The Present Illness

Supremely Bad Birthday Gifts for America

• Alyssa Burgart & Arghavan Salles • Season 1 • Episode 40

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 1:06:50

The Supreme Court let America keep birthright citizenship for it’s birthday. Trump’s 250th Independence Day celebration is a flop. Surprise!

Note: Trump said he will give a speech in 107 degree weather on the 4th of July (not on the 6th)


SCOTUS Season Closes: 90 cases in 2026, 66 with majority decisions


Trans Athlete Bans Upheld

Monsanto and Cancer Warnings

Birthright Citizenship

Mail-In Ballots

💊Take Two and Call Me in the Morning💊

Text us!

Thanks for listening to The Present Illness! 

Follow us on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube @ThePresentIllness

Credits

  • Production by Arghavan Salles & Alyssa Burgart
  • Editing by Alyssa Burgart
  • Music by Joseph Uphoff
  • Social Media by Arghavan Salles

Don’t take medical advice from random people on a podcast. This show is for informational purposes, is meant to be fun, and is certainly not medical advice. Please, take your medical questions to a qualified professional. Nothing we say represents our employers or anyone else. 

SPEAKER_03

The administration has been railing about mail-in ballots, especially Trump himself, just constantly talking about how it's cheating, even though he himself votes by mail-in ballot, um, as we have seen documented multiple times. But because it's so convenient and it encourages voting and it helps more people vote, doesn't it? And that's really the problem because his whole mission is voter suppression one way or another. So um, because this is what you do, just to be clear, this is what you do when your policies are unpopular, when you're not likely to win an election on the merits of your arguments. So what you need to do is make it harder for people to vote. Hey there, fellow nerds. Welcome back to another episode of The Present Illness, the podcast where two physicians try to make sense of a world that's a little febrile and definitely underdiagnosed. I'm Arga Von Salas, a surgeon scientist, and you're a friendly neighborhood doom scroller in residence.

SPEAKER_01

And I'm Alyssa Berghart, an anesthesiologist and bioethicist who tracks news and health law cases like their EKGs, full of spikes and surprises. The present illness is where we dig into public health, politics, culture, and ethics with a scalpel in one hand and a meme in the other. As a note to our listeners, we often talk about tough topics that can be intense, activating, and they can be a lot. So if you need to take a break, we get it.

SPEAKER_03

Absolutely. And uh big thank you to everyone who's listening. Extra love as always to our subscribers and those who follow us on any of the various platforms. And a special warm welcome today to anyone who has just stumbled in from the Great American State Fair. What what a joy it's been.

SPEAKER_01

I mean, this was all supposed to be part of like celebrating America's like birthday, right?

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, yeah. So it's our 250th uh birthday as a country, and we are falling apart right on schedule. Um, but it was Yeah, this weekend is the 4th of July. Correct. And uh this was supposed to be a big, you know, bipartisan celebration. Congress had allocated funds for this.

SPEAKER_01

Wasn't there an executive order against bipartisanship?

SPEAKER_03

I think I think we're just like opposed to bipartisanship uh by dictate from the uh president, which is the same as an executive order. Uh there was JD Nance the other day, okay. I wasn't planning to talk about this, but JD Nance the other day said that the Republicans would love to do something about housing affordability, but you know, the Democrats won't get on board. Meanwhile, there was a bill that was passed, a bipartisan bill for housing affordability, um, that went to the president's desk, and the president has refused to sign it until the the Save Act is um is passed. Anyway, so yeah, but let's blame, let's blame the Democrats, um, not the guy at in the White House causing all the problems. Anyway, so the Green Burgan State Fair, here's the thing that's been funny about it. Um if you've seen any clips at all, what you've probably seen is just comedy, sheer comedy. Like there's an entire national mall that's fenced off. They have like, you know, those kind of um barricades that they have. If they're you're expecting a really long line to get entry somewhere. And then no one there. Every video or photo I've seen, it's empty, empty, empty. And then the national mall itself, also relatively empty. Like the maximum number of people I feel like I've seen is somewhere between 50 and 100. Now, not that I've seen every video or photo that exists, but like I keep seeing these posted, and I'm like, where is everyone? Now, on the edges, there's the um buildings, there's like little buildings for each state, I think. Um, you know, so you can go like learn about Maine or whatever. By the way, some states, I forget the number, have chosen not to send any representatives to this great American state fair. So there's like a booth or this little like kind of half-building thing for them, and there's no one there.

SPEAKER_01

There's just like a sign for like Maine, for example. Hollywood, folks, I really hope that you are writing the farce right now.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, I mean, this is all just such a great setup for Veeep part two. Um, but or some.

SPEAKER_01

Mel Brooks movie, Mel Brooks, you know, he's doing Space Balls, the second one. Maybe we get to have another movie from him. Sure. I mean, I'm all for it.

SPEAKER_03

But anyway, so yeah, it's been you know, very um interesting to see. Like, there's a room where there is a creature or something. And the I've never seen anybody sitting in there. You just have someone yelling at the front, and there's like literally no one, there's empty, there's these white chairs, they're all empty, and at the back they have like a little pool where if somebody wants to get baptized, it's like there's not even anybody sitting there listening, much less somebody looking to get baptized. And then there's this whole thing with um one of the states, they had a Confederacy worst revival show ever. Oh, yeah. Like, who's going to the Great American State Fair to get baptized?

SPEAKER_01

Like, is that where you would go? Anyway, I mean, to be fair, I can see why Trump's people would think that that was a good idea.

SPEAKER_03

But I don't know about the thinking part. That's where I get stuck a little bit. I think somebody suggested it and they just went with it. But one of the states, so one of the states had a Confederate flag and there is a um, like in their little booth building, whatever.

SPEAKER_01

And there's Confederate flags. Can we just fucking, you know, I'm not down in burning books because we could could burn those?

SPEAKER_03

I mean, I don't genuinely understand. I mean, I do understand, but then I also don't understand how these have become so normalized again, given the violence that they represent.

SPEAKER_01

Because we didn't send all the traitors to jail after the Civil War.

SPEAKER_03

Yep. Yep. We tried to uh make amends with people who you cannot make amends with. Um, but there's a pickle company that had like uh their representation at this state. I'll have to look. It was either I think it was North Carolina, but I could be wrong. I'll fact check myself. But there's a pickle company whose like company was represented right near the Confederate flag. And so people on social media were letting them know, like, hey, we're are you endorsing this Confederate flag? And they were like, oh no, we had no idea.

