Speaker 1: Welcome todake it happened here a podcaster. We occasionally have
Speaker 1: introductions and mostly we have this and yeah that it's
Speaker 1: it's the podcast. Things fall apart, things come back together again,
Speaker 1: they fall apart again, we put them back together again. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, you know the drill um. Yeah. And with
Speaker 1: me is James. Hello, James, Hello, And speaking of things
Speaker 1: falling apart, we're we're talking today about the what what
Speaker 1: what it looks like when this sort of the interconnectivity
Speaker 1: of the American judicial system comes apart under the weight
Speaker 1: of dueling abortion laws. And with us to talk about
Speaker 1: that is a lot of people who have written a
Speaker 1: lot of very good stuff about this. So with us
Speaker 1: is Ali Handra car Baio, who is a clinical instructor
Speaker 1: at Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic, where she works on
Speaker 1: the intersection of gender and technology. Hello, welcome to the show. Um.
Speaker 1: We also have Michelle McGrath who is a public defender
Speaker 1: in New York City for like almost a decade and
Speaker 1: specializes in bail and parole litigation. Michelle, Welcome to the show. Hey,
Speaker 1: happy to be here. And finally we have Eva Pierre,
Speaker 1: who's a senior litigation counselor where she works at the
Speaker 1: intersection of reproductive and criminal law, and she is on
Speaker 1: cases where folks are criminalized for their pregnancy laws. So
Speaker 1: if you welcome, welcome to the show as well. So
Speaker 1: y'all have written, Actually, I don't it occurs to me
Speaker 1: that it's been long enough. This is still not published yet, right, Yes,
Speaker 1: it's so, it's basically we submitted it to Cuney Law
Speaker 1: Review waiting for edits. We expect our Law Review article
Speaker 1: to be published in December. Um. So, but you know,
Speaker 1: we've we've basically created a t l d R that
Speaker 1: we we are collaborated for Slate, so we you know,
Speaker 1: there's a hundred word article on Slate. You can read
Speaker 1: that kind of condenses down our article from words as
Speaker 1: much as we can. I we were we were graciously
Speaker 1: provided the long one, and so we read the long one.
Speaker 1: We're gonna really talk about it because yeah, it's it's
Speaker 1: it's a it's a really interesting look at I don't know,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of sort of points of Okay, so
Speaker 1: I guess we should rerun and talk about what this
Speaker 1: actually is, which is that one of the things that's
Speaker 1: been happening in the last I mean, basically, since jobs
Speaker 1: is a series of questions about what Okay, So it
Speaker 1: is a series of questions about what happens if you
Speaker 1: are in a state where abortions are illegal and you
Speaker 1: go to another state and you get an abortion there,
Speaker 1: and yeah, and there. There's lots of jurisdictional questions here
Speaker 1: and yeah, and this article is a very very sort
Speaker 1: of in depth and really interesting look at it. And
Speaker 1: I guess, okay, I want to jump into this at
Speaker 1: a kind of weird place, but I wanted to start
Speaker 1: with one of the things that one of the things
Speaker 1: that's in this article that's I haven't really seen much
Speaker 1: discussion of is about the way that the sort of
Speaker 1: safe harbor laws that states have been setting up are
Speaker 1: being like if well, okay, the way that they can
Speaker 1: potentially be in the way that previous safe harbor laws
Speaker 1: for immigration stuff were sabotaged by the fact that like
Speaker 1: all of the cops are sending like all of their
Speaker 1: stuff to each other. So yeah, I was wondering if
Speaker 1: you could talk a bit about that. I guess it's
Speaker 1: like a lead into it. Yeah, I mean I with
Speaker 1: respect to specifically, like how all the law enforcement is
Speaker 1: talking to each other. I think Alejandro might know a
Speaker 1: little more with respect to that. But when it comes
Speaker 1: to the way these laws are being written there, they
Speaker 1: really don't have the kind of teeth that sort of
Speaker 1: the politicians are spinning to the public. They're sort of
Speaker 1: letting folks think that, well, we would never we in
Speaker 1: New York would never send you to Texas for anything
Speaker 1: related to the criminalization of a pregnancy laws. Um. And
Speaker 1: because of the way the law of extradition works in
Speaker 1: the United States, which is actually a constitutional law, um,
Speaker 1: it's going to be hard in a lot of ways
Speaker 1: for them to resist that. And so we have our
Speaker 1: article does talk about a little bit um in actually
Speaker 1: great detail about how they could actually craft the craft
Speaker 1: laws that would be a little bit different. Yeah. I
Speaker 1: think one of the things that you know this just
Speaker 1: this past week there was the story that came out
Speaker 1: of Nebraska where Facebook provided the d MS of someone
Speaker 1: who is uh being charged with you know, it wasn't
Speaker 1: even charged with like like there wasn't a formal charge
Speaker 1: of like committing an abortion, like the person that was
Speaker 1: being charged it was like disposing of a body, like
Speaker 1: and uh be hiding a body, And so Facebook like
Speaker 1: released a statement and was saying like, well, we weren't
Speaker 1: told that this had anything to do with an abortion,
Speaker 1: and like that's the exact problem, right, is that when
Speaker 1: states are going to seek extradition, they're going to bring
Speaker 1: charges that have probably nothing to do with it in
Speaker 1: the immediate like on its face to do with abortion.
Speaker 1: It could just be like, you know, they can repurpose
Speaker 1: all kinds of laws like endangerment of a minor, right, Like,
Speaker 1: they can do all these things that like would ordinarily
Speaker 1: like never apply in a pregnancy, but they can just
Speaker 1: kind of do it just bring charges. Um. And so
Speaker 1: you know, um, my colleague who's for training out here
Speaker 1: said their content cook has has written about this successively
Speaker 1: about like the criminalization aspect. But in terms of like
Speaker 1: how you know, these these safe harbor states, you know,
Speaker 1: these laws like are going to be very difficult. I
Speaker 1: think it is just really what we're dealing with the
Speaker 1: effects of surveillance capitalism. Right. So, like Facebook turned over
Speaker 1: these d m s. Facebook has been in the process
Speaker 1: of moving to end to end encryption, which basically would
Speaker 1: have made this impossible to do in the first place
Speaker 1: because it would have been similar to signal but what
Speaker 1: Facebook did is because they realized that they would have
Speaker 1: lost access to data around people's messages and what they're
Speaker 1: talking about, they made it optional instead of buy default.
Speaker 1: And suppose people who are not very tech savvy are
Speaker 1: very familiar or understanding of you know, who has access
Speaker 1: to the messages and whether the government can get access,
Speaker 1: they might not know that they can set this to
Speaker 1: end end to end encryption, And so essentially, like in
Speaker 1: pursuit of profit, Facebook doesn't enable this privacy feature. But
Speaker 1: this is the exact same kind of stuff, right, So,
Speaker 1: like Facebook has access to this data, but there's also
Speaker 1: this whole shady system of data brokers that gets access
Speaker 1: to all kinds of data. And that's exactly how I
Speaker 1: think we alluded to when you ask this question about
Speaker 1: Ice having access to basically all this information on immigrants
Speaker 1: that Eates had swore they would never share with federal
Speaker 1: immigration officials. Like ICE is basically built this entire shadow
Speaker 1: system where they're purchasing data about driver's licenses and all
Speaker 1: this stuff basically by the purchasing it on the open market,
Speaker 1: and that bypasses all kinds of formal data requisition requests, warrants, subpoenas,
Speaker 1: all those things that would normally be required because it's
Speaker 1: just freely available. So you know, suffice to say, as
Speaker 1: much as these states may want to protect things on
Speaker 1: that end in terms of data, it's going to be
Speaker 1: incredibly hard to do so. And I think they're the
Speaker 1: previous efforts around uh, safe Harbor for immigrants UM and
Speaker 1: asylum states and things like that. Um, it's just gonna
Speaker 1: be really hard to enforce. Some practice, however, on the
Speaker 1: extradition side, when when like criminal charges are actually brought
Speaker 1: that there there is some things that states can actually
Speaker 1: do to help protect folks who are caught up with
Speaker 1: any kind of abortion related charges in their states. UM.
Speaker 1: I just also want to jump into say that the
Speaker 1: system works the way that it works because nobody's monitoring it.
Speaker 1: So when we're talking about law enforcement officials that are
Speaker 1: talking to one another and getting information through very informal means, right,
Speaker 1: things that probably by the book would take a warrant
Speaker 1: to go from one place to the other just takes
Speaker 1: Marcy calling over Janice that works at the other system
Speaker 1: and getting something faxed over, even if they're not doing
Speaker 1: it out of malice. It's just, oh, this is out
Speaker 1: of convenience. It makes life a lot easier to get
Speaker 1: information from this place to that place. And folks have
Speaker 1: these informal systems that are set up that even when
Speaker 1: the law says that they cannot do it, if we
Speaker 1: don't have safeguards that I hate to say go after
Speaker 1: people because it seems so carceral, but like that protects
Speaker 1: what the intent of the law is. It has no teeth. Right,
Speaker 1: If your law doesn't stop Marcy from calling Janice and
Speaker 1: getting information on someone that they're not supposed to have
Speaker 1: in your law, doesn't matter. It's kind of in a
Speaker 1: nothing sandwich, right, um and I have plenty of thoughts
Speaker 1: and stuff to say about the criminalization when we get
Speaker 1: there later, because that's a lot of my work. But
Speaker 1: I think that gets to what Michelle and Alhandra and
Speaker 1: what um Conci who's not here have found. It's just
Speaker 1: you gotta have something more than nothing sandwich. Is something
Speaker 1: more than something that seems good on the surface and
Speaker 1: doesn't actually help the people that we want to help.
Speaker 1: And I want to sort of help folks sort of
Speaker 1: understand how this plays out on the grounds when the
Speaker 1: article we we give an example, right, So maybe I've
Speaker 1: got a New Yorker who gets prescribed a medication that
Speaker 1: would induce abortion, and you know, they bring it to
Speaker 1: their friend in a state where that's criminalized, and they
Speaker 1: give their friend the medication, the pregnancy ends. Maybe the
Speaker 1: person is concerned and they go to the hospital. Um
Speaker 1: quite often nurses and doctors are part of the criminalization
Speaker 1: proce sess and so you know, maybe they call law
Speaker 1: enforcement official based on this information, they get a subpoena
Speaker 1: for that person's phone. So now they're in the phone
Speaker 1: and they can find out, Wow, they got this medicine
Speaker 1: from the New Yorker. Well, now now the person who
Speaker 1: took the medication, perhaps it's charged with homicide. Right. I
Speaker 1: think what's key here is that they're not necessarily going
Speaker 1: to be charged with abortion. Maybe they're charged with homicide.
