S1: It's time for Midday Edition on KPBS. Project 2025 has entered the political news cycle , so on today's show , we're talking about what it is and how it could impact San Diego. I'm Jade Hindman with conversations that keep you informed , inspired , and make you think. We'll get analysis from political scientist Carl Luna.
S2: In some ways , this is an attempt to roll back our ideological discussion not just to the 1960s or 70s , but pre 1950s , even 1930s.
S1: Plus , we'll dive into how this plan could impact immigration and reproductive rights. That's ahead on Midday Edition. Just months out from the presidential election , it's safe to say there's a lot at stake. While both major parties have individual stances on policies , one conservative think tank , the Heritage Foundation , joined forces with other organizations to create a playbook of actions they intend to roll out within the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. It's a 922 page document known as project 2025. Project 2025 is technically tied to no campaign. The Trump fans ticket has tried to distance themselves from it , which has been difficult mainly because a reported 140 people involved with the project also worked under the Trump administration. So what's included in this project and who's involved ? We dive into that now with Carl Luna , professor of political science at Mesa College. He's also a visiting professor at USD and the director of their Institute of Civil Civic Engagement. Professor Luna , you wear a lot of hats. Welcome back to the show.
S2: Nice to be back , Jade.
S1: So to start off , give us a big picture overview of what project 2025 is.
S2: Think of project 2025 as a fairly conservative wish list for all the things you would like Santa to bring after Donald Trump wins the 2020 election , and for that gets inaugurated in January. As you said , it's a 900 page document. It's got everything on every policy area , from the environment to LGBTQ to foreign policy. It's one of those things that really , more than anything , sets a tone of government that you'd like to see because there's no way the ministration is going to be able to affect all the different things on that wish list.
S1:
S2: Paul Weyrich was a very conservative , religious conservative and politico from the 70s , who formed the Heritage Foundation to basically provide talking points to counter what they saw as liberal dominance of the discussion in Washington. Their first real mandate was for Ronald Reagan in 1980 , and like Ronald Reagan would do. He never read the thing. Some of the people from it were in his administration. But Reagan then governed like Reagan would do , but every presidency. The Heritage Foundation has issued these mandates for leadership. This is possibly the most ambitious they've ever issued and certainly the most conservative.
S1: And we should mention , KPBS reached out to the Heritage Foundation for comment and did not receive a response by our deadline. They've been around for 51 years. Tell me about how this playbook came to be before the document was made public in 2023.
S2: One of the things that a number of conservative activists and members of the first Trump administration wanted to avoid , should he be reelected , was a bit of the chaos that ensued when Donald Trump came to Washington in 2017. He did not have a lot of people that he knew , and he kind of governed the way he ran his Trump Enterprises from the top of the Resolute Desk , and it did not allow a lot of the conservative agenda to be advanced , because until the president has pushed it off to the staffers , things don't really work well down the line. So starting really right in the first Trump administration , people in and out of his administration were writing policy papers and position papers about what they believed a conservative administration should do. So their goal was to have a 900 page roadmap on how to staff his administration and simply get moving to adopt their policies as quickly as they could.
S1: Before we get into some of those policies , I'm curious your opinion on this.
S2: I mean , what they're laying out is , is very granular level policies. These are things that can be conducted at the undersecretary Secretary , deputy undersecretary level. I think the most important points from this roadmap , though , is the overall bureaucracy itself. They're pushing to get some tens of thousands of positions in the bureaucracy , reclassified from the civil service to at will hires to allow them to then stock the bureaucracy with a lot of conservative appointees , kind of on the order of staffing the federal judiciary that was being done under the first Trump administration. So while you have the wish list , they have a plan of action to be sure that if this administration doesn't accomplish it , maybe the next administration will.
S1: So we're already a ways down the road. Yeah.
