News Brief: Forced Pregnancies, Gutting the EPA and Growing Frustration Over “Vote Harder”…

Citations Needed | June 29, 2022 | Transcript

(Drew Petrimoulx /


Nima Shirazi: Welcome to a Citations Needed News Brief. I am Nima Shirazi.

Adam Johnson: I’m Adam Johnson.

Nima: You can follow Citations Needed on Twitter @CitationsPod, Facebook Citations Needed, and become a supporter of our work through All your support through Patreon is incredibly appreciated as we are 100 percent listener funded. We do these News Briefs in between our regular full-length episodes, and this week, Adam, I think it’s probably no surprise that we really feel like we want to talk about the Supreme Court decision about Roe, but also some of the broader issues that we’re seeing play out, some other current and pending Supreme Court decisions, and of course, the media’s response to this.

Adam: Right. Some of this was discussed in Episode 163 that aired last week, but we really wanted to expand on some of these themes and get deeper into what we view as being the broader theme on the show, I think it’s fair to say, is the failure of liberal institutions to meet the moment, to fight the insurgent and incredibly well funded and very sophisticated right-wing media machine.

Nima: And very successful media machine as well as the political parties that they support.

Adam: Right. Longtime listeners to the show will not be new to this theme, and I think it’s one that we saw the full display when the Roe decision officially came down, which is just under two months ago, when the Supreme Court decision leaked in early May. We knew this was coming, but of course, there was always a sort of desperate hope, you know, kind of watching the screen like a degenerate gambler, hoping something would happen down by nine runs, of course, it didn’t happen because the decision was made. So the decision was handed down, overturning Roe versus Wade and creating 20-plus states, depending how you define it, where abortion is now illegal.

Map of abortion law status throughout the US as of June 28, 2022. (Source: Washington Post)

Nima: Right. So-called trigger laws.

Adam: Trigger laws were waiting to go. This is of course going to lead to untold amounts more death, desperation, obviously broad sexist depression, all these horrific outcomes, and people were watching helplessly as two of the three Trump appointees voted in favor of it, even of course after they vaguely said they wouldn’t, but it was written in Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society-ese, if you actually read look at what they said it was quite technical. They said this is the law of the land, which is a descriptive and not normative position, and not something they said was going to be something they were necessarily going to uphold, they were just describing it.

Nima: Sure.

Adam: It’s a very clever thing they do. They phrase it in a very specific way. So it kind of provides cover for those who vote for them at the time knowing full well that the Republican partisan machine at this juncture was not going to nominate people who are not going to overturn Roe versus Wade, they couldn’t do it, they couldn’t be on the nose about it.

Nima: Which was obvious to everyone paying attention, including the so-called pro-choice Republicans — what maybe two? — two of them and all the Democrats and yet, there’s still this kind of incredulity when the decision actually happens.

Adam: Well, as we talked about in Episode 163, I did that survey in the first 48 hours, The Washington Post coverage on Neil Gorsuch and they didn’t have a single negative column. I looked at 30 different columns, articles, opinion pieces, not a single one of them was negative. It was considered borderline conspiracy theory to suggest he would rule, he would overturn Roe versus Wade at the time it was seen, ‘Oh, it’s settled law, they’re not going to do that.’

Nima: Exactly. That’s always the line, ‘It’s settled law,’ and it’s like, well, it’s settled law until you unsettle it.

Adam: Because he was a nice guy, they went to law school together, and he was, you know, nice in some interview he gave to The Washington Post six weeks prior. So the point being is that the liberal institutions, or centrist institutions like The Washington Post, New York Times — Ari Paul had a great piece in FAIR a few weeks ago documenting all the liberal, the glowing, glowing media coverage of pro or anti Roe justices in The New York Times, Washington Post — the news drops, the president and vice president, you know, they do the hand wringing where, you know, ‘you have to go vote,’ tweets and statements. Biden shot down immediately any idea of expanding the court or any kind of new measure that was adopted by people like FDR.

Nima: Nancy Pelosi hit up everyone whose cell phone number she had for donations immediately after reading like an Israeli poem, like a Zionist poem as her kind of mourning dirge. This is actually the third time she’s quoted the same poem by Ehud Manor, which was written in 1982 during the Israeli invasion and destruction of Lebanon and the massacre of the Lebanese people. She’s used the same quote about, you know, ‘I have no other home and it has to get better,’ blah, blah, blah. She used the same quote back in 2019 at a J Street gala, used it again in the wake of the January 6 insurrection at the capitol as her lament for this country and the appeal to her colleagues in the Republican Party to, you know, ‘do better, be better for this country,’ and now of course on June 24, 2022 she used it again. So let’s hear that.

