bill is part of the foreign aid package that Biden has vocally supported, he's expected to sign it and quickly. By the has been on record support in the earlier Tik TOK legislation. So there's a little reason to think that he would oppose the latest version of of it gives Tik TOK a slightly longer runway. And the white house additional input on before sale. So, what does it mean for your use of the app? If and when Biden signs the bill into law, it would start the 270 day clock for take top to find the buyer. If it cannot separate from bite dance, then Tik TOK users could hypothetically be cut off by January. But this is still a big, if. So for now I'll take top fans can continue to use the app as before though. They might begin to see more creators. Or the company itself speaking out in the apps. Opposing the legislation. As I said, it needs to separate. From. Might dance. What's. There is eight Chinese owned. Company. And. Congress believes that it's so huge. They're collecting data on us. And they can use it at any time and all that other. Technology stuff. So Tik TOK has options. Okay. Tik TOK has promised to take a us government to court. If Biden signs the bill. And a memo on Saturday, a top tick tock executive wrote to employees. That this would be the beginning, not the end. Of a long process, the challenge, what the company calls an unconstitutional. Legislation that sensors Americans free. Freedom of speech and that it would harm small businesses that depend on the app in March. Take tot C E O. Shall shew. Don't even. About to continue fighting, including. Exercising our legal rights. And now. If tiptop does take it to court. Do they have a case? So the first amendment expect experts save the bill has the ultimate efforts of censoring Tik, TOK users. Could be shot down by the courts. Longstanding Supreme court protects Americans' first amendment, right to access information. Ideas and the media's from abroad. By banning Tik TOK, the bill would infringe on this, right. And with no real payoff. China and other foreign adversaries could still purchase American census data from data. Brokers on the open market. A court challenge could lead to measures being temporary block while the law, while the litigation plays out. Lately over multiple years, but if a court declines to grant a temporary injunction, To talk could have to scramble to comply to the law. If Titov gets sold to someone else, the trouble is ticktock. Parent is subject to Chinese law. And the Chinese government is on record opposing a sale. In recent years, China has implemented. Expert control governing algorithms policy that could seem to cover the increasingly successful algorithm. It powers, tick, top recommended engine. The Chinese government doesn't want to let bite dance. Relinquish take talk algorithm. The thinking goes, it could block the sale outright. Ultimately it may allow to talk to be sold. Oh, without the lucrative algorithm that forms the basis of its proper. Larry. Can tick tock still succeed without it's out of the rhythm? That would be a difficult question based in the company, in the event of forcing the sale without the secret sauce. That has the. App. To 170 million us users, the app could be good as dead. That's Tik TOK. So we got a good year left. To see if someone wants to bite. And what we've been hearing, the chatter and everything. China's not going to sell. So more than likely. There might be like a take top 2.00. Like Tik TOK. That's the us. Version that doesn't have all these amazing features and you know, the special sauce of algorithm and all that fun stuff. So I could definitely see that it gets banned. So, I mean, they'll probably just read another tick, top bill. A us version, won't be as amazing or fantastic as the Tik TOK that we know of today. We'll still have tick tock. So enjoy it while it lasts. Otherwise we might have to go back to Instagram real. Anyways. Let's go over. As I told you there there's a lot.

Stephan: 36:28

So Arizona, A Republican state, even though it has a democratic governor. Has decided that, Hey, we're going to issue. A civil war, era abortion. After abortion is already limited in the state. This just takes it another step. Further. So the court ruled on Tuesday that the state must adhere to a law. May before statehood. When Arizona was just a territory that bands all abortion, except those necessary to save a pregnant person's life. The law. Which is enforceable because Roy V. Wade was overturned. Is broader than the states 2022 ban on abortions after a 15 week pregnancy and carries a prison sentence, the two to five years for abortion providers. Vice-president Kamala Harris. Came out. Friday. To Arizona as mounting pressures. This election year has brought abortion to the, for most. As a lightly ballot issue. Arizona Republicans, two days earlier. Brought it a volt to repeal the 1864 ban as a scene. On the state's house floor erupted into chaos and Democrats channel shame. The state Supreme court delayed enforcement of the law for 14 days to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to pursue other challenges. In lower courts, if they wish to including challenges to the band constitutionally. It's unlikely. There will be much movement on enforcing the law. As legal challenges are likely to get tied up in the lower courts. For some time. While Arizona attorney general, Chris Meyer, and several county attorneys say they will not prosecute. Abortion cases under this new ban. Analysts say. It's unlikely providers will take on a liability. A performing illegal medical services, leading to a possible chilling effect on abortion statewide. In the meantime, abortion rights advocates and encourage Arizona patients. You seek services. While they're still able to, and they get to the poll is November. When they will have the opportunity to vote on a ballot measure. That would restore abortion through the axis of point of viability. Approximately 24 weeks into pregnancy. So Arizona Democrat, governor Keith Hobbs slammed the state Supreme court decision. Bowing the fight for reproductive freedoms for the people of Arizona. Hob signed the executive order in June greenie of the state attorney general. Over prosecuting abortion related cases