Speaker 1: They're charged with the fanticide. And guess what, the person
Speaker 1: who came from New York is now probably going to
Speaker 1: be charged as an accomplice. So now we have a
Speaker 1: warrant for for a homicide for the person in New York.
Speaker 1: Because of all the national databases that we have, the NYPD,
Speaker 1: the any of the law enforcement in New York is
Speaker 1: going to see oh that New Yorkers wanted for homicide,
Speaker 1: let me go get that person. Um. And so when
Speaker 1: then that person comes in front of a judge, even
Speaker 1: though New York is saying or Connecticut is saying, you know,
Speaker 1: we're not going to give any resources to extradite someone
Speaker 1: related to the determination of pregnancy, Well, they're just being
Speaker 1: brought before law enforcement in front of a judge who
Speaker 1: sees that they're one of the homicide right and so
Speaker 1: on the ground, these laws don't have anything to stop them.
Speaker 1: And and so we've sort of suggested things that involved
Speaker 1: immediate rights to council people need to be released for
Speaker 1: extradition um. And we can talk about some of those more,
Speaker 1: but I think it helps to sort of give that
Speaker 1: example to see how it's happening, how it would happen
Speaker 1: in real life. There's something else I wanted to sort
Speaker 1: of talk about with this, because one of the things
Speaker 1: that on the surce surveillance front has been the way
Speaker 1: in whish like what we're seeing now is sort of
Speaker 1: the culmination of like a bunch of the types of
Speaker 1: surveillance that have been inflicted on a bunch of different
Speaker 1: groups of people. Do you have the anti sex worker stuff.
Speaker 1: You have the deservation, the surveillance stuff that's music because
Speaker 1: in Ograncy you have h the sort of post nine
Speaker 1: eleven like I mean, this is where the sort of
Speaker 1: fusion centers um come from, is the sort of like
Speaker 1: post nine eleven security state build up. And then you
Speaker 1: have the stuff that's been used to go after activists.
Speaker 1: And I think that's been really interesting to me to
Speaker 1: sort of, I mean incredibly like depressing too to watch
Speaker 1: has been Yeah, Like I don't know, like I remember
Speaker 1: like the few like one of the things if you
Speaker 1: these fusion centers where like all of these sort of
Speaker 1: like law enforcement agencies like share information with each other,
Speaker 1: Like I don't know, like I remember in like they
Speaker 1: were like sending one of my friends tweets around because
Speaker 1: that was one of the things they were doing to
Speaker 1: like go after people doing the protests. And like, I
Speaker 1: don't know, I was interested in in in this question
Speaker 1: of of these fusion centers because it's it's this I
Speaker 1: don't know, it's this real sort of like like it
Speaker 1: really seems like the sort of like the the next
Speaker 1: step of where all of this stuff goes is, you know,
Speaker 1: the fusion centers becomes becomes this place where it's really
Speaker 1: really easy to bypass the law because you know, all
Speaker 1: of this stuff is just getting shared anyways. And it
Speaker 1: brings up this other problem which I was interested in,
Speaker 1: which is about, like to what extent can the state
Speaker 1: even control law enforcement? Because like, okay, like law enforcement,
Speaker 1: are those like cops in general, very reactionary. There there's
Speaker 1: you know, if if you you know, if if if
Speaker 1: you go back into the history of the anti Bush movement,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of them being like aided to better
Speaker 1: by the cops. And I was wondering, I don't know
Speaker 1: what what you think about, like like what what what
Speaker 1: do you even do if the cops just decide they
Speaker 1: don't want to follow the law at all, and they're
Speaker 1: just you know, they're gonna they're just gonna keep passing
Speaker 1: information on no matter what you do. I think Alejandra
Speaker 1: and I probably uh different on views about where things
Speaker 1: are going next, probably just because of the nature of
Speaker 1: our our work and the things that we're dealing with
Speaker 1: the most. So this is gonna be fine. So I
Speaker 1: I actually think it's oh, well, yesterday, two days ago,
Speaker 1: whenever this airs. However, many days ago, one of our
Speaker 1: colleagues at IF When How. My colleague Laura Hus, who's
Speaker 1: brilliant UM, has been working on this research project for
Speaker 1: like the last two years tracking cases of when folks
Speaker 1: are criminalized for self managed abortion. Why self managed abortion
Speaker 1: because that is the abortions that were happening outside of
Speaker 1: clinical spaces, right that were there were always questions about
Speaker 1: who can be criminalized for self managing their care. There
Speaker 1: weren't as many protections in the law for a lot
Speaker 1: of helpers and things like that in self managed care.
Speaker 1: So when her and her team looked at this data, UM,
Speaker 1: what they found was that the biggest risk of criminalization
Speaker 1: didn't actually necessarily come from UM external forces looking at
Speaker 1: big data, right, but was actually cut like the hell
Speaker 1: is other people because what they were finding was that
Speaker 1: nearly the majority of cases of folks coming to the
Speaker 1: attention of law enforcement was coming from medical professionals. So
Speaker 1: I want to say, I have the numbers in front
Speaker 1: of me somewhere it's UM. Well, so it's something like
Speaker 1: of folks that were reported to the police were reported
Speaker 1: by some sort of medical professional, whether that's a doctor
Speaker 1: or a social work or a nurse or whoever that
Speaker 1: was at a hospital when they were seeking care or
Speaker 1: they were getting prenatal care at some point when they
Speaker 1: found out they were pregnant. That's how they came to
Speaker 1: the attention of law enforcement. Another of those folks that
Speaker 1: came to the attention of law enforcement came to people
Speaker 1: that they told information to that they entrusted, whether that
Speaker 1: was a family member, a partner, a former partner, whoever
Speaker 1: the heck right. So, what we're finding is that the
Speaker 1: vast majority of people that came to the attention of
Speaker 1: law enforcement was because of folks like actual people that
Speaker 1: had the information, and then that turned into them being
Speaker 1: individually targeted by police, and then that turned into their
Speaker 1: data being mined on their actual physical devices, not like
Speaker 1: big brother down but small other up right. So, uh,
Speaker 1: when I certainly think about kind of how big data
Speaker 1: can be used and manipulated and like absolutely messed up
Speaker 1: to do a dragnet of folks, that's always kind of
Speaker 1: a possibility that's swimming. But I think the immediate possibility is, like,
Speaker 1: how do you protect your individual data on your individual devices?
Speaker 1: What safety plan do you have in place about how
Speaker 1: you use the internet wholesale? Because I'm a lawyer, I
Speaker 1: can't tell people to commit crimes, but I can tell
Speaker 1: people to be very careful about how you manage your
Speaker 1: devices and how you manage information. Who do you tell
Speaker 1: your business to full stop? Right, because that's how folks
Speaker 1: are coming to the attention of law enforcement. But can
Speaker 1: the laws control cops? I think what we generally see
Speaker 1: is like probably not, um, But will the courts respond
Speaker 1: to cops that work outside of the law? I think
Speaker 1: the loyally awful answer is it depends on the jurisdiction
Speaker 1: that you managed to find yourself in. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: I think Keith Gas just head it right on the head. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, it's cybersecurity or weakest like as always a
Speaker 1: human element, So like that's always going to be the
Speaker 1: biggest concern, right, Like who are you telling about any
Speaker 1: of this? Like who knows about it? Um? Like you know,
Speaker 1: you know on at tentiontional as you're like with genderforming
Speaker 1: care in Texas, like one of the one of the
Speaker 1: plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Texas, like one of the
Speaker 1: trans boys like that that was like you know, found
Speaker 1: out about you know, Governor Abbott's letter to like basically
Speaker 1: equate gender affirming care as child abuse attempted suicide and
Speaker 1: then when was taken to the hospital, the hospital staff
Speaker 1: then made a report to like the Department of Yeah,
Speaker 1: so I mean this was all in in the A c.
Speaker 1: L US lawsuit, and it's like it's just insane, right, So,
Speaker 1: like that that's exactly the thing. Like the biggest risk
Speaker 1: is always gonna be the human element, Like you're like
Speaker 1: the doctors, the nurses, your friends, like family members, you know,
Speaker 1: and it might even be people like you deeply trust
Speaker 1: you just never know. And so that's always going to
Speaker 1: be an aspect. But I think one of the biggest
Speaker 1: risks as well is is that the amount of data
Speaker 1: that we have now, like even if that can't be
Speaker 1: used like in a proactive way to like target people
Speaker 1: on the back ends, like once you do have that
Speaker 1: kind of friend turning you in, like all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: they have intent. They have like all of these things
Speaker 1: from messages, they have location data. They show exactly where
Speaker 1: you were at what time. Like it's it's just like
Speaker 1: the perfect surveillance system that basically makes like any kind
Speaker 1: of reasonable defense nearly impossible, right, Like they can show
Speaker 1: where you were, who you talk to, um, And so
Speaker 1: like I think that The best tweet that I saw
Speaker 1: about this is from from someone who works at Digital
Speaker 1: Defense Fund, and they're basically like there um actually might
Speaker 1: not have been them. I just remember it was just
Speaker 1: like there there is no conversation about criminal activity. There
Speaker 1: is only conspiracy. Like basically it's like any time you're
Speaker 1: chatting about any of this stuff, like it's basically like
Speaker 1: that that in itself can be potentially considered like criminal conduct,
Speaker 1: and like that can be used like as intent and
Speaker 1: like all these things and like um in prosecution. So
Speaker 1: like there's all of those aspects and I think just
Speaker 1: to answer your your question like more broadly on on
Speaker 1: what police can be done, like like to be honest,
Speaker 1: I guess, attorney, it's been very very frustrating seeing qualified
Speaker 1: immunity just being like increased, right like so so basically
Speaker 1: there's been no appetite by the courts to like like
Speaker 1: remove this doctrine or whittle it away actually like being
Speaker 1: rapidly expanded, especially the aspect around um federal agents. Right
Speaker 1: and now like there's some can you explain, sorry briefly
Speaker 1: just what that is for people who don't know. So,
Speaker 1: qualified immunity basically means that you can't bring a civil
Speaker 1: rights lawsuit particular with it call like a nineteen eighty
Speaker 1: three lawsuit, which is like the federal statute that allows
Speaker 1: you to bring civil rights lawsuits against state and federal
Speaker 1: in individuals for um any kind of civil rights abuses.