[Begin Clip]

Nancy Pelosi: I am personally overwhelmed by this decision. From time to time I quote this poem by Ehud Manor, he’s an Israeli poet. I met his wife when I’ve been in Israel. He says, I have no other country even though my land is burning. Only a word in Hebrew penetrates my veins and my soul, with an aching body and with a hungry heart. Here is my home. I will not be silent, for my country has changed her face. My country has changed her face. I shall not give up on her. I will remind her and sing into her ears until she opens her eyes.” Clearly, we hope that the Supreme Court would open its eyes.

[End Clip]

Adam: Right, and this is a criticism we’ve made on the show many times, which is that, and this is true of Chuck Schumer, it’s true about Joe Biden, the Democratic leadership, the face of the party, you know, I think it’s a little lazy, I think, and inadequate to kind of do the, ‘They’re old and out of touch.’ I think the generational or borderline kind of ageist argument, I think it’s probably true to some extent, but I think it’s like 90 percent, far more about ideology, I think, again, I think if we had a bunch of Pete Buttigiegs running a party, I don’t think the response would be really functionally any different. They would be better at kind of faking anger but I don’t think the basics would be much different.

Nima: Yeah, the inertia would remain because the faith in the institutions is kind of the most important part of their argument.

Adam: Right. Because it’s about their class interests and I think there is increasing frustration on the part of, not just progressives or leftists, but liberals, who they see leaders who don’t ever seem to get mad at anything and I noted this back in December of last year, I wrote an article for my Substack, on the same day that the Build Back Better Bill effectively died in Congress — I predicted it would, it turns out it did, which wasn’t a huge prediction, pretty much the most obvious thing in the world — they kind of quietly went to Christmas break without passing an infrastructure bill that had things like childhood tax credits, education for those who can’t afford it, school lunches for children, support for senior citizens, dental health insurance support, Medicaid and Medicare expansion, things that were essential to reducing poverty in this country, and on the same day they killed that bill, quietly, without any kind of fanfare, they voted 89 to 10 to fund the Pentagon to the tune of $770 billion. This was also the same day that Nancy Pelosi shot down a very popular piece of legislation to prevent people in Congress from selling stock. She said, quote, “This is the free market, we are a free market economy, they should be able to participate in that.” Really kind of stuff that didn’t really capture the populist outrage of the moment and still doesn’t. Obviously, Nancy Pelosi is somewhat famously, in 2017, when asked about Bernie Sanders, insisted that we were a capitalist country, she said the following in response to that question:

[Begin Clip]

Nancy Pelosi: Well, I thank you for your question. But I have to say we’re capitalist. (Scoffs.) That’s just the way it is.

[End Clip]

Adam: Which is a kind of sneering and snide way of talking to a young voter who’s concerned about existential problems. So cut to June of 2022, we have an extremist, far right-wing court that is gutting things like Roe versus Wade, the EPA, they’re achieving a decade’s long strategy of pretty much gutting anything left of the liberal state.

Nima: Right.

Adam: Including so-called quote-unquote “cultural issues.”

Nima: That has been openly and proudly promised.

Adam: That has been openly and proudly promised, and you see a Democratic Party that has utterly failed to protect even the most modest elements of the liberal state.

Nima: So no defense and also no response.

Adam: Yeah, even a feature of the liberal state that is, unlike other sections of the liberal state, is supported by relatively wealthy donors, like abortion — which it is, it’s one of the few leftist positions that is disproportionately favored by people of means, to use Howard Schultz’s preferred phrase — and it’s not a huge margin of difference, but it is, I mean, it’s something you can fundraise on Planned Parenthood has, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars.

Nima: Yeah.

Adam: So even that they can’t even sufficiently defend. Obama said he was going to attempt to codify abortion rights into law when he was running in 2007.

Nima: Not only promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act on day one, now, granted, that’s a campaign point, that’s a thing you say to a certain audience, we get it, right? But in a speech to Planned Parenthood in 2008, he said it would be the first thing he would sign, codifying the right to abortion, and then barely three months into his first term, at the end of April 2009, when asked about, ‘Hey, we remember that campaign promise?’ He said that it was not a top priority. He actually, in a news conference, said this, quote:

I believe that women should have the right to choose, but I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. I would like to reduce the number have unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion or at least considering getting an abortion. Particularly, if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies.