SPEAKER_01

Oh, it's Mount Olive, Mount Olive Pickle Company, which is like a national pickle company. Oh, I did, I had never heard of them before. But yes, that's like if you because it's um they make uh it they make canned pickles. So if you were in like a condiments aisle, this is one of the main brands. Like um Clausens is pretty popular out here on the West Coast, but but Mount Olive is another quite prominent company, and they're based out of North Carolina, so apparently they were not pleased.

SPEAKER_03

Correct. They did not know that there was going to be that placement that way. And so when people tagged them, they were like, wait, we're looking into this. And then very soon after, they were like, Yeah, we're not, we're pulling out of that. We have no interest in being affiliated with the uh Confederate flag. This, of course, this whole Great American State Fair is is the celebration that we had talked about.

SPEAKER_01

So because listen, listeners, I just looked this up, and so you have to bear with me. But now apparently, you can't make this up. An offended person in MAGA is now orchestrating a boycott of Mount Olive Pickle Company because they weren't down with the Confederate flag. Yeah, sure. This is this is America at 250 years. We tried, guys, we tried democracy. We've we've tried.

SPEAKER_03

Well, I saw a poll, so Gallup uh posted this morning a poll that they've done, and it was 77% of Americans do not think, I'll pull up the exact wording, but do not think that the founders would be happy with what's happened in this country if they if they like time traveled to now. Um, let me get you the exact wording so that it's accurate for folks.

SPEAKER_01

But yeah, I mean I don't know if this is the same one you were thinking of. Um I had just recently seen the Pew survey on um, it was called like Beyond Red and Blue or something like that, but it's all about political typologies. Like how is it that people identify themselves on the political spectrum and how happy or unhappy they are with a bunch of things?

SPEAKER_03

Oh yeah, no, this is different. This is from Gallup. Um, it's 77% of Americans say the US founders would be disappointed by how the country has turned out. And that is the largest number. They've been asking this question since at least 1999, and that is the highest proportion that have said that they think the founders would be disappointed. They also um, it was an interesting um post they had. They also measure pride in America, and um, we have the lowest um amount of pride in this country since they first started um assessing it back in 2001. And um, you will not be surprised to see that there's a big gap there um by the parties. So I think it was um looks like 70% of Republicans are extremely proud of uh to be an American and 28% of independents and 14% of Democrats um said the same. So it's a rough, it really is a rough time for our 250th birthday um celebration, if we can call it that. Um but if folks are looking for comedic relief, I would recommend just looking up the Great American State Fair. The latest thing I saw yesterday was that there's like this, there's a replica of the arc, you know, that Trump is trying to make for himself. He's trying to make a I'm sorry, what? Oh, you didn't hear about this. Yeah, this is one of his vanity. Will the animals will the Republicans get on two by two? No, no, no. It's like the Arc of Triumph, that kind of art. Oh, that arc.

SPEAKER_01

Oh, I have arc in English an art. In France, yeah, an arc. Anyway, yes, like the Arc de Triomphe. Sorry, I thought you when you said that, I immediately thought Noah's Ark because Jesus.

SPEAKER_03

Right. But that you see, he doesn't actually know anything about Jesus, so that's why you could already I don't think he knows anything about France. Oh gosh. So if folks are looking for some amusement, I would recommend specifically looking for this arc arch, whatever you want to call it, because so Trump is uh planning to build an arch as a um, you know, monument to himself. Yeah, in honor to of himself, um, with our money, of course. And so they have this replica of the supposed arch that's there on the the national mall as part of the great American State Fair. And there's lots of interesting things about it, like there are these columns, like it's not a real building, right? So there are these columns that don't reach the ground, they they float above the ground.

SPEAKER_01

Um what are you you you're did you just you told me earlier, you were like, oh, there's like ooze coming out of it. But when you were you kept saying arc, and so in my mind, I kept thinking that it was a boat, and now I realize that it's a like an edifice.

SPEAKER_03

Yes, exactly. And so now like what I saw starting yesterday is that like the parts of it that have been stuck together very shoddily, mind you. Like there's people who have gone close up and taken video, and like even the veneer is like they put paper or whatever over the front of it, but it's not even flat. There's like bubbles, it's like you know, bad wallpapering job. Anyway, so now in in some of the sections where they stuck material together, there's cock, C-A-U-L-K cock, that's yellow that's like oozing out of the crevices. And um, this is supposed to be like a really great celebration of this country. Um, and oh, the other thing I was gonna say is that, you know, we talked a few weeks ago about the artists who had pulled out of that. This is the same event. So this is all part of the same thing. Um, and um, a number of artists had pulled out because they found out that this was a not a bipartisan um event that was or celebration that was being held. Okay, the last couple things I want to say about this is one, I think Trump is scheduled to give a talk tomorrow, July 3rd. Um, so you know, I'm sure it'll be captivating. And then he's also said that he's gonna give a talk, I believe, on Monday, and something like it was projected to be something like 106 or 107 degrees, and he said, But I'm gonna do it anyway because I I'm I can do anything.

SPEAKER_01

And, you know, a lot of people Well, you know, he's in perfect health.

SPEAKER_03

Well, a lot of people online um are are hypothesizing that perhaps that's when it will happen. Um, so stay tuned. We will see. Who are we to stop uh the president from giving a talk in high temperatures? That that's his choice, really. I believe in autonomy.

SPEAKER_01

Absolutely. Um so and you know, and this is just we're we're gonna talk, we're gonna get real deep into uh Supreme Court stuff uh shortly. But you know, the other thing that just happened, uh we're we're recording on July 2nd just yesterday is when all the like student loan offsets and everything expired. So um friend of the pod, Dr. Laura Jones, just I just saw um a post that she had on Instagram. Her monthly loan payment for her like, I don't know, $300,000 worth of loans or whatever, um, went from like just over just under $900 a month to like over $3,000 a month.

SPEAKER_02

Wow.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah. As in like since yesterday. And it's you know, it's totally untenable for you think about the the impact this is gonna have on so many students. So many students and people who, you know, invested in their education. Um, so thanks, big beautiful Bill.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, it's so beautiful doing such big things.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah. And we're starting to see really the first big waves of people losing their um healthcare coverage and losing their subsidies uh for their health insurance. And unlike what the uh Republicans seem to want, these are we are currently still before the midterms. So um I really hope that these sorts of things drive people to do whatever it takes to vote, regardless of the terrible impact of voter suppression. Yeah. What a world. Happy birthday, America. Happy birthday, baby.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, it's been such such a good run. Um anyway, so shall we get into our topics for today?

