Trey Kay, Author at West Virginia Public Broadcasting

Us & Them: What’s Next For Abortion?

New legislative agendas at the state level aim to chip away at reproductive rights, even in states that recently passed constitutional protections for abortion. On this episode of Us & Them, Host Trey Kay examines how conservative state supreme courts might limit voter-approved amendments — and how abortion-friendly states are pushing back. Meanwhile, President Trump’s new administration could override all state laws through certain executive actions, including one involving a 19th century anti-vice law. Now that the election’s over, what’s next for abortion?

There’s a fresh slate of legislative agendas in the new year and some include efforts to chip away at reproductive rights and access to abortion, even in states that have recently passed constitutional abortion rights ballot measures.

On this episode of Us & Them, Host Trey Kay looks at what’s ahead after a record number of initiatives passed in November. There’s a lot that conservative legislatures and courts can do to limit the voter-approved amendments. While legal maneuvering continues, the number of abortions in the U.S. is at its highest level in more than a decade thanks to the increased use of abortion pills and travel across state lines.

Abortion opponents want President Donald Trump to enforce a 19th century law they say will stop abortion pills through the mail. Meanwhile, abortion-friendly states are using shield laws to protect their telehealth abortion providers from criminal prosecution for providing abortion pills to women in states with bans. The U.S.’s inconsistent abortion laws are pitting states against each other, and state governments against their citizens.

This episode of Us & Them is presented with support from the CRC Foundation.

Subscribe to Us & Them on Apple Podcasts, NPR One, RadioPublic, Spotify, Stitcher and beyond.

“We got attacked from the religious right for putting a measure on the ballot that they tagged as too extreme. And we got attacked from the left for not going far enough. We had embraced the trimester tenets of Roe v. Wade, thinking that that was a good middle ground in South Dakota. So, we were kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place, wanting to work with them [Planned Parenthood and the ACLU], wanting their help. But at the end of the day, they just chose to not get involved with our efforts, which was unfortunate.”

– Rick Weiland

“In the months leading up to the election is when Gov. DeSantis really went full throttle on Amendment 4. If you were to scroll on social media, if you were to watch TV, you would see these state sponsored PSAs [public service announcements] that really were put there to counter pro-Amendment 4 language. The Department of State had certified Amendment 4 to appear on the ballot early in 2024 and then months later, turns out they’re conducting this big review and pulling all of these petitions. Election supervisors that we spoke to said it was unprecedented for the state to review petitions that they had already deemed as valid compared to, in a fraud review, looking at rejected petitions, which is what the state would have normally done.”

– Romy Ellenbogen

Democrat Rep. Margaret Croke represents the Illinois House of Representatives’ 12th District, which comprises Chicago’s lakefront communities, including Gold Coast, Old Town, Lincoln Park and East Lakeview. She was reelected to a third term in 2024 and has made reproductive rights, women’s health and children her special focus. Illinois is one of five states that allow for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments and have yet to consider one. Illinois has many laws protecting reproductive rights. Croke said the legislature chose not to place an abortion rights constitutional amendment on the ballot, the way the abortion-friendly states of New York and Maryland did, because they’re confident the laws are not in immediate danger of a Republican rollback. She said Democratic lawmakers also wanted more time to consider other rights they may want to protect following the fall of Roe.

*Photo Credit: Illinois House Democrats*

“Some of these other things that kind of fell in the Roe v. Wade decision that we had this assumption to the right of privacy. And in Illinois, do we want to make sure at the same time that we are going to put a constitutional amendment about choice? Do we want to include any of those other issues in the same breath? And if we are going to do something ‘choice plus,’ we need to make sure that messaging is just incredibly well done. And that takes time. It takes education. So I think that that is the conversation we’re having right now.”

– Illinois State Rep. Margaret Croke, 12th District

Jessie Hill, Esq. is a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. She is also a volunteer attorney with the ACLU of Ohio and helped write the reproductive rights amendment known as Issue 1, which Ohioans passed in 2023. Hill said Ohio was the first red state to pass a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to an abortion. It allows for abortion up to fetal viability, which is around 24 weeks of pregnancy. In light of the passage of Issue 1, Hill asked a trial judge to overturn Ohio’s six-week ban, which he did. Another judge has stayed other abortion restrictions, including Ohio’s 24-hour waiting period, its ban on telehealth medication abortions and certain informed consent requirements. Those cases are likely to go before an Ohio Supreme Court that, since the election, now has a 6-1 Republican majority.