End quote.

That was his response, when after his first 100 days he had not done the campaign promise of codifying Roe, which would then actually mean a lot. Mean a lot right now.

Adam: Yeah. And the cynical view of that is that it’s because abortion is really good for fundraising but you don’t necessarily want to use your capital to codify it. Largely, because I think a lot of people just assume Roe versus Wade was a thing of the past, it was in the ’70s, it was decided, and that there were other more urgent political issues that were more important, and again, I think that’s why when you say, well, some wealthy donors like abortion, that doesn’t really mean shit when you look at the broader architecture of why chaining women to the stove is important to the right wing. People oftentimes, again, they’ll dismiss it as a cultural issue, and it is in a superficial sense, but it’s very much also an end of itself. People say, ‘Oh, they do cultural issues to distract you,’ again, I think it is true to an extent if you’re defending abortion you’re not necessarily opposing tax cuts for the rich and other things, but it is also very much a material economic issue. It is about dependency.

Nima: One of the most fundamental, self-determinative, autonomous —

Adam: And it is an end of itself. It’s about religion.

Nima: Yeah.

Adam: It’s about the institutionalized contempt for women and the desire to control women’s sexual faculties just as the attack on trans people, again, it’s not a coincidence, these things are intimately related, is about attacking bodily autonomy, it’s about an attack on people’s freedom, and they’re not wanting to conform to a specific mode of living that makes them so outraged and generate so much donation dollars for the other side. And so you see this kind of waterfall of attacks, the flooding the zone of attacks on things that we thought were quote-unquote “agreed upon,” right? They’re going to go after gay marriage next, you know, you and I talked about this, we’ve no doubt that’s going to happen. The state legislators are passing these anti-trans bills, you know, you talk to people like Matt Yglesias and Jonathan Chait and you get the impression that because there’s, you know, a few high-profile trans people on Twitter that somehow they’ve won the cultural debate around trans issues, which is why they traffic so much in this bad-faith, just-asking-questions bullshit, and then you actually look at materially who has power, especially in the state legislators, and you look at the bills being passed.

Nima: And you look at whose lives are being destroyed, if not ended.

Adam: Right, and you’re like, oh, wait, the quote-unquote “trans issue” isn’t solved. It is not ascendant, it is not the prevailing orthodoxy. Just because there’s a trans person in a Marvel movie or there’s visible trans people on Twitter, I think people mistake that as some indication of the broader political arrangement in this country, and again, I think they do so deliberately. I don’t think they’re credulous or being tricked. I think they kind of do that for their own reasons. And then you look at how you say, okay, well, these things were settled, but now we have to kind of re-litigate them and activists are understandably extremely frustrated by the response from Democratic leadership, which pivot immediately into two things: fundraising and vote harder. Now, strictly speaking, theoretically, if you do elect more Democrats, you would, in theory, offset some of these currents. I think that’s probably fair to say. At the same time, Nancy Pelosi somewhat infamously, even after the Supreme Court ruling leaked in early May, went to go campaign for Henry Cuellar in Texas against his pro-choice opponent, keep mine he was also being investigated, raided by the FBI for potentially illegal foreign relations act lobbying for Azerbaijan, typical standard issue stuff, who amongst us hasn’t illegally lobbied for Azerbaijan the dictatorship of Azerbaijan.

Nima: (Laughing.)

Adam: Pelosi and other top leading Democrats went to campaign against Jessica Cisneros and she lost so it’s very likely that their campaigning was decisive. He is a quote-unquote “pro-life,” anti-choice Democrat.

Nima: Democrat.

Henry Cuellar and Nancy Pelosi at Cuellar’s campaign headquarters in Laredo, Texas. (Robin Jerstad / The Texas Tribune)

Adam: Right. So there’s this disconnect that happens where people think, ‘Well, wait a second, how is this existentially the most important thing in the world but not at all a litmus test for supporting a candidate?’

Nima: How are you crying on TV doing this and then of course, right, doing the vote harder and fundraising when clearly this is not a priority for you?

Adam: Yeah, because it’s not as if it was like, ‘Oh, we have to make the best of two bad choices against a Republican,’ this was a primary they were helping him out with. This was clearly just, ‘We’re buddies and we go back a few decades.’