Speaker 1: And it's everything from like discrimination on basis of race
Speaker 1: to basically you know, the cop beating someone you know
Speaker 1: within an inch of their life though so basically any
Speaker 1: any kind of civil rights violations. It's called a three case,
Speaker 1: which is like the citation is the actual law that
Speaker 1: like dates back to the nineteenth century, like it's part
Speaker 1: of um like the ku Klux Klan Act, which like,
Speaker 1: so this is a long running like civil rights statute
Speaker 1: that really gained prominence in the last sixty years. But
Speaker 1: you know, so basically what qualified immunity does is it
Speaker 1: basically says it, well, if it wasn't a clearly established
Speaker 1: right when this abuse or violation of your civil rights happened,
Speaker 1: the officer or the government official, it can't be held
Speaker 1: liable for it. So basically like and the way that
Speaker 1: they do it is very strictly interpreted. It was like
Speaker 1: clearly established right. So it's like, well it wasn't clearly
Speaker 1: established right that you weren't supposed to be able to
Speaker 1: be beaten with a baton, like and it's just like
Speaker 1: what like it's some of these cases get really crazy.
Speaker 1: I'm not an expert on this by any means, but
Speaker 1: like I've I've you know, come across a few, and
Speaker 1: it's it's absolutely insane, Like how how like narrowly they'll
Speaker 1: they'll oftentimes like define what like clearly like it's not like,
Speaker 1: you know, broadly defined right of like maybe police officers
Speaker 1: shouldn't beating people, um, but you know, and I think
Speaker 1: it was it was even crazier is that this large
Speaker 1: or there's an upcoming lar of the article by this
Speaker 1: professor that I was just came across the other day
Speaker 1: and like apparently there is a whole provision of nineteen
Speaker 1: of the section that has been omitted from the Federal
Speaker 1: Register for a hundred and like forty years. Basically like
Speaker 1: a clerk omitted a section and this large like this
Speaker 1: this um like this lari Arga basically uncovered this omission
Speaker 1: that should have been in the rest it passed in Congress.
Speaker 1: I like, but hey, if you we didn't, it wasn't
Speaker 1: a clearly established, right, Alejandra, So does it really apply?
Speaker 1: I The one that I'm like haunted by that that
Speaker 1: I read about that was that was one of the
Speaker 1: qualified beaut cases was like there was a guy who
Speaker 1: got lit on fire by a cop with the taser,
Speaker 1: and the courts ruled that because because there hadn't been
Speaker 1: a prior instance of someone typing like that, you don't
Speaker 1: have clearly established right for a cop you on fire
Speaker 1: with the taser. Yeah, and you know you can sky
Speaker 1: burned to death because again you got lit on fire
Speaker 1: with a taser because because there wasn't a clearly things
Speaker 1: like this is like this is like the worst, Like yeah,
Speaker 1: the secret is it's never it's never clearly established like
Speaker 1: like mostly folks lose these lawsuits. And I mean this
Speaker 1: is where you know, I think folks need to recognize
Speaker 1: and I say this very much as a lawyer, that
Speaker 1: the law is not, at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: was going to save us like collective organizing and working
Speaker 1: together to keep each other safe. Is because the law
Speaker 1: is not designed to hold police accountable. It is not
Speaker 1: designed to keep people out of jail and back to
Speaker 1: designed to do the opposite right, And I think We're
Speaker 1: going to see a whole lot of folks start to
Speaker 1: understand how criminalization works in a way that they may
Speaker 1: not have realized before. And to your question, like as
Speaker 1: a public defender in New York City who spent many
Speaker 1: of those years in the bronx, like, no, the police
Speaker 1: are not accountable to anyone, and they continually do unlawful
Speaker 1: things all day. And this is part part of one
Speaker 1: of the solutions. And again, all of these are stock
Speaker 1: gap measures so that people have time to plan and
Speaker 1: plot and organize and and and do what they need
Speaker 1: to do. But is that in these states that are saying, oh,
Speaker 1: we're not you know, we're going to keep state resources away. No,
Speaker 1: no one shall use state resources to move someone for
Speaker 1: any of these you know, criminalization of pregnancy. Um. But
Speaker 1: we imagine that law enforcement is generally a rather conservative
Speaker 1: group of people will simply disagree with that law and
Speaker 1: probably at times do things anyway, right, And we can
Speaker 1: file a lawsuit later, but that's not really preventing the
Speaker 1: harm in the interim, right, Like someone's going to be incarcerated.
Speaker 1: All of these things are going to happen. And so
Speaker 1: one of our proposals is that it should be crystal
Speaker 1: clear that any any state actor who does participate in
Speaker 1: such extradition can be sued individually. They will have none
Speaker 1: of this qualified immunity. It will not exist. Now. Listen,
Speaker 1: this seems very reasonable to me and to us. But
Speaker 1: do I think it's something that the legislature will actually pass.
Speaker 1: I'm not particularly optimistic about most of our proposals on
Speaker 1: this because it will mean a lot of other folks
Speaker 1: who will not be criminalized in addition to m folks
Speaker 1: whore criminalized proportion. But so so I do think that
Speaker 1: that that does police. You have a problem with rampant
Speaker 1: police impunity uh in this country, UM, and it will
Speaker 1: show up here just like it does in many other sectors.
Speaker 1: I think sometimes when we talk about criminalization of abortion wholesale,
Speaker 1: for folks that have not been working in and about
Speaker 1: repro it feels very new, like this is something that
Speaker 1: we need to kind of like gird our loins and
Speaker 1: prepare for. But folks that have been working in in
Speaker 1: the r hr J movements, reproductive rights, health injustice movements, UM,
Speaker 1: we have been talking about criminalization for a long time.
Speaker 1: And the reason that we've been talking about criminalizations because
Speaker 1: it's been happening for a long time. So I was
Speaker 1: talking about my colleagues research that, um, the preliminary and
Speaker 1: FO just came out. So when she was combing through
Speaker 1: all of these like different clerks offices all over the country,
Speaker 1: she unearthed like sixty one cases of folks being criminalized
Speaker 1: with self managed abortion in twenty states. Now we only
Speaker 1: have three states that have laws criminalizing self managed abortion
Speaker 1: left on the books. So holy crap. The fact that
Speaker 1: there have been prosecutions in twenty states when only I
Speaker 1: think at the time that some of these cases were
Speaker 1: about only like five or six states. Add these laws
Speaker 1: on the books tell us that prosecutors are very, very
Speaker 1: creative in the ways that they go after people. So
Speaker 1: the likelihood of always seeing abortion written at the top
Speaker 1: of the warrant is going to be low. And then
Speaker 1: in some states we are going to start seeing it
Speaker 1: because they are going to if they haven't already criminalized
Speaker 1: abortion wholesale, any kind of abortion right, all abortions are
Speaker 1: going to become self managed because their folks are not
Speaker 1: able to get clinical care. So it's it's not new,
Speaker 1: and I think that's one of the things that I
Speaker 1: want to make sure that folks understand that there, like
Speaker 1: criminal defense attorneys can and can deal with this because
Speaker 1: it's just the same messed up ways that they charge
Speaker 1: people in a variety of other cases. But I think
Speaker 1: the shock and awe um that's hitting some folks who
Speaker 1: the criminal legal system doesn't move within their lives is
Speaker 1: I need folks to get out of shock and all
Speaker 1: quick and get into work mode because some of the
Speaker 1: things that I'm seeing on the Internet while we're talking
Speaker 1: about how hell is other people and how we can
Speaker 1: protect ourselves in our communities, Um, some of the ways
Speaker 1: that folks are talking about this on the Internet shows
Speaker 1: that they're not people that have had the impact of
Speaker 1: the criminal legal system necessarily touched their lives, right like
Speaker 1: folks that think they're doing op set on Twitter by
Speaker 1: like if you want to get a manicure, you can
Speaker 1: come to my state and I'll pick you up for
Speaker 1: your manicure. And that's when we talk about how cases
Speaker 1: get put together on the back end. And I think,
Speaker 1: um Michelle can probably speak to this too, like as
Speaker 1: a public defender, when you're seeing how when you have
Speaker 1: a very motivated prosecutor a cop that actually knows how
Speaker 1: to do their job in the information that they're able
Speaker 1: to gather when they investigate. Yes, they will pull your tweets. Yes,
Speaker 1: even if it's not your case, they will pull your
Speaker 1: tweets and connect that person that got their abortion to
Speaker 1: the tweets that you put online to show that they
Speaker 1: intended to go to your place to go and get
Speaker 1: an abortion, and then try to use those things to
Speaker 1: prosecute them over here. So, even if you're willing to
Speaker 1: take the risk with your own life, if you're trying
Speaker 1: to help people, don't put them in a position that
Speaker 1: they can be harmed by some of the things that
Speaker 1: we say out loud. Because if you're living in a
Speaker 1: state where you're not afraid of criminalization, but the person
Speaker 1: you are trying to help is in a state that
Speaker 1: and they have to go back to somewhere they can
Speaker 1: be criminalized, you've got to think about how you're protecting them.
Speaker 1: That's my soapbox. Rant. I think that's really valuable. Actually,
Speaker 1: this like we start let in the Trump administration to
Speaker 1: this like legal constitutional magic that like like the steth Abrimson,
Speaker 1: the the Twitter thread guy right like it it's us. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it distracts from useful organizing a mutual aid because people
Speaker 1: are just like, well if this and this and this
Speaker 1: and this and this, and then like I understand this
Speaker 1: and no one else does and this is a special secret.