in the state though, that order has yet to be tested. It's just prevents an extreme county attorney from using the band from the wise women and doctors were seeking care to provide the care that their patient needs. It hasn't been tested yet and I'm hopeful that it doesn't have to be. So let me just side now. So what she just said, she gave the attorney general of Arizona. The power. Two. Any like county attorney general. If they decide to like prosecute a case for a woman or a doctor from doing the abortion after. Whatever circumstances do they have set for the attorney general for Arizona has the power to be like, no, we're not doing that. So it hasn't been tested yet. Hopefully it does. The attorney General's office has not prosecuted providers or patients under the existing 15 week abortion ban and does not intend to prosecute any cases under the near total ban. We're looking at everything that we. Possibly. Can make sure that the band never actually goes into place in Arizona. Then there will be opportunities in the next couple of months to fight the banning for. Maya's acknowledge that it's possible supporters I'll be abortion ban will try and take her or over enforcement of the law. He says, I'll see you. Or she says, I'll see them for. So Maricopa county attorney general, Rachel, till CNN, her office has yet to receive. A request to prosecuting the abortion case in nearly two years, since Roe V. Wade was overturned. And does not anticipate this will change. She goes on to say that it's important to remember that under Arizona state, under Arizona's law. Women who get an abortion can not be prosecuted. It's the state Supreme court ruling. Does not change that. Women can not and will not be prosecuted, receiving an abortion. Arizona's 1864. Law does not outline punishment for pregnant people. Only providers and the 2022 law states women may not be prosecuted for attempting or undergoing abortion. Though the state Supreme court decision would have a chilling effect on abortion services. It will not end the need for those services and will ultimately lead to an increase of unsafe abortions. And threatening the liberties of those involved. They pina. Pima. County attorney General's office warrant in their statements. I will not be using. Precious resources to prosecute credited health providers. He told CNN. The penal county. Attorney's office said it will evaluate each case. We will review the court's ruling and as always assess every case on its individual merits. It's important to note that even pertaining to the 15 week law, You have not received a single submittal. From an agency to. There's enormous amounts of. Cautious tape and discretion under the Arizona law. So the Dean from Arizona state university law school. And he, that's what he told CNN. Vendor said it's unlikely for officials to attempt to prosecute abortion cases while the future of the law remains uncertain. Although others note that. Prominence of the band could use political pressure to push that as it forced. So right now providers are in limbo. Even if the ban is implemented, it's unclear how a small window is left open by the exceptional allowing abortions to save a pregnant person's life. That's a medical distinction, not a legal one. Simon says she supervised a group of students who file. A brief to the state Supreme court. It put that there's an untangible position of having forts potentially second guests they're considered educated and medical decisions about what necessarily to save a patient's life. Who is also the director of legal line for the university. It also puts the doctors and then. In an UN. Tangible position of having to withhold treatment where the treatment is necessary. For example, The reserve a woman's. Fertility to reserve a woman's health to prevent a woman from being potentially permanently disabled. In 2022, 11,550 abortions were performed in the state almost 99%, which were provided to Arizona residents, according to the data. It's really unconscionable that folks in Arizona now are going to have to go to Nevada, California, New Mexico, or Colorado to get the care that they need. The governor said. Dr. Jill Gibson, chief medical director of planned parenthood. Arizona said that she immediately started receiving questions from PA patients. Asking. If they would be able to get the care they need it. When the decision came out. Jill said, this is going to have absolutely unbelievable consequences for the patients in our community. And we just cannot state enough how dire the situation is going. To be for the patients who need to access abortion care in Arizona. Doctor. Deshaun Taylor presidency. Oh of desert star Institute of family planning. Warn the law will be a particular impact on marginalized groups. We cannot amplify enough. Who's those apportion bands. Mostly impact. Taylor said. Historically marginalized in the polls glutes. Who already faced barriers to care those in low income families, rural areas, immigrants, disabled. Black, indigenous and other people of color east communities experienced physical. Medical and emotional and financial harm. Because of these policies. Since the law mentions the use of drugs to induce miscarriage. Simon said the use of abortion pills is also at risk. And the governor warned on Tuesday access to other reproductive health services is also on the line. We know that IVF is under attack. We know that contraception is under attack. She said. So abortion is going to be on the ballot in November, which is going to be on the ballot for every single state year in the United States of America. I've been saying it on this show. Since we started right. That abortion is going to be on the ballot. You know, president Joe Biden has said, it's going to be on the ballot. Vice-president Harris says it's going to be on the ballot. It's going to be on the ballot. And we've seen in these previous ballots that people want the rights to the abortion, right? They want at least 15 to 24 weeks. That's what the consensus is right now. Six weeks is completely ridiculous. Right? Medical. Professionals and experts have already. Came out. Blunt, the ones that are respectable and are knowledgeable. I've said that most women don't find it though. Pregnant until