*Photo Credit: Case Western Reserve University*

“The language is written very broadly. It lays out a very clear legal test for courts to apply. The trial courts who have addressed it have found it very understandable and very protective.

“I would like to think that whatever party identification is next to a judge’s name, that they will read the law and apply the law as it’s written. I would like to think that, regardless of what their party composition is, that they’re going to do their jobs. It certainly is a cause for concern as an attorney and as an attorney who may be litigating in front of that court. But, you know, like I said, in theory and, you know, according to what conservative justices say, they believe that the text of the Constitution is worthy of respect and it’s what they have to follow. And I think if they do that, we should still win all of our cases.“

– Jessie Hill, law professor and volunteer attorney, ACLU of Ohio

Mike Gonidakis is an attorney and the president of Ohio Right to Life, the largest anti-abortion advocacy group in the state. Gonidakis and the organization have worked closely with Republican lawmakers to craft Ohio’s abortion regulations. He said Issue 1’s language is vague and will require the expertise of the conservative Ohio Supreme Court.

*Photo Credit: Ohio Right To Life*

“We just elected three Ohio pro-life Supreme Court justices and the current makeup of the court, which is seven members, six of them are endorsed by Ohio Right to Life. So, I can’t guess what they’re going to do. But here’s what I told the voters of Ohio this last election when they were considering who to vote for. Do you want a liberal pro-choice majority on the court writing the first decision on Issue 1? Or do you want a conservative pro-life court writing the first decision on Issue 1? And the voters of Ohio overwhelmingly chose the conservative court.”

– Mike Gonidakis, Ohio Right to Life

Julie F. Kay – who is not related to Trey – is a human rights attorney and the co-founder and executive director of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, ACT. Kay said the goal of the ACT is to help more doctors set up telehealth abortion practices to provide medication abortion for women in all 50 states, including states with near-total bans. Eight states shield telehealth abortion providers who send abortion pills to women in states with bans from prosecution by those states. New York is one of those eight states. Its shield law is currently being challenged by Texas, which brought a lawsuit against a New York doctor who sent abortion pills to a 20-year-old woman in Texas in violation of the state’s abortion ban.

*Photo Credit: Footsteps*

“So, if there’s a patient in Arkansas who’s looking for access to a medication abortion and either can’t travel or doesn’t want to, she can go online to one of the telemedicine providers in a shield state who serves all 50 states and does the screening. The doctor sends the medications to Arkansas. She gets her medications. And let’s say, her angry ex-husband or something, is like, ‘I don’t approve of this. I’m going after the doctor,’ and tries to get a criminal warrant against the doctor in New York. The state of New York, because of their shield law, is not going to send that provider down to Arkansas on a criminal charge.”

– Julie Kay, Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine

James Bopp, Jr. is the founder of the Bopp Law Firm in Terre Haute, Indiana. He is the longtime general counsel to National Right to Life. He’s one of the top legal minds in the conservative movement. The New York Times has called him “the most prolific anti-abortion litigator of his generation” and a “bulldog litigator.” Anti-abortion advocates like Bopp want President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice to start enforcing the Comstock Act of 1873. The law prohibits the mailing of obscene material, including anything designed to produce an abortion. It’s been amended over the years, but the statute’s abortion language remains. Bopp sees the Comstock Act as a way of stopping telehealth abortion providers and online retailers from mailing abortion pills to people. It could also halt the makers of those pills from shipping them to abortion providers. Abortion rights advocates say this is a misapplication of Comstock that has been rejected by the courts. But Bopp sees it as an action Trump can take without going against his campaign promise to leave abortion regulations to the states.

*Photo Credit: James Bopp, Jr.*

“Interstate transport is not governed by the states. Interstate transport is governed by federal law. And federal law already has a prohibition on interstate transport of abortion drugs. So there’s no new law. It’s been around for quite a while. It’s very specific. So, his [Trump’s] commitment not to try to limit abortion in the states by federal law is perfectly consistent with the federal government’s authority to regulate interstate activities. And that’s what he would be doing with the Comstock Act.”