Speaker 1: And then if we do this and turn around three
Speaker 1: times and go through the wardrobe, indulge up will be
Speaker 1: impeached or you know, I can give you it a
Speaker 1: safe a safe of safe access to reproductive healthcare rather
Speaker 1: than just doing the work. And I think another part
Speaker 1: of what was going on here and this has been
Speaker 1: something that like you know, if if you talk to
Speaker 1: people who've been doing this, like okay, if if if
Speaker 1: this is the thing you genuinely want to do, there
Speaker 1: are people who have been doing this kind of work
Speaker 1: for decades and decades and decades of decades, and they
Speaker 1: know largely what is safe and what isn't and more
Speaker 1: stuff is the factor for not And the way that
Speaker 1: this sort of like like the kind of sort of like, hey,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go do this on my own. I have
Speaker 1: I've never done this before. I don't know what I'm doing,
Speaker 1: but here I'm going to sort of signal that I
Speaker 1: can do this thing. Like go talk if you want
Speaker 1: to do this, go talk to people who have been
Speaker 1: doing it. For ages and go support them because, like,
Speaker 1: you know, again, like the reason the reason we're here
Speaker 1: in the first place is because that this whole, like
Speaker 1: the entire right to abortion has for literally decades, been
Speaker 1: support by just a really tiny number of incredibly underfunded
Speaker 1: and understaffed people in organizations. So like, go help them,
Speaker 1: don't like strike out on your own to boldly get
Speaker 1: you and everyone you're working with arrested. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: you know, some of that is. You know, I think
Speaker 1: some people have some good intentions, but my god, like
Speaker 1: that energy can be spent in so much more productive ways,
Speaker 1: and it's it's kind of unfortunate. I think that the
Speaker 1: worst aspect of it, though, is like the tech bros
Speaker 1: coming in and being like I'm going to save this
Speaker 1: face with We're going to create a dow and like
Speaker 1: distribute funds, and I'm like, oh my god, Like I'm
Speaker 1: just sitting here, like you know, because this is something
Speaker 1: like you know, I've looked into a students like this
Speaker 1: earlier this year, like you know, how payment transactions could
Speaker 1: be used, um and basically how there's basically almost no
Speaker 1: security with with payment transactions, right, like like if you're
Speaker 1: using Venmo, which which in and of itself has like
Speaker 1: a social media functions, so like you know, you can
Speaker 1: see when you're your friend, you know, Joe is like
Speaker 1: getting brunch on Sunday, and like, you know, they could
Speaker 1: you know, if you're not sending that to private by
Speaker 1: default like that that's already a problem. But basically, like
Speaker 1: you know, they can get access to those records pretty easily,
Speaker 1: um in a much easier way. And you know, one
Speaker 1: of the things we we we started to look at,
Speaker 1: like towards the end was like, oh, you know, as
Speaker 1: you know, had some some students being like we can
Speaker 1: you can you use crypto? Can you use like bitcoin?
Speaker 1: It's like you still have to interact at some point
Speaker 1: with a financial institution and they can tie these things back.
Speaker 1: It is not that exceptionally hard, especially like now it's
Speaker 1: been shown that like coin bases like cooperating with the
Speaker 1: FEDS and basically acting like a giant honeypot. So like
Speaker 1: I just I finally wish that people just like realize
Speaker 1: that like technology is not going to save us here,
Speaker 1: like it can help if used wisely and creatively, but
Speaker 1: don't think that like you're just gonna like do this
Speaker 1: one little neat trick, like as James was saying, and
Speaker 1: then suddenly we're gonna fix this because it's not right,
Speaker 1: Like this is going to take a million different solutions
Speaker 1: with a million different people doing all the little things
Speaker 1: that they can to push back, and like that's one
Speaker 1: of the things I think we we tried to be
Speaker 1: very hopble about in our papers, like, look, none of
Speaker 1: this is a silver bullet. We're just trying to provide
Speaker 1: some concrete solutions that states can take and some stuff
Speaker 1: that they can take. But we realize that nothing is
Speaker 1: ever going to be perfect to solve this kind of
Speaker 1: Pandora's box. It's been opened by Aldo and all these
Speaker 1: like right wing reactionaries on the court. So like, I
Speaker 1: guess speaking of things that are not silver bullets will
Speaker 1: not save us. Um, yeah, I guess could we get
Speaker 1: a bit more into looking at what the sort of
Speaker 1: like It's like a lot of the article is talking
Speaker 1: about I guess the that the history of extradition, uh,
Speaker 1: and how how that sort of been understood and interpreted,
Speaker 1: And so I guess I was wondering, can we go
Speaker 1: into talking about what the sort of legal stuff is
Speaker 1: going to look like when it's like, you know, if
Speaker 1: if we start getting these large showdowns between like states
Speaker 1: with like actually sort of like you know, if states
Speaker 1: actually start trying to have sanctuary laws that are like
Speaker 1: have teeth and are good, what what what is that
Speaker 1: sort of what is that going to look like? Yeah,
Speaker 1: so this is a kind of part that I focused
Speaker 1: on in the article. And so basically a lot of
Speaker 1: people aren't aware about this because it's not really a
Speaker 1: contested area of the Constitution. But basically when the Constitution
Speaker 1: was drafted um and ratified, it contained what was called
Speaker 1: the Extradition Clause, and basically what it said is that,
Speaker 1: you know, all the states have a duty to turn
Speaker 1: over fugitives from other states that have been charged with
Speaker 1: the crime and have fled into those states. Is the
Speaker 1: United States kind of were It's a federal system, so
Speaker 1: like every state is still considered kind of its own
Speaker 1: sovereign in some ways, in a very like quasi sovereign way.
Speaker 1: And so there was a question about you know, since
Speaker 1: all criminal prosecutions, basically, especially the inception of the United States,
Speaker 1: were done at the state level, you know, what what
Speaker 1: happens when somebody crosses and across state lines, Like, how
Speaker 1: are we going to handle that. And so basically this
Speaker 1: was you know, one of the drafts. And initially they
Speaker 1: tried to set it at a higher bar, like to
Speaker 1: be like high crimes and misdemeanors, similar to kind of
Speaker 1: the impeachment clause, and you know, they whittled it down
Speaker 1: to and basically made it very applicable to set all
Speaker 1: crimes um. But it really did not get much play
Speaker 1: until basically in the eighteen forties when obviously the tension
Speaker 1: around slavery picked up, right, so you had enslaved people
Speaker 1: escaping to the north and the South being very angry
Speaker 1: about that and wanting the North to to return um
Speaker 1: the escaped enslave folks and the North being like no.
Speaker 1: And Congress tried to figure out a way to like
Speaker 1: threads some kind of needle, but made it ten times
Speaker 1: worse and put us on an accelerating path towards Civil
Speaker 1: war by passing the Fugitive Slave Act of eighteen fifty,
Speaker 1: and a bunch of radical abolitionists in the Northeast were like,
Speaker 1: we don't ever want to comply with this right, So
Speaker 1: like Vermont passed this bill called the Habeas Corpus Act,
Speaker 1: which basically created all kinds of legal procedures so that
Speaker 1: Southern bounty hunters wouldn't just come into the state and
Speaker 1: just kidnap, you know, the first black person they saw,
Speaker 1: because they assumed that they were been an escaped and
Speaker 1: slave person rather than a free person, and you know,
Speaker 1: and it was trying to stop that kind of issue
Speaker 1: of kidnappings and also just not to comply with this,
Speaker 1: you know, the institution of slavery, because there were people
Speaker 1: who had escaped slavery and more in the North, and
Speaker 1: so it was causing all kinds of tension. And while
Speaker 1: like the Vermont Law was never fully tested, it did
Speaker 1: create a lot of incendiary back and force between the
Speaker 1: North and the South and the press. And it was
Speaker 1: really interesting like reading some of these old like newspaper
Speaker 1: articles from the eighteen like from eighteen fifty, because it
Speaker 1: was like basically the press and Richmond and the press
Speaker 1: in Boston like taking stabs at each other, and it
Speaker 1: was like the eighteen fifty version of ship posting, because
Speaker 1: they were like one person was just like this is
Speaker 1: nullification made easy, and like basically with like it's just
Speaker 1: it was. It was the surreal thing like if you know,
Speaker 1: if you get a chance when when our full article
Speaker 1: comes out in December, there'll be some some highlights from
Speaker 1: that and the notes UM. But basically what it really
Speaker 1: got tested was in eighteen sixty one. The case started
Speaker 1: in eighteen fifty nine, though it's called Kentucky be Dennistent,
Speaker 1: and so what essentially happened is there was someone who
Speaker 1: aided Um and it's like person escape Kentucky and get
Speaker 1: to Ohio. And basically the governor of Ohio was an
Speaker 1: abolitionist and was like, I don't want to comply with
Speaker 1: this right and I do not want to I don't
Speaker 1: believe this is a crime because this is not a
Speaker 1: crime in our state, And the Attorney Journal of Ohio
Speaker 1: basically wrote a long legal memo stating that this this
Speaker 1: is a crime not known to the laws of civilization
Speaker 1: or man. So basically, yeah, they find it want to
Speaker 1: read to the Supreme Court. And Chief Justice Taney also
Speaker 1: notable for dread Scott decision, so like absolutely just terrible
Speaker 1: court like they were. This came I think about like
Speaker 1: three weeks before the Civil War, so this was like
Speaker 1: I think it'sould in like March of eighteen one, so
Speaker 1: basically like three weeks before Fort Sumter got like sacked
Speaker 1: by by the South. Um. But basically what it did
Speaker 1: was is that it said states actually can't utilize any
Speaker 1: discretion in extradition, So like the like the governor of
Speaker 1: Ohio can't say, like, I have concerns about human rights
Speaker 1: and that this isn't a crime in our state. Right,
Speaker 1: there's not this dual criminality analysis, and we're concerned about
Speaker 1: human rights and all these things. So the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: basically said, no, states don't have that discretion, which you know,
Speaker 1: but they essentially split the baby by by then saying
Speaker 1: federal courts can't issue a ridom and damus, which is
Speaker 1: basically an order for a government official to do something. Um,
Speaker 1: they said that federal courts couldn't do that to a
Speaker 1: state governor an extradition. So basically it means that like,
Speaker 1: states don't have a discretion, but federal courts can enforce it.
Speaker 1: So therefore it's just a non issue. Right. Fast forward
Speaker 1: a hundred and twenty years and we get to a
Speaker 1: case called Pero Rico v. Brand's Dad, which basically, somebody
Speaker 1: committed murder in Perto Rico led back to Iowa and
Speaker 1: then was software extradition back to Perrico. And there's a
Speaker 1: huge element of racism here because you know, they were
Speaker 1: concerned that a white man couldn't get a fair trial
Speaker 1: in Puerto Rico, which is just deeply offensive. Um. And
Speaker 1: so they were. And there was also a question of
Speaker 1: like territoriality, right, because Perdorico is a territory. I wasn't
Speaker 1: sure if they had to comply with the extradition clause.
Speaker 1: And so essentially the Supreme Court said, yes, federal courts
Speaker 1: can comply with or can issue it a rid of
Speaker 1: mandamus to to ensure extradition. So essentially what it did
Speaker 1: was it partially overturned the Kentucky v. Does in case,
Speaker 1: but upheld the central ruling of basicist states have no discretion.
