LAW: The Indiana Abortion Bill, The "PACT Act", Florida's "Don't Say Gay" Law, and the Brittney Griner Trade
33:27 Share

You are listening to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. This is your host Jordan, and I give you the legal analysis you've been waiting for. Here's the deal. I don't care about your political views, but I do ask that you listen to the facts, have an open mind and think for yourselves. Deal? Oh, and one last thing. I'm not actually a lawyer.

Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. It is so good to be talking to you guys. As always, a few housekeeping matters to go over first. I have some exciting news this week and that is that I finally officially have my website up and running. It's jordanismylawyer.com. It's super cute if I do say so myself.

And I'm going to be using it not only to host my podcast episodes, like you can go on there and listen to them there. As always, you can still listen to them on Apple Music or Spotify, but they will be on the website. And then also I'm going to use that as my place to provide you guys with the sources that I referenced during the episodes. So everything is in one place. So it's not going to be on YouTube anymore, but it'll be on my website instead. So that'll be nice. And...

This is another exciting part of the website. If you're ever in need of legal assistance or you know someone who's looking for an attorney,

I now have a submission form on my website where you can tell me a little bit about your issue as well as your name, email address, and city and state. And I will do my best to hook you up with an attorney in your area that can help you depending on what your issue is. So definitely check that out. The new website is just, there's a lot to take advantage of there, okay? Second order of business. If you haven't already, please...

please, please leave my podcast a review on whichever platform you listen to me on. My goal is to get as many ears listening to my podcast so we can all learn and be more open-minded together. It's tough during these early stages to get my name out there, but if you guys could help me out, then I would really, really appreciate it. You guys, my OG listeners, mean so much to me. You have no idea. One day, one day, you guys are going to be able to say you've been here from the beginning. Wink.

See what I did there? Manifesting my dreams of making it big one day. We have a lot to unpack today. We're first going to discuss Indiana's new near total abortion bill that just passed the Senate this past weekend. And then we're moving on to the PACT Act, which has made headlines lately. After that, we'll touch on Florida's parental rights and education law. You may also know this as Florida's Don't Say Gay Bill or Don't Say Gay Law.

We need to debunk a few rumors, but also give you the 411 as to what it's all about per usual. And then finally, we're going to go over the Brittany Griner situation in Russia and the possible prisoner we will be trading to Russia in exchange for Brittany's return.

Alright, so let's get situated, situated. I got my blanket here. We're good. We're ready. So let's get into Indiana's new near total abortion bill that just passed the Senate this past weekend and is now moving on to the House for a vote. Now all abortion bans look different, so let's look at Indiana's specifically. It's called Senate Bill 1. It takes effect September 1st, 2022 if

It passes the House and is signed into law. As of right now, it has only passed the Senate, so there's obviously a couple more steps that it has to take before it eventually becomes a law, if it does become a law.

So, it prohibits abortion at any time unless the abortion is necessary to prevent a substantial impairment of the life of the mother or the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest. So, there are some abortion bans that we've seen that have not had that rape or incest exception. So...

This doesn't, I mean, this definitely isn't the strictest abortion ban I've seen, but that doesn't mean that it's not restrictive. I'm just saying it's not the most restrictive one I've seen. So Indiana's abortion bill defines abortion as, quote, the termination of a pregnancy with an intention other than

to produce a live birth, remove a dead fetus, or terminate a pregnancy where the fetus suffers from an irremediable medical condition that is incompatible with life outside the womb.

So if you notice there too, they have the exception for removing a dead fetus, which has caused some debate because a lot of these bans are pretty ambiguous and doctors aren't sure what they can and can't do. So having that in the bill is actually pretty beneficial because it'll cause a bit less confusion with the providers knowing that they can in fact remove

terminate a pregnancy to remove a dead fetus. Now look, I know there's the argument that if a fetus is dead, it's no longer a pregnancy, like it's not considered an abortion. But nonetheless, like I said, there is that confusion. So adding it into the bill definitely helps clear that issue up. As of today, abortion is legal in Indiana up until 20 to 22 weeks, depending on the woman's menstrual cycle.

This abortion ban has not yet taken effect. That is important to note. It just passed the Senate and it is now going to the House, like I said. What do you need to know? This bill will move on to the House, which is controlled by the Republican Party. The House has an opportunity to make changes to the bill. In fact, one of the Republican senators, Senator Susan Flick, said that she expects the House to make some changes. If changes are made, it'll go back to the Senate.