S2: Yeah. At least they believe they are in terms of having all this on paper. Now here's here's the reality. Uh , first off , presidents are lucky to get three big things done in their administration period in four years. So maybe a few of the big ticket items would be adopted. But secondly , again , Donald Trump has distanced himself from this because when he says he doesn't know anything about it , I will bet you that as true , he does not operate at that level of things. He operates in his own particular bubble of what he thinks is important. The hope of the Heritage Foundation mandate for leadership is you get the right people in. They will then be able to weather the presidents cognisant of it or not start pushing policies through the bureaucracy , and then he'll sign off on them when they get done. I don't know how successful that would be , but they're trying to be much more attuned to this president than they were the first time around.
S1: Well , there are four pillars identified in this document.
S2: You have areas , particularly looking at God and the family , that they want to restore a traditional values system for American society. And that would extend into every institution , the federal government , the Department of Education , should it not be abolished from there to the funding that goes to the public schools looking at how you do diversity and equity programs in government and getting rid of those and rooting those out. Branch and parcel are essentially a foreign policy. You look at having a reaganesque foreign policy , they say , but much more of a reactionary foreign policy. We're going to leave the world alone and let the world do what it will , unless it's in the United States immediate interest to intervene. Environment , of course , rolling back everything that has to do with global warming , initiatives with solar power , alternative energies pick an area and it fits under one of the four pillars.
S1: So if you could talk about the connection in these pillars between politics , religion and government.
S2: Well , when you take a look at the document , its opening discussion is about cultural Marxism. It says the left is trying to affect at all levels cultural Marxism to destroy traditional American values. That's something that even in the 70s , coming off the John Birch Society of the 50s and 60s , the Heritage Foundation did not embrace his doctrine. They had policy divisions. They had some questions about who could better represent America. But it's not this attacking the other side as being Marxist. Now , that whole cultural Marxism thing itself is a dog whistle , because until the last five , ten years , this is the sort of thing you found on the very far right of politics here and in Europe. And now it's become a rallying cry around the world that the left is not just has dumb policies , they want to destroy everything America stands for. And that's why when I say the most important thing this document does is set out a theme of government , a governing philosophy that is a different governing philosophy than you saw under either the bushes or certainly under Ronald Reagan. So that's the area that is very different in terms of our moment in politics. And I got to say , all this discussion on the left and the right , that the right is fascist , the left or communists , if the left were really Marxist , they'd be arresting all these people already and putting them into gulags. Just like if the right were fascist , they'd be arresting people. So it would be nice that they cool the rhetoric , but they're actually operating like this is their rhetoric , and it ties into a growing sense of Christian nationalism that there's one right view of what America is. They're clued into it. They're getting almost a divine fiat to do what they want. And that's where I can start to get more problematic , if not dangerous , if they get to actually start to rule. They're the real Americans , and everybody else who doesn't agree with them isn't.
S1:
S2: Uh , in some ways , this is an attempt to roll back our ideological discussion not just to the 1960s or 70s , but A pre 1950s , even 1930s. A lot of the rhetoric that you find in , in this document comes out of things that you would have been very traditionally reading in John Birch Society pamphlets back in the 50s and 60s is somehow this has become more mainstream with conservatives. So it does have if you get into what they would remove from government , you make a government a race neutral , as they would say. The question is , what about all that weight on the scales , which we're working against people of color in the past , how will this affect people today ? And , you know , defenses disappear , civil rights get rolled back , and you get back to where you were 20 , 30 , 40 years ago. Hmm.
S3: Hmm.
S1: So one of the pillars is to dismantle the administrative state. As a professor who studies U.S. political history.
S2: The simple fact is the country got a lot bigger , with a lot more moving parts , a lot more places where conflict could arise in terms of policy. And he ended up needing more government to adjudicate those concerns. You had to get into industry , communications , telecommunications , transportation. And there's two basic models you can use for who's going to make these calls in government. The first is the old patronage system spoils system that we had up until the late 19th century , where whoever becomes president gets to appoint their friends and supporters and whatever position of government they want. And loyalty is the key test in ideological purity to who gets a position in government. Then you discover that if you try to run the Federal Aviation Administration like that , uh , planes start to fall out of the air. You know , if you try to run , uh , the Department of Transportation like that , highway bridges collapse. So that was a model. Most of the rational world has moved away from , uh , the only place you really find it now are in ideological states. Kind of like illiberal states , authoritarian states , where it's not the efficiency of government that matters. It's the defense of the people who make the decisions in government. It's support for the leader that matters. So this is a really odd notion to deconstruct , but even more so , possibly the most important aspect of this plan is the idea to take 50 to 60,000 federal workers , make them presidential appointments , and even if a future president changes them back , they will then have four years to hire people into the bureaucracy who will be civil service protected , who will reflect their ideology. It's a real effort to not get rid of the administrative state , but to make it work the way they want it to.
