Hello everyone. Welcome to our later lecture 2021 Lawrence later in lectureship. It's my honor today to introduce our lecture in a moment. I wanted to make you aware of some housekeeping items specifically how to participate. We'd love for you to submit your questions at any time using the q amp a feature found in your controls. I'll be moderating and selecting questions to facilitate a robust discussion. You can also continue the conversation on Twitter using the hashtag that you see here but for those on the phone it's hashtag. Capital Harvard capital bio ethics all one word. If you have any technical issues. Please use the chat feature and send us a message to all panelists so that we can help out. And if you're interested in upcoming events news education programs, please subscribe to our emails bio ethics dot hms dot Harvard edu front slash subscribe. The Lawrence leader later lectureship on family planning and reproductive rights was established by a gift from advocate and author Lawrence later to Harvard Medical School. Lawrence later was a 1941 graduate of Harvard College and the founding chair of the National abortion rights action league. Mr later was a journalist and author of 11 books, including a book titled simply abortion, which was quoted nine times in the United States Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. This lectureship has wonderful history with some incredible speakers and that there is no exception tonight. We're very excited to welcome Linda greenhouse who is a senior research scholar and lecturer in law at Yale law school where she's taught since 2009. For the preceding 30 years she was the New York Times Supreme Court correspondent and earned a number of major journalism awards, not the least of which was the Pulitzer prize for her coverage of the court. She has written widely about law and politics of abortion. Her New York Times magazine article constitutional question is their right to abortion was published in I believe January of 1970 was one of the first articles for general readership about the emerging legal framework for abortion debate. She's the author of many books and I won't list them all because I want to hear her speak as soon as possible but she does have a new book I want you aware of called justice on the brink the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg the rise of Amy Connie Barrett and 12 months that transform the Supreme Court, it will be published by Random House in November of 2021 next month I can't wait. She is a graduate of Radcliffe College Harvard and has earned a master of studies in law from the Yale law school. She's been a member of several nonprofit boards, including our Harvard Board of overseers and currently serves as president of the American Philosophical Society, the first woman to hold that position since the society's founding by Benjamin Franklin in 1943. Without further ado, I'd like to welcome Professor greenhouse to give her talk. Thank you. Thank you, Louise. It's a real honor to have been invited to give this lecture. I can't claim to have known Larry later but having published my first article as you mentioned about abortion in the Times Magazine way back when, and having followed this issue very closely for the ensuing more than half a century I certainly have always known and of his pioneering work on abortion reform in fact I worked in his vast collection of papers at the Schlesinger Library truly fascinating collection because he saved everything. And I was in there for the collection of primary source material about abortion that Riva Segal and I published in 2011, the book called before a row against Wade voices that shaped the abortion debate before the Supreme Court's ruling. He was certainly one of those voices. And I actually spoke with him by phone several times during the Supreme Court's 1989 1990 term about his long running effort to get the Treasury Department and the internal government to strip the Catholic Church of his tax exempt status, because of its anti abortion political activities. His organization abortion rights mobilization had sued the government on the theory that the church's activities disqualified it from claiming tax exempt status, and that the agency's refusal to revoke the tax exemption, had the effect of giving what amounted to a federal subsidy to one side of the abortion debate. The federal appeals court in New York had dismissed that lawsuit for lack of standing, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal. Larry later had worked on this issue for 10 years. When I interviewed him in April 1990. He said he now regarded his cause essay quote, dead letter. And so it was, but that doesn't mean he was wrong to call out the sectarian basis for anti abortion policymaking. In fact, there's even greater reason for concern today than there was when Larry later gave up that particular fight 30 years ago. In these last decades have seen deepening engagement in the anti abortion fight, not only by the Catholic Church but by evangelical churches as well. That fact may seem self evident for anyone who reads the news today, but actually it's not self evident. There's a lot about abortion history in fact that strikes us today as counter intuitive, including the fact that a number of evangelical churches once had a notably more nuanced position on abortion. Before political affinities drove out all remnants of nuance, just as the Republican Party in the immediate post roady immediate post row years described itself as a big tent on the abortion issue. And in fact it did not add an anti abortion flag to the party platform until 1980. Now we're the country's evangelicals of big 10. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention which now advocates recriminalizing all abortions, except those necessary to prevent a pregnant woman's death, had adopted a resolution in 1971, two years before Rome, that called on Baptist to work for legislation that permitted abortion, quote, under such conditions as rape incest clear evidence of fetal deformity and carefully ascertain evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional mental and physical health of the mother. This was essentially the position that the American Law Institute, an organization of the elite members of the legal profession had arrived at in the late 1960s in its project to modernize the criminal codes of the 50 states, several states mostly in the south. The court had by 1973 reformed their abortion laws to conform to this proposal. In one such state I'll just say parenthetically was Georgia, whose reform law the Supreme Court would strike down in Doe against Bolton which was the companion case to row. What struck it down even though it was a reform law was that it required the woman to jump through so many hoops and pass on the approval of five doctors in two different panels in order to be qualified to get an abortion so the Supreme Court regarded that as as unacceptable. And to an effect. Why did the American Law Institute position make headway in the south, rather than in the seemingly more liberal states of the north. It was because the Catholic Church had much less influence in the south. The church had a tight hold on the political structures of the Northeast, obviously here in Massachusetts, but also notably in New York. In 1971, the legislature by a margin of one vote had repealed the state's 19th century criminal abortion law. But the bishops vigorous effort to undo that repeal succeeded in the next legislative session, the legislature actually voted to repeal the repeal. Senator Nelson Rockefeller's veto kept New York, which we now think of as the bluest of the blue states second only to California for going back to the 19th century in 1972. So those who maintain and sadly Ruth Bader Ginsburg was one of them, that the cause of abortion reform was rolling smoothly across the country. The time of row failed to take account of the church foster legislative lockup in states with substantial Catholic populations. This despite the fact that polling in the early 1970s show that a majority of American Catholics along with every other group favored decriminalizing abortion. In addition, one other one particular aspect of the 1971 Baptist resolution, the acceptance of abortion as an appropriate choice following a diagnosis of severe fetal deformity. As you may know, anti abortion state legislatures are now rushing to criminalize abortion in cases where the doctor knows that the patient is motivated by a down syndrome diagnosis. These new laws have so far been struck down by lower federal courts, but these states, and some of the judges that Donald Trump has put on the lower courts are eagerly awaiting a signal from the Supreme Court. Justice Clarence Thomas gave such a signal in a dissenting opinion in 2019 when the court refused to hear Indiana's appeal from a decision that has struck down one of these laws. His opinion dissenting from that was a 20 page screed about the history and horrors of eugenics. He spoke only for himself alone but I am confident we haven't heard the last of this issue. Before moving on to the Supreme Court I want to say a bit more about religion and Larry later's honor. Someone else as well Justice John Paul Stevens, who served on the Supreme Court for 35 years and who died two years ago at the age of 99. He was named to the court by President Gerald Ford in 1975 the first justice to join the court after the decision in roller guess Wade, and here's another counter intuitive fact. At his Senate confirmation hearing, he was not asked a single question about abortion. It's unimaginable today isn't it, particularly since he was a Republican appointee named to replace the ultimate liberal justice, William O Douglas, who of course had been part of the