#SistersInLaw Podcast – Episode 288: Taking Liberties

Date: March 21, 2026
Hosts: Kim Atkins Stohr, Barb McQuade, Jill Wine-Banks (Joyce Vance out this week)

Episode Overview

This episode of #SistersInLaw dives into the rapidly evolving landscape of American law and politics, focusing on three central issues:

• The escalation of fetal personhood laws and the prosecution of women for abortion in the post-Dobbs era
• Growing concerns over abuses within the Department of Justice (DOJ), including politically motivated grand jury subpoenas
• The criminalization of protest and the use of anti-terrorism laws against demonstrators, raising deep First Amendment concerns

Through spirited, often humorous and always insightful discussion, the hosts dissect the legal, cultural, and political implications of these issues, drawing on their experiences as former prosecutors and legal experts.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

I. Fetal Personhood Laws and the Alexia Moore Case

[07:13 – 21:28]

Key Facts

• Case at Issue: Alexia Moore, pregnant (22–24 weeks), took mifepristone and experienced severe pain, leading to an emergency room visit and subsequent discovery by police. She is now facing murder charges in Georgia.
• Legal Backdrop: Georgia’s fetal personhood law grants legal status to embryos from conception, dramatically changing the landscape post-Dobbs.
• Historical Note: Similar cases were not prosecuted prior to Dobbs, but old “zombie” laws have been activated.

Discussion Highlights

• Legal Context:

  • “Georgia...has a life act that was enacted in 2019 that grants natural person status to fetuses in utero. And so they have the same legal rights as any human, even before birth and after birth for embryos...” – Jill Wine-Banks, [10:00]

• Impact on Women’s Rights:

  • “...their rights are limited in comparison to the rights of the unborn fetus... Imagine how the family felt with this human incubator being kept alive on, you know, machines in order to deliver this baby.” – Barb McQuade, [13:14]

  • “I mean, we talk about human dignity. Human dignity for who? Adriana didn’t get any dignity in that sense.” – Kimberly Atkins Stohr, [14:49]

• Religious Freedom Concerns:

  • “In the Jewish faith... life does not begin until you say the first limb is out. Life begins at birth in the Muslim community… at insoulment... why isn’t this a violation of the free exercise of religion?” – Barb McQuade, [17:27]

• Slippery Slope Questions:

  • “Will you consider having an IUD as murder? Would you consider other forms of birth control murder? I mean, I just feel like this opens a door, and if this prosecution goes forward, this opens a door so wide that it really puts reproductive rights at the most peril they’ve ever been.” – Kim Atkins Stohr, [19:27]

Notable Moment

• Kimberly expresses deep worry not only about abortion pills, but about what comes next—contraception and broader bodily autonomy rights.

II. DOJ Abuses & Politically Motivated Investigations

[26:32 – 43:37]

Cases Discussed

• Jerome Powell / Federal Reserve Grand Jury Subpoena:

  • Judge Boasberg quashed a DOJ subpoena, which appeared designed to pressure the Fed Chair for political purposes.
  • “That is how this opinion starts. Just to show why this case surpasses that very high bar for quashing a subpoena...” – Kimberly Atkins Stohr, [30:34]

• Southern District of Florida Grand Jury/James Comey:

  • Grand jury subpoena to Comey (“grand conspiracy” investigation) appears to re-litigate already-investigated “Russia investigation” claims, potentially for political vengeance and narrative control.

• Joe Kent, former NCTC director:

  • His resignation and subsequent, or possibly pre-existing, investigation for leaking classified info is questioned as potential retaliation for criticizing Trump’s Iran policy.

Analytical Threads

• Weaponization of Justice:

  • “It will take another administration to earn that trust back, but I don’t know how long it will take because there’s so much distrust among citizens and it’s hard, it’s really not hard to understand why.” – Kim Atkins Stohr, [43:37]

• Judicial Pushback:

  • Praise for Judge Boasberg’s candid language directly quoting presidential social media posts to demonstrate political motivations.

• Forum Shopping Concerns:

  • Noting intentional selection of favorable venues/judges (Judge Aileen Cannon in FL) to shape legal outcomes.

Quote

• “The DOJ…we always thought we wore the white hat. How does this end for the Justice Department? Do you ever see this ability to regain...confidence?” – Jill Wine-Banks, [42:55]

III. Criminalization of Protest: The Antifa Case

[47:36 – 55:03]

Case Summary

• Facts:
  • Nine defendants labeled “antifa,” convicted in Fort Worth, TX for providing “material support for terrorism” at a protest outside an ICE facility.
• Legal Issues:
  • Material support statutes distinguish between designated foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) and domestic cases, with greater First Amendment protections for the latter.
  • Trump administration’s executive order purportedly designated “Antifa” as a domestic terrorist group—despite such designation lacking legal standing.

Liberty and Precedent Concerns

• Overreach:

  • “That’s the kind of charge that was once...levied against the Boston Marathon bomber...not someone who was present at a protest no matter what happened at that protest…” – Kim Atkins Stohr, [48:23]

• Legal Clarification:

  • “You can only be convicted of a crime when Congress has passed a statute...all the Antifa references are surplusage. They’re just irrelevant facts that are thrown in there to dirty up the concept of antifa.” – Jill Wine-Banks, [52:58]

• First Amendment Threat:

  • Hosts flag the danger of chilling protest: Will attendees at peaceful events now fear being labeled “terrorists”?

Appeal Outlook

• Likely appeals on constitutional (First Amendment) or factual grounds, but hosts agree: if prosecutors proved intent to commit/support a terrorist attack, conviction could stand regardless of “antifa” spin.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Fetal Personhood:

  • “It’s creating problems and diminishing the rights of women.” – Barb McQuaid, [14:21]

• On DOJ’s Weaponization:

  • “It will take another administration to earn that trust back, but I don’t know how long it will take...” – Kim Atkins Stohr, [43:37]

• On Antifa Prosecution:

  • “All the Antifa stuff is, as I said, just propaganda outside of the essence of the charges. So the facts will matter here in determining whether there's a successful appeal.” – Jill Wine-Banks, [54:27]

Listener Q&A Highlights

[58:12 – End]

• On Constitutional Lifelong Tenure: No, there is no originalist age cutoff—lifetime appointments mean just that, regardless of framers’ ages.
• On Impeachment’s Continuing Relevance Post-Immunity Decisions: Yes, impeachment remains the proper constitutional remedy.
• On the Watergate Tapes & Alexander Butterfield: Jill shares personal experience, confirming Butterfield’s integrity and pivotal role in exposing Nixon.

Episode Structure & Key Timestamps

• [07:13] — Fetal Personhood Laws & The Alexia Moore Case
• [26:32] — DOJ Abuses: Powell/Grand Jury, Comey, Joe Kent
• [47:36] — Antifa Protester Prosecution and Material Support Statutes
• [58:12] — Listener Q&A
• [65:59] — Closing, Announcements

Final Thoughts

This episode offers a sobering look at how evolving laws and political pressures are reshaping the American legal landscape—often to the detriment of individual liberty and institutional trust. The hosts’ blend of direct, expert analysis, real-world legal context, and a touch of humor makes these complex issues accessible and urgent.

For those following the U.S. at the intersection of law and democracy, this is essential listening.

(For full engagement with the legal issues—and a few NCAA basketball loyalties—tune in for the entire episode.)