SPEAKER_01

Oh well, you know, as I mentioned last week that the Supreme Court's been uh, you know, they're doing a little, they've been doing a little hoarding, if you will. So they usually, you know, June is always a stressful time, like late May, June, because there's always a lot of decisions that um get released, but they really delayed the biggest, most bombastic decisions for the last day. The last, last day. And then they're like, peace out, we're going on vacation. Um so that is super annoying and very stressful. Um, we're not gonna talk about all of those cases, um, but just to to recognize they really did hang on to the biggies till the end. And if you just look at, for example, so the the court this year in 2026 um had 90 cases filed. They released 66 majority opinions, and like I think 25 of them were in the last two weeks. So sure, really just a lot. Um, and I know that you're gonna talk about birthright citizenship. So, folks, I don't want you to worry. We are gonna talk about that. Um, the other thing I was gonna say, uh, you know, there were these rumors that maybe Justice Alito is retiring, and then people said no, that, you know, he said no, I'm not retiring. We will see what happens. Um, I'm doubtful. The man seemed like he had a lot to say uh because he had in just on uh June 25th, he had he had four or he had four opinions the week of June 23rd. So they they released cases on June 23rd and June 25th, and he authored four of them, um, which is a lot. Um so it's been a lot of Alito opinions. Um so the main case that I want to talk to everyone about is there were actually two cases that were related to transgender athletes, and unfortunately, both of those cases uh diminished the ability of trans young people to participate in sports. And primarily, this is of course affecting trans girls because no one seems to be afraid of trans boys being in sports. And so, of course, these were framed as uh protecting the children. Um so the so the two cases um there's little v Hellcox, that case itself was uh consolidated with a case called Ristdow v Labrador, and then there was a uh West Virginia v uh BPJ, um, which are the initials of uh participant. So these cases, they're in Idaho and West Virginia, and both of them said, oh, we need to protect, we need to protect the the girls, the biological girls. We have to protect them from the scourge of transgender athletes, which is we we we are not in agreement with. Um so they claimed in both of these cases that physical harm could happen if you let these trans girls participate in sports. Um they also one of the things that I found really frustrating, and we've talked about this before, that this term uh, these phrases biological sex, uh, biological female, biological male, these are not biology terms. These are transphobic terms. Like these are terms that they were not part of URI's education. These are not part of um the way that biologists talk about, you know, sexual variance. Um, but those words unfortunately are all over these cases. And Justice Kavanaugh never once, in his uh majority opinion, referred to any of these folks as transgender girls or transgender children. He consistently referred to people involved in these cases as either biological males or biological females. And I it made my blood boil.

SPEAKER_03

Um so anyway, I would just like to point out that Kavanaugh did not need to be a Supreme Court justice. Uh there was no reason there was good reason for him to not have been confirmed, and yet here we are.

SPEAKER_01

It's almost like rape matters. It's almost like we shouldn't let rapists be on the Supreme Court because we shouldn't let rapists have a lot of power and authority.

SPEAKER_03

You know, they did ask a reporter asked Susan Collins if she regrets voting to confirm him because she, you know, she's in that race in Maine against Graham Platner. He's got his own issues. But anyway, um, she said, no, why would I, why would I why would I? Anyway, carry on.

SPEAKER_01

I can't. Okay. I'm I'm regular for people who are listening versus watching, I am trying to regulate my feelings. Trying to regulate my feelings so that I can talk using a podcast voice. Um just to refresh people's memory, we have come a f we have we have fallen quite far um in this here Supreme Court with the changing of the justices, if you will. Um so for example, just to remind people, back in 2020, uh there was a majority opinion Bostok v. Clayton County, um, which was a super important case. It protects, it said that um Title VII of the Civil Rights Act um protected trans people from being discriminated based on their sex. So this really established that you couldn't fire somebody um for being transgender, that that would be considered sex discrimination. And so this really improved uh employment protections for transgender people um across the United States. So then, of course, last year we got US versus Grimetti, um, where it was unfortunately 6'3 vote, and this one banned said that banning gender-affirming medical care for teens in Tennessee, pardon me, children and teenagers in Tennessee was something that a state could choose to do. And so this affected uh laws in over 20 other states. Um, there are now, as of due to the many campaigns against trans kids that we've talked about, there are only a few transgender, uh like gender-affirming care clinics that are still open and running in the United States. There's, I believe, eight or nine um last I checked, as opposed to they were in the 40s before all of this uh political using trans children as a way to win elections. So so the two cases, the um little little v heckcox, that one was asking, okay, can we allow schools to maintain sex segregated sports teams based on quote unquote, and again, not our term, biological sex. And so they asked the state, they asked the Supreme Court, do state laws exclude transgender girls from girls' sports? And does that violate the Equal Protections Clause? Um, so unfortunately, because the court found in favor of reducing the rights of transgender children and not allowing trans girls in particular. To participate in girls' sports. Basically, this means now that Title IX allows women's sports and girls' sports to discriminate based on biological sex. So basically, it excludes transgender girls and women from sports and from participating in a sport that's consistent with their gender identity. And so unfortunately, this validates other bans, similar bans in other states across the US. And then West Virginia v BPJ, this um West Virginia had a ban on transgender students participating in school sports consistent with their identity. They also brought their case related to the uh Equal Protections Clause, Title IX or Due Process. And, you know, they won't let these kids play. That's really the unfortunately the down and out of both of those cases is that it means that trans kids who need to be supported and affirmed and treated like they matter and treated as though they wild are just as important as every other child. And they should be able to participate in sports. And like Brett Kavanaugh, who's like, I mean, pass me a beer bro, a Brewski, if you will. What were the names of all of his friends? Scooter and Bob and Jim. I mean, I don't remember what their real names were now. I don't remember either.

SPEAKER_03

And they all had like nicknames that were really silly.

SPEAKER_01

Anyway. Anyway, but like he, in his opinion, he just whacks ecstatic about like how important sports are for American life. And then he explicitly excludes this small class of kids. And it's it's just heartbreaking. Um, just as sort of my well, here, I'll read you first one of the things that this this is a a quote from Kavanaugh's ruling. Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable. Given the inherent physical differences between the sexes, allowing only biological females to play on women's and girls' teams can reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition. Now, this is absurd because, of course, it turns out that there are lots of overlap across human beings that have nothing to do with gender or or what sex somebody is assigned at birth. So this is this is pseudoscience nonsense. It's not true. Um, and none of these cases were brought because a child was injured by a trans child.