Speaker 1: So what does that mean? Basically that states can't really
Speaker 1: stop the extradition of someone in their in their um jurisdiction,
Speaker 1: even if they have extreme concerns. Right. So if you
Speaker 1: have like, let's like going back to Michelle's example earlier,
Speaker 1: someone who sends their friends like abortion pills um from
Speaker 1: New York to let's say Texas, right, and Texas is
Speaker 1: seeking extradition in New York. It's like, well, that's not
Speaker 1: a crime. Here, so we don't want to extradite Um,
Speaker 1: you know, the states will typically be hard pressed. But
Speaker 1: there's kind of two kind of or there's one major
Speaker 1: issue with like the extradition part right, actually has to
Speaker 1: apply to someone who's quote unquote an actual fugitive, meaning
Speaker 1: that they had to actually be present in the state
Speaker 1: when the crime occurred. And the commission of the crime
Speaker 1: can't in itself create what's called constructive presence. You have
Speaker 1: to be corporeally present in the state, meaning you have
Speaker 1: to be physically present. You can't just like the commission
Speaker 1: of the crime doesn't constitute that. So in this instance, um,
Speaker 1: you know, the person who says a pill in New
Speaker 1: York technically like constitutionally does not have to be extradited, right, Like,
Speaker 1: they can contest that. The problem is, as Michelle pointed out,
Speaker 1: is that, you know, the extradition causes it exist today
Speaker 1: is pretty much almost entirely just a formality that is
Speaker 1: waived basically almost every single time. And so the courts,
Speaker 1: the like the state attorneys, the district attorneys, even defense
Speaker 1: attorneys might not be familiar with that and might not
Speaker 1: know that that's something that they could potentially contest or
Speaker 1: it's even something that they can um that that is
Speaker 1: a potential constitutional issue, right, And so that's one of
Speaker 1: the things that we focused on is our potential solution,
Speaker 1: UM is to ensure that people who were not present
Speaker 1: in the state where the actor occurred are able to
Speaker 1: mount a challenge to the extra shiit um. You know,
Speaker 1: it creates all kinds of other problems because there's still
Speaker 1: federal extradition and meaning like if you leave this the
Speaker 1: country and come back in, like border patrol could potentially
Speaker 1: get you. We still don't have a clear understanding of
Speaker 1: how that necessarily would work, um, you know, and because
Speaker 1: that's never been a question that's like fully resolved. So
Speaker 1: you know, basically, you know, at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: like we want to make sure that like folks are
Speaker 1: aware of that, but like the folks that like leave Texas, right, So,
Speaker 1: like if you've committ an abortion, you were charged in
Speaker 1: Texas and you go to New York, like New York
Speaker 1: is not going to have very many options to protect
Speaker 1: you from being extradited back to Texas. Um. And so
Speaker 1: you know, one of the things that you know, I
Speaker 1: fundamentally believe Kentucky be Dennison was wrong was wrongly decided
Speaker 1: on the sense that state shouldn't be able to have
Speaker 1: a concern around human rights because it essentially acts as
Speaker 1: a one way ratchet where the states with the most
Speaker 1: regressive anti human rights criminal justice laws get to have,
Speaker 1: like get to dictate that over all of the other states,
Speaker 1: similar to how UM slavery, like the southern states were
Speaker 1: trying to enforce the institutional slavery on northern states that
Speaker 1: had that had abolished slavery decades ago. So it's a
Speaker 1: very complicated issue. And again I reached back to that
Speaker 1: slavery analysis because not because I think that, you know,
Speaker 1: the slavery and abortions should be compared directly, but because
Speaker 1: like this is funaventually the last time where you have
Speaker 1: criminal laws that are so different between states, Like one
Speaker 1: state's human right is another state's capital crime. Like if
Speaker 1: you can't get further apart than that. Yeah, And I
Speaker 1: wanted to just clarify for folks, if I drove the
Speaker 1: pill to Texas, then I would have committed the crime
Speaker 1: in Texas and New York could extradite me. Um and
Speaker 1: I what I also think I'm sort of here is
Speaker 1: the what happens on the ground right, So if you
Speaker 1: to be clear, while as Alejanda correctly points, if I
Speaker 1: just mailed it to Texas and they have the warrant
Speaker 1: while we're sorting out this extradition warrant, I am very
Speaker 1: likely incarcerated, and the sorting out of the extradition warrant
Speaker 1: will probably take ninety days. So just because I think
Speaker 1: folks get confused with this a lot, just because something
Speaker 1: is illegal doesn't mean or your lawyers arguing it's illegal
Speaker 1: doesn't mean it just magically stops um or the process ends.
Speaker 1: And so this is something where we think that, um,
Speaker 1: really there should be a basis to contest your extradition
Speaker 1: on a human rights ground on two grounds. Either there
Speaker 1: is no dual criminality, that is, this is not actually
Speaker 1: a crime, and the other state interestingly, here, handing someone
Speaker 1: a prescription pill in New York is actually a felony,
Speaker 1: whether or not you get money for it. Most folks
Speaker 1: don't know that he's smiling because she also has a
Speaker 1: public defender in New York City. Um, because it blows
Speaker 1: your mind. You're like, wait, they just handed it to them.
Speaker 1: There's no money exchange. Yeah, that's a felony drug sale.
Speaker 1: So we might have dual criminality. New York might actually say, um,
Speaker 1: you did do a crime, so I will extradite you.
Speaker 1: Which is why we think there also needs to be
Speaker 1: a human rights defense. And this may also extend to, well,
Speaker 1: we're not going to extradite them to Texas because they
Speaker 1: have the death penalty and we think that is a
Speaker 1: clear contravention of human rights. Maybe we can extend it
Speaker 1: to prison conditions. I don't know how that far that goes. Again,
Speaker 1: these are things I don't know they'd be likely to
Speaker 1: be codified. But if we're actually dreaming up the world
Speaker 1: that we think where this could work, like I, as
Speaker 1: your attorney, should be able to come in and say
Speaker 1: there's no dual criminality, this isn't contravention of human rights.
Speaker 1: And once I mount that defense, then the court is
Speaker 1: bound to release you while we sort that out. Um.
Speaker 1: And and that is sort of our vision. Another thing
Speaker 1: that that Alejandro mentioned the ver the Vermont law um
Speaker 1: in the eight hundreds, and one of the things that
Speaker 1: it's said was you could get a jury of your
Speaker 1: peers in a situation like this. There's no jury in
Speaker 1: an extradition case. But the idea, of course is that
Speaker 1: a jury is going to say this is morally wrong.
Speaker 1: I don't care what the law says. We're not sending
Speaker 1: this person back to enslavement. And the idea here is
Speaker 1: if you put a jury in and you assert of
Speaker 1: human rights defense, perhaps the jury will say, no, we're
Speaker 1: not sending you. So these are these are a lot
Speaker 1: of ideas that we've been coming up with. So we're
Speaker 1: doing the plan. There was jury nullification, yes, and it
Speaker 1: absolutely was. That absolutely was jury nullification. Love love love
Speaker 1: love love love jury nullification. Anybody with the law review
Speaker 1: that's listening to this, let me write about jury nullification
Speaker 1: for you. And I feel like, but but we we we.
Speaker 1: I feel like I have been wanting to explain jury
Speaker 1: unification on this show literally sensive, Like I asked if
Speaker 1: I could do an episode on it the first week,
Speaker 1: coming back for the next one. So there's something that
Speaker 1: I don't want to be lost. And that's the idea
Speaker 1: of like people don't necessarily know what they're being charged
Speaker 1: with in the state that's asking for them to go
Speaker 1: back because there's not really a requirement that that so
Speaker 1: for an extradition, like thinking through what you actually need,
Speaker 1: like the bare bones of an extradition. It needs to
Speaker 1: be like a piece of paper that's signed by the governor,
Speaker 1: but not necessarily the governor of the state, but somebody
Speaker 1: with authority to ask for you to return back. And
Speaker 1: that's in essence it, right, just like a piece of
Speaker 1: paper signed by somebody that says x y Z birthdate,
Speaker 1: x y Z did a crime in our state? Give
Speaker 1: them back to us. Right, they don't have to say
Speaker 1: what crime? Not really a requirement. It usually says it,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't. It doesn't require a probable cause affid David,
Speaker 1: which I think is really the more important part. It
Speaker 1: doesn't require you to prove that there is enough to
Speaker 1: charge them with a crime in the sin Ding state. Right,
Speaker 1: So we're saying that's a bare minimum change that we
Speaker 1: can make two laws to make the state that's asking
Speaker 1: for you to use your resources to put somebody in
Speaker 1: a cage and then put them in a traveling cage
Speaker 1: to bring them to our cages. Um. And I keep
Speaker 1: saying the word cage because I don't want us to
Speaker 1: move away from what like prisons and jails actually are.
Speaker 1: It's like bars and cages and boxes, right, So it
Speaker 1: doesn't really harm the system, doesn't really teary all apart
Speaker 1: to say, and here's what they're being charged within the
Speaker 1: reason why, because that would be the bare minimum for
Speaker 1: someone to be charged for a crime in New York.
Speaker 1: You would need to have probable cause for the arrest.
Speaker 1: And then a judge that's sitting on the bench gets
Speaker 1: to say, Yep, there's enough probable cause for this person
Speaker 1: to be charged next court date, you know. And but
Speaker 1: we don't have that with extradition. We just trust that
Speaker 1: the wheels of bureaucracy are turning the way that they
Speaker 1: need to. Holy crap, that can harm so many people.
Speaker 1: So we're just saying, hey, make them write it down.