Rome majority, but the absence of controversy about his his nomination shows us that contrary to the prevailing myth that rose sparked an immediate backlash. Justice Wade was actually widely regarded as having settled the issue. And the question was not seen as one appropriate for political controversy. Actually political controversy was carefully nurtured later in the 1970s it didn't spontaneously arise. He was a Republican activist who were smart enough to see abortion as a useful tool for achieving the same kind of political realignment in the north, and in the Midwest that the race card played so well by Richard Nixon had succeeded in peeling away southern whites from the Democratic Party. In all his years on the court, John Paul Stevens was the only justice to call out the religious nature of opposition to abortion. In the Webster case in 1989. The court was considering a Missouri law that among other provisions declared to be a quote finding of the state legislature that quote, the life of each human being begins at conception. The question was was that language constitutional. The majority duck the issue on the ground that the statute simply stated an abstract proposition quote abstract proposition that wasn't actually regulating anybody's behavior. And to the majority, there was no need to address its constitutionality, but Justice Stevens discreet the language amounted he said to quote, an unequivocal endorsement of a religious tenant by some but by no means all Christian faiths, it serves no identifiable secular purpose, he wrote. For that reason alone he said it violated the First Amendment's prohibition against the establishment of religion. And while it was true that the statutory language was essentially meaningless. He understood the danger of judicial deference to a legislative expression of the sword, and the consequent need to bring the establishment clause into the picture. That was perhaps a simpler time. And just as well that Larry later who died in 2006 at the age of 86 didn't live to hear a governor ki the of Alabama, describe a bill she had just signed criminalizing nearly all abortions in the state as quote, a testament to Alabama and steeply held belief that every life is precious, and that every life is a sacred gift from God. And as Governor Greg Abbott celebrated the state's abortion vigilante bill by proclaiming that quote, our creator and doubt us with the right to life. Why are these anti abortion politicians willing to so to show so much concern for the lives of fetuses and so little for the lives of women. The court proclaims its 15 week abortion ban. The law at issue in the dobs case that the court will hear in December as beneficial to women's welfare. While Mississippi ranks at the very bottom on measures of the outcomes and pregnancy and childbirth, some 80 briefs have been filed filed at the court on behalf of Mississippi's abortion ban. And for half of them come from religious entities or from individuals and organizations with obvious religious identities. Why haven't we heard very much about the religious motivation for these laws that would strip women of their autonomy and strip doctors of their right to serve the needs of their patients. Religion in America is society's last taboo. We can talk endlessly about sexuality, gender identity, but challenge someone for trying to impose the religious doctrine on others. Lawrence later wasn't shy about putting religion in its proper place, which is not in legislative chambers, doctors offices, or in the Supreme Court of the United States. I want to follow his example and for instance not be shy about discussing the fact that all six of the conservative justices on the court are Catholic. I include Neil Neil Gorsuch in this group because while he now identifies as Episcopal and he was raised in the Catholic church and attended the same elite Jesuit boys prep school as Brett Kavanaugh. In 2006 I'll just mention only Justice Lito did not attend a Catholic school during his K through 12 years. How did this come about. Well, all six were appointed by Republican presidents who I believe of course I can prove it. They were using Catholicism as a proxy for the anti abortion position, about which a president can directly ask a potential Supreme Court nominee. So it was a way of getting an answer to a question I couldn't be asked, and it had it been asked of course the nominee could not answer. President Trump hardly had to ask Amy Coney Barrett about her views on abortion. During her pre judicial career as a law professor at Notre Dame she had signed a number of faculty statements denouncing low against weight. She even signed a statement criticizing the Notre Dame administration for having honored then Vice President Joe Biden with a medal, despite Biden support for abortion rights. All six justices all the Chief Justice Roberts, permitted the Texas vigilante law to go into effect without Supreme Court intervention tells us pretty much everything we need to know. The fact that the end is clearly in sight for the constitutional right to abortion as we have known it for nearly half a century is simply astonishing, made all the more so by the fact that a strong majority of the country does not want this to happen. That brought us to this point. And what if anything is there to do about it. I've already alluded to the Republican Alliance with the religious right, an alliance that has successfully created single issue voters who capture state legislatures. These legislatures in turn place their rubber stamp on model legislation that is pouring forth from anti abortion think tanks and policy shops, like Americans United for life a very smart and influential organization that too many on the pro choice side of the street and never heard of for dystopian vision of the future you might want to check out their website. www.aul.org particularly their annual volume title defending life and described as quote America's pro life playbook. During the decades following the Supreme Court's reaffirmance of the right to abortion in the 1992 decision plant parenthood against Casey. Much of the proposed legislation coming from America's united for life and similar organizations involved trap laws trap being an acronym for targeted regulation of abortion providers. These proposals assumed the continued existence of the right itself. Because there was no prospect them as the Supreme Court would actually overturn wrote. But sought to make abortions as hard to obtain as possible by imposing on providers, owners regulations that were not imposed on doctors who perform procedures of equivalent or greater risk. The epitome of this strategy came with the Texas law that required abortion providers to have admitting privileges in nearby hospitals, a virtual impossibility in many parts of the country as this audience knows well. The legal rationale for the legislation was to protect women's health. But of course the real reason was to shut down as many clinics as possible, because doctors wouldn't be able to get the required privileges. And in fact the law did shut down half the clinics in Texas, before the Supreme Court and validated it in whole women's health against Heller step. In the summer of 2016, many of those clinics have never been able to reopen. And they can see that they can see caused by Justice glia's death earlier that year had not been filled. So only a justice is for sitting. The vote was five to three with Justice is Kennedy and Ginsburg in the majority. They of course are no longer with us. Justice Kennedy is with us. Excuse me in the world just not on the court in whole women's health. Justice Breyer wrote a very strong opinion for the narrow majority. The final question for the court was whether the law imposed an undue burden on the right to abortion. Undue burden being the governing standard ever since the Planned Parenthood against Casey decision. How is the court to decide whether a burden is quote undo Justice Breyer applied logic and said the court has to weigh the burden against any benefit from the legislation. If the burden is great, and the benefits small, then the burden is self evidently undo. In this case he said the admitting privileges requirement was a solution in search of a problem. It conveyed no benefit for patients, while it imposed a demonstrably crushing burden on access. It was therefore unconstitutional. President Trump had the same law, which was challenged by the before the same federal appeals court the Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas Louisiana and Mississippi. The fifth circuit back then was one of the most conservative courts in the country. Now it's even more conservative President Trump got six appointments there on the court the fifth circuit had upheld the Texas law, the law that overturned in whole women's health so that reversal should obviously have led the fifth circuit to take that lesson and strike down the Louisiana law just a couple of years later.  