S1:
S2: I mean , the party really is dominated the national. The party is has family members on the executive committee. Donald Trump basically says what to do and then they try to do it. So for the party itself , I think the party just waits to see what happens if he wins re-election and then who he appoints into office. Again , there really doesn't seem to be much of an independent official Republican Party outside of Trump. That leaves everybody else scrambling for positions of power in this , uh , future administration. Hmm.
S1: Hmm. Well , what are some takeaways ? Every day San Diegans and Americans should know about project 2025 and its potential impact on the 2024 presidential election.
S2: Yeah , its impact on the 2024 election is not its most consequential aspect. I think what's most important is the whole attitude toward governance and kind of a presumptive ness that their side is so right , they should be able to do what they want. I mean , I tie project 2025 into the incident at Arlington Cemetery , where there is Donald Trump and he's brought in for the graveside , and then voters are taken for a campaign commercial in violation of the rules. And when a woman employee tries to explain to them that that Arlington , you're not allowed to do that. She was physically accosted , and then afterwards the campaign called her mentally incompetent , said she was having a mental incident. To me , that's thuggery. And lurking beneath this is a sense of political thuggery that we get to do what we want. And if you don't like it , we're going to push you out of the way. And President Trump tends to distance himself from that after it happens , but no one's ever held accountable for it. So that's the thing to keep in mind when you look at the 2024 election , the consequence for who will actually be governing afterwards isn't just limited to the candidates are right.
S1: Well , lastly , before you go , I mean , you've been studying politics as an academic discipline for a really long time. We've had you on the show many times.
S2: You've got progressive institutes that have their laundry list of what they see accomplished , but this is probably the most detailed effort to try to link not only the policy , but every one of those policies probably has 1 or 2 people identified who , if they were put into office , would try to work on this below the presidential level to get it moved through the bureaucracy. So I think they will attempt to get things done if they are elected. And this sense of the demonization of Democrats as Marxist , you get that at levels way below the presidency in campaigns. But even Ronald Reagan didn't go that far. When he talk. Barry Goldwater wouldn't go that far when he talked. Richard Nixon certainly didn't. Um , it's , again , a very different sense of what's at stake in the election and the rights that it entails to one side to do what they think is right , no matter the consequences , to change things while they have a window to do it. And that that's sort of almost a desperation in politics I'm not used to. It's usually you have the election if you lose , guess what ? There's another 1 in 4 years. We'll try again and learn something from what we lost.
S1: I've been speaking with Carl Luna , professor of political science at Mesa College. He's also a visiting professor at USD and the director for the Institute of Civil Civic Engagement. Thank you so much , Carl. It's always great to have you on.
S2: Thank you , J. Great talking with you.
S1: Coming up , the impact of project 2025 on Immigration.
S4: Project 2025 would effectively end family based immigration and would also highly restrict humanitarian immigration.
S1: Hear more when KPBS Midday Edition returns. You're listening to KPBS Midday Edition. I'm Jade Hindman , as you just heard , project 2025 covers a broad range of issues , immigration and border policy being one of them. Here to break down current U.S. immigration policies and the impact project 2025 could have is Tom Wong. He's a political science professor at UC San Diego and director of the US Immigration Policy Center. Professor Wong , welcome.
S4: Thanks for having me back.
S1: So glad to have you here. So let's get into it.