SPEAKER_03

I mean, right, it's outrageous. And how many? I believe there are 10 trans athletes in all of NCAA sports. All and like think about all the different sports um that exist at the college level. And I I believe the last number I saw was that there are 10 trans athletes. Um, you know, Riley Gaines, who we've talked about before, uh, of course, posted in celebration of these rulings. And and, you know, multiple people pointed out had these rulings existed when she was a college swimmer, she still would have finished fifth place.

SPEAKER_01

Because she wasn't the best swimmer.

SPEAKER_03

Correct. Um so she lost because she wasn't fast. She didn't lose because there was a trans person competing against her. I mean, it's it's so absurd and cruel. I mean, as you said, like this is just picking on a very small group of people who, especially the one about school sports. I mean, it's just kids wanting to play sports with their friends. Yeah. And the Supreme Court says no to that in upholding like this political agenda to further marginalize this very vulnerable population.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah. Well, and you know, I was very, very fortunate. I spent uh last Sunday up in the city and I got to march in the pride parade with a bunch of my friends, and it was so lovely. And, you know, with so many of my friends who are who are queer, who are gay, who are lesbians, like uh people who are trans, and seeing the streets lined with people who got it, you know, and like people, parents waving signs. I love my trans, my my trans daughter, um, I love my non-binary kid, um, I love my trans mom, like just and seeing seeing both the people who are merching and the people in the crowds like be with each other in this beautiful and celebratory moment. Um, so also like for these cases to come out, I mean, both, you know, scurm because the court releases its decisions in June, you know, these th these cases all come out during Pride Month. And so it's just it's like this slap across the face to trans people in our communities. Um, so anyway, Justice Sodomayor in writing um uh for the dissent said the majority applies its diminished view of the equal protection to the sports context today. One can only hope that the same misguided approach does not and will not extend to other contexts tomorrow. And so one of the things that she pointed out was how, you know, there have been other state laws that have been uh, you know, not upheld because it relies on broad overgeneralizations about what boys and girls and men and women are allowed to be and do. And those have not in the past withstood the test of the Supreme Court, and that has been over, that has been, you know, just messed up. And so unfortunately, what she uh concluded is she said the court lowers the state's burdens for justifying the use of sex classification in all potential cases, in pardon me, potentially all cases, um, and that it makes it easier for states to justify treating men and women differently. And that's the other thing that I think there's so much rhetoric that is like suppressing trans people and trying to suppress their role and trying to in society and trying to diminish their existence and claim that there's something wrong with them because they're trans, which is absurd. Um that that is actually rhetoric that harms men and women. Like this is you cannot go after trans people and not negatively impact the safety of women, the ability of men to be able to exist and live their lives in whatever form of masculinity actually works for them, as opposed to, you know, we talk a lot about the manosphere and how much gender policing there is amongst men. So, you know, this is just it's a it's a huge loss for the trans community and it's a loss for sports. It's a loss for human dignity, and I hate it. Yeah. One star, do not recommend.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, and the young um woman who was part of one of those cases, you know, has has been public about um her experience and um is obviously disappointed and represents a large number of people, not you know, a majority group, obviously, but like a large number of people across the country who are being told that they can't play sports with their friends.

SPEAKER_01

Well, and this is the problem with you know, this whole idea of that the majority should be able to make the decisions for everybody else. Like it's a it's a bad idea. Anyway, it's terrible. We need like radical reform of the Supreme Court for lots of reasons.

SPEAKER_00

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01

Um so I wanted to do just two quick honorable mentions. We, you know, so many cases came out. You and I were like, how many can we really talk about? Um I did want to touch on um Monsanto versus Durnell. Um so Monsanto, as people understand, is like a, you know, they make Roundup, they make a chemical um that's used in farming, it's a pesticide. Um this it's a now it says federal law now expressly preempts state law. So if there's a failure to warn, people are not going to be able to sue um these companies for a failure to warn. And so um Durrell, the guy, pardon me, Durnell, John Durnell is a Missouri farmer who had originally brought this case. He used Roundup for 20 years and subsequently he developed non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Um, he had previously won in a lower court and had won $1.25 million. Um, but then there was a case that was brought saying that that was in conflict with the, it's called FERFA. This is, I had to look up what it stands for: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which is supposed to mean that there's these regulations around the use of these chemicals. Um so unfortunately, this was lost. This reverses this lower courts decision. And what this means is it effectively blocks like 60,000 outstanding cases, uh, lawsuits that are against uh companies like Monsanto and their parent companies. And so many, many people who develop cancer or other negative health effects from exposure to these chemicals, um, they're much less likely to win. They're much less likely to be able to even bring a suit at all. So I think this is uh from a health standpoint uh particularly dangerous. Um, I'm gonna skip my next honorable mention because I we're I know that you have some big things that you're gonna share with our audience. I don't want to take up too much more time. Sure.

SPEAKER_03

I do want to just add real quick that glyphosate, I think, is the ingredient that's called into question in Roundup. And um that's something that RFK Jr.

SPEAKER_01

has um we talked we talked about this before, has talked about.

SPEAKER_03

Um, and so now basically I mean it's just more hypocrisy, is what I'm trying to say. Like that he's supposedly upset about the use of glyphosate, but now people are are not even allowed to bring cases um due to harm related to it. So very maha.

SPEAKER_01

Well, and he had fought against these pesticides for years and years and years when he was, you know, environmental attorney. And then what do you know? If Trump asks you to do something else, just you know.