Speaker 1: So maybe a judge that's sitting in Illinois can look
Speaker 1: at this warrant from Missouri that says we want X
Speaker 1: y Z back here because of a self managed abortion,
Speaker 1: and then they can see whether or not Illinois's new
Speaker 1: fancy extradition law, which they haven't written up and I'm
Speaker 1: sure they will, applies, right. I think that's a bare
Speaker 1: minimum that we can do. And as much as I
Speaker 1: crave shaking systems and searing them apart, I don't think
Speaker 1: that's going to be a thing that does it. But
Speaker 1: it might you know, have y'all ever played Mario Kart,
Speaker 1: You know, when you're driving and you're able to throw
Speaker 1: like the turtle shell or the banana, that might be
Speaker 1: the banana that might slow down the process of somebody
Speaker 1: kind of getting dragged along on this course. Well, and
Speaker 1: I think I think there's like there's another thing that
Speaker 1: that would do too, which is that that vice time
Speaker 1: for community response, because like you know, if if we
Speaker 1: go back to sort off the ice stuff, it was like, well, yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: like ice raids weren't stopped by the sanctuary laws. The
Speaker 1: thing that like did slow them down was massive community response. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think I think that's very Uh, it's certainly I've
Speaker 1: seen that happen here, Like in San Diego. It wasn't
Speaker 1: any of our performative Democrats laws. It was people getting
Speaker 1: out into the street. Now I was gonna say, there's
Speaker 1: It's also like in the UK in the last couple
Speaker 1: of months, there's been a lot of really really impressive
Speaker 1: community defense things and like cops showing up and like
Speaker 1: just entire communities and neighborhoods showing up with the cops
Speaker 1: just like running away. And it's been it's been incredible
Speaker 1: to watch, and you two can also do this. But
Speaker 1: performative democrats keep giving us good laws like give us something,
Speaker 1: give anything, like a nub of a thing that folks
Speaker 1: can hang their hats on. Um. I just don't want
Speaker 1: any politician out there to think that they're absolved from
Speaker 1: the job of protecting people. Yeah, well, and I think
Speaker 1: I think again to think with these laws, right, it's
Speaker 1: like you you actually like with this extraditions stuff, Like
Speaker 1: I don't know how, Like I don't I don't know
Speaker 1: how you would even like try to stop it unless
Speaker 1: like because like you don't know, like I mean, I like,
Speaker 1: unless unless're gonna commit to try to stop trying to
Speaker 1: stop every person who gets arrested, which I think is
Speaker 1: like a noble goal. But like there's no, we don't
Speaker 1: have a capacity for that. Like if we lived in
Speaker 1: a world where we could do that, like the world
Speaker 1: will be much better and the state would be running
Speaker 1: for its life. But yeah, it's like like it seems
Speaker 1: like a thing that like it gives like it gives
Speaker 1: time for the law to act. More importantly, it's like
Speaker 1: it gives time for us to act. And that seems
Speaker 1: absolutely one of the most important thing is that it's
Speaker 1: buying time for people to organize and people to be
Speaker 1: able to push back, and also creates a lot of
Speaker 1: higher barrier right Like at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: like these systems are still made up people, and people
Speaker 1: are incredibly lazy and oftentimes like the police and other
Speaker 1: folks like don't want to have to deal with like
Speaker 1: engage and going with like an extradition request because of
Speaker 1: the actual process for dealing with that is actually very onerous, like, um,
Speaker 1: they have physically go to the state to pick them up,
Speaker 1: and they have to like do all these things, right,
Speaker 1: And so what we're doing is like we're suggesting make
Speaker 1: it even harder, like make it absolutely hard for them
Speaker 1: to go through this and actually have to litigate in
Speaker 1: courts and like bring all this stuff, um and just
Speaker 1: basically like so down the process and raise that kind
Speaker 1: of buried entry on it. But you know, I thinks,
Speaker 1: like I think that's you know, very um important to say.
Speaker 1: Is like, you know, the commune defense aspect cannot be
Speaker 1: overstated because at the end of the day, like laws
Speaker 1: are just words on paper, right, Like it's it's the
Speaker 1: people that give them the effect and the power. So
Speaker 1: really what we need is like people say, like this
Speaker 1: is morally wrong, right, Like we're not going to prosecute
Speaker 1: people for for exercising their bodily autonomy, engaging in a
Speaker 1: fundamental human right. And so you know when one of
Speaker 1: the things I have been heartened by is you know,
Speaker 1: um like um for John Brown gun Club and Dallas
Speaker 1: like what they've been doing, like protecting houseless folks like
Speaker 1: under the overpasses, Like they show up and like you know,
Speaker 1: in Texas they can open carry, and like the police
Speaker 1: don't want to deal with them. So they're like buying
Speaker 1: a few more days so that the Dallas police doesn't
Speaker 1: um come in and sweep you know, the only belongings
Speaker 1: that these people have. And like that in and of
Speaker 1: itself brought so much attention that like brought so much
Speaker 1: scrutiny to Dallas p D's actions. So like is that
Speaker 1: kind of community defense? And I think it also harks
Speaker 1: back to how these extraditions issues like prior to like
Speaker 1: the Civil War worked out. It wasn't necessarily like these
Speaker 1: formal systems in Vermont that like stopped you know, escaped
Speaker 1: as like persons from being returned back to the South.
Speaker 1: It was like entire mods of people coming and like
Speaker 1: being like, you're not taking this person out of our town,
Speaker 1: and if you try to, you're not gonna leave here.
Speaker 1: Like as a whole person, I guess it's probably the
Speaker 1: best way to put that, um shoot your local bounty hunters. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and so like essentially like that that's how it worked, right,
Speaker 1: And like you know, at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: I feel like, you know, I don't want to do
Speaker 1: some kind of violence, but like it like what really
Speaker 1: what it means is like when people show up and
Speaker 1: they physically put themselves in the way, it makes it
Speaker 1: so much harder for the like this kind of wheel
Speaker 1: of injustice to continue. And so that's really what it's
Speaker 1: going to take. I'm like you were mentioning with like
Speaker 1: the with the ice raids and everything like that, Like
Speaker 1: it took people sometimes physically putting their bodies in front
Speaker 1: of ice fans to stop them from driving away and
Speaker 1: like chaining themselves to stuff, and like that's the kind
Speaker 1: of like non violent like direct action that I think
Speaker 1: is like gonna be like needed. Yeah, And I think
Speaker 1: folks seem to have figured out that their district attorneys
Speaker 1: are elected and the person bringing the fugitive case, which
Speaker 1: I don't think I've been crystal clear about is the
Speaker 1: district attorney. So then the police officer is going to
Speaker 1: go to the district attorney's office, and that is the
Speaker 1: person who's going to bring the court case to help
Speaker 1: facilitate sending the person um. And I know in New
Speaker 1: York intently it has seen a number of successes of
Speaker 1: folks organizing around individual People would be saying, you need
Speaker 1: to drop these charges. This conviction got overturned, you should
Speaker 1: not be continuing with the case. This person is a
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, folks are organizing around, right, And so
Speaker 1: if we can create some delays whereby the person is free, right,
Speaker 1: because this is the key thing. We don't want people incarcerated.
Speaker 1: Incarceration in of itself is extreme violence. Right, So if
Speaker 1: the person is not incarcerated, then we can sort of
Speaker 1: delay this process and organize around, pressuring whoever needs to
Speaker 1: be pressured, particularly the two Democratic politicians who say there
Speaker 1: against all of this stuff. But then at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, are they going to ignore the homicide
Speaker 1: extradition warrant? Like that's where the rubber meets the rule.
Speaker 1: Are you going to do it or not? Right, and
Speaker 1: and and I think that's a much harder question when
Speaker 1: it comes down to that for them, because they're like, well,
Speaker 1: it's a homicide warrant, right, and so that's where they
Speaker 1: need the pressure, because um, all the wild ideas go
Speaker 1: out the door in that moment. Yeah, I think, like,
Speaker 1: I think that's the thing with with these people. It's
Speaker 1: like ideologically like they don't care enough to do it,
Speaker 1: do it? But if you but you can force them
Speaker 1: to care about having a Yeah, well it's not not
Speaker 1: even just so much that like there there are long
Speaker 1: established ways of putting pressure on people and systems that
Speaker 1: can force them to do things they don't want to do.
Speaker 1: And yeah, go do that because we're going to need it. Frankly,
Speaker 1: I think part of this is also destigmatizing work, right, um,
Speaker 1: because when we have kind of these big divergent ideas,
Speaker 1: when we find ourselves at the split of like good
Speaker 1: versus evil, right, like slavery versus not slavery, bodily autonomy
Speaker 1: versus not bodily autonomy. Um, sometimes the good guys compromise
Speaker 1: to the point that we get ourselves to this position
Speaker 1: later on down the line, and what we can do
Speaker 1: is kind of galvanized community response and also civic engagement
Speaker 1: by forcing folks to take a look at the laws
Speaker 1: that we so rely on and questioning why does this
Speaker 1: thing exist this way? Why is this process moving that way?
Speaker 1: Someone that didn't know that. Folks facing an extradition warrant
Speaker 1: like often have to make the decision at an arrayment.
Speaker 1: Am I going to waive my right to extradition and
Speaker 1: wait for them to come get me because they said
Speaker 1: that takes thirty days for them to come and get you.
Speaker 1: But if you don't wait, if it's going to take
Speaker 1: ninety days to them to come and get you, so
Speaker 1: you'll be sitting there longer. And that's a decision that
Speaker 1: you need to make. Kind of like in that moment,
Speaker 1: if we're talking about extradition in normal conversation, we're moving
Speaker 1: forward to a place where we're destigmatizing and frankly demystifying
Speaker 1: what the criminal legal system really looks like. In the
Speaker 1: nuts and bolts. It might end up with better conversations
Speaker 1: and better output for folks in the future. It might
Speaker 1: end up with you being able to talk about jury
Speaker 1: and allification and having like and not having it be
Speaker 1: kind of like a shaking the table conversation, because frankly,
Speaker 1: these are all like civics. Civics, it's rights, it's things
Speaker 1: that are written in the constitution that governs us, where
Speaker 1: the cops don't need to know the law, but we're
Speaker 1: all expected to write. So it takes all kinds, it
Speaker 1: takes all responses for us to just get to the
Speaker 1: place that's better than the stop gap that Row had
Speaker 1: been giving us for the last forties some odd years.
Speaker 1: And I'll say, like, the one thing that does terrify
Speaker 1: me in this end is like, or I guess like
Speaker 1: really concerns me is like what Ronda Santis just did
Speaker 1: in Florida in Hillsboro County. Like I grew up in
Speaker 1: Hillsboro County, so I'm from there. So it's like, like
Speaker 1: the twice elected UH state attorney there was just suspended
Speaker 1: because he said he would refuse to um prosecute crimes
Speaker 1: related to abortion and gender firm me carry like also
Speaker 1: refused to prosecute trans people using the bathroom. Right, So
Speaker 1: like these kinds of things, and the Santis just like
Speaker 1: sacked him, Right, an elected person that reflects the values
Speaker 1: of that county, and so like that, That's the other
Speaker 1: thing to be aware of. It's you know, like even
Speaker 1: when you do exercise that power and like say like
Speaker 1: this is our as a community, these are our values
Speaker 1: on like who we should be prioritizing. Um, in the
Speaker 1: criminal justice system. There are still people out there that
Speaker 1: will will try to circumvent that in a very authoritarian
Speaker 1: and autocratic way and so um, you know, I think
Speaker 1: it's not just who you're voting for your local d A.