– James Bopp, Jr., general counsel for National Right to Life

Other WVPB reports on the subject of abortion:

Us & Them: They’ve Been Here Before by Trey Kay, Maria Young and Matthew Hancock
Religious Leaders Unite To Help Those Seeking To End Pregnancies by Maria Young
Us & Them: The Geography Of Abortion by Trey Kay, Amy Eddings and Matthew Hancock
Us & Them: Post_Roe Mountain State by Trey Kay and Tasha A.F. Lemley
Us & Them: Abortion Divide by Trey Kay and Marisa Helms

Us & Them: They’ve Been Here Before

As 2025 begins, some states are poised to pass tighter abortion restrictions, building on more than 40 bans enacted since Roe v. Wade was overturned. On the next episode of “Us & Them,” host Trey Kay revisits the fight for reproductive care, talking with a retired Episcopal priest who recalls how liberal clergy helped women navigate the barriers of the pre-Roe era. Now, some of those same clergy are pulling that playbook off the shelf as anti-abortion supporters push for new federal limits.

With the start of 2025, legislators in some states are determined to pass even tighter abortion restrictions.

In the two years since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, more than 40 states have passed abortion bans — some with very limited exceptions. Abortion rights advocates are equally determined to expand access to reproductive care, and many are revisiting lessons from half a century ago, before legal abortion was guaranteed.

On the next episode of Us & Them, host Trey Kay hears from retired Episcopal priest Jim Lewis, who decades ago joined a network of “Religious Left” clergy to help women navigate pre-Roe barriers. Kay also speaks with Margaret Chapman-Pomponio, executive director of West Virginia FREE, about how supporters of reproductive rights are preparing for a new era of advocacy, even as anti-abortion advocates urge a Republican majority in Congress to tighten medication regulations and enact a federal abortion ban.

This episode of Us & Them is presented with support from the CRC Foundation.

Subscribe to Us & Them on Apple Podcasts, NPR One, RadioPublic, Spotify, Stitcher and beyond.

The Rev. Jim Lewis, left, and Margaret Chapman-Pomponio, right, at a convention in New Orleans, La., for the Spiritual Alliance of Churches for Reproductive Dignity. Lewis is a retired Episcopal priest who has championed social justice issues for more than a half-century. Before the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, he was part of the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion — a coalition that referred women from states where abortion was illegal to providers in New York, where the procedure was legal. Chapman-Pomponio is the executive director of West Virginia Free, an abortion rights and reproductive health advocacy nonprofit.

*Photo Credit: Margaret Chapman-Pomponio*

Other WVPB reports on the subject of abortion:

Religious Leaders Unite To Help Those Seeking To End Pregnancies by WVPB Assistant News Director Maria Young
Us & Them: The Geography Of Abortion by Trey Kay, Amy Eddings and Matthew Hancock
Us & Them: Post_Roe Mountain State by Trey Kay and Tasha A.F. Lemley
Us & Them: Abortion Divide by Trey Kay and Marisa Helms

Us & Them: Listening So Hard That It Hurts

In this year end episode of “Us & Them,” Host Trey Kay dives into the complex challenges that have defined 2024. He sets out to understand those who celebrate recent victories and those who fear what lies ahead. In a world divided, listening becomes a bridge to clarity and connection.

The headlines and issues front and center in 2024 have presented complex challenges.

In this year end episode of Us & Them, host Trey Kay uses his cold water open swimming to launch an exploration of some of our most vexing questions. He leans into listening, challenging himself to understand more about those across the divide.

Kay hears from some who celebrate a victory, as others fear the days ahead. And, he’s reminded that our nation proclaims fundamental rights and freedoms, while struggling to uphold them equitably. Living through history is how one person describes these divided times.

In a splintered world, listening is one of the last bridges we have toward understanding.

This episode of Us & Them is presented with support from the CRC Foundation.

Subscribe to Us & Them on Apple Podcasts, NPR One, RadioPublic, Spotify, Stitcher and beyond.

Swimming is a meditative escape for *Us & Them* Host Trey Kay — a way to clear his mind and process the world around him. During the pandemic, when gyms and pools were closed, he discovered the invigorating practice of cold open-water swimming. Feeling sluggish and stuck, he joined a friend at an icy lake, sometimes even breaking through the ice to dive in. For him, it’s become kind of an addiction.

*Photo Credit: Ed Gabriels*

Trey Kay breaking ice to clear a pathway for his swim.

*Photo Credit: Ed Gabriels*

This is Trey Kay swimming on Christmas Eve in 2022.

Video Credit: Amy Eddings

“I was on a recent swim when I noticed a house along the lake with a large “Trump 2024” flag that read, “No More Bullsh***.” It unsettled me, disturbing the meditative calm I rely on during my swims. Trump has never been “my guy.” I’ve often criticized his behavior, his dishonesty and his inability to admit wrongdoing. Seeing that flag reminded me of my disappointment that so many Americans have elected to give Donald Trump a second chance in the White House. But as I swam, something shifted. This is not just about frustration; it’s an opportunity — it’s a sign. It’s a call to listen.”