SPEAKER_03

Just do it. Just do it. What are what are morals? What is integrity? Okay, anyway, all right. So yes, I have They're not for us. Well, they're for us, you and I. They're not for the people running this corrupt government. Anyway, um, so I want to talk about two cases. I'm gonna start with birthright citizenship, as you alluded to earlier. Um, and as you said, there were so many, so many impactful rulings that have come out um in the last even just 10 days. Um, but this one feels really important, especially, you know, I'm an immigrant. I'm not a birthright citizen, I'm a naturalized citizen. Um, but everything related to immigration, which we know is like another group, right, that they're this administration is targeting is all immigrants, um, is really important. So the basic argument that was brought by, in this case is called Trump versus Barbara. And uh the argument brought by Trump um and his team is that you shouldn't automatically become a citizen just because you were born in this country. Now this is kind of a wild assertion to make because the 14th Amendment, which is one of the Reconstruction Amendments, says, quote, all persons born or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the US and of the state where they reside. Okay. Sounds pretty clear. It seems very clear. Um, and yet the the Trump's team argues that, and so by the way, that's that's from 1868, um, when we added the 14th Amendment. Um, yeah, Trump's team argues that if the parents of this child are here illegally, if they're undocumented, or if they're here temporarily, like I don't know who is considered temporary. Actually, I haven't read like the entire case, you know, all the everything that's in the details, but this is the argument that people whose parents, children whose parents are not documented or whose parents are here temporarily should not automatically become citizens. But again, the the wording as as I read it to you is pretty clear. So it doesn't say in the 14th Amendment, if your parents are here with documentation. It doesn't say if your parents are permanent residents, it doesn't say if your parents are citizens, like none of that is part of the 14th Amendment. And um, and I'm sorry, I I left out one part of because I was reading it and I was like, why I'm left something out. The actual text does say specifically in the US, which is what I thought it should say. It's all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction that thereof are citizens of the U.S. and of the state where they reside. Um so this is what they tried to argue in court. Um, it it's worth noting just you know, for everyone's knowledge, that four of Trump's five children were born to immigrant mothers who were not citizens at the time that those children were born. Um, Trump's mother was an immigrant as well. Um and this all comes from, this case comes from the executive order, if folks may remember in the flurry of executive orders at the beginning of this term, uh, the presidential term, one of the executive orders was declaring basically that birthright citizenship is no longer. And so that's what this case hinges on. Was that executive order in violation of or inconsistent with the constitution? That was the question put to the court. And I think what is very interesting is that well, six, well, five of the justices said yes, this violates the 14th Amendment. A sixth justice, Kavanaugh, did not think it violates the 14th Amendment, but he said there's a different federal law that the executive order goes against. And so it still can't be upheld. The executive order still can't be upheld, but not because it goes against the 14th Amendment. Um and so essentially, depending on how you look at it, it's either 5'4 or a 6'3 decision, because Kavanaugh did side with the justices who said this executive order cannot be upheld, but just not for the same reason. The other five said this is in clear violation of the 14th amendment. Um, but that means And they cared. And they ended up caring. I mean, it's such plain language. I think it's very hard to say, well, that's not what it says in the 14th Amendment. But four, I mean, bottom line is four of the justices essentially said, Yeah, I guess the president can make an executive order overruling an amendment that's in the constitution. Like we came that close to having birthright citizenship overturned because only it would take one person voting the opposite direction with something that is about as plainly spoken as it can be.

SPEAKER_01

Well, I will say I was hopeful that it would end up, the birthright citizenship case would end up this way. But honestly, like the previous week when they ruled um in Blanche v. Lau, um, which was basically about people with temp uh lawful permanent residence, so people who have green cards. I mean, I was much more concerned specifically that they would not rule in favor of birthright citizenship. So I mean, I feel you're, you know, like you say, it's real, real cold comfort at this point. Yeah.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah. No, I agree with you. I would not have been surprised, to be honest, if they had voted or ruled in favor of Trump. But even that would have been even more stunning, right, than what we have, which is again four justices saying, like, uh, I don't know, can we really say that birthright citizenship is a thing in this country based on the Constitution saying that it is? Um, it's worth noting, too, that in 1898 there was a challenge that was brought. Um a man named Wang Kim Ark, whose parents were Chinese. Um there was a very famous case. Yeah, there was an attempt to say that he then couldn't be a citizen because his parents were Chinese. And the court ruled in his favor that he was born here, so he was a citizen. There is a small carve out in in the text around folks who are here because their parents are diplomats of foreign countries. But that's it. There's there's nothing there that says, oh, both your parents have to be documented, or both your parents have to be citizens, or one of your parents has to be a citizen, or like any version of that. None of that is in the written text. And so um, in the in the decision, like that's kind of the the crux of it. Like this is what the the constitution says. Now, Kavanaugh, going back to him, like I said, he felt this would be fine to overturn on the basis of the executive order um and the 14th Amendment alone. But there's this federal law, this like annoying federal law that this executive order is in violation of. And so he he very generously in his comments um outlines what the um conservatives could do if they really wanted to overturn birthright citizenship. Um, and so he says, um, let me give you the exact words. He says, um, in his view, Trump's order, quote, does not violate the 14th Amendment. Um, he goes on to say Congress, quote, could amend that law that we were just talking about, or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country, but Congress has not yet done so. So basically, if Congress wanted to make a law saying any of these things, your both your parents have to be citizens, one of your parents has to be a citizen, or whatever version of this that they want, he basically like told them, here's what you should do. If you really want to follow through on this, this is what you need to do. Um, you know, will that happen? I I don't know, but it's very disconcerting to me that that's part of the conversation here. It's not just, hey, this is not right and this this should not happen because it goes against the the constitution. But oh, well, you know, but if you wanted to do it, like here's how you should do it. Um and by the way, it's been doing a lot of signaling the last two years. Oh, yeah. Um, so Roberts wrote the majority opinion, and I actually didn't know this, but he explained there that um that part of the reason we have this, because a lot of countries don't have this birthright citizenship thing. But apparently in Britain, at the time when, you know, the folks who colonized this country came over, at that time this rule um did exist there, that children who were born in Britain automatically became British subjects. Um, and so it was built in here because that's what they were used to uh in Britain at the time.

SPEAKER_01

That was the ultimate originalism.

SPEAKER_03

That's right. Um, the other thing I wanted to point out is that um, you know, Clarence Thomas, if folks recall just a few weeks back when we Notable yacht rider. Notable, he was in the in the Capitol on Monday this week. Why? What was he doing in the Capitol? There's a clip if people haven't seen it, it's pretty interesting. There's a reporter just asking him, like, what are you doing here? Who are you meeting with? Why are you at the Capitol? And he just laughs, literally laughs in her face for like two, three minutes. He just laughs. At one point he says, These are good questions. And she goes, Are you gonna answer any of them? And he just laughs. Anyway, so Clarence Thomas, famously in the Voting Rights Act decision, said, you know, that this has nothing to do with race, right? Race is not part of the conversation here. We're talking about race neutral, because that was the whole point, right? If folks remember um this idea that there should be something approaching equity, like if a state has some proportion of the population that's black, there should be some proportional, or not even necessarily proportional, but some representation of those folks. Like people should have access to representation that aligns with their views. And um, and they had the Supreme Court basically said, not really, you know, like basically you're not required to have proportional representation or even anything remotely like it.