S4: So one of the first things to think about when it comes to project 2025 is the question of immigration itself. So when we think about immigration , we can think about who we let in , how many and under what conditions ? Project 2025 would do away with one of the pillars of our legal admissions policies. So when we think about legal admissions , we're thinking about family based immigration as well as employment based immigration and humanitarian immigration. Project 2025 would effectively end family based immigration to the United States. This is a dramatic shift even during our most restrictive eras in terms of immigration policy. We still carved out space for immediate family members of those who we admitted into the country for immigrant visas. But project 2025 would do away with the entire system of family based immigration to the United States. So if you have a family relationship , whether it be an immediate family member Amber or another relative. There are certain avenues that you have to potentially enter the United States. The political right often refers to family based immigration as so-called chain migration. You can think about an image of one person turning into ten people turning into 100 people. That is a inaccurate depiction of how family based immigration to the United States works , because there are only certain family relationships that allow for immigrant visas when it comes to family based immigration. We're talking mostly about immediate family members sons and daughters , brothers and sisters. But project 2025 would effectively end family based immigration and would also highly restrict humanitarian immigration. So when it comes to humanitarian immigration , there are temporary visas. For example , we provide something called temporary protected status to countries that are undergoing turmoil , whether it be political turmoil like coups and other countries or countries affected by natural disasters. There are several countries that we have provided Temporary protected Status for , and project 2025 will do away with TPS altogether. When it comes to humanitarian immigration , we also have refugee admissions and projects. 2025 would significantly decrease the number of refugees admitted to the country annually.
S1:
S4: And this will have significant , uh , implications for those who are undocumented. So currently at the border , there's a process called expedited removal. This leads to the deportation of those who arrive at the southern border without judicial review. So there is no day before an immigration judge before somebody is deported. What project 2025 wants to do is expand expedited removal to the interior of the United States , so that every undocumented immigrant could effectively be summarily deported from the United States without any sort of judicial review ? This is part of a ramped up enforcement effort that also does away with what we refer to as enforcement priorities. Because of finite budgets , Immigration and Customs Enforcement often has to be selective in terms of who it targets for immigration enforcement. Under the Obama administration , there were enforcement priorities. For example , those who had criminal records were priorities for immigration enforcement. But that means those without criminal records and other characteristics , such as having US citizen children or having lived in the US for decades or longer , were not priorities for immigration enforcement. Project 2025 would also do away with what we called the Sensitive Locations memo. So the Department of Homeland Security often issues a memo to Immigration and Customs Enforcement saying that certain locations , such as schools and churches and other places of worship , would be exempt from immigration enforcement actions. But project 2025 would do away with the sensitive locations. Memo.
S1: In our previous interview , you know , we discussed how the Trump Vance campaign has really tried to distance themselves from project 2025 , but there is overlap between the project and Trump's rhetoric regarding immigration. Tell us about the commonalities here and and the differences. Yeah.
S4: Yeah. When it comes to the commonalities , uh , Trump is campaigning on one of the sort of largest deportation operations that the country has ever seen. In order to achieve that , the Trump administration would have to do a lot of what project 2025 recommends. For example , the expanded use of expedited removal would be one mechanism that the Trump administration could use to deport large numbers of undocumented immigrants. Uh , in terms of the overlap. The Trump campaign has also talked about expanded immigration detention and detention camps. Project 2025 calls for the expansion of the immigration detention industrial complex in the United States. So when we think about how one would actually go about in terms of implementing the largest deportation operation in the history of the United States , then the Trump team would have to adopt a lot of project 2025 recommendations in terms of redoing how immigration enforcement in the United States works , as well as expanding immigration detention capacity.
S1: On the other side of all this , you have proponents who say project 2025 would secure the borders. Do you agree with that characterization ? What do you think is meant when they say Secure.