— Trey Kay

Lilliana Mason is a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University and co-author of the book *Radical American Partisanship: Mapping Violent Hostility, Its Causes, and the Consequences for Democracy*. She also wrote *Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity*.”

*Photo Credit: Trey Kay/West Virginia Public Broadcasting*

“And this is research that I’ve been doing recently, looking at how Democrats and Republicans feel about each other on a more radical level. This is based on research people have done in other countries, and one thing we know is that in countries where the political divide is aligned with ethnic or religious divides, the chance of violence increases, which is exactly what’s been happening in the U.S.

In my research, we ask questions like, ‘Do you think that people in the other party are a threat to the United States?’ and ‘Do you agree with the statement that they’re not just wrong in politics, they’re downright evil?’ We even ask whether the other party deserves to be treated as humans or if they behave like animals.

What we found were really high levels of support for these views. In dozens of national surveys since 2017, we have found that 80 percent of American partisans think the other side is a threat to the country, about 50 percent to 60 percent say they’re evil, and about one-third are willing to dehumanize people in the other party.”

— Lilliana Mason

Bella Lane, a 21-year-old sophomore at Marshall University, has a 22-month-old son. This was the first time Lane was eligible to vote, and she said she proudly voted for Donald Trump.

*Photo Credit: Bella Lane*

“I just felt like there were so many women who were pro–Kamala Harris, and it almost seemed like I encountered the extremist side every time. I thought, ‘I’m not talking to an extremist; I’m not.’ Then there were people who were quiet about it. I felt like the quieter people were more pro–Donald Trump, but they didn’t want to say they were pro-Trump. They kept it to themselves.

I have a friend who has a class at Marshall, and one of his buddies asked him who he voted for, and he said Trump. A girl behind him started yelling at him in class, calling him names and saying he was stupid. I just didn’t want to encounter any of that, so I definitely kept to myself.”

— Bella Lane

Olivia Andrew-Vaughn attended am “Us & Them” event at Marshall University in September 2024. She spoke about student activism surrounding the Israel-Hamas war. Trey Kay followed up with Andrew-Vaughn after the election in November.

*Photo Credit: Julie Blackwood*

“So, close to the election, we discussed in one of my political science classes what people were expecting. About two days before, I had a feeling that my home state, Michigan, might go to Trump, and it’s one of those important key states. I thought if he won Michigan, he might end up winning the election, so I wasn’t surprised by the outcome.

“However, there were parts of his platform that I was really disappointed to see might be implemented. Neither campaign offered a platform I was excited or optimistic about, especially regarding the Gaza genocide. Trump’s platform was even further from what I wanted. After inauguration, there may be choices I’ll have to grapple with, and I’ll need to figure out how to make my voice heard and support what I believe in, even if the administration doesn’t share those goals.

“I think a lot of people feel disappointment about the direction both parties are going, and I definitely experienced that.”

— Olivia Andrew-Vaughn

PBS News Hour Report: “How college protests against war in Gaza compare to demonstrations of the past.”

**Jonathan Zimmerman**, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote an opinion piece titled “**How One University Lost its Way on Free Speech**.” It is a reaction to new rules the university put in place after student protests in 2023. Those demonstrations began Oct. 7, after Hamas militants launched an attack on Israel.

*Photo Credit: University of Pennsylvania*

“[University of Pennsylvania’s student protest] guidelines include, but are not limited to, the requirement that you need two days notice to get permission to hold a demonstration unless you want to do it in a heavily trafficked area, in which case you need two weeks notice. They also include a ban on violent speech and, most astonishing to me as a child in the 1970s, a ban on the use of sidewalk chalk.

I can well imagine that many of the people who support this code — this ban on ‘violent’ speech — believe they’re protecting Jewish voices, because there were expressions of antisemitism on our campus. But every single rule to restrict speech will come back to bite you in the rear end. We’ve discovered that large fractions of our students are afraid to say what they think in class and outside of class.”

— Jonathan Zimmerman

The Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, produces an annual report measuring which American universities foster a climate of free speech. Its 2025 report shows many students are afraid to express their opinions on campus. One West Virginia University (WVU) student said, “I feel as a conservative my opinions are silenced for fear of being called names or assumed homophobic, racist, conspiracy theorist, etc. In class I cannot freely disagree if it goes against the expected norm.”