Now, look, like I said, this definitely isn't the most restrictive abortion ban I've seen. States like Missouri and Texas have more restrictive bans than this.

I'm not saying that this bill is right or wrong. You guys know like I'm not here to give my opinions, just the objective facts. I just feel it's important to put into context for you so you guys can make your own opinions about it based on the facts I'm giving you. And as always, I have this bill linked for you so you can review it with your own eyes if you're interested. It's linked on my website jordanismylawyer.com and you can find it in the episode description of episode 5.

So like I said, we were going to keep that intro situation a bit brief and then get into the PACT Act. What is the PACT Act? The PACT Act, for one, is hard to say, at least for me. But the PACT Act, I can't. The PACT Act stands for Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics, and in a nutshell, it

It provides health care to veterans exposed to toxins during their service. The PACT Act originally passed the Senate by pretty big margins. The initial vote was 84 to 14. So a lot of bipartisan support there. However, the act then went to the House where it was revised a bit.

Nonetheless, it passed the House by, again, pretty big margins, 342 to 88. But because the House revised it, it had to go back to the Senate. And when it went back to the Senate, the Senate was for Short's vote of ending the filibuster, which means it never made it to a vote.

So, if you're confused about what the filibuster is, I do not blame you. It is a really difficult concept, but lucky for you, I went into it pretty in-depth in my last episode in episode 4. So, if you're interested in learning more about it, go ahead and do that. It's there for you. But essentially, alright, here's the dilemma. So, in the Senate, in order for a bill to pass, it has to pass by a simple majority. 51 votes out of the 100 senators, right? Okay.

That's simple majority, one more than half. But we have this thing called the cloture rule. And what that says is 60 votes are needed to send the bill to a vote. So although only a simple majority is needed to pass the bill, 51 votes, you need 60 votes to even get it to the point of voting. So here's what you need to know.

When the PACT Act was originally voted on in the Senate back in June,

What it was intended to do was expand the Department of Veterans Affairs Healthcare to presume veterans whose military service included exposure to burn pits to be victims of exposure to toxic substances and fumes when they have symptoms of certain illnesses. So prior to this, veterans exposed to toxic substances and fumes were covered under this act. Now it was expanding it

So that the act included burn pits specifically. Burn pits are large trenches dug to burn and dispose of sewage, medical waste, and other trash. And these fumes can be very toxic to the human body. The PACT Act would have also removed the burden of proof veterans currently need to show in order to receive assistance. So...

Yes, this was voted on by the Senate. It passed with flying colors, essentially, very bipartisan support. And then it moved on to the House. When it went to the House, the House made changes. And then it went back to the Senate after it passed the House because whenever the House changes anything, it has to go back to the Senate for review. Well, this is where the problem arose because once it came back to the Senate,

All of a sudden, a lot of those senators who had originally voted for it did not vote for it this time around. And because it didn't have the 60-vote support to even get to a vote, this bill was blocked. One of the senators that failed to vote to end the filibuster and send this bill to a vote cited spending concerns as his issue.

And he tweeted after, like that same night, he tweeted, So he said he supports the bill, but that lawmakers need to work to curb wasteful spending amid high inflation, which we all know is

Inflation is very, very real. And he even added, quote, I would stress there is a very easy path to a very big vote in favor of this bill, but let's fix this problem, end quote.

Another senator, Senator John Cornyn, that voted against the bill, said that the Senate is hoping for a negotiation to eliminate some of the mandatory spending in the bill and then the bill can pass. He said, quote, this is a cloture vote to provoke conversation, but I expect it to ultimately pass in some form or another, end quote. And what he means by a cloture vote is exactly what I was telling you. That 60 vote rule where the bill doesn't even get to a vote is

and it's intended to encourage conversation between the houses of Congress. So we don't have the actual changes that were made by the House. We don't have the revisions. All we have are the reports that have come out since, and as you guys know, I'm big on getting my eyes on something before talking about it, but this is a pretty big topic in the news, so I felt compelled to talk about it and at least inform you guys as to what the reasoning was behind the blocking of the bill and

according to the senators that blocked it i mean according to what some of these senators are saying it seems the only issue is spending and and you know what the whole point of the filibuster and the cloture rule is to encourage bipartisanship and provoke substantive conversation and debate and it's funny because it just so happens like i said in my last episode i discussed the filibuster at length and how the filibuster and the cloture rule they have their pros and cons for sure

But ultimately, in this case, in this situation, the cloture rule is doing what it's intended to do, which is encourage conversation from both sides of Congress. Now, that's not to say that sometimes the cloture rule doesn't do what it's intended to do. And sometimes senators will use it as a way of blocking a bill that they simply don't support.