SPEAKER_01

Uh Argavon, it's not identity politics if your identity is being a white Christian nationalist. Right. They're just neutral.

SPEAKER_03

They're just like uh being white is just sort of yeah, white. White. Okay, anyway. So my point is though that in that in that case, he argued that race is not part of, you know, this is not about race. He always makes things about race. But in this case, he specifically says that this is about race. That this that the 14th Amendment was specifically meant to give citizenship. To enslaved people and their descendants. And so we are interpreting it too broadly to say that it applies to anybody else. So this is my point. This guy who constantly says it's not about race, it's not about race, but it's not about race. Here, he says, it is. It is about race. It's not about those Chinese people or the Haitian people or the it's it's only about the enslaved people and their descendants. And we shouldn't be interpreting interpreting this to be relevant to anyone else, which is just a wild, wild thing to say. If folks have been following the World Cup, there's a player, so for folks who've been following the World Cup, there's a player who's been playing for the US team, who's who's one of the stars on the US team and uh scored a goal in their most recent match, uh, which they won. And his name is um, I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing this right, but Fular N Balogun, who is a Nigerian um man, but was born in the US because I think I mentioned this briefly recently, that his mom was pregnant when his parents were traveling to the U.S. for a visit, and then she wasn't allowed to get on the plane to go back home because she was too pregnant, as deemed by the airlines.

SPEAKER_01

So she was like, She said, I don't want to give birth here.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah. And she was forced to stay here and um and gave birth to this man in this country, and then they left. As soon as it was safe for her to leave, they left. But because he was born here, he was eligible to play on the U.S. men's national team and has been a star of the team. So I guarantee you, all these same people making these arguments that birthright citizenship shouldn't be a thing are more than delighted to profit off of this man being part of the U.S. national team. And the last thing I want to say is that the reaction of the conservatives online to this decision has been quite wild. I mean, they they're they have been catastrophizing that this is like the worst thing that could possibly happen. And I just want to point out that this is all that happened was they said the law that has been the law will continue to be the law. There is nothing new, nothing was changed, and these people are acting like the end of the world is coming. Matt Walsh, who, you know, is a terrible person, he basically was like, Well, what do you mean? A got literally, literally, he said a Guatemalan woman could run across the border and give birth 30 minutes later, and now her kid is a U.S. citizen.

SPEAKER_01

I mean, it's so weird that he claims to, isn't he married and has kids? I mean, I don't know. It's just funny when I'm like, I feel like you don't seem like you've actually interacted with any women, especially pregnant women. So I just that's where I find the disconnect, you know, in that statement, because I feel like Well, there's so many problems with it because like we don't share a border with Guatemala.

SPEAKER_03

So how is that happening? Um, I guess they're running through Mexico as well, just like it's sprinting.

SPEAKER_01

She's very fit.

SPEAKER_03

She's very fit. Those have been my favorite responses are people saying, listen, if you can sprint across the border and give birth 30 minutes later, we need your child. We need your child in US athletics. So I just want to point out that uh we are the only country competing in the World Cup that doesn't have universal health care.

SPEAKER_01

Um, we are we have such a high maternal mortality rate.

SPEAKER_03

We have a very high maternal mortality rate. We have no federal paid parental leave. I mean, if you were gonna do birth tourism, I don't think this is the place.

SPEAKER_01

Then I would definitely go to like Sweden or something or yeah, Finland. I mean yeah.

SPEAKER_03

They they have like such high quality of life. I mean, it it's just such a bizarre thing to be like, oh, everyone wants who wants to be here now? Let me tell you, I don't even want to be here. I'm a citizen, I don't even want to be here because I could get picked up by ice on the street any day, and as could any of my neighbors. This is not a place that you go right now. It might have been. I mean, it was obviously like my mom came here. Uh, you know, we have a lot of friends who are immigrants. There was a time when it was desirable or thought to be desirable by a lot of people to come here, but this is not that time. This is not the time. Um, so they're just worked up about all sorts of irrelevant things because they're xenophobic and racist, and that's the real problem. Okay, the other case I want to talk about briefly, because I know we're running long. That never happens, um, is the mail-in-ballot case. So this is Watson. Right. Watson versus the Republican National Committee. And um this is based on folks have been paying attention. Of course, the the administration has been railing about mail-in ballots, especially Trump himself, just constantly talking about how it's cheating, even though he himself votes by mail-in ballot, um, as we have seen documented multiple times. But because it's so convenient and it encourages voting and it helps more people vote, doesn't it? And that's really the problem, because his whole mission is voter suppression one way or another. So uh because the this is what you do, just to be clear, this is what you do when your policies are unpopular, when you're not likely to win an election on the merits of your arguments. So, what you need to do is make it harder for people to vote. Um, and in particular, this mail-in-ballot thing, you know, we know that for whatever reason, more Democrats will tend to use mail-in ballots in in part because they're more blue-leaning states that allow mail-in ballots. Um, and so what we saw like in the LA mayoral race, if folks followed that, you know, in the initial results, like the night of the election, it looked like Spencer Pratt was going to move on to the general election. But as the mail-in, which would have been absurd, yes. But so the mail-in-the-huh.

SPEAKER_01

But I but I want to um for people who were not in California and who maybe didn't follow California, because our governor race, there was this risk that it was going to be two Republicans who would, because we have a it's called a jungle primary where all the people go against each other and whoever the top two people are get to proceed. Regardless of party. Yeah, regardless of party. And so that meant that like a huge percentage of Democrats, including myself, did not vote until the last possible minute. What do you mean? Which skew like it skewed because this is why the mail-in ballots became so important is because so many people submitted them as late as possible so they could try to figure out which of the like bazillion Democrats who they could vote for to like yeah, because the Democratic Party here is so disorganized.