View FIRE’s 2025 College Free Speech Rankings Report.

Us & Them: No Rest For The Homeless

What happens when sleeping in public becomes a crime? The Safer Kentucky Act bans public sleeping in some places, with repeat offenses potentially leading to prison time under a three-strikes rule. Critics argue the law unfairly targets the homeless, raising the question: Are we addressing the root of the issue or simply punishing the most vulnerable?

There are people in the U.S. who break the law each day, simply by sleeping outside.

This year, more states and local governments have passed laws banning public sleeping after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that makes such laws constitutional. One sweeping state effort is the Safer Kentucky Act, a set of anti-crime laws that includes hardline provisions on gun crimes, fentanyl, and a three-strikes rule similar to the tough-on-crime laws of the 1990s. It also says public sleeping is illegal and because of the three-strikes rule, if you sleep outside enough, you can end up serving real time.

Kentucky’s law originated as a response to crime and homelessness in Louisville. However some people say the law criminalizes homeless people and may put more of them behind bars.

This episode of Us & Them is presented with support of The Just Trust.

Subscribe to Us & Them on Apple Podcasts, NPR One, RadioPublic, Spotify, Stitcher and beyond.

*Us & Them* Host Trey Kay has been speaking with people experiencing homelessness in Kentucky about the Safer Kentucky Act, a new law that makes street camping illegal. Kentucky isn’t alone; a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision has paved the way for more cities and states to pass laws banning public sleeping.

Kay spoke with King Fox, a homeless musician who earns his living busking with his guitar on the streets of Louisville, Kentucky, to learn how the law affects his life. Fox said the law doesn’t make much sense to him because he doesn’t believe the city has enough room in its jails to enforce it. He joked about the conversations homeless people might have with other incarcerated people: “What are you here for? Camping out. Yeah, hardened criminal,” he said, laughing.

*Photo Credit: Trey Kay/West Virginia Public Broadcasting*

“I got my Epiphone stolen over the Fourth of July weekend. It was like, July 6, and these guys, I was there getting food, and they asked if I needed money. And I was like, ‘Well, of course, I’ll take money. But if you got me a guitar, I could make my own money, and then I wouldn’t have to, you wouldn’t have to take care of me.’ And and they thought it was a great idea.”

— King Fox

A group of homeless men gathers for an evening Bible study at Re:Center Ministries in Louisville, KY. This faith-based organization is rooted in the belief that society has a Christian duty to care for those in need. Re:Center’s mission focuses on preventing homelessness, providing relief to those experiencing it, and supporting rehabilitation efforts. Their Louisville facility offers meals and shelter for homeless men while also extending some assistance to women in need.

*Photo Credit: Trey Kay/West Virginia Public Broadcasting*

“I’m not going to claim to be a policy expert or a political activist or any of that, but what I’m seeing you know, on the ground… I think a lot of the [Safer Kentucky Act] kind of misses the mark in terms of what’s actually needed, and what the actual problem and the scope of homelessness. I think the intention is to push people into shelters to push people towards resources, which sounds really good, except that the infrastructure is not necessarily there. And so this kind of sweeping bill that’s trying to be a one size fits all, that assumes that there actually are places to push people towards, I think, is detached from the reality that we’re facing.”

— Andrew Crawford

A sign posted outside Re:Center Ministries in Louisville, Kentucky, advises against certain activities. Despite the notice, several homeless people were camped around the facility.

*Photo Credit: Trey Kay/West Virginia Public Broadcasting*

Pictured above: In California, a state with one of the most visible homelessness crises in the United States, Us & Them host Trey Kay visited the Skid Row neighborhood in Los Angeles. The area near downtown has one of the nation’s largest homeless populations—over 4,400 people across approximately four square miles. Skid Row has been a hub for homelessness since the 1930s, with a long history of police raids, city initiatives, and advocacy efforts. (Photos: Trey Kay/West Virginia Public Broadcasting)

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has long been viewed by some as a hardliner on homelessness. In the early 2000s, as a San Francisco supervisor, Newsom supported a controversial initiative called “Care Not Cash.” The program aimed to reduce cash welfare for single homeless adults, reallocating funds to shelters, housing and services to prevent misuse of welfare checks on drugs or alcohol.