But it seems like in this case, they're using it to converse with the House and say, hey, look, we want to pass this bill, but we need you to work with us on this spending issue. And that's kind of interesting to see. It is unfortunate, though, that Congress won't necessarily be able to figure this out like ASAP.

If it's really just a matter of back and forth, as the Senate says it is, because it seems like there's a quick fix. But given the fact that the Senate is about to go on break from August 6th until September 6th, I'm assuming this won't get figured out until the Senate reconvenes. So here are some critical thought questions for you guys, because, you know, I love posing these critical questions. I get you guys thinking, right?

Um, if you don't know one, you know, one thing about me, one thing about me is that I cannot sing, but I do try and I do still sing from time to time. I just cannot do it. Um, so critical thought questions to get you guys thinking and to really just my, my, the point of these critical thought questions is to get you guys to form your own opinions by asking, um,

questions that you actually have to think about and answer based on your own personal beliefs, which lead to determining how you feel about certain issues, right? So do you think that if this is really just a spending matter, that the Senate was justified in blocking this bill? Or do you feel that our service members deserve whatever spending is necessary since our country benefited from their service and ultimately the veterans served our country?

Would you consider the filibuster and this cloture rule that the 60 vote thing we've been talking about to be beneficial or detrimental in this situation? In other words, would you like to see the House and Senate talk this issue out and come to a mutually agreeable resolution? Or do you feel the cloture rule shouldn't play a role and that this bill should have just been sent to a vote?

So as I said, if you're confused about the filibuster or the cloture rule or how a bill becomes a law, I went over all of this stuff in episode four. And again, it's a difficult topic. I get it. Don't stress it if you're confused, but I do encourage you to challenge yourself and learn about it.

And I do have some resources on my website in regards to the PACT Act. I have the PACT Act itself. And then I also have, it was interesting, I was looking into the legislative schedule. I don't know. Just posted it just in case you guys want to take a look. Let's move on to the Don't Say Gay Bill.

It's not actually called the Don't Say Gay Bill. That's just what everyone knows it as. It has attracted quite the attention. Florida enacted a law that took effect on July 1st, 2022. And it is called the Parental Rights in Education Law. But you probably know it, like I said, as Don't Say Gay. I just want to make it clear that this law never mentions the word gay, nor does it instruct teachers not to say gay, as many have said it does.

As you guys know, I am here to deliver you guys facts without emotion, and I just feel the need to reiterate really quick that it is my job to not express emotion. So please don't assume my views simply because I'm not expressing one emotion or the other.

you know, in regards to this bill. That's not what I'm here to do. I know this is a controversial topic. So I think it's really important for everyone to be informed on this issue as much as possible. And therefore, I'm going to talk about it from a fact-based perspective and not an opinion-based perspective. So let's get into it.

The controversy over this bill is in regards to two sections in particular, which I will get into in a second. But the majority of the bill is in regards to the reporting requirements of school districts when reporting to the parents of children, parental right to consent to health care services for their children,

as well as the parental right to review medical records of their children. The bill cites to the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children as the basis for the law. So for one, what this law says is that school district personnel are to encourage students to discuss issues relating to his or her well-being with his or her parent or parents

the school district personnel themselves facilitate discussion of the issue with the parent. Another thing this law says is that a school district cannot adopt procedures that prohibit school district personnel from notifying a parent about his or her student's health, whether that be mental, physical, or emotional. In other words,

A school district cannot say to its employees that they are prohibited from notifying a parent about his or her student's health. Now, this is an important sentence.

In other words, schools can implement procedures that

which would protect a teacher in withholding information from a parent if that teacher thought that telling the student's parent would result in that student's abuse, abandonment, or neglect. This means, I would think, that if a child came to a teacher or faculty member and talked to them about an issue regarding their health or well-being, let's just use sexual orientation as an example.