So of course the Supreme Court had to step in and overturn the fifth circuit once again, which it did in the June medical case in the summer of 2020. But there was a difference. There were two new justices on the court, Justice Gorsuch and place of Justice Scalia, and more to the point Justice Kavanaugh and place of Justice Kennedy. They both voted to uphold the Louisiana law. Chief Justice Roberts, who had been one of the three dissenters in whole women's health. This time voted with Justice Breyer and provided a fifth vote to strike down the law, and in effect to rebuke the fifth circuit for define clear Supreme Court president president. Chief Justice Roberts had to do this for institutional reasons. You can't have a lower court openly defying Supreme Court precedent, but he wasn't happy about it. He was simply signing Justice Breyer's opinion, which he did not do, because the prior opinion reiterated the balancing test of benefits and burdens from whole women's health. The Chief Justice filed his own concurring opinion. And here's what he said, I quote, I joined the dissent and whole women's health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today, however, is not whether whole women's health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case. He then went on to prevent an analysis that in fact undermined rather than adhere to whole women's health. Balancing benefits against burdens was an improper exercise in judicial power, he wrote quote, There was no plausible sense in which anyone, let alone this court could objectively assign weight to such imponderable values, and no meaningful way to compare if there were on quote. The only question was whether a regulation at issue imposed a substantial obstacle to a woman's ability to exercise her right to terminate a pregnancy, whether the law achieved any benefit was not for judges to say. Of course, Justice Breyer's analysis of the inserted benefit from hospital admitting privileges was not based on imponderables, as Chief Justice Robert seemed to think, but rather on a database assessment of the risks of abortion, and of the need for a doctor who performed the abortion to be the one to admit a patient to the hospital, I should say to admit the rare patient to the hospital. The majority opinion and whole woman's health was an example of evidence based medicine meeting fact based law, hold that thought, because we're not likely to see it again. The Robert separate opinion in June Medical was alarming because according to the way votes were counted at the Supreme Court. It meant that Justice Breyer was speaking only for a plurality, and not for a majority of justices. June Medical in other words was not an opinion of the court. The reason it has limited presidential value in it. It undermined the presidential weight of whole woman's health was that case even still good law lower court soon began grappling with that question with some saying it was not because the Breyer analysis no longer commanded a majority. While others insisted that it was on the ground that only the Supreme Court can overturn one of the some precedents in the court in June Medical had not officially done that. We can expect the justices themselves to answer that question in the near future. If it turns out that the question of regulations benefits has to be read out of the undue burden analysis. The court would seem to be open for all kinds of regulations that nibble away at the right one rather minor burden at a time until the burdens add up and the right itself conveniently fades away. Meanwhile, following whole woman's health and the invalidation of other trap laws, the anti abortion forces have grown impatient. The legal abortion into a procedural obstacle course was providing harder than expected. So a new strategy emerged and it's emerged with stunning speed. Stop coming up with new trap laws and just go after the right itself, breach the viability barrier ban abortion after 15 weeks, as in the Mississippi case, or 12 weeks, or as in the Texas case six weeks. LMP dare the reconfigured Supreme Court to say stop. And that's the Mississippi case it will be argued at the beginning of December, decided in the spring or early summer of 2022. The grant review alone says a lot. The fifth circuit even the fifth circuit and struck down the 15 week ban is it obviously had to do the court debated for months, whether to hear the state's appeal. This was unusual. The court usually limits its intervention to issues that have provoked a split among the federal appeals courts, banning abortion at 15 weeks is so obviously unconstitutional that no court had upheld it. But how could this free court pass up the chance to get his hands on this case. There's been considerable chatter to the effect that the court may be looking for something short of overturning row and overturning plan paradigm plan parenthood against Casey explicitly, and that the Mississippi case could provide such a vehicle. I don't see it. The federal argument, a justice will ask the lawyer. Okay, what's your limiting principle. And that question certainly applies here. Once the viability wall, which has been maintained since row itself is breach. What's the limiting principle, why 15 weeks why stop there why not 12 or six or fertilization. Assuming the court upholds the Mississippi law, which I think is pretty much of a foregone conclusion. The court is not likely to say explicitly, and we hear by dismantle the protection that row has offered to pregnant women, just as it won't explicitly signal to the states that anything goes. To us doctors commentators journalists to unpack the court's message and explain to the public that the right to abortion is now only what your state legislature says it is in discussions about the pending case I'm often asked, how can the court do this. The court simply overturn or eviscerate a precedent. Well, of course, the simple answer is the court can do anything at once. As long as there were five votes. The court after all repudiated separate but equal when it decided Brown against port of education. The court recognized constitutional protection for the private sexual acts of consent and gay adults and Lawrence against Texas in 2003, only 17 years after it had rejected the same argument and Bowers against hard work. I've had dinner party conversations during which people play devil's advocate they cite those examples, and they asked. So what will be so shocking about overturning row against way. To me, that the most prominent examples of the court rejecting its own precedence actually on closer examination, make the prospect of overturning row, even more shocking, rather than less. That's because the two famous cases I've cited are examples of expanding rights, rather than taking rights away. Furthermore, as a matter of constitutional doctrine. The court for the right to abortion has become more robust rather than less in the year since row was decided and, as you know rose decided on the basis of the right to privacy at the time of row. And here's another counterintuitive fact. The court had not yet created a jurisprudence of sex equality for all this liberal expansion of constitutional protections for criminal defendants and for individuals burdened by various kinds of discrimination. The Warren court never once recognized sex discrimination as a harm within the meaning of the Constitution's equal protection guarantee. The modern jurisprudence of sex equality came along after 1973. Mostly in cases brought to the Supreme Court by the young Ruth fader Ginsburg, and later with her participation on the bench. So the notion of women's equality as a constitutional matter was not available to the court that decided row. In the ensuing decades however we've come to recognize women's right to dignity on autonomy in her most personal choice of whether to become a mother as a matter of due process and of equality. But the court would negate this broad societal understanding with the stroke of five or six justice suspense is indeed shocking. Yet I think it's impossible not to recognize that we are at that threshold. And what to do about it. Politics has brought us to this point, a long political game engineered with great focus and deep cynicism over many years. In politics it seems to me can save us. What I mean is that while the court is highly likely to remove constitutional protection from abortion. It is not at least not yet. Going to adopt a theory of fetal rights under which a right to abortion would itself be unconstitutional. That means that in our federal system the battle will be fought state by state, as it was before row. So 50 years later we may have a new battle to fight. Prebailing across the country are quite long, very long. A dozen states have passed so called trigger laws under which the old 19th century criminal abortion abortion laws automatically spring back to life if row is explicitly overruled. As I've suggested I think a more likely outcome in the Mississippi case it's not an explicit overruling, but a breach in the viability wall that functionally amounts to the same thing. I don't believe the trigger laws would apply in that scenario, but the fact that they exist tells us the degree to which legislatures have been captured by a minority that's been able to leverage its power through a strategic alliance with one of our two political parties and that has never taken a sigh off the price. It will be up to us to mobilize the silent majority to demonstrate that this alliance from a politician's point of view, they prove to have been a strategic error, and that women and of course trans individuals as well I don't need to leave them out. Anyone who become prey, who can become pregnant will not accept their fate as collateral damage in a battle for political power. Lawrence later would ask no less of us. Thank you. Yes, I was muted. I immediately said thank you so much that was a wonderful. We started with history we, we were able to examine the strong forces from both the Catholic Church and other Christian churches in this political battle. I have a few questions that I'll try to weave into our discussion. I think I'd love to start going back. Speaking about the forces from one particular branch of religion that have played such a strong role in everything that has happened in our country. In the first year ethics course here at Harvard Medical School we talk all the way back to Horatia store and and the religious underpinnings of his efforts, as well as. There's a one question here, asking us to talk a little bit about how other beliefs and other opinions