During his tenure as governor, with a growing homeless population, Newsom has backed law enforcement sweeps to clear homeless encampments. After the U.S. Supreme Court’s Grants v. Pass decision overturned a ruling earlier this year that had blocked such actions, Newsom accelerated these efforts. In August, he stood in front of a Los Angeles homeless encampment and issued a warning to local governments: Clean up these camps or risk losing state funding next year.

“To begin with, people’s property is confiscated. You can imagine being outdoors with your tent, sleeping bag, bottle of water, and snacks, and having all of that taken from you—it’s completely disruptive to their day-to-day lives. But people also lose identification, vital medical records, and even sentimental items. I met a woman once who lost the last photograph she had of her deceased son. These are traumatic and often irrecoverable losses…It’s not just about taking away someone’s ability to care for themselves on a daily basis; it’s also about causing significant emotional trauma in the process. My research, as well as the work of many others, shows that when people experiencing homelessness are criminalized, the inevitable outcome is that they become even more invisible.”

— Jamie Chang

State Sen. Robin Webb, who represents the 18th District in northeast Kentucky, has served in the state legislature for 25 years. She also practices law in Grayson, Kentucky. Webb describes herself as a moderate Democrat and said she voted against the Safer Kentucky Act due to significant concerns.

*Photo Credit: Trey Kay/West Virginia Public Broadcasting*

“I would like to have seen a more robust discussion with more data. Data was asked for, and I, to this day have not seen [it]. And then some of the things that might have been alluded to like a surge in violent crime? In Kentucky violent crime is going down. So those kinds of data driven things is what’s really needed to be digested by the policymakers and the public. But I think the impetus for this bill is frustration and I think, you know, it’s well taken. I mean, we’re not the only ones grappling with these issues, and it’s frustration as a policymaker. The fiscal mode, the impact on county jails, and the county governments that pay for those prisoners until they’re state prisoners, because this population is the misdemeanor population on the homeless provision side, will be carried by the county, the county governments.”

— Kentucky State Sen. Robin Webb

State Rep. Jason Nemes, a Republican in Kentucky’s legislature, represents three counties, including Louisville, the state’s largest city. Nemes said he wrote the Safer Kentucky Act, which also makes public sleeping a crime, because of what he described as outrageously high crime levels in Kentucky. In Louisville specifically, he noted that murders have increased over the past decade, and homicides are up in the surrounding Jefferson County as well.

Nemes explained that the core of the Safer Kentucky Act is to target violent criminals by ensuring longer jail sentences. One provision aims to prevent individuals who use handguns in the commission of crimes from being released early. He said lawmakers consulted with law enforcement and victims to highlight a disturbing trend of adults using children to commit crimes.

One provision of the law stipulates that if an adult uses a child to commit a crime, the adult is guilty of the same offense as the child. Additionally, the law increases the severity of the charge for the adult.

*Photo Credit: Trey Kay/West Virginia Public Broadcasting*

“We’re not criminalizing homelessness. We’re criminalizing activities that are engaged in by a number of homeless people. Within this particular bill, we asked for cities to create a haven, if you will, for the homeless. So we don’t want them to go to jail. That’s the last effort here. We want to identify those folks and push them toward treatment. So we’ve said to our mayors and our county judges all across the commonwealth, we want you to create a place with potable water, a place with a facility so people can go use the restrooms, and we want a place where we can get social services to these folks in Louisville.”

— Kentucky State Rep. Jason Nemes

“I think the legislature, when they started putting this bill together, was absolutely tired of the carjackings in those city areas. They were absolutely tired of the same people being in the system all the time. Now that’s an issue that we have in rural Kentucky also, you know, the same people continuously in the system. Now, what this bill does, it is going to fix a lot of that problem. It’s going to deter some of the criminal activity. Because, I mean, there’s something to lose. Now, you’re not just going to go to court, get sentenced and probated in 30 days. It’s not going to, you know, it’s not going to happen like that anymore. That’s going to continuously build up, and then once you have your third strike, you’re going to be out … I applaud the legislature for doing what they’ve done, for taking the bold step, for actually addressing issues that people hasn’t want to address.”

— Jerry Wagner

“The big issue for us is that we have a limited number of resources to address homelessness here. Last year, we housed about 1,600 people, taking them off the street and into housing. But in that same year, 4,500 people entered homelessness for the first time. Right now, our inputs are outpacing our outputs. There’s also a belief that there are enough shelter beds, treatment beds, or spaces available every night — but that’s just not the reality for someone sleeping outside. Our shelter access line has to start telling people we’re full by 11 a.m. We manage a family shelter waiting list of 15 to 25 families every week. When we hear people say, ‘Oh, they can just go to a treatment bed’ or ‘They can find another shelter,’ it’s frustrating because that’s not what we see on the ground every day.”