Nima: And to stave off the, you know, terrifying, slightly more left candidate.

Adam: Exactly. And we see this again and again with these issues where even these very pro-democratic, you know, organizations and progressives who absolutely do the, you know, get out the vote stuff every two years, still get a fuck you from Democratic leadership, but I think this frustration and this idea that Democratic politics is largely run by lawyers, people who’ve been there for decades, who can’t even remember why they got into politics, who have no firm ideological commitments at all, again, just one or two would be nice, that it’s largely a stopping point in the corporate consultant rotation world that you sort of get into politics, you do your year, two, three years within the administration or in Congress, then you either become a lobbyist or a corporate consultant or you go to a think tank, which is also funded by corporations, weapons manufacturers, you do West Execs, you do the Cohen Group, you do Albright Stonebridge or you do, in the case of the Obama administration, you know, Jay Carney, you go to Amazon, you go to McDonalds, you go on the board of directors like Hillary Clinton did with Walmart.

Nima: And then you create the kind of next administration in waiting and then you go back in or you get pissed off and then you become a corporate lobbyist.

Adam: And you have some vague bourgeois liberal commitments, and then I think there’s a cynicism that emerges where people say, ‘Well, wait a second,’ when it came to the Build Back Better Bill that just went nowhere, just died, not really a fight, Pelosi’s press conference in December of 2021 after the bill, she said it seemed bla​​sé about it, you know, ‘We’re working on it. We’ll get around to it. We’re gonna take a three-week break for Christmas.’

Nima: Yeah. The Democratic Party’s biggest move, maybe their only move, is hand wringing. That’s the entire ideology, actually, of the party is hand wringing for not being able to do the thing that they know probably their base, like their widest base, I don’t mean their donor base, but they’re widest voting base actually wants them to do things, but they’re not really the party that’s actually ever going to feel like it’s in power and act like it even if they are.

Adam: Well, because who else are you going to vote for it, right? And to be clear, you know, earlier when I said that abortion is one of those issues where people who support it and donate to it are more likely to have more money because of the nature of religion, people who are poor typically are more religious, the actual people who abortion being legal effects, in terms of availability, access, things of that nature are going to be poor, which is to say that the urgency around the issue wasn’t really there because it was a cash cow in terms of donations, but I think it was kind of just assumed that when you operate under this liberal belief that the right as always operating in good faith or that if you kind of reward the reasonable conservative that they’re going to play the game straight up, and so you have a right wing which does not play by any rules, supports fascist mobs storming the Capitol by and large, is going to support a president who incited a coup attempt, albeit one that, again, I think the Trump plan for January 6 had the election been closer, would have worked. I think the fact that Biden blew him out by 80,000, 100,000 votes is why it sort of wasn’t close to working, but it’s certainly a bad precedent, and you have a right wing that increasingly works with its fascist, openly fascist, openly white nationalist elements, doesn’t give a shit about precedent, doesn’t give a shit about good faith, doesn’t give a shit about decorum, doesn’t care about any of these things liberals care about as, again, as we talked about in Episode 163.

Nima: Right, and care most about, I mean, that’s why you see, not only is it thinking that, you know, ‘Republicans on the other side of the aisle are my buddies and they act in good faith,’ and, ‘Oh, this is so surprising that they did this,’ but it’s not just that, it’s also as we were saying, Adam, about the nomination of Supreme Court justices, right? This idea that ‘Oh, well, you know, he’s such an independent jurist.’ “Amy Coney Barrett deserves to Be on the Supreme Court,” Noah Feldman wrote for Bloomberg, right? “A Liberal’s Case for Brett Kavanaugh,” we saw in The Times. “Why Liberals Should Back Neil Gorsuch,” we saw also in The Times, right? And then the, you know, kind of berating people years ago, almost a decade ago now, urging Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire during the Obama administration when there wouldn’t have been the kind of Mitch McConnell case to be pushed forward of, you know, ‘Oh, well, it’s an election year.’ Like if that had happened in 2014 someone would have been the fucking Supreme Court, right?

Adam: Yeah, and it’s like if you’ve watched these major liberal gains of the New Deal, and the Great Society, again, as flawed as they are, when you watch them slowly get eroded over the last 30, 40 years —

Nima: Which is the long game.