other religious views differ from those of Christians we do live in a pluralistic society where there are many, many different religions. That's something you you could speak to we we address it in some of our coursework at the center. There are certainly a wide variety of opinions and the belief that life begins at conception or early on is not, not necessarily the majority. Right, right. Before I answer I want to just see if I can get my screen so that I can see better I hope this doesn't kick me off I'm going to try this on my back. Well, no, but I, but I see you and you, you all can see me. So, yes, I mean one thing that's, you know, kind of has rattled around in my mind that of course, there are religious traditions under which abortion in some circumstances is not only acceptable but almost almost a duty to bring, you know, greatly compromise life into the world to suffer and die that kind of thing. So, the court has simply accepted as Justice Steven said in his descent in the Webster case on one paradigm, and ignoring the fact that not only as the question poses, you know, many different religious beliefs about when life begins and so on. But on abortion per se. There's not a historic tradition of regarding all abortion as ethically unacceptable and I mean quite the contrary people know I'm sure that early in the history of the Catholic Church abortion was not considered a sin before quickening early in the founding of this country abortion was as we all know but not prosecuted as a crime so we've had a narrowing over recent decades of our focus on how society should think about this decision. Absolutely, I think that you mentioned it early on in your discussion the excellent work that you did called but I believe it's called before row and it has a longer title than that I know it's available online and I share it with a lot of my students and I think there's a correlation of voices and thoughts around the time of road before just shortly before it, and around that time frame, and I think it is important to acknowledge here especially looking at some of the questions in the chat that I'll bring up to you that 80% of Americans believe that a right to abortion should exist under almost any polling that's done, and the vast majority of them would have some limitations but certainly would not create limitations to the extent that are being contemplated for example in Texas so it's, it's not necessarily a given that everyone would agree that abortion should be overturned and in fact the United States feel the opposite. And that was certainly the case in 1970 at the time of row and so as you described in your talk there's been an incredible shift change, you know, row was not as controversial in 1970 when it happened as it is today as I heard you describe. Yeah, in fact, polling in the immediate aftermath of the opinion show the support for abortion actually went up in the country. And then it just became was it was turned into such a political football on in the book that you mentioned the longer title is before row against Wade voices that shaped the abortion debate before the Supreme Court's we have, and we did, we did it as teaching material and in fact the whole book is available through the Yale Law School Libraries website as a free download it's meant to be out there for people to. Yeah, it's a wonderful, wonderful resource and that you've made it as a free download is absolutely amazing I encourage everyone to look it up. I'm glad you've discovered it because you know a lot of the documents that we dug out of archives and so on are not commonly available, but anyway, we went one document in there which was actually published in newsweek magazine, which describes on the back of the social hall in a church in California, after mass the Republican Party had it was allowed to set up a table, where people could stop by on their way home after mass and change their party registration from Democratic to Republican, I mean, stuff that I mean there's not much subtlety and how we got to where, how we go to where we are today. There's a series of questions in our chat that talk about basically whether or not the question of when life begins has been answered scientifically. There, the position of the person who is writing these questions, I'll try my best to summarize but is basically that there are that based on science whether it be a discussion of embryology or genetics that life begins immediately at conception, and I would just throw out there as somebody who's trained in embryology in obstetrics, and in the science of reproduction and that I do a lot of work on this that that is not something that has been established scientifically that life begins at conception and answer that question and fact there's only one embryologist that would support that viewpoint, the remainder of all embryologists who speak to that question would not agree that it's some sort of settled statement that life immediately begins at conception. That said, there are people who believe that, you know, we're, we're talking about this, this framework of balance balancing a state's interest in protecting a developing fetus that at some point and we could define it for the purposes of this discussion of sustainability becomes something that state could have a strong interest in using the, the current existing framework that will slowly go away, or shortly go away versus the, the rights of a woman to bodily integrity and also frankly to protect herself from the dangers of what, you know, even with our modern advances, bringing a pregnancy all the way to term and delivering is more dangerous than many, many surgeries that we do than many other things. Tell me about it my daughter, I had a baby eight months ago that they had to take early because she did all a preeclampsia. Exactly.  But, but you know, read about maternal, you know, morbidity and mortality if she hadn't had access to good medical care where the doctor said, Hello, you're going in today. You know, who knows what would have happened. Exactly. And even births that go well can still have incredible complications. Even afterwards we have a number of Perry more, you know, Perry delivery deaths that we can't even explain but one question in our chat is, What do you think the motivations are for this higher priority of this incredible political action, higher priority given to 12 week fetus over a woman's right to health. Since there has been more diversity among non Catholic churches in the past as you point out and even diversity among Catholics and Christians in the past. What, where does this come from is it. Do you have any thoughts on that. You know, sort of, you know, feminist thoughts on which is that it's a lot easier to be in love with an instant little fetus than with a complicated adult female person in the world who has needs and makes demands and, you know, doesn't always do what society wants her to do and you know, if abortion didn't involve women, it would be no more controversial than tonsillectomy. The reason it's, I mean, not everyone's going to agree with me they'll talk about fetus that I stipulate to all of that, but really it's the societal devaluing of women's lives. And, you know, I've gone to a few events here at Yale Law School and talk about the huge racial disparity in pregnancy outcomes by race. And it, you know, when I first heard this I could hardly believe how, you know, so how do we explain that well obviously it's the devaluation of black lives. You know, that's, that's the kind of canary in the mind but it's really the devaluation of female lives generally I think. I tend to agree and I think it leads us beautifully into another question that sort of delves further forward into your talk about how Roe was decided on the basis of privacy because it predated any kind of jurisprudence that would support women's equality, you know, that Ginsburg's efforts were exceptional, never got things quite as far as they needed to go before Roe was decided. The question is now that there is greater jurisprudential development on gender equality. And why can't we move towards that in our legal jurisprudence obviously there's there's no support for that in our current in the current court but but would that be a possibility in your mind in the future. Actually, Planned Purity Against Casey which you know kind of reformulated the right does have equality talk in it. And doesn't mention privacy. I don't believe I don't think the word privacy even appears in Casey. So it really is much more of a due process, equality opinion. And some of the briefing in the dobs case in the Mississippi case does offer the court pathways to think about equality but as you said that's not. That's not something they're too likely to respond to but I think, you know, Chris I love Ruth Ginsburg as much as anybody but but she was a historical in her complaint. That Roe should have been based on equality because as I said in the talk and you know it was thanks to her. We got a jurisprudence of equality, but it hadn't happened yet. It hadn't happened then. And of course, you know there never been a woman on the court. The court was you know these nine old guys, and if you read Roe and nobody goes back to read Roe but if you read it it's a surprising opinion because it's really about the rights of doctors. Women don't play much of a role in Roe. And so why is that it's because the the justices I think we're responding to the needs of their peers in the elite professions and so the AMA which actually had, you know in the 19th century had had led the charge to criminalize abortion came or have come around in the late 1960s early 70s to supporting reform decriminalization, whatever. And because doctors like Jane Hodgson, whose name, maybe people know, I thought of her when Texas passed the vigilante the vigilante law because Jane Hodgson from Minnesota, Mayo trained. And I think that was a significant person in those in the early years and into the 1980s on. She had a patient who had contracted German measles and the first trimester and, and she said to the patient, if you're willing, I will do the illegal this is before Roe. And I'll make, I'll make a test case out of us. And the patient said yes and she did. And Dr. Hodgson called the police and she said I've just reformed the abortion come and get me. And they got her, and they arrested her and she was prosecuted and she was convicted. And she was about to be sentenced when Roe came down. And I did a little work for the book in her collected papers which were in the Minnesota Historical Society in Minnesota History Library in in St. Paul.  