Speaker 1: Who are you running for? A governor? Who are you
Speaker 1: running for? Like you know, these people that have broader
Speaker 1: powers over this. I wanted to briefly talk about this
Speaker 1: because I know like it was proposed at least by
Speaker 1: my representative the and I think it's being bandied about
Speaker 1: as a solution, and uh, it doesn't seem like it is.
Speaker 1: But this My Body, My Data Act, which I was
Speaker 1: trying to read through it a little earlier. It seems
Speaker 1: like it allows people to like sue tech companies for
Speaker 1: selling their data that leads to their prosecution. I don't know,
Speaker 1: if you're familiar with it, that maybe we could just
Speaker 1: discuss a little bit what No, Okay, all right, I
Speaker 1: mean so I'm not familiar, but based on what you
Speaker 1: just said, right, I think there's this and I really
Speaker 1: think it goes back to what EVCO is saying about
Speaker 1: folks just like not not fully understanding precisely how the
Speaker 1: criminal legal system just like runs over people. Okay, great,
Speaker 1: so I can sue the tech company after the police
Speaker 1: have put me in a cage and and convicted me
Speaker 1: based on the day like like, Okay, I mean great,
Speaker 1: maybe I'll have a lot of money on my commissary,
Speaker 1: my family will have enough um like funds to come
Speaker 1: drive and visit me at whatever state prison they've got
Speaker 1: me locked up in, right, like like, this is where
Speaker 1: we have to step back and think, is this is
Speaker 1: this thing actually preventing the harm? Because I think a
Speaker 1: lot of times folks are just like we can do them,
Speaker 1: or we could get back at them. And I also
Speaker 1: want folks to remember that just making something illegal does
Speaker 1: not prevent harm, right, and and a whole another conversation
Speaker 1: about criminalization as a solution to anything, which I think
Speaker 1: it is not um but but just on on the
Speaker 1: face of what you've said to me, that doesn't sound
Speaker 1: like a solution that if I it wouldn't feel adequate
Speaker 1: to me if if I were in that And also
Speaker 1: thinking about how cases become cases. From what we know,
Speaker 1: it's not again, it's not coming from big data down right.
Speaker 1: For the most part. It certainly can happen, but really
Speaker 1: what's happening is violations of people's Fourth Amendment rights. Cops
Speaker 1: being able to access things on people's actual devices, oftentimes
Speaker 1: without warrants, oftentimes by not fully explaining that people have
Speaker 1: the right to say no. Um. And I'm sure Michelle
Speaker 1: has had clients that were like, oh, they just took
Speaker 1: my phone. How many times have we heard that? Right,
Speaker 1: they just took my phone and started going through it.
Speaker 1: A police officer that does that is not going to
Speaker 1: write in their report. And I just took his phone
Speaker 1: without any permission. It's always permission was granted. It was
Speaker 1: in plane view. I saw it from the street. I
Speaker 1: smelled it as he was walking by. Like, if the
Speaker 1: laws that are being created are not actually responsive to
Speaker 1: the harm that folks are experiencing in a way that
Speaker 1: actually prevents it, then we need to kind of push
Speaker 1: back at our legislators and say, Okay, this is great,
Speaker 1: but is it responding to the thing that you're saying
Speaker 1: it's responding to, because yeah, shout out to people being
Speaker 1: able to sue big Tech for selling our data without
Speaker 1: our permission? Bet, But is that gonna prevent prosecutors from
Speaker 1: going after folks that have abortions? Probably not, Because even
Speaker 1: in the Nebraska case that Alejandra mentioned at the top
Speaker 1: of the hour, that was a warrant that was signed
Speaker 1: by judge. It was a search warrant that was provided
Speaker 1: to Facebook that didn't say the words abortion on it,
Speaker 1: that didn't say that we're going after someone for abortion,
Speaker 1: had I think the words like abuse of a corpse
Speaker 1: or something of that nature on there, And for them
Speaker 1: it was wrote what they normally do, bureaucracy search warrants,
Speaker 1: stamp here's the data that you're looking for. A law
Speaker 1: that prevents folks from selling your data doesn't prevent that
Speaker 1: from happening. Something I think a lot about those. One
Speaker 1: of my sort of like former political experiences was back
Speaker 1: in like, I think this is something which isn't twelve
Speaker 1: doesn't thirteen um, right after the revolution in Bahrain. So okay,
Speaker 1: So the revolution in Bahrain, Saudi tanks roll in, they
Speaker 1: crush it, they kill a bunch of people, and the
Speaker 1: government starts doing this crackdown the way the government does
Speaker 1: to crackdown is they go they go to Facebook and
Speaker 1: they take stuff those on people's public accounts, and then
Speaker 1: they go to Facebook and they asked them for information
Speaker 1: and Facebook turns it over, and you know, the government
Speaker 1: just goes to and finds everyone who's at a protest
Speaker 1: and starts arresting them. And you know, Facebook was just
Speaker 1: like m hm, and like that if if if if
Speaker 1: if if if they if they will comply with a
Speaker 1: literal monarchy who has had a second monarchy send an
Speaker 1: army across the border in order to crush a bunch
Speaker 1: of protests, Like they're going to comply with the US
Speaker 1: and they're gonna keep doing this stuff to you. And
Speaker 1: so yeah, I was like, I like, even if you
Speaker 1: can sue them, they're still going to cooperate with the U. S.
Speaker 1: Government because yeah, they have a great financial interest in
Speaker 1: doing big tech doesn't give a funk about you. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think folks, again, as he was saying, like Eca saying,
Speaker 1: it was just so like this is wrote, this is
Speaker 1: what they do every day. This is not that serious
Speaker 1: or that deep to them. And I think we need
Speaker 1: to start asking bigger questions about why do we have
Speaker 1: a system where so easy for the government to just
Speaker 1: like come in and um, have a subpoena signed, like
Speaker 1: the subpoenas are easy to get, like we have. These
Speaker 1: mechanisms are all in place. And that's what I was
Speaker 1: sort of saying earlier is that I think folks who
Speaker 1: haven't been paying attention to this, who are all of
Speaker 1: a sudden like, wow, how is this happening? Oh my goodness, Well,
Speaker 1: these are the machines of massive coarceration that we have
Speaker 1: spent a few decades really building up. And so now
Speaker 1: when the person the people you're sympathetic with start to
Speaker 1: get criminalized all of a sudden, we're very shocked. And listen, however,
Speaker 1: you got here, great welcome. I'm glad folks are here
Speaker 1: and saying like, wow, this is a problem. And I
Speaker 1: want folks to think the If the abortion context and
Speaker 1: the self managed abortion is your entry point, I hope
Speaker 1: it is not the end point. I hope that you
Speaker 1: are thinking bigger about how did all these systems get here?
Speaker 1: Who do they serve? And and and I hope how
Speaker 1: do we dismantle them? Because it's it's not just this
Speaker 1: select few people group of people that we should care about.
Speaker 1: I think is all the people who are who are
Speaker 1: exposed to this on the daily. Um. So yeah, that's
Speaker 1: my soapbox. I always wonder how many judges, um have
Speaker 1: refused to sign a search warrant. That's like a big
Speaker 1: wonder of mine. I don't judges don't hang out with me,
Speaker 1: obviously for a lot of obvious reasons. But if I
Speaker 1: were to like just whisper in my ear real quick,
Speaker 1: how many times have you ever said no to a
Speaker 1: police officer that comes to ask to swear a warrant
Speaker 1: in front of you? How many times have you found
Speaker 1: there is no probable cause? Dude? Like to to be fair,
Speaker 1: there there there are, there have there There have to
Speaker 1: be a certain number of times where they're trying to
Speaker 1: go after another judge. Judges, I don't know, and it's
Speaker 1: good to have happened once like that. There has to
Speaker 1: have been one time where it was like this judge
Speaker 1: piste me off, I'm going to go rd his car
Speaker 1: or something. Never never that I can probably like that,
Speaker 1: I can think about never happening. But I just wonder
Speaker 1: how many times has somebody said we are going to
Speaker 1: go search for drugs and X y Z house in
Speaker 1: this specific neighborhood that that a judges says, huh, you
Speaker 1: don't have enough here, try again, it doesn't happen. Yeah,
Speaker 1: at least told in federal court maybe maybe you know,
Speaker 1: they turned down one out of but in state court,
Speaker 1: my experience is it's it's it's again, it's routine. It's
Speaker 1: just how things go. I mean. One of the one
Speaker 1: of the things that I came across when I was
Speaker 1: you know, and I just not dealing with particularly judges
Speaker 1: issuing warrants, but one of the things I did when
Speaker 1: when I was looking into the payment Apple issue this
Speaker 1: past uh spring, um, is you know, I talked to
Speaker 1: a former prosecutor and was like, you know, what is
Speaker 1: it like to get documents from or or data from
Speaker 1: like Facebook and you know, Instagram or Meta whatnot, or
Speaker 1: like Twitter or any of these other places. And they
Speaker 1: were just like, oh, we just sent a requests like
Speaker 1: we don't even like it's basically an administrative subpoena, and
Speaker 1: they just like hand over everything like, um, it's basically
Speaker 1: they're just like so routine. Oftentimes, especially if it's coming
Speaker 1: from a district attorney's office or law enforcement like often
Speaker 1: times these companies just like casually handover stuff all the time,
Speaker 1: especially when it's like dealing with low level drug stuff
Speaker 1: um or any kind of like issues like that. You know,
Speaker 1: they like to say, oh, we're we're big on on
Speaker 1: civil rights and stuff like that and making sure your
Speaker 1: data is protected. In reality, like there's so many requests
Speaker 1: around this stuff, and it's just, you know, the only
Speaker 1: time they ever maybe make a standard when a case
Speaker 1: is higher profile and that may damage their brands, right,
Speaker 1: and that's that's the only time they actually ever care.
Speaker 1: On the defense attorney side, it's hard as heck to
Speaker 1: get your client's records for things like so hard, so
Speaker 1: so hard. You're looking for information on a Facebook for
Speaker 1: somebody that's incarcerated that might get them out of jail,
Speaker 1: and they don't remember their password, you don't know how
Speaker 1: to get into their stuff, and it needs to be
Speaker 1: not a screenshot because that you might not be able
Speaker 1: to get that authenticated and admissible in court. And it
Speaker 1: is so hard when you're working on the other side
Speaker 1: and not in law enforcement to get data and information.