SPEAKER_03

They had like well, it's not just uh the reason I I was not sure exactly where you're going with that is that it's not just that it's a jungle program, it's that we had so many candidates. I mean, our fifty candidates. The ballot was like more than one page of names. And so many for Democrats specifically, to your point, there was a lot of concern that the vote was going to be split too many ways. And so, yeah, that makes sense to me what you're saying. That um, like I certainly voted late. Um, and I was, yeah, wanting to make sure it was clear like who are the top two candidates. You only get to vote vote vote for one, it's not ranked choice voting, but like who I don't wanna, I don't want to be part of the splitting of the vote and then end up with two Republican candidates for government. Exactly. So in the uh, but but regardless, I think, you know, I I haven't looked deep into the the data on general like voting behaviors, but I don't think this is the only race where we've seen more Democrats using mail-in ballots. And I think it's just that we trust in the process and we believe that it's fair, and it's it is certainly more convenient to use mail-in ballots. Um anyway, so this case comes out of Mississippi, where in 2020, in response to the pandemic, they had made um the option of mail-in voting for the first time, is my understanding. And so there, the way that they um operationalized this is that any ballot that was postmarked by the election date and received within five days after the election counted. Now, um, in California, I don't believe we have a day limit. Like it just has to be postmarked by the election. Oh, but sorry, what I was trying to say about LA, by the way, let me just finish that thought because this has come up with Trump has brought this up specifically. So the night of the election, it seemed that Spencer Pratt was going to be one of the top two candidates uh who would then go on, the top two go on to the general election. But as more mail-in ballots were counted, okay, I don't know exactly when they all arrived, but as they were counted over the following week or so, they broke very heavily for Nithya Raman. Um, and so she leapfrogged over him, and now it's gonna be Karen Bass versus Nithya Raman, which makes way more sense for Los Angeles as a city than for a Republican to be one of the top two candidates for that city for mayor. However, Spencer, Trump, their supporters. No, his only reason for running was to get some money. Like he has no money, means he's wasted all his money and he wants attention and he wanted to make a reality show off of his time as mayor. Sure. But but also completely unqualified. Anyway, but so the point is that after that, once that happened, and he went from like, I guess being silly enough to think he had made it, to then realizing that actually he hadn't made it because once the mail-in ballots were counted, he was no longer one of the top two vote getters. Um, so he and Trump and all their supporters have made a big ruckus about how this is clear evidence of election fraud in California because Californians are just like cheating. I mean, there were all these people, I don't know if you saw this, but there were a lot of people on social media who were saying, I'm gonna go vote in California because it's gonna be that easy and I'll prove to you how much election fraud there is in California. And they did it. I mean, that's a crime, by the way, to go assert that you live somewhere and that you have a right to vote there when you do not. But they did it. They went to polling places in California. I mean, I don't know how many of them, but I saw at least a few, and they voted. Now, what they don't know is that their votes were discounted afterward because we do have a process for checking whether this person has a right to vote here or not. Um anyway, so around all of this and going back to, of course, Trump's main issue in life. It just sounds like so much work. Oh, yeah, I know. And also time and money. Who has the time to like go fly to LA to fake vote? Anyway, in this economy, exactly. So um, Trump, though, like you know, we all know, has been harping on the 2020 election since it happened. And of course, that was one where a lot of people use mail and balance because it was at the height of the pandemic. And so this challenge here, this case before the court, is around this idea that this Mississippi rule that allows you to count a ballot that was postmarked by election day, even if it's received up to five days after, that that's somehow violating federal election laws. Okay. That was the real question. And it hinged around what does it mean? What does election day mean? Because on the one side, they're arguing that election day means your your vote needs to be counted by election day, whereas the other side is saying, no, it just needs to have been cast by election day, right? Like no one's on either side arguing that I should be able to vote five days after the election. It's just a question of the lag between when I vote and when that ballot reaches the the folks who are doing the tabulation. So interestingly, Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, which was that um the ballot has to be cast, but not received by election day. It was a 5-4 vote with Alito Thomas, uh, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh dissenting. Um it's interesting that you know, she raises, in her opinion, she raises this question of election integrity that's been brought up by Trump and others. And and she basically says that's not really relevant to this case. That that's a policy issue, it's not a legal issue. The question before us is does this um mail-in voting and counting votes that are received after election day, even if they were postmarked by election day, does that violate federal election law? And it doesn't. It just doesn't. That's that's the question we were asked to answer. And she says the question is not what should happen, but what does the law currently say? So again, leaving the door open for changes to be made to the law to disallow mail-in voting or to require that votes need to be received by election day. And then of course, the reaction by Trump and others has been to push heavily for the SAVE Act, which is yet another voter suppression effort. So saying, well, if the if we're gonna have to have these mail-in ballots, then we need to pass the SAVE Act to protect the integrity of our elections. And as we've discussed before, the SAVE Act requires forms of ID that many people do not have, and it requires matching names on things like your birth certificate, which anyone who's changed their name for any reason, including women who got married, will not have access to those documents. Um, and and they're documents that are expensive to get like a passport, uh, you know, that essentially becomes a poll tax, which is illegal. Um, anyway, so that's kind of what has come out of it. So the decision was favorable for people who care about democracy. It's saying mail-in ballots are not in violation of the of any laws that exist currently, and that counting mail-in ballots after election day is also not in violation of any current laws. Um, but again, leaves the door open for other changes to be made. It just so folks know, as of today, 14 states in DC um have laws around mail-in ballots and and actually ballots that are received after election day are a relatively small percentage of um the votes received. So this was um an article I saw today, and they let me tell you the numbers because it's like really, really small percentages. Although they didn't have California, um they had Alaska, the ballots received late in the 2024 presidential vote were 4%, Illinois was 2%, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, all less than 1%, Washington, uh 3%. So it's a pretty small number of votes um that they're trying to get rid of. Nevertheless, they are trying to get rid of them. And that was from um NBC. So that's the basic gist of that case. Um, and I want to add like a little half a case, which is that Trump had asked the Supreme Court to review his um the the fact that he owes Eugene Carroll $5 million for having sexually assaulted her and defaming her. And uh they they have, I think something like 15 times said, uh, not not now, not now, not now. And they finally said, not ever. We're not reviewing that case ever. And so he really does owe her that money, which with interest is now almost six million dollars. Um, and apparently his lawyers had asked her if they could have more time so that they could pursue other avenues of appeal, and her they and she said no.

SPEAKER_01

But look at all that money he has from crypto. Just pay the woman.

SPEAKER_03

I know, but he can't, he doesn't want to admit fault, right? But he also owes her 83 million from the other case. Um, and he's still I want her to be so rich.