But it was that kind of thing and her article in the Mayo, whatever it was alumni magazine was in Justice Blackwood's files. When he wrote the decision, wrote the opinion and Roe. So, so they were responding to what was happening to doctors who, out of their good conscience and effort to practice good medicine, were helping their patients terminate pregnancies. But women, women have only walk on roll and roll this way. Absolutely. I want to have a few more minutes. There's been a lot of discussion in the chat and some of it we can't quite get to, but there's a fascinating question raised that's, that's a little bit tangential but I think really important. I wonder if you're familiar with some of the new technological developments of the artificial uterus. The reason I find this this question fascinating it's been raised in a number of talks recently is it. It allows us to consider whether there is a right to terminate a pregnancy ongoing yet not yet allow the state to then continue that pregnancy going forward. The artificial wounds are currently obviously not available to for any utility at the moment, they will probably in the next 10 years be available for for severe prematurity. So to help, you know, infants born in the in the 20 week range reach maturity so that they might survive. There is the potential for them to be available for even earlier terminations as a way to continue a pregnancy and so I know Glenn Cohen from our Petrie Flam has raised this topic in the past and here in the chat one of our participants has raised this as a question. How do those developments affect our conceptualization of a woman's right to make these decisions. Yeah, actually, I had a student who wrote a paper on this. A couple years ago I was co teaching with Rita Segal of course on parenthood and artificial reproductive technology and all the implications. So, you know, my instinct is to say, I'm just refusing a woman's request for an abortion amounts to forced motherhood and should not be tolerated. You know, to insist that a fetus be placed in one of these artificial wounds and plus term on, if that's not what the woman who conceived this entity. It's forced motherhood on the same moral basis. And, you know, I'm sure you can get a profound argument going and I'm just talking off the top of my head and I'm open to, I'm open to persuasion I'm open to arguing. But it seems to me that if we're talking about women's dignity and autonomy as the heart of the question. Not everybody believes that that's even relevant but those of us who believe that's the heart of the question of whether a pregnancy is brought to term in somebody's uterus or, you know, in a plastic box of some kind should shouldn't make a difference. Yeah, it's a really interesting question for me to grapple with again there's a lot of passion and in the questions that are being placed as we would have expected in the chat. And, you know, just to answer some of the things that have been said as again as an embryologist to somebody who practices and reproductive medicine I don't believe the science supports that life begins at conception. And my, my, my frame when I think of a woman's right balanced against this potentiality to terminate a pregnancy has a lot to do with her assessment and maybe this is my bias as a physician, her assessment of the risk of going forward with a pregnancy. And you've now alluded to. So I sit there very comfortably, but, but we do proceed forward with termination and pregnancy when a person isn't really thinking about the risk of going forward and the risk of a delivery or carrying to term, but instead thinking about whether or not they want to become a parent, and I support that as well to some degree but it's a little bit harder, and it's a little bit, it's a little bit tougher when you start thinking about that. Especially when I speak with students who are uncomfortable with some aspects whether they're even identified their position on this highly politicized topic with they're just feeling uncomfortable with it and I think it gets to the heart of that matter. The forced motherhood of courses is not something I would have a support.  I guess that actually a student just last night was telling me, his, his tail on something I never had heard of that. His wife had had a couple of miscarriages caused by it. They had no fertility issue easily pregnant couldn't carry the pregnancy because the fetus had not not tries to meet 13 but a related kind of thing that caused miscarriage and so they decided they needed to go for IVF and select on, you know, a fertilized egg that was not going to have this problem when they now have a couple of healthy kids. So I, but he said we had so many eggs because we're because fertility was not our problem. I said, So what are you doing with all those eggs. He said, Oh, we don't know. That's the question. Yeah, it's very difficult. They're, you know, couple struggle with that with eggs and embryos as well. Any final thoughts we have about six more minutes. Some of the I'm slowly scrolling through and trying my best to catch up with everything that's in the chat. One person pose this would enacting the era obviate the need for abortion laws, or will this issue to minimize the value of women in our society. It's an interesting thought is, you know, would would would enacting a law that guaranteed equal protection, obviate the need for abortion laws. Of course, Phyllis Laughley I don't know whether people saw the mini series of Mrs America that ran during the pandemic to Phyllis Laughley, who was the leading opponent of the era. She said the era would accomplish two things would constitutionalize the right to abortion and would bring women into the military. So we have a constitutional right to abortion we have women in the military we don't have the era. And, you know, the pro era forces at that time were busy saying no wouldn't necessarily constitutionalize abortion there's an interesting, you know, disconnect there. You know that was that would have been the quality route, which, you know, I think Ruth Ginsburg was quite right to say that would have been a firmer footing as a constitutional matter for the right had it been available. Yeah. I agree with that. Let's see. I can't see anything else in here but I wonder if you could. That's different, you know there's a lot of repetition of some of the things we've already addressed. The one thing that hasn't come up in the chat that I think would be really interesting is if you could speak to how you see things rolling out I agree with you I think row will be overturned, and that will become an issue for states to address. I think given all of your experience and your expertise what you see as the future as states go forward with enacting their own potentially their own constant, you know state constitutional rights to to abortion, obviously on the coasts and you know we know which states will be which but, but how will that look. The one thing we don't know is how mobilize how mobilizing that situation would be because half of the electorate are women. And, you know, women in in these states, well a we know half the lecturers women I'm not assuming that every woman is pro choice we know that's not the case. We do know that more than a third, you may know the current data but I think that more than a third of American women will have an abortion sometime in their reproductive lifetimes and so whether somebody supports the right to abortion doesn't they often end up terminating a pregnancy. So, will this situation be so mobilizing and motivating in states that are trying to do what Texas did and what I guess they're Arkansas is now on the verge of doing that by legislation, they'll protect the right. That's really up to up to we the people. And I think that's kind of the only, the only route, or we're going to have a country where you're like an underground railroad of, you know, women in desperate conditions traveling long distances to states that will let them exercise their rights to autonomy. The first or maybe second document we have in the, in the book is a little type piece of paper that I found in the archives, it might have been from Larry Lader's files on much but it was in the archives at this lesson your library. And it's called on emergency instructions for going to Japan. Yeah, told number to call you know how to do it, what to say to the taxi driver in Tokyo and this kind of thing. And, you know, are we going to go back there. It's possible for some people. I think we have one minute left but there was a very astute comment as we were talking about the electorate that noted the extensive photo suppression laws, and how those will affect this as well. So I think that's a good point to think about that it's becoming more and more difficult for us to express our views at the ballot box. I've found this a wonderful conversation. I know there's been a lot of passion in the, in the, in the chat. And just to address some of some of that passion what I, you know, I, the statements that I've personally made about my beliefs on how about when, whether when life begins as scientifically proven I will stand by. As you know we were talking about that there's still a balance there's still a state's interest in protecting a developing pregnancy it's just about figuring out where that balance lies and I actually always have loved the framework of, of creating a balance between those interests, which I think if I understood your, your excellent talk correctly you were also very much in favor of that balance framework as it was written. I learned so much and hearing from you today thank you so much for for agreeing to give us this talk today. Well thank you I'm just sorry it's virtual and I would have enjoyed being a Mass General and maybe I'll get to meet people in person someday. I would love that. That would be wonderful. I hope we can have you back. Thank you to everyone for participating and for engaging and what's a really difficult topic for all of us and I'm really grateful for all the viewpoints here. Bye bye.