And that student expressed that they didn't want their parents to be notified because they felt they would be abused or neglected or abandoned. That would be enough for a teacher to be justified in not reporting to the student's parents. And the reason I want to call attention to this is because I've seen a lot of people on social media specifically saying that this bill is

requires school faculty to tell the parents if a student comes out as gay to them or a student talks about gender identity in some way literally i have heard that school faculty is required to tell the parents but this law says that teachers don't have to tell the parents if a

They have some sort of fear that the student or the child is going to face some sort of repercussions. So I think that's an important thing to point out.

Okay, now section three is where the controversy comes into play. It reads, quote, classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through third grade or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards, end quote.

that section of the law specifically refers to kindergarten through third grade. So a few things to point out here. This section of the law specifically restricts two things. One, education regarding sexual orientation or gender identity can't happen between kindergarten and third grade.

And two, if not in kindergarten through third grade, say seventh grade, for example, education on sexual orientation or gender identity cannot happen in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate. Now, the reason that this language is important is because think about the things that you learned in middle school. At least for me, from my own personal experience, I never learned anything in school about the

anything related to sex or whatever until middle school like that's when I had my health class and that's when I learned everything now that's not to say I didn't learn what sex was in fifth grade because I definitely did my best friend told me all about it and I was like what heck are you talking about but as far as school education I didn't learn about it till middle school and

Now, I don't know about you, but I took a health class in seventh or eighth grade, can't remember which one, where we learned all about the birds and the bees, STDs, the food pyramid, dietary things, like you name it, everything was included in that class. So my thought is that there could be general discussion about gender identity and sexual orientation in middle school. I think that under the law would be considered age-appropriate and developmentally appropriate, but as I always say, laws are always open to interpretation.

The rest of the bill discusses parental consent when it comes to health services offered at a school and parental rights to access his or her student's educational or health records. As always, I've included the link to the law so you guys can read it for yourself if you're interested. Find it on my website, jordanismylawyer.com, in the episode description of episode 5.

Now, critical thought questions. Let's get into them. These answers will be different for every listener, but my goal is simply to get you thinking about the issues so you can form your own opinions. If you were a teacher in kindergarten through third grade, put yourself in that classroom for a minute. Would you feel it was important to discuss sexual orientation with your students? Or is that a conversation you feel is best left to the parents of those students?

In other words, would you feel comfortable having that conversation with your students? If you were a parent, would you feel comfortable with your elementary age children learning about gender identity and sexual orientation? Would you rather the teacher have those conversations? Do you feel it's the teacher's role as teachers to have those conversations? Or as the parent, is that something you would rather do? And my final critical thought question is,

What are some of the clarifications you would make to this law? I always say that laws are vague and open to interpretation, and it's true. Laws are never clear enough. What does the term instruct mean? That could be better defined, at least in my eyes. For example, if a teacher who is a member of the LGBTQ community has an LGBTQ flag or poster in his or her classroom, is that okay?

That's not instructing, right? But what about if a child asks the teacher about it? Then what? That's why I say the term instruct could actually use a bit of clarification. But that's just some food for thought for you guys. And I hope that gets you thinking about the issue. Let's move on to our next topic, Brittany Griner. If you haven't heard of Brittany Griner, let me fill you in.

Brittany Greiner is a professional basketball player here in America for the Phoenix Mercury, and she spends the off-season playing in Russia. On February 17th, when she arrived in Russia, she was detained for having vape cartridges in her luggage that contained hashish oil. She was charged with large-scale transportation of drugs, which by the way, guys, let me just clarify, she had 0.702 grams of oil.

I don't know in what world that's considered large-scale transportation of drugs, but I know I've seen on some true crime documentaries, people are bringing in way more than that into America at times. So she was put on trial in Russia and she faced up to 10 years behind bars. She ultimately ended up pleading guilty because Russia actually has a 99% conviction rate

in Russian criminal cases. 99. 1% gets off. That is insane. She has stood by her claim that she does not know how the cartridges ended up in her bags. So...