S4: Project 2025 envisions a secure border as one that is highly militarized ? So what we see in project 2025 is authorization of the military to essentially patrol our southern border. Uh , when we think about different security metrics at the southern border , we can actually see that the border is quite secure , even when there are record numbers of people , mostly asylum seekers , who are approaching the southern border. We don't have the kind of open or porous border that some on the political right like to talk about when trying to attract votes. When we think about different metrics at the southern border , I think project 2025 wants to use the military to effectively end entry at the southern border as a means to secure the southern border that would do significant harm , for example , to the ability of asylum seekers who are seeking protection from persecution from entering the country. So whereas project 2025 envisions a secure border as one that is closed off , others see a secure border as one that is well managed so that things like contraband are effectively interdicted. Unauthorized immigration is lessened , but we still have legal avenues for people seeking protection from persecution from entering the country.
S1: There can be a lot of fear when you look at this.
S4: We haven't heard rhetoric as harsh as this in decades. And so if you are an undocumented family thinking about how to live and plan your future in the context of political rhetoric that is effectively demonizing you and calling for , you know , your arrest and subsequent deportation , then one can imagine how very divisive that is. Uh , we need to remember that many undocumented immigrants are residents who have lived in the US for decades and have dug deep roots here , and our broken immigration system is one that does not provide these individuals with an opportunity to earn a path to citizenship. Uh , I think what project 2025 and the Trump campaign have shown is that on the issue of immigration. Politically at least , conversations about a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants have soured , and they're no longer scoring the political points that they used to. So even the Harris campaign right now , whenever it mentions incorporating undocumented immigrants , whether it be through an earned path to citizenship or by other means , says in its same breath that we need to clamp down at the border. The Harris campaign is trying to sort of strike a balance between those individuals who support the Trump style approach to immigration , being that heavy handed enforcement first approach with a sort of both and approach where we can do a path to citizenship while also , quote unquote , securing our border. Uh , but I think that is a difficult line to strike , especially when the rhetoric on one side of the political aisle is again calling for the mass deportation and roundup of millions of undocumented immigrants , something that we have never seen in this country's history.
S1: Some critics of project 2025 have said this document is blatantly racist and exclusionary.
S4: I think the racial and ethnic , uh , contours of project 2025 are quite clear. Um , I think that people who describe project 2025 as explicitly and blatantly racist are correct , especially when it comes to the immigration related proposals that we see in project 2025. I think what we do is fight back and being an election year , one way that people can fight back , especially those who see value in diversity and inclusion , is by voting.
S1: I've been speaking with Tom Wong , political science professor at UC San Diego. He's also the director of the US Immigration Policy Center. Professor Wong , thank you so much for joining me.
S4: Thank you for having me.
S1: Still ahead , a look at how project 2025 could impact family planning and privacy.
S5: To me , this is even more expansive than what I think people realize , because it's really going into our private lives , basically determining who we can marry , who we can't marry , how we can't identify.
S1: KPBS Midday Edition returns after the break. You're listening to KPBS Midday Edition. I'm Jade Hindman. Two years out from the overturn of Roe v Wade , the United States is still grappling with the legalities around abortion and its restrictions. While some states are doubling down on abortion protections , others are ramping up on bans. Project 2025 doesn't outline a nationwide ban , but it would curtail abortion access across the country. Reproductive rights activists are pushing back. Here to help us understand the history of the reproductive rights movement and current context of project 2025 is Camilla Price. She's a professor and chair of women's studies at San Diego State University. She's also a co-director of the Bread and Roses Center for Feminist Research and Activism at Sdsu. Professor price , welcome to the show.
S5: Thank you. Thank you for having me.
S1: So glad to have you here. So project 2025 has been gaining more coverage and visibility regarding its ties to the Republican ticket.