Hi, during these trying times of the pandemic, the City of Columbia Parks and Recreation Department realizes that choices can be limited in enhancing one's physical, social, and mental well-being. The Parks and Recreation staff have been involved in developing a number of videos in which citizens can participate in and enjoy in the privacy of their own home. These videos consist of arts and crafts, gardening, physical activity, and sports instruction, with many more to come as we work through this pandemic. Our videos will be available to you on a number of our social media outlets. We hope you enjoy and thank you very much. Good morning. My name is Bohumela Augustineva. I'm here today at Columbia Art Center and we are part of Parks and Recreations for City of Columbia. Today, I will show you how to play with alcohol ink. This is a very colorful and easy technique that anybody can do. If children are doing it, you might want to have adults to kind of play along, but I believe that adults will enjoy it as much as children would. So here I have a few samples. These styles are, or what I would recommend is that you can use tiles that have a very sleek glaze finish, so no texture or matte finish is recommended, nice and glossy. And if you're using small 4x4, they make wonderful coasters. If you're using the little bigger ones, 6x6, then you can use them as a hot plate or anything around the house. I would recommend them mostly for indoor use. If they get exposed to water too much, they might actually fade. So what you're going to need today is alcohol ink. You can buy these at any craft stores. They usually come in a smaller set of 6 in different color palettes.  So first thing you do is that you clean the tile. And I'm going to start with a bigger tile so everybody can see what I'm doing. Spray it really, really well with alcohol and give it a good clean. And I am actually going to do this twice just to make sure that we didn't leave any debris behind. If you're doing this as a group activity, I would recommend to grab a sharpie and put your initials or your name on the back of your tile. Okay, now that the tile is nice and clean, you can decide on your color palette. Now this is not something that you want to plan as a painting. What you're going to end up with is an abstract piece. Of course you can add simple shapes, but that's usually after you've been playing with this for a while. So let's see, I'm going to take this nice little blue. And actually I'm going to get my tiles nice and soaked with alcohol. I actually have the alcohol in a few different versions here. I have a few different spray bottles because each spray bottle has a different effect on the alcohol itself. So I can just start dropping some of this on the tile and kind of just moving it around. So when the tile is wet, it will definitely have that watery feel to it and then it starts showing little bubbles in it.  So you see what it does when I drop it on a dry area. If I drop it on a dry area, it will make a more of a perfect dot and it will kind of spread slowly. But it doesn't move as nicely as when you have the tile wet. Let's add some other colors to this. And I'm kind of going to leave the tile as it is, so a little corner is dry and the rest of it is wet. And I think this pretty blue would look good with nice bright red. And you can kind of overlay some of the colors. It's fun to see how they blade into each other and change colors. So you see from this nice bright tomato red to this nice beautiful deep kind of purple. So it changes a lot and it's a really beautiful process. Let's introduce another color to this. Maybe yellow would be pretty. And sometimes I drop them kind of right on the top of other colors. If you do too many colors at the same time, the piece can start looking muddy. But the colors can easily take over and add some bright green. We'll see what it does. So like you, when I'm doing this, I have no idea what the tile is going to look like. It is a better idea to come in with the concept of, okay, maybe I can pick a color palette, but you actually don't know. And that's a fun part of playing with the alcohol ink. So pieces of it are becoming a little dark and muddy.  You can use the tile over and over until you really are happy with your result.  Just put on latex gloves. If you do get your hands dirty like this, best thing to do is to do dishes. Let's do this again. Just done. I left the tile dry. And as you see, the pieces are kind of starting to melt into each other. And it's a really pretty, even fun process. Now, I want to show you something different. So if you cover your surface, you can actually take a spray bottle. And it really depends. Each spray bottle has a different type of spray, so it will affect the finish differently. And I can just do a quick spray, and it's going to change it just like that. Actually, I'm going to work on the top of this now. I'd like to introduce some different colors. Oh, this is a pretty one. That's my favorite color. I use it on every tile I do. And so you see that everything you do changes completely the entire look of the piece. And now, clearly, we have a lot more moisture on the top of the surface. So the ink moves differently. And I'm going to show you. This is a different spray bottle. So it's going to have a slightly different effect on the piece. All right. Then you do simple cleanup. Just clean your alcohol, your brush really well. You don't want to have any alcohol on it when you're using it for different projects. I would recommend to clean really well your bottles. The little bottles will actually last you quite a long time, even though it seems like that's really a little bit of material it will last for quite a bit. If you use a metallic, metallics are difficult to work with, and they're very easily can take over the piece and just enjoy. For classes of alcohol ink here at Columbia Art Center, those are classes for adults, but they are very popular, so they usually sell out. So hopefully when we reopen and offer classes again, you can come and join us. It is really fun to do this as a group activity. Also it's something you can do with your friends. It's a great activity to while you're drinking wine with your girlfriends. But as I say, you can do this also with children. Just because there is alcohol involved, I would make sure that there is also adult present.


Well good evening. I hope you have all had a wonderful day today. I know I've had enjoyed it thoroughly and appreciate so much all of our fantastic speakers and appreciate all of you for participating and being here this evening. So I'm honored to introduce tonight's keynote speaker, retired four star general Michael Hayden. General Hayden was born into a blue-collar family in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania at the end of World War II and went on to earn a bachelor's and master's degree in history at Duquesne University before entering active military service in 1969. I also know he was on the football team. I also know anyway so he a great a great time as a young man. So in addition to his four decades of service in the Air Force, General Hayden served as director of the National Security Agency, deputy director of national intelligence, and director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Today he is a principal at the Chertof Group, a security consultancy, and co-chair of the Bipartisan Policy Center's Electric Grid Cybersecurity Initiative. He also serves as a distinguished visiting professor at George Mason University School of Policy and Government. It is particularly notable that General Hayden in his three intelligence positions was appointed by presidents of both parties, presidents Clinton and Bush, and confirmed overwhelmingly by the Senate with support of both parties each time. In his national security roles, General Hayden provided trusted intelligence information to advise presidents for relations and the military. General Hayden is known for calling it how he sees it and without a partisan agenda. He did not shy away from controversial decisions made in his intelligence positions, and since leaving government, as most of you have seen in the news, he's raised important security questions about positions and actions of both parties. And most recently, the New York Times selected General Hayden's best-selling memoir, Playing to the Edge, American Intelligence in the Age of Terror, as one of the 100 most notable books in 2016. And if you haven't read this, I highly encourage you to do so. But it is from the perspective of his current work at the Bipartisan Policy Center, in particular, that General Hayden will give his perspective