Speaker 1: But on the flip side, when it comes to like
Speaker 1: people's medical information, which comes into play in a lot
Speaker 1: of these cases, because we're at this intersection of bodily
Speaker 1: autonomy and health in the criminal legal system. We've certainly
Speaker 1: seen in cases where folks are having a medical emergency
Speaker 1: and cops are able to just go and do a
Speaker 1: bedside interview with somebody that's coming out of surgery still
Speaker 1: drugged up. Right, They're able to just go up to
Speaker 1: a charge and or something like so, how's he doing,
Speaker 1: and they're getting information. That's wild because I have had
Speaker 1: request for my clients medical records with signed HIPPA authorizations
Speaker 1: returned because I signed with blue ink instead of black ink.
Speaker 1: It's not wrote. It's not wrote when it's not coming
Speaker 1: from law enforcements sometimes, and that's kind of the wild thing.
Speaker 1: There's this assumption that folks and law enforcement have a
Speaker 1: right to all information at all times forever, and that's
Speaker 1: where things get rubber stamped, and that's the stuff that
Speaker 1: we're not really looking at that have large impact on
Speaker 1: how people access their rights. I was just as we
Speaker 1: were talking about like Facebook doing everything about you and
Speaker 1: loving the cops, I was like reminded of Foko's Panopticon
Speaker 1: and like this idea that you'll start to internal life
Speaker 1: discipline because you never know when you're being watched, right, um,
Speaker 1: And so I wondered, like if obviously, like when UGO
Speaker 1: talks about it, the idea is that you will do
Speaker 1: you act like you think the state is watching because
Speaker 1: the state could always be watching. Therefore you have to
Speaker 1: act like it is watching. Uh, and like it's if
Speaker 1: we're not there yet, right like that there have you
Speaker 1: not heard the FBI and your phone joke? The FBI
Speaker 1: on my computer? Like, I hope he likes my makeup today.
Speaker 1: We're totally there, Like I think there's an assumption that
Speaker 1: we're all you can watched. Well, I don't know. Even
Speaker 1: sometimes I wish our clients I thought they were watched
Speaker 1: more because sometimes people put too much on Facebook do well, yeah,
Speaker 1: you're right, let me not keep myself from that because
Speaker 1: I am very much included. Yeah. But yeah, so like
Speaker 1: that's what I wanted to ask, right, Like how do
Speaker 1: we not I you know, we don't want people to
Speaker 1: listen to some do crimes, but like how should people
Speaker 1: act in their interactions like in in a way that
Speaker 1: is like I guess I don't know that it makes
Speaker 1: them less vulnerable to like these very obvious upsets fails.
Speaker 1: I guess, Um, I have some resources, so if one
Speaker 1: how we have this thing called the repro Legal Helpline.
Speaker 1: It's repro legal Helpline dot org. It's also a warm
Speaker 1: line with the phone number that people can call and
Speaker 1: ask questions like what are my rights when it comes
Speaker 1: to my abortion my self managed abortion? And on that
Speaker 1: way site, we have digital tips about how do you
Speaker 1: protect yourself and sanitize your digital space just for safety
Speaker 1: as a whole, not to hide information from everyone, but
Speaker 1: how do you move and prevent and minimize your risks?
Speaker 1: What does harm reduction look like to you? We also
Speaker 1: have the repro Legal Defense Fund and that exists for
Speaker 1: folks when they are actually being criminalized to pay for
Speaker 1: things like bail, help out with attorneys fees, help out
Speaker 1: with expert fees. So there are folks that are working
Speaker 1: on this stuff that exists as resources, and there are
Speaker 1: resources out there. But I would tell folks to really
Speaker 1: think about who are you telling your business to UM
Speaker 1: when you share information, is that information that's necessary for
Speaker 1: treatment that you're being asked? UM? Just because we're used
Speaker 1: to being in spaces where there is a power and
Speaker 1: balance about sharing all of the information that's asked of us,
Speaker 1: and I think when it comes to spaces and times
Speaker 1: where we're more vulnerable, um to state actors causing harm
Speaker 1: to us, being mindful about what questions are you being
Speaker 1: asked and is that question necessary for you to be
Speaker 1: able to receive care or services x y z um.
Speaker 1: And it sucks to have to put work on the
Speaker 1: back of folks that are already being oppressed by systems.
Speaker 1: It's absolute trash. And I fully recognize it's it's it's
Speaker 1: messed up. But um, when we're thinking, when we're thinking
Speaker 1: about what does harm reduction look like, I think that's
Speaker 1: one of those things that we have to keep in mind. Um.
Speaker 1: And harm reduction also looks like folks knowing generally what
Speaker 1: the law is and being able to advocate for themselves
Speaker 1: in those spaces. Yeah, I'll just add from my side
Speaker 1: from like kind of just you know, from from a
Speaker 1: cyber perspective, it's, you know, just in general ways like
Speaker 1: there's nothing that's gonna be bullet proof or a silver
Speaker 1: bullet in terms of always protecting your privacy, but like
Speaker 1: the quicker ways that you can kind of at least
Speaker 1: make yourself generally safers. Use applex signal for for chatting.
Speaker 1: UM also use like auto delete features. UM you know,
Speaker 1: don't don't keep like years worth of text messages and
Speaker 1: stuff like that. UM. Additionally, UM, you know, don't use
Speaker 1: biometrics because you don't have a Fifth Amendment right for
Speaker 1: yourself subcrimination for for biometrics right sos so long long.
Speaker 1: The reason why that is in the courts. Use a password,
Speaker 1: don't use a short pin. Use a password. I know
Speaker 1: it's annoying. I know it's like, you know, if a
Speaker 1: fingerprin in our face, like unlock is like much more convenient.
Speaker 1: But you know, if you are at high risk or
Speaker 1: you worry about this stuff and you're concerned about your privacy,
Speaker 1: like use those things because they can't compel you to
Speaker 1: do that generally. UM. You know. The other things is
Speaker 1: UM the UK app e u k I UM, which
Speaker 1: is a UM sexual health app that has a lot
Speaker 1: of information about UM, you know, reproductive issues. UM. It
Speaker 1: also is like a menstrual chracker, but it's all encrypted
Speaker 1: client side, they get no data UM and it has
Speaker 1: it prompts you for a password and pin to open
Speaker 1: it UM. And it also has UH resources for self
Speaker 1: managed abortion UM and and how to safely handle those, um,
Speaker 1: And yeah, you know, just generally, you know, anything you
Speaker 1: put out there on social media also like be careful
Speaker 1: like what you you put out there, like stay to
Speaker 1: end and end to end encryption, use VPNs if you can.
Speaker 1: You know that these are just kind of like general
Speaker 1: stuff like nothing is again ever gonna be full proof.
Speaker 1: But yeah, there are some small stuff you can take
Speaker 1: to at least increase some of your protections. And on
Speaker 1: my end, you know you have a right to remain silent,
Speaker 1: you should use it. Uh And thanks to the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: you have to say I want to be silent. In
Speaker 1: order to invoke your right to be silent, you cannot
Speaker 1: just be silent. Um. So you I would advise people
Speaker 1: to say I want to be silent and I want
Speaker 1: a lawyer. Those are the magic words. I also want
Speaker 1: to hold that being can up shored by police officers
Speaker 1: is a violent experience and a scary experience, and sometimes
Speaker 1: asserting your rights can provoke more violence, and so people
Speaker 1: do what they need to do to stay safe in
Speaker 1: that moment um from all the law perspective, saying I
Speaker 1: would I want to be silent and I want a lawyer,
Speaker 1: um are the things that invoke all of your constitutional protections. Um,
Speaker 1: and the police may lie about whether or not you
Speaker 1: said that later, so you know, say it as many
Speaker 1: times as you need to. But those are really the
Speaker 1: only things you should say, which is a lot um
Speaker 1: easier said than done, but that that is the thing
Speaker 1: that folks should do if they do find themselves in
Speaker 1: the custody of law enforcement. And also if you're on
Speaker 1: the street, ask if you're free to go, and if
Speaker 1: you're free to go, please walk, do not run away.
Speaker 1: There's also a case about that God hate the cops. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you also much for joining us, UM this this
Speaker 1: has been really great, and yeah, don't talk to cops yep.
Speaker 1: Would you like to plug anything before we leave with
Speaker 1: the cook the cops? Yeah, I can just throw my
Speaker 1: personal side. You can follow me on also shows on
Speaker 1: Twitter and stuff at Square underscores like Portmanteau of Esquire
Speaker 1: and Queer s E s q U E R Underscore
Speaker 1: UM and also have a podcast called Queering the Law
Speaker 1: um or talk about a lot of these issues as well. UM,
Speaker 1: So if you want to give that a listen. UM,
Speaker 1: don't follow me on social media because all my stuff
Speaker 1: is closed, but I would recommend that folks follow at
Speaker 1: IF when how on all socials because we're always uh
Speaker 1: providing up to date information on what's actually going on
Speaker 1: with criminalization of self managed abortion and resources from you know,
Speaker 1: community partners that are on the ground, local that are
Speaker 1: doing the work. So if folks are looking to get connected,
Speaker 1: I would say reach out to IF one how and
Speaker 1: we can usually point you in the right direction. You
Speaker 1: could follow me on Twitter, but I don't really remember
Speaker 1: what my handle is. So what I would suggest that
Speaker 1: you do, uh pre trials, attention and bail litigation is
Speaker 1: really my heart. You got folks locked up and they
Speaker 1: haven't even been found guilty, not that anyone should be
Speaker 1: locked up, So donate to your local bail fund if
Speaker 1: you don't know who that is. There's a lot of organs,
Speaker 1: National Bailout, the Bail Project, there's a lot of places
Speaker 1: you can find that. But growing five, ten, fifteen dollars
Speaker 1: at your local bail fund, we'll get someone free because
Speaker 1: you can purchase your freedom here in America. So UM
Speaker 1: do that. M Yeah, thank you so much that this
Speaker 1: has been They can happen here. Uh, you can find
Speaker 1: us in places don't talk to cops and yeah, if
Speaker 1: there weren't any cops. You couldn't make things legal. It
Speaker 1: could happen here as a production of cool Zone Media
Speaker 1: or more podcasts from cool Zone Media. Visit our website
Speaker 1: cool zone media dot com, or check us out on
Speaker 1: the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
Speaker 1: listen to podcasts. You can find sources for It could
Speaker 1: Happen Here, updated monthly at cool zone media dot com
Speaker 1: slash sources. Thanks for listening.