Adam: Right. And you look at who has been in charge for the last 30, 40 years, which has been, you know, Pelosi has been the Speaker of the House or the Minority Leader in the House briefly since I was in college, and I’m old as the wind. I’m 38 years old now. You would think okay, well, what’s the accountability mechanism? I mean, you know, if the White Sox just theoretically for example, were three games below 500 even though they’re expected to easily win the division, you’d say, well, shouldn’t we look at the manager Tony La Russa? That would be a logical thing to do. But for some reason, whenever you say that about the Democratic Party after they get their asses handed to them, because again, I think the context is everybody knows they’re going to get completely fucking smoked in the midterms, like bad, it’s going to be really bad. It’s even going to be worse than state legislators, where you have these anti trans bills, where you have these abortion bans, where it’s really going to hit people where it hurts the most, where you have more gerrymandering, more racist voting laws, all these things where they just continue to pick off the most vulnerable people in our society, and nobody seems to understand that this is an existential problem. Nobody seems to really have any urgency up top. It’s like the Adolph Reed quote about how liberals are, and I’m paraphrasing here, that the highest liberal value is to witness suffering, it’s not to do anything about it. So they’re always witnessing, right? ‘I stand with you, I see it, I feel your pain.’ I don’t need you to fucking feel my pain. I need you to do something about it.

Nima: And you’re the ones with the fucking power to do it!

Adam: Yeah, that they’re existentially failing on a broad level because that undermines, well, frankly, the gravy train, it undermines the consulting revolving door. A party almost entirely captured by PR people and lawyers. Demographics, no offense, not exactly known for their fierce commitment to defending the vulnerable and long-term ideological projects. Whereas the right has, you know, again, a very dark ideology, but it still has a coherent ideology, and you see people like Christopher Rufo, who invented the critical race theory panic, which again, high profile liberals also indulge, ‘Oh yeah, shall we , should get rid of this DEI thing I found online.’ It’s like, well, how did you find it? You found it because the right-wing weirdo fucking found it. We’re constantly indulging these bad faith actors as something we can, we can sort of triangulate against, and it’s going to be a bloodbath in November, the Supreme Court rulings, gutting things like the EPA, like Roe, are only going to get worse, again, I’m really, really hesitant to put our ideological hobbyhorse, jam it into a conversation about Roe that, because I think that can be seen as somewhat tacky, but I’m watching these videos of protesters getting beaten with clubs, run over by police cars, pushed to the cement, to things we saw in summer 2020, and I see how much the Black Lives Matter, defund, and George Floyd movements are intimately related to the broader existential failures of the liberal class and the Democratic Party because things like climate change, things like this resurgent fascist right wing in this country, that the opposition to that is by definition, because we know is sure as shit not going to be the Nancy Pelosi Move On fundraising apparatus, you know, that has its place, but for the most part, that’s not going to be sufficient, I think we can all say that. The vote harder crowd is not going to be up to the task because they haven’t been thus far and meaningful change if it has any opportunity, whether it, oh, forget, to say nothing of mass union action, to say nothing of upcoming union activity, who do you think is going to be the one clubbing people in the streets, nonviolently, or in the case, sometimes violently, whatever, you know, whatever the situation calls for — you know, I’m very careful not to be glib about violence, but whatever extrajudicial means that takes, that manifests as — who do you think is going to be the one and in the streets tear gassing and clubbing those movements that do attempt to stand up to these forces?

Nima: Yeah.

Adam: And when you watch the Democratic Party trip over themselves to also fund further militarization, throw billions of dollars more at police under the auspices of fighting crime, it is very clear that crime isn’t really the thing people are worried about.

Nima: Right. It is descent, and it is a break from this current structure. I mean, you said it earlier, Adam, that there’s no sense that these are existential issues, because for the people in power, they’re not actually existential, and then when you see protesters being brutalized, it’s a glimpse of like, oh, right, when you’re trying to free yourself from oppression or you’re trying to survive, that is directly related, the protection of fundamental rights is directly related to a decrease in oppression, right? And police are the tip of the spear of that, and also, I mean, and also a foundational part, I’m not saying they’re, they’re just the tip of the spear. So the idea that defund or the idea of abolition or the idea of true liberation needs to be seen in all of these fights, and of course, in all of the right-wing decisions destroying those rights, and so that’s why I think it is important, as you were saying, to kind of not just talk about singular say, Supreme Court decisions, although again, not to be glib, not that it’s not important, but EPA decisions are critically important, gun rights critically important, the fact that there are dozens and dozens and dozens of anti-protest bills being enacted throughout the country, this is directly related, it is no shock that you saw heavily armored, heavily armed riot police, right, guarding the Supreme Court within minutes of the Roe decision coming down, obviously not a mobilization that the Capitol saw on January 6 of 2021, obviously, although apparently, they could have been mobilized that quickly, but who is that state power being mobilized against? And it’s not the people destroying those rights for millions and millions of people, the riot cops weren’t going to the Supreme Court to arrest Alito, they were going there to protect these, you know, fucking high wizards of whatever from like people.