on threats to global energy infrastructure, including cyber attacks. While our new world of the internet of everything provides wonderful benefits like improving productivity, reducing costs, and even the prospects for driverless cars, our cyber vulnerability is growing exponentially. Critical infrastructures that are the backbone of our economy and security are at risk. Our electricity system, fuel distribution, transportation, and communications. And as we learned so vividly during this past election season, almost everything can be hacked. General Hayden has received too many awards and honors to mention, but before I turn over the podium to him, I would like to congratulate him for receiving just last week the Air Force Academy's highest honor, the Character and Leadership Award. Congratulations, General Hayden. Thank you to your service to our country, and thank you for joining us at the Global Energy Forum. Please join me in welcoming General Hayden. Thank you. That was a very generous introduction by Sally. Almost all of it was hyperbole, except the part where she said, you're really ought to buy the book. That was right there. So as Sally said, the task I got when I began my correspondence with Carl was threats to infrastructure, particularly energy infrastructure, and special attention to cyber threats. We could be here all night trying to fill that box with that kind of tasking. So I'm going to tell you right up front, I just picked a couple of areas to look at. If I didn't pick your favorite one, I'll be here tonight and tomorrow. Come on up to me afterwards, we can talk about it. But I've got two main lanes that I just, what's the right word? I want to give you environmental conditions in these lanes. All right, I'm not going to go that, you know, if this, therefore that, and you need to go do this in terms of specific threats, but there are fundamental changes taking place that are shaping the threat environment in which you, your industry, and you personally have to live, all right? I'm going to use two tonight. And again, there are others, we can talk about them at our leisure later. So first of all, I've got this slide up here. One approach would have been just to kind of go around the clock here and talk about each one of these and how they are a destabilizing force in the world today, you know, start there about two o'clock with the fun-loving Kim family of Northeast Asia. Go around here to six o'clock to Vladimir Vladimirovich, and I am going to get to him before we're done, all right? But again, the choice is, let me give you some environmental conditions that are going on rather than, well, frankly, trying to follow the shiny silver object, trying to predict what's the headline tomorrow morning, back to more fundamental things.  Three macro statements that when I'm asked to talk about these kinds of things, I feel compelled to make. As dark as I'm going to be for the rest of our time together, I'm old enough to remember a world actually more dangerous than the one we're living in. I remember Cuba in the missile crisis. I remember Soviet and American armor barrel-to-barrel at Checkpoint, Charlie. I remember going to the DEFCON 3 when we thought the Russians were shipping special weapons to the Arabs in the October 73 war. I have seen it more dangerous. I have never seen it more complicated. And if we wanted to sit here and parse out what's going on in Syria with Kurds and ISIS and al-Qaeda and the Turks and the Russians, never more complicated. And finally, I've never seen it more immediate. And that actually might be the most telling bolt on the slide for what we're talking about here tonight, okay? And by immediate, I just don't mean cell phone video that you're going to be able to see tonight from some unhappy spot with some unhappy event, although that's part of it. I mean when something happens over here, stuff goes bump over here substantially and nearly immediately. That interconnectivity is a big deal. All right, so I told you I'm only going to talk about two broad environmental conditions. In another presentation, when I lay it out a little longer, I call them tectonics, all right? And so I've got two broad tectonic shifts out there that are shaping security threats. This is tectonic one. So you all watching TV on your breaks here. You know, the Republicans are up in Philadelphia. All of the members of the Senate and the House are doing their annual get together to try to get kind of a mind meld on trade and deficit and entitlements. So I was at the one last year. The one last year was in Baltimore. And I was on the national security panel, all right? I was there with Mike Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security. A name I know you know. Ray Odirno, maybe not quite as familiar, but Ray had just left being Chief of Staff of America's Army. Ryan Crocker, one of America's most magnificent diplomats. We have sent this poor man to be ambassador to every troubled spot on the planet. He has been in Baghdad, Kabul, and Islamabad. He was in Beirut in the embassy and blown off his feet in the Beirut embassy bombing in the early 1980s. Ryan Crocker, me, and Bob Kagan. Bob is from Brookings, a middle of the road, highly regarded think tank in Washington. So we're talking there, trying to set the stage for the Republicans to think about national security issues.  You know, I think you're paying attention, but you're certainly not rudely interrupting and raising your hand and jumping up and down. That's what Republicans do at this convention. This actually became a generalized scrum. First of all, the panel was too big. There were five of us.  Then the members who kind of have a sense of entitlement, you know, a member of the House, a member of the Senate, they started throwing questions at us. Then they start going back and forth to one another. Finally, Kagan, the Brookings guy, all right, the political scientist. Bob just kind of levitates out of his chair raises his arms like this and says, look, what's going on is the melting down of the post-World War II American liberal Bretton Woods World Bank IMF World Order. Get it? And I had to thought, damn, that's good. Seriously, that is a very, very insightful statement. So the first tectonic is, well, things that you and I thought were permanent, like that post-World War II order, they're not. And I'm going to show you a couple other things that are melting away here, too. By the way, that post-World War II order, it's got stamp made in America on it. We did that. We created that 75 years ago. And as ugly as you think the world has been for the last 75 years, that is the most prosperous, most educated, healthiest, most peaceful 75 years in the history of our species. 100 years from now when we're back here at Vale and we're talking about big thoughts, we Americans are going to get a pretty good grade for this. But Bob's point was, this is going away, melting, eroding, largely by natural causes. The world on which it was based, the world it was designed to service has changed. Beyond that, and this is one I really want to share with you, this guy ain't helping. You can actually look at what Vladimir Putin has been doing. And you can actually, the best way to connect the dots of all the things he's doing is to accelerate what it was Bob Kagan said was going on. In other words, his strategic vision is to erode that world order I just described for you, faster than we can adapt it and accommodate it to the world in which we're in, get it? Now, here's the deal. Russia is not a resurgent power. Russia is a revanchist power, but it's not resurgent. And the people in this room with this industry probably understand this pretty well. I mean these guys are running out of just about everything they need to be somebody. They're running out of entrepreneurship in terms of the slice of the Russian economy that is state-owned enterprise gets bigger and bigger by the week. Certainly run out of democracy. Not quite running out of oil and gas, but at current prices and current technology available to them, running out of the abode to pull it out. And most fundamentally, they're running out of Russians. This is a declining population, declining birth rate, but mostly because life expectancy has gone down. Now, Vladimir based his legitimacy in term one on, frankly, oil at over $100 a barrel and a sovereign wealth fund that was busting through the roof. He comes back for round, so the social contract is, hey, I may be a bit of an autocrat, but don't worry. We're going to be rich. He comes back for round two after Medvedev is president for a term. Oil is not where it is. His economy is deteriorated. How then does he get his legitimacy? It's no longer having to be autocratic, but don't worry. You're going to be wealthy. It's I'm going to be autocratic, but don't worry.  