S5: In some ways I wasn't surprised , because if you've been paying attention to what's been going on for the last 40 plus years , particularly after Roe v Wade was decided back in 1973 , the anti-abortion movement , which is pretty much comprised of the Catholic Church , Protestant evangelicals and political conservatives. They have slowly been working at chipping away at reproductive rights very slowly , you know , sort of starting out in terms of what kinds of restrictions they could place on abortion at the state level , the kind of test the boundaries of Roe v Wade. Also , in terms of this political strategy of getting people who are anti-abortion elected not only in the congressional level , but also at the state levels and local levels , as well as in the presidency , ensuring that conservative justices get appointed throughout the court system , throughout the federal court system , and making it all the way up to the US Supreme Court so that things were already set in place. So by the time the Dobbs decision came in 2022 , all the elements were in place to kind of shift. And we saw that shift happening with the overturning of Roe. And now what we're seeing is them sort of going full force with uh , with their basically their playbook and again , just running with it in terms of pushing even more restrictions , even trying to get more states to either restrict it or ban it outright. They also oppose contraceptives as well , and in some cases would either like to put restrictions on contraceptives or have certain contraceptives banned outright. But also , if you think of about reproductive rights and reproductive justice more broadly , is not just about access to abortion or contraceptives. It's also about in terms of how we live our lives , in terms of our bodily integrity and on our autonomy , but also in terms of the ways in which we form relationships and families. Because if you take a reproductive justice framework , which is different from reproductive rights , it's not only about the right not to have children , but it's also the right to have children , the right to parent those children , and safe and sustainable communities , as well as protecting one's bodily integrity and autonomy. And that includes forming families and forming families in any ways that's necessary for you , whether it is using IVF and other reproductive technologies , whether it is through adoption , whether it is marrying whom you want to marry regardless of what their race is , regardless of what their gender identity is and so forth. So to me , this is even more expansive than what I think people realize , because it's really going into our private lives , basically determining who we can marry , who we can't marry , how we can identify in terms of our sexual identity , in terms of our gender identity. But it also as well ignores the special conditions or special circumstances or other things , ways in which people of color , in which low income people , which immigrants face when it comes to their reproductive rights because the history isn't in terms of who gets regulated and who doesn't get regulated and how they get regulated. Depends upon your race as well as your immigrant status , as well as your social and economic class. Yeah.
S1: Yeah.
S5: We've become way more permissive than we should have , and that we should go back to our good old fashioned values of things were so much better in the US when we had the nuclear family , when we had , um , a mother and a father in the household. You had a father who went out to work and who was the main breadwinner , and you had the mother who stayed at home and took care of the kids. And that's how things should be. That's how that that's the foundations of our society , that what has made us great as a , as , um , Americans. Right. But it's a very skewed way of looking at our past because that wasn't everybody's reality , you know , in this , you know , imagined past or reimagined past that they sort of are thinking about , um , that many folks did not have , um , you know , didn't have the right to exercise many of their rights. They couldn't write , they couldn't vote. Um , there was a lot of voter , you know , suppression in terms of African Americans , particularly in the South. Right ? We know that we know that , um , women didn't have a lot of rights when it came to the workplace. So what I see when I read this document is that women , and particularly white women , need to go. They need to leave the workplace. They need to go back home and take care of their kids. And at the flip side , saying all these other folks , whether we're talking about people of color , low income people , immigrants , they're having too many babies and they're relying on the system to support them. We need to stop that. And so that's kind of what I'm sort of seeing playing , playing itself out. So I think it's cyclical. I think whenever people sort of feel threatened , um , that they're losing power , that they're losing their social status. And so it's a way of kind of regaining that control.
S1: And project 2025. Efforts also intend to abolish the Gender Policy Council and eliminate central promotion of abortion and comprehensive sexuality education. What impact do you think this might have on our health care and educational system.
S5: I just have to say , I just find it disheartening that we have a certain segment of our society who refuses to see the humanity in other people. So what I'm feeling like is sort of the forcing of a particular religious belief on people , and that we all have to adhere , adhere to that specific religious belief , even though we might have religious beliefs or moral beliefs that are counter to that. That means a change in the curriculum that in terms of sexuality education , um , and all the work that's been put into making sure that it's comprehensive. A lot of that might be gutted to the point where we only are talking about do not have sex until you get married. Um , abstinence or fertility awareness methods is the only proper contraceptives , quote unquote , that you can possibly use. But also in many ways , what they're doing in terms of their policies is also the erasure of queer and trans people out of public life. Mhm. Which means if they don't exist , you don't have to worry about making sure that they have equal rights or they're treated equitably because they quote unquote , don't exist.