about 15 weeks. So it's kind of. On tangible to be like, well, you get six weeks while six weeks kind of just pushes a lot of things. Right. And I know, you know, there's always the religious aspects of all, you know, you're killing a child. And all this other stuff. And my philosophy for abortion is that it's not pro-abortion it's about pro-choice right. Change the conversation from pro-abortion. Which sounds very. Terrible. Right. Because it's almost like, well, pro killing babies. And it's not pro abortion. It's more, it needs to be changed to pro-choice. Having pro-choice means that it's the woman's decision to be able to do what she wants with her body. I hate when I hear. People say, oh, well, you know well, you know, God is this and God is that. Or God doesn't like this about abortions. And it's like, You don't speak for God. Like we all can speak to God. I can speak to God right now. Right. And or when it comes to pro choice, that's that woman's decision it's, it's going to be between her, her doctors, her family, and God, you can't tell someone. That. Hey, well, God's going to judge you badly. You don't know what God's going to do because you don't speak for God. Right? Yeah, you may be a pastor or you may know the Bible or whatever the hell you may do, but you don't speak for God. That person has an individual relationship with God. And let them live that life. They don't need you to judge them. They're already feeling probably judged, already feeling hurt. They're probably feeling confused. They have all these mixed emotions. Because there's risks that do that do go on with having an abortion. You know, right. What if she becomes disabled? You know, in the process or what if they tell her if she gets this abortion, she can never have any more kids. There's a lot of other. Aspects to it then? Oh, well, you're killing a child. We have a lot of kids in the foster system. I don't see Republicans doing a damn thing of trying to make the foster system. Less. Pat than what it is, right. And that's not me saying, oh, well then, you know, Pro pro choice. Or pro-abortion. It's still pro-choice, it's a woman's decision. It's not the government's decision. It's her decision or her to make for herself. Anyways, let me get off that. Anyways, that's the article. Well, the courts in the states. Officials grapple with the new law. Arizona residents will have the opportunity to vote in the matters of themselves in November. Arizona for abortion access, a group of abortion rights organizations announced that last week. It has gathered enough signatures for November's 20, 24 ballot measure that would ask voters to in shrine abortion rights for the state constitution. The measure would restore abortion access up to the point of viability, which advocates say is more reasonable than the state's client. 15 week ban. The push to start the massive efforts to get abortion on the 2020 ballot in several states. I move abortion rights. Advocates are hopeful. We restore some power to voters rather than the state courts. Everything is going to be caught up in fighting back and forth over the next several months, said vendor. It's just waiting for the people to resolve the situation. And I think it was all in nobody. I can tell you from my stance and what I've been the hearing and. What's going on. It's definitely going to be an overwhelming vote in November. We've, we're already seen, as I say, in these smaller elections with, you know, with the Republican states are trying to like, you know, when it comes to like trying to pass a new law or something like that, we're seeing, we're seeing the overwhelming. The overwhelming support. We're being pro-choice and having access. To the abortion care. As I said, it's not about pro abortion. It's more about pro-choice. Because if we start changing the conversation approach choice, then it's like, okay, it's that person's choice. Because as I said, when you say pro board abortion, you know, I understand what you're saying, but to some people it kind of sends like a negative connotation to it. If you say pro choice, it's like, oh, pro choice. Hell. Yeah. It's your choice you cause you're the voter. It's you're the human being. You know, whether it's your wife, your sister, the daughter, your stepmother, whatever the case may be. And as I said, most of these states don't have rape or incest in them. Like this, this one that passed for Arizona Supreme court just says, save a pipe, a woman's life. That's it. Right. It doesn't have for rape or incest. Abortion. We'll be back on the ballot in November. It's going to be everywhere in November. So we'll see how it all turns out.

Microphone (MAONO AU-AM200) & Camo-12: 50:30

I love to give shout outs to my countries. They're not in the United States. So this week. Still in number one. India. Wait, what. Wow, India, India is number one on our list with 17 people listening. Australia. You're number two. There's 16 people listening. Canada has actually made number four, which 14 people. We have the United Kingdom coming in at 12, and then we have Nigeria coming in at number 10. We still have South Africa, Ireland. And Bulgaria. So I just want to give a huge shout out to all of you guys. We posted an Instagram post on, please make sure you go onto our Instagram at thelast_conversation and join the conversation. Also, I want to hear from you. I want you to go onto our Instagram. The one, any one of our social media posts there, and comment on a topic that you would like me to talk about. Next month or even the month after that. All right. We got some. Amazing topics to talk about, but I want to hear from you. I want to know if maybe there's. You know, maybe you want to hear more about IVF. Maybe we want to hear about more abortion. Maybe you want to. Hear more about minority issues about housing and job and all that other stuff. So I want to hear from you. Because ultimately I do the shell for you. I do apologize for going Mia for a little bit. But because school is almost over. I can now do these shows a little more readily. So until then I love you all be safe. Be kind, be different to different when the winter you want to be treated. And I will see you guys here next week on the last conversation. Goodnight.