— George Eklund

“Please understand that it’s hard to get a job when you have a tent or a backpack on your back. It’s hard to get a job when you’re not sure if you look presentable, when your ID and Social Security card have been thrown away, or when you don’t even have a phone to get a call back. Trying to live a real life when you’re homeless is really hard. And what’s the endgame of citing and fining unhoused people? What are we going to do about housing?”

— Pony Morris

Us & Them: Post-Election Politics Can Be A Bit Tough To Swallow

Tensions run high and emotions are raw as host Trey Kay gathers his Us & Them dinner party guests for a post-election potluck. Just days after President-elect Donald Trump’s victory, the table becomes a space where relief and hope collide with frustration and fear — and Kay’s guests reveal their deep political and social divides as never before.

Host Trey Kay brings together the Us & Them dinner party guests once again, this time for a candid post-election review.

The group, representing a wide range of personal and political perspectives, shares the table for a potluck meal just days after President-elect Donald Trump’s election. Some of Kay’s dinner party guests are enthusiastic about Trump’s policies and plans for a second term, while others don’t have much of an appetite and are fearful as they reflect on the outcome of the election and their expectations for the future.

As in many American households, there are raw feelings and honest emotions as some of the issues behind the political and social divides in our country are exposed. It’s a dinner table at which not everyone has much of an appetite.

This episode of Us & Them is presented with support from the CRC Foundation and Daywood Foundation.

Subscribe to Us & Them on Apple Podcasts, NPR One, RadioPublic, Spotify, Stitcher and beyond.

The Us & Them dinner party gathered in Charleston, W.Va., two days after the 2024 election. The guests included (from left to right) Alexus Steele, Olubunmi Kusimo-Frazier, Michael Borsuk, Us & Them host Trey Kay, Elliot Hicks, Joe Solomon, Jay Gould and Frank Annie.

*Photo Credit: Us & Them Team/West Virginia Public Broadcasting*

This post-election dinner party was one of our most honest and emotionally charged to date. There was tension at the table — just like, we imagine, there is in many households across the nation. The results of the recent election were raw, and we asked people to speak their minds. And so seven people kept their word and sat down after a historically dysfunctional election to share a meal and their thoughts.

“I do think that people are hurting. That was the conversation that I had with my mom this summer. My mom was like, ‘I just don’t understand it. How can Black people vote for Trump?’ I explained to her — because I am someone who, as an independent, really tries to keep my ear to the streets — the people that I know that are Black and have voted for Trump, having a Black president, if you were a poor child whose parents might have been addicted to drugs, or just a poor child who had unfortunate circumstances, did Obama do something to change that for your own personal life? Or was it symbolic? They say that nothing changed, right? What have we done that has led us to a place where 20 percent of Black men vote for Trump?”

— Olubunmi Kosimo-Frazier

“What makes me feel better about the election is closing the border, price of a dozen eggs not being $5, gas less than $2, six grand daughters who won’t have to worry about a male coming into the restroom with them. Things like that.”

— Jay Gould

“This is all going to go badly, as much as [President-elect Trump] disavows [his association with Project 2025], you know, so many of the people that he’s going to be selecting for his administration are going to come from the author’s list of Project 2025. It’s going to happen. This is as bad and traumatic a time as I have lived through.”

— Elliot Hicks

“The economy spoke. I mean looking at exit polls, 80 percent from all around said the economy was their number one issue and that’s what drove them. I mean money talks and that’s the message I got.”

— Michael Borsuk

“I don’t think I feel good, but it was nice to articulate [my feelings about the election at this dinner] and to be challenged and have some new ideas of what I think a few months from now may look like. But I am still grieving, and I think I will be for a while. I think that’s OK.”

— Alexus Steele

“[Trump is] 78 years old. He legitimately has six to nine months to do something. If he doesn’t, he probably will be the most unpopular president in modern American history. Already half the country doesn’t like him, and then all these promises about food prices and things like that. If they don’t go down, I think a lot of people in the MAGA movement will start to question.”