S3: Well , in.
S1: California , reproductive rights like the right to an abortion , um , they're it's protected under law.
S5: They haven't thought about , right ? They have thought about this. But the last 20 years of passing a law , a national law , a federal law that will outlaw abortion throughout the United States. And so even taking that out of the the hands of the states , right. Or in some cases , I know under George W Bush's administration , there was talk of actually putting an amendment in the Constitution , um , to ban abortion. But even if they don't go that route , this reading project 2025 , there's always political pressure that might be placed on states , um , particularly the states that they , that they call quote unquote abortion sanctuary states that they might threaten withholding federal funding from those states , California being one of them. That's my worry. Yeah.
S3: Yeah.
S1: Well , given all of that , I'm just curious , how is the Harris Waltz campaign handling conversations about reproductive rights.
S5: What I can say is that reproductive rights will be much better protected if this ticket is actually elected into office , than if the opposition is. And I know this looking at sort of Harris's record in terms of like reproductive rights , reproductive justice , she generally has been very supportive of those rights. Right. And also recognizing other things that are important , like maternal health issues , and particularly when we're talking about black women and pregnancy outcomes. When she was in the Senate , she introduced bills to provide programming to sort of look at and to find ways in which to support black folks in terms of pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes , because we know black women and black people in general have the highest rates of death when it comes to pregnancy related issues , that they're more likely to die from pregnancy than their white counterparts , for example , and is saying with health that black infants are the most likely to die within the first year of their lives than than their counterparts. So I think they have an understanding of how important it is to protect abortion rights , but also recognizing that abortion is a part of health care. If we're talking about preserving people's health and well-being. You have to have abortion services have to be available because people need access to abortion service for a variety of reasons.
S3: Well , the program.
S1: That you mentioned that addresses the infant and maternal mortality rate among black women and black babies.
S5: I'm not so sure , because when particularly when I read the part about maternal and child health in project 2025 , there is no mention of race. There's no mention of. There's a mention of. Yes , we have an issue of like , um , maybe our cesarean section rates are too high and we know we have an idea that , you know , there might be an issue with maternal death , but it doesn't break it down in terms of the racial differences or the class differences. It's just a blanket statement of maybe we need to do something about it , but they don't have anything comprehensive in terms of how do you address something like that is basically they're saying if we just hire more doulas , then the issue will go away. That's it. If you refuse to see that there are that racism and sexism are part of what people are dealing with , then you're not going to acknowledge the fact that maybe racism and sexism might be an issue when it comes to these high pregnancy related deaths amongst black women. Are higher rates of black infant mortality ? You're just not going to recognize it.
S1: Well , before we go , is there anything else that you'd like to add or say to this conversation that I may have missed.
S5: I just want to reiterate to folks that we shouldn't be sleeping on this election. I'm sure a lot of people who are listening to this probably know this , but I just want to reiterate it because this is not just about a difference of opinion. This is about fundamentally changing who we are and basically fundamentally changing our system. Because when you're thinking about what they're doing is is moving to a more authoritarian way of being of , of government , concentrating power only on a few , you know , our select group of people. But it's also in terms of an overreach into our personal lives that we haven't seen in a long time , and that if you think that you are not affected by it , you are affected by it , because what is outlined in project 2025 , to me , is just the beginning of what the possibilities could be in terms of what a Republican Trump presidency would look like.
S1: I've been speaking with Camilla Pryce , professor and chair of women's studies at San Diego State University. She's also a co-director of the Bread and Roses Center for Feminist Research and Activism at Sdsu. Professor price , thanks for joining me. Thank you for having me. Thanks.
S5: Thanks.
S1: That's our show for today. If you missed anything , you can download KPBS Midday Edition on all podcast apps. Don't forget to watch KPBS Evening Edition tonight at five for in-depth reporting on San Diego issues. Join us again tomorrow to find out what's happening on the arts and culture scene in San Diego. I'm Jade Hindman. Thanks for listening.