Take that for what you will. But there's a new update in this case. The new update is that the Biden administration has allegedly offered a trade to get Britney and one other American prisoner named Paul Whelan back home to the U.S. Paul Whelan is actually Canadian, but he has citizenship in the U.S. and I believe Britain and possibly Ireland.

but anyway he was a former u.s marine he was arrested while he was in russia and he has been serving time since 2018 i believe of course as with anything and everything some people have an issue with biden's proposed trade others just want the americans home and don't care who they're traded for but this is what the biden administration proposed they proposed trading a russian arms dealer

named Victor Bout, who is currently serving a 25-year sentence in Marion, Illinois, in exchange for Greiner and Whelan. Bout has actually been given the nickname the Merchant of Death. Sounds lovely. He was convicted in 2011 of conspiracy to kill U.S. citizens and

Conspiracy to deliver anti-aircraft missiles and aiding a terrorist organization. Sounds like a wonderful guy. So the Biden administration proposed this trade, right? We'll give you Victor, you give us Brittany and Whelan. But Russia, being Russia, added another request into the exchange. They're asking that the former colonel of Russia's domestic spy agency, Vadim Krasikov,

who was convicted of murder in Germany, be included in the United States' proposed swap. But there's a problem because Vadim is in German custody, not the custody of the United States. Another problem is that Russia sent this request to the United States through an informal back channel used by the Russian spy agency called the FSB. Why do we care?

Because it was sent through an informal mode of communication, the U.S. government supposedly isn't viewing the request as a legitimate counter. However, despite saying they're not viewing it as legitimate, according to a German government source, U.S. officials have made inquiries to the Germans about whether they would be willing to include Vadim in the trade.

These conversations allegedly never made it to the top levels of the German government, and including Vadim in the trade has not been seriously considered. Again, this is all according to the German government source. So here are some things some critics are asking in regards to this trade. One is, is Victor Bout, the merchant of death, worth the exchange of only two Americans or

Or should the deal include other Americans currently imprisoned in Russia, such as Mark Fogel, Fogel, Fogel? One of those, who was arrested after entering Russia with a half an ounce of medical marijuana. Ask yourself that question. Is Victor Bout worth the exchange of only two Americans?

Another question critics are asking is, will this exchange encourage Russia to wrongfully detain or take hostage other Americans because they know America will be willing to get their citizens back through some sort of exchange? And another question, what about the other hundreds of thousands of Americans who are arrested in the United States on marijuana-related charges?

They don't receive special treatment. So why should Brittany Griner? Is it merely because of her status as a professional basketball player? All of those are interesting questions and definitely worth thinking about. It'll get the mind going, something I always encourage. So although nothing's been finalized in regards to the trade, it's evident that the Biden administration is going to do what it takes to get Brittany Griner home.

um now obviously you know it helps that Brittany Griner has a platform and she's she was able to reach a lot of people and her her I think her wife is actually the one who's been advocating on her behalf but nonetheless they've been able to reach tons of people because of her status so it is interesting I mean when

Paul Whelan was arrested or that Mark Fogel or Mark Fogel guy who was arrested in Russia for bringing half an ounce of medical marijuana into the country. We didn't really hear about that. So, yeah, I mean, I think it's an objective fact that her status plays a role in this. Anyway, let's end this episode with some good news of the week because, honestly,

I'll tell you something. My New Year's resolution was to stop watching the news. Obviously, that has changed because I started this podcast and I started my platform. But I do still, I don't watch local news. That is something I don't listen. It's like always something bad.

However, I think it's really important to also read the good news if you are reading the news because the news can be really depressing and I'm all for positive energy. So what's the good news I have for you? A New York City police officer adopted the dog that she saved from a hot car last month.

How cute. On June 18th, residents near 88th Street and 3rd Avenue in New York City noticed a dog locked in a car for over two hours and called the police. The police officers broke open one of the car's windows to rescue the dog and brought it to the vet. The dog was later taken in by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Policewoman Aruna Maharaj. I may have said that wrong, but nonetheless, she is a sweetheart.

She was one of the officers that rescued the pup and she adopted it last week on July 27th. So sweet. We love a happy ending. Let's let this happy ending hold us over until next week. And I may even have a sweet surprise coming for you on Friday, but I can't give you too much. I can't tell you too much information on that. I can't spill the deets just yet.

Don't forget to check out my website, jordanismylawyer.com. That's where you will find links to everything I discussed on this episode. And if you enjoyed this episode, please leave my podcast a review. Five stars, obviously, because we all know I'm your favorite podcast host. It'll be our little secret. I swear I won't tell any other podcast host. Thank you for being here.

And remember, facts over opinions always. Because you can't argue facts. I'll talk to you guys soon.