— Frank Annie

“I think people need time to grieve. I don’t know how to make sense of all the ways I feel shook. I do still return to the fact that presidential elections are like the Superbowl of politics. As a city council member, I watched everyone turn toward this big Superbowl night, while there’s a ‘pick-up game’ every two weeks in City Hall. I voted for Kamala, but I also feel like if we’re really excited about Kamala and Walz — let’s get a Kamala on as mayor, let’s get a Walz as council president. If we do that as our offense, as we’re playing national defense for the folks that are gonna be facing real human rights peril over the next few years, if we match that, defense nationally and that offense at our local councils and village squares, that’s my prayer, that we can get to the other side.”

— Joe Solomon

Us & Them: Childhood Vaccines — Parental Rights vs. Public Health in West Virginia

A recent effort to loosen West Virginia’s ‘gold standard’ vaccination requirements for school children by exempting homeschoolers and private schools passed the legislature, but was vetoed by Gov. Jim Justice. In this episode, Trey Kay delves into this latest chapter of West Virginia’s vaccine history.

West Virginia’s vaccination requirements for school children are what a lot of health experts call the gold standard. Only a medical exemption will get you out of school vaccine requirements.

On this episode of Us & Them we look at a recent legislative proposal that would have changed that. It would have exempted homeschooled kids from vaccinations and let private and parochial schools set their own standards.

The bill came from some parents who want relief from what they call the state’s oppressive compulsory vaccination laws. While the bill passed through the legislature, it did not become law after Gov. Jim Justice vetoed the measure. We’ll find out about this latest chapter in a state with one of the nation’s most robust vaccine histories.

This episode of Us & Them is presented with support from the CRC Foundation and Daywood Foundation.

Subscribe to Us & Them on Apple Podcasts, NPR One, RadioPublic, Spotify, Stitcher and beyond.

“I’ve done countless stories about, ‘Hey, get your vaccines.’ ‘Here’s where you can get your vaccines.’ But I hadn’t really delved into ‘should you get your vaccines.’ There’s been conversation around the West Virginia legislature among lawmakers to try to weaken vaccine laws for at least two or three years. West Virginia has what a lot of immunologists call the ‘gold standard’ when it comes to vaccination policies, school entry policies that is.”

— Emily Rice

“I received a Hepatits B vaccine and was injured and it was a physician who told me this. I’m trained. I’m a WVU [School of Pharmacy] grad from 2005 and no one ever told me that this was a thing. Adverse events can happen. This is how you take care of it. That’s more a tragedy than even that something happened to me. But it was because of that traumatic event that I experienced. That’s when I was able to understand and listen. There was an episode on the Brady Bunch where Marsha Brady had the measles and stayed home and ate ice cream. That’s what we get so fearful about. And so, the other thing I would say is most of the parents, they know the diseases. They understand the diseases for which they’re vaccinating for and you have to be able to assume the risk. Is it okay that I get the disease and I can deal with that and I’m healthy enough to be able to overcome that? Or on the flip side, is the vaccine going to be okay for me and not cause any injury?”

— Chanda Adkins

“What I always wonder about when I talk to legislators are: ‘Do you grasp the concept of action – consequence?’ ‘Have you really thought through what’s going to happen in the future when you pass this?’ And I can honestly say that most were in denial. People want freedom, but freedom always comes with a fee. What are you willing to pay for it? What are you willing, as a society and as an individual, to pay for it? We have the laws in our system now. Why? Because it’s about the community first. All of our laws would create this system that we have here to create a stable, safe, and, an environment that allows everyone to live in some peace and harmony.”

— Dr. Steven Eshenaur

“[We reviewed massive amounts of data for the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines.] 800 pages of data, and I can promise you I read every word of all these studies, the details of all these studies. I couldn’t wait to get vaccinated. I would say I was an informed person about getting that vaccine and could not wait to get vaccinated and assumed other people would feel the same way because it was all we had. Here you had a novel pathogen, SARS CoV 2 virus, which had unusual biological characteristics, unusual clinical characteristics, that we were now going to meet with a vaccine strategy, messenger RNA, that we’d never used before. I think it was honestly the single greatest medical or scientific achievement in my lifetime.”

— Dr. Paul Offit

Elena Conis is a writer and historian of medical and public health at UC – Berkeley. Credit: University California – Berkeley

“The very first vaccine was invented at the very end of the 18th century, the 1790s, and it was a vaccine against smallpox. When this first smallpox vaccine was developed, European nations started to say, ‘Hold on, here’s something so powerfulwe can actually stop smallpox outbreaks if we require people to get the smallpox vaccine.’ So as long as we have had vaccination laws or regulations we have had members of the public saying, ‘Hold on, no, we want to make a decision for ourselves. Or in some cases, they argued it should be God’s decision.”