SPEAKER_01

I want her to have all that money, and I want her to flaunt it. Like, I'm not I'm not really like into opulence, but for Eugene, she she deserves it. She absolutely deserves it.

SPEAKER_03

Um so anyway, now people are like, well, so now that he has no more chance of not being an adjudicated rapist, shouldn't he resign?

SPEAKER_01

I mean, he should have resigned a long time ago. But you know what? I just realized that I just and it's a perfect transition, if you don't mind, into Take Two and Call Me in the Morning. I just re it's her 40th episode.

SPEAKER_04

Okay, look at that.

SPEAKER_01

Can you believe that? Look at us. I like we you know, we've just been chugging along. That's great.

SPEAKER_04

Thank you so much.

SPEAKER_01

Um also I just looked up uh there's 17 more weeks before the midterm elections.

SPEAKER_02

Yep.

SPEAKER_01

It's a lot of weeks, Argivon. Yep, a lot could happen. All right, let's do take two and call me in the morning. Give me a prescription. Okay, give me fun. Did you see what happened at the Empire State Building yesterday? I did not.

SPEAKER_03

Okay. So, like one of the first things I saw in the morning when I went on social media was there are two random people in all black outfits at the top of the antenna of the Empire State Building, like the highest point of the building, well above the observation deck. Like a real, like tiny King Kong. Yeah, exactly. And um, and they had taken a banner with them that they attached to the antenna. And I want to make sure I get it right. So I'll tell you exactly what it said. But not only that, okay, so I as this was happening, there were all these newscasters being like, and what is happening? Are there people at the top of the Empire State Building? And uh, and some of them were were more pro clutching, but um, the the banner says, When the power of love beats the love of power, the world knows peace. Wow, yeah. But then it got better. So so they're at the very top and they hang that banner, and then they go down, there's a tiny platform not far from the very top, and they're standing there, and and then one of them gets down on a knee and proposes to the other one, and and then they embrace, and then the one who got proposed to is now like taking a picture of her own hand with the city beyond her. And then anyway, it's like a whole story, right? Um so yeah, I think it's interesting, you know. Like, I'm not suggesting people should break laws. Um, I I felt very anxious seeing them up there because it's a very narrow, I mean, it's not they're not meant, it's not meant for people to be up there. And it was weird very windy. If you see the banner, it's like constantly blowing. It was actually hard to make out what the words were exactly because it was so windy and they didn't have any harnesses or anything. Um, but uh, you know, it's an interesting story. They uh it turns out these two are in a or have been featured in a Netflix documentary called Skywalkers, um, because apparently this is like a thing that they do, they scale buildings illegally, and like that's like I don't know, that's what they like to do together. And uh and now they're gonna get married at some point. So anyway, congrats, congrats to them. Yeah. Oh, I should note that she was wearing like a catwoman type hat, like it had little cat ears, and so it's giving a little bit of like Batman Catwoman vibe with their black outfits. Um, but yeah, anyway, so they were arrested as soon as they came down. Um, and now they've been released, but they've been charged with like a bunch of different things, and people are already calling for Mamdanny to pardon them in the interest of love or whatever.

unknown

I don't know.

SPEAKER_01

I guess we'll see what happens.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, I mean, it's a it's a unique story, if nothing else. So um it's been interesting to follow and to learn more about them. Amazing.

SPEAKER_01

I'm about you. Um, I saw as as Friends of the Pod, know I love a craft. I love a crafty activity. Um, and I saw this piece of history about um there's a sort of iconic embroidery scissors or like very sharp little scissors, and they have a a stork on them. They look like a stork or a bird. And um, I did not know. Apparently the original versions of those were from midwives from the 17, like the late 1700s, and they would use it to like cut the umbilical cord. Um, but also when you attend a birth, there's a lot of sitting around. So apparently they would also bring their needlework. Oh, okay. And so while those scissors are no longer used in uh operating rooms anyway, I don't, I I am not a midwife, so I do not know if there are any midwives out there who are still using stork sisters uh scissors. Um, but you can still get these uh scissors that are decorated in this way. And apparently the uh origin some of the original versions, there's actually the stork is holding a baby, which I hadn't seen before, which is kind of cute. And so um this Instagram reel that I'll post had uh someone telling this story while making a wood block print uh like of of these scissors, and it just looks cool. Um and then something that I know you've already seen, but our listeners may not be aware of, is we have a local Bay Area restaurant called Hobie's. Uh, it's a like breakfast-brunch delicious place. And um, there was a receipt, a picture of a receipt that was going around social media with a someone with very specific handwriting had written a note about how we don't like our coffee cake political. And Hobies is known for its coffee cake. They are renowned for having this like really delicious blueberry coffee cake. And apparently for pride, they were serving rainbow coffee cake, which I saw the photos, it looked beautiful and delicious. And uh, but yeah, somebody, these these people were apparently too anti-woke to tolerate the existence of a rainbow in their food. And uh Hobie's was like, this is who we are. We we believe in, you know, love, we support all people, and you know, there's plenty of people who really like our coffee cake, so we're fine.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, I love that response from them that they just said, Yeah, sorry, sorry to lose your business, but this is this is what our values are. So thanks, but no thanks. Um, yeah, it was great. So it made me want to go back to Hobie's.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah, maybe you and I we should have like a date at Hobie's and we can you know report back from the front lines.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah. I wish I hadn't missed already the the rainbow coffee cake because that it did look fantastic.

SPEAKER_01

Well, I think that's it. I think we did it.

SPEAKER_03

If you didn't like what you heard, this has been the Isabel Brown show. Uh, if you liked it, don't forget to subscribe to the present illness, leave us a review, and tell your friends.

SPEAKER_01

Follow us on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube at the Present Illness to stay on top of all of our TPI-related news.

SPEAKER_03

And we will be back next week with more headlines, hot takes, and doom scrolling, hopefully wrapped in some laughs.

SPEAKER_01

Until then, agitate, hydrate, and take a nap. We'll see you next time on the present illness. Production by Argovon Salas and Alyssa Berghart, editing by Alyssa Berghart, social media by Arga Von Salas, original music by Joseph Popoff. Don't take medical advice from random people on a podcast. This shows for informational purposes. It's meant to be fun, and it's certainly not medical advice. Please take your medical questions to a qualified professional. This podcast is our hobby. It does not represent the opinions of our employers, just ourselves.

Head Shot

Alyssa Burgart, MD, MA

Host
Head Shot

Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD

Host