Adam: Right. And I mean, in 15 years if we have climate breakdown, storms, droughts, et cetera, these systems are in place for that reason, and I know that this isn’t even a theoretical problem, it’s an urgent problem right now — like abortion was just made illegal for, you know, tens of millions of Americans, it’s a right now problem, you know, this isn’t projected into the future, you don’t need science fiction here, it’s happening right now — but it’s part of a broader architecture that is only going to get worse, and there doesn’t seem to be a sense that this is part of a broader trend that is going to get worse, and there is very little urgency, there is no sense of, again, Biden just shooting down the idea of expanding the Supreme Court when we’re talking about these life-and-death issues.

Nima: Yeah.

Adam: Of what use is the rule if the rule brought you here, because right now, the thing you’re doing, it’s not working, and you see that frustration, and you see how so many young activists and not young activists, just activists have been around for decades, are turning to outside means, political means, there’s been a very tremendous outpouring of solidarity — donations to abortion funds, collective or mutual aid efforts being done, some of which we’ll promote at the end of the show for you to donate to, so it’s not, we’re not trying to be hopeless here, there’s people taking action into their own hands, and we want to boost that and promote that, because I think that’s great, it’s certainly better than griping on a podcast — and there are systems people are increasingly turning away from the vote harder crowd to provide those systems. I want to be clear here, it’s not as if I’m saying don’t vote or whatever, I think that’s not, you know, I don’t want to be nihilistic about this or promote a hyper cynicism, just the right exact percentile, precise amount of cynicism.

Nima: Right.

Adam: But I do think that every single time there’s these crises, when you do see these emails, it’s kind of these soulless text messages and emails hitting you up for donations, and these rote statements, literally reading a poem that’s been read three times prior, it doesn’t seem like those people in charge really understand the stakes and understand that they cannot lawyer or PR their way out of what is fundamentally an ideological problem or an ideological battle, and I think that’s the thing that makes me very worried, and I know that’s a bit squishy because we’re not necessarily providing, you know, a better alternative, although certain politicians, you know, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez chief among them, has listed a bunch of things that Democrats can do now that they’re not doing. Obviously, you have those who exist outside of the normal political process who are acting right now, again, which we’ll get to later. So it’s not as if people aren’t doing things, this isn’t even that novel of a point we’re making, but from a messaging and media perspective, it’s a horror show you’re kind of watching unfold in slow motion. I don’t know, you know, it’s a point we’ve made for years now and I don’t know what else to say about it.

Nima: Well, I think what we can say is give where you are able and here are just some ideas. We’re going to share some organizations and links where you can go if you are able to donate money at this point. One is the Midwest Access Coalition, you can find them at There’s the Yellow Hammer Fund, which you can find at There’s the Access Reproductive Care Southeast group, which is ARC Southeast, and you can find them at And Indigenous Women Rising which you can find at I W Rising, all one word, Of course there are other funds throughout the country. You can go to and find one local to you. These are all vetted. Of course, do your own research, do your own vetting. Find the one that works for you or find 10 that work for you, but please do know that there are so many groups that really do need our help right now.

Nima: That will do it for this Citations Needed News Brief. Thank you, everyone, for listening. Of course, we will be back soon with more full-length episodes of Citations Needed. Until then, of course, you can follow the show on Twitter @CitationsPod, Facebook Citations Needed, and become a supporter of the show through That will do it for this News Brief. I am Nima Shirazi.

Adam: I’m Adam Johnson.

Nima: Citations Needed is produced by Florence Barrau-Adams. Associate producer is Julianne Tveten. Production assistant is Trendel Lightburn. Newsletter by Marco Cartolano. Transcriptions are by Morgan McAslan. The music is by Grandaddy. Thanks again, everyone. We’ll catch you next time.


This Citations Needed News Brief was released on Wednesday, June 29, 2022.

Transcription by Morgan McAslan.