And essentially what he is trying to do is to address historic Russian grievances. I heard him described as a patriot, not a Russian patriot, a Soviet patriot. His vision of his world is what you and I used to call the Soviet Union. He, bear with me for a silly metaphor, based upon the weakness of the Russian state, the fundamental flaws within anything that makes them powerful. You need to imagine him as sitting at a kitty chair at the kitty table. And over here, you've got people like us sitting at the big table in the adult chairs. He, and this is the purpose of what he's doing. He wants to sit at this table. He can't make his chair much bigger. So the plan is to make the table and the chairs over here much smaller. And what he has done is to, in essence, orchestrate an attack on all those things that make this table as tall and as comfortable as it was. He has attacked NATO. He has attacked the European Union. And he's attacked the Western concept of democracy, which is our most precious strength in this global competition. Sorry, long, long explanation, but I wanted you to get that. Other things are changing. That map up there, you're, I guess, you're right. That's the map you and I grew up with. Okay, that's one I certainly had in grammar school, high school, I had in college. They tricked us. They told me that was the map. Turns out it's just a map. All I want to point out is that countries we thought were kind of permanent, like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, they're gone. And then if you go to the map in the middle, let me just cut to the chase here. Iraq no longer exists. It's not going back together. The only organized military force in Iraq, as we speak, that is fighting on behalf of what you and I used to think of as Iraq are the 5,100 GIs. There is no other organized military force in that country fighting for Iraq. They're doing a lot of fighting, but it's for their particular part of Iraq. I'll say the same thing with regard to Syria. That country is disintegrated and is not going back together again. I was on morning job maybe six months ago. Secretary Kerry, former Secretary of State, was trying to push another ceasefire under the Russians and all the other players there. And I was being appropriately pessimistic about it. All right. I said it was a noble effort, but it wasn't going to work. And we're about ready to cut to commercial. I'm in D.C., the rest of them are up in New York. And before they cut to commercial, I said, Joe, I'm sorry, can I just say one more thing? Yeah, yeah, General, go ahead. I said, Joe, when Secretary Kerry pushed this plan, and it was a noble effort, futile, but noble, when he pushed this plan, he said, this may be our last chance to preserve a unitary Syria. Joe, that train is so far out of the station, you can't even see the smoke from the engine. This country is not going back together. That may also apply to Lebanon, and I'm convinced it applies to Libya. What I'm trying to describe for you here is that if you think of this as a polynomial equation, remember the things you have to solve in algebra class back in high school? You know, solve for x, solve for y. Remember, it used to have variables and constants, and then you went about solving for, yeah. There are no variables in this polynomial, I'm sorry, there are no constants in this polynomial. The things we thought were the units around which we could organize our actions turned out to be ephemeral. And so when somebody says, we need to change governments in Syria, Bashar al-Assad has to go and we got to kill Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the head of ISIS, that's actually a good idea. He should go and the other guy should die. But that's not putting these countries back together. I'm trying to give you a sense here of very long-term turmoil. And if that's not bad enough, how about this? In addition to all those borders changing and the post-World War II border changing, fundamental things that we have used to understand the global system are now jump balls. That picture, upper left, that's an artist's rendition of the signing of the Treaty of West Failure in 1648. That is the last great war of religion in the Western world. And at the end of that 30 years war, which was hideously bloody, at the end of that 30 years war, we in the West, by the way, we date being modern from 1648, we in the West decided that we're going to put questions of theology over here, and we're going to put questions of science over here. We're going to put coercive power of the state in this corner. We're going to put matters of faith over in this. In other words, we began to back the state out of questions of faith. And we arrived at a compromise in the Western world as to how we balanced matters of science and matters of religion. All right. I could go on about this, but I want to talk about a lot of other stuff. We thought that was the solution. And in the age of European supremacy, we exported that solution. We called them secular nation states to the rest of the world. And we thought that that was done, 1648 solved it. All I'm trying to describe for you is it's now back in play. That blob in the middle of that map is the Islamic state. It is a state that's still functioning, not going to be functioning for a lot longer, but it's still functioning based on the premise that any man-made institution, the secular state, is on its face blasphemous because it puts a man-made entity between the creator and his creatures. Again, I'm trying to suggest you, we're getting back to fundamentals here. All right. You just saw on the last slide, right? I says that's Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the caliph. We have, as we speak, a great civil war in one of the world's great monotheisms. Islam, actually, the parallels are pretty strong. Islam is going through the struggle that we in Christendom went through in the 17th century. Islam is trying to come up with its balance between faith and reason. It would be arrogant for any of us to assume that our balance will be their balance. But we'd be on pretty strong grounds to say that this debate is going to be as ugly as the debate was within Christianity in the 17th century, where one-third of the German-speaking population of Europe died. All these guys have that we didn't back in the day is social media. We get to see the violence during this civil war. By the way, whether or not it's a civil war is a matter of debate in the American political system. Can you make out the titles on the books I just selected here? And then the question I ask, is this a war between civilizations? Remember the campaign language?   All right? Or is it a war within a civilization, a war within Islam? Frankly, I think it's the latter. I think we suffer if we identify it as the former. Those within Islam whom we don't want to win have as their narrative that there is undying enmity between their monotheism and ours. And I have no idea why then we would want to reinforce that by saying, yes, they hate us.  The problem is fanatical Islam. There are great and serious issues within the religion, but it's more about what's happening within it than what's happening between it and us. Now, I get all the damage. I get Boston. I get San Bernardino. I get Orlando. I get Paris. I get Brussels. But I offer you the view that spillage from what is fundamentally a war inside, as I've repeat, this great monotheism. All right? So my point based upon the tasking that Karl gave me, what are the threats out there, is that this is going to be unstable for a generation or more. This isn't a modest correction with regard to governance in Syria or Iraq. This civil war, the melting of these borders, these fundamental questions are going to keep this region boiling for the next 20 to 30 years. I'm not convinced it means America's Air Force is going to be bombing and strafing here for the next generation, but it's not settling down. And just given the world's geological formations and where this is fundamentally happening, where this epicenter is, this is going to be a source of instability for your industry for as far as anyone can plan. All right? Second, second, Tectonic. And I actually covered some of this last year when I was here, so I'll speed through it. That's Brent Scowcroft. Brent's one of the great strategic minds we've ever created. And Brent was national security advisor not once, but twice. Ford and Bush 41. And Brent wrote an article about, pushed about five years ago now, April of 2012, in which he said, you know, when I was doing my thing, all the pieces on the board I cared about were nation states. And the way I moved them around was through what you and I now call hard power, you know, masses of men in metal. And what Brent points out in this article is really insightful, is that neither of those sentences, all I care about are nation states and the way I moved them around is through hard power. Neither of them are as true as they were when he was doing his thing. And he points out he was doing his thing at the height, Ford, and the back end, 41, of the industrial era. And what Brent points out is that in the industrial era, most things trended to strengthen the center. In the industrial era, you weren't a somebody unless you had strong centralized power. Now, in a different format, I spend 10 or 15 minutes on this because I think it's so important. But fundamentally, oh, here, how about this? I'm old enough to remember when making a phone call was such a difficult undertaking, you and I could entrust it only to a government or a government-controlled monopoly. Now, these cadets up here are saying, what is this man talking about? All right? But most of you in the room remember that. Remember an era in which complex tasks could only be performed by an empowered center. That's the industrial era. We are no longer in that era. We are in, pick your title, the post-industrial, globalized, worldwide web, interconnected, information-based era. And what Brent points out in this article as the industrial era pulled power to the center, the era in which we now live pushes power to the edges. Things that we used to be able to only get from an empowered, powerful nation state are now within the reach of groups, gangs, actors, and even individuals. And for the most part, that's a wonderful world. You and I are incredibly empowered by it. One more silly. I'm old enough. I'm old enough to remember I used to have to put a shirt on, drive the car, park the car, get out of the car, go into a building, and talk to a human being to get my money. Okay? All right? I'm old enough to remember only two nations used to take pictures in space. And only one of us did it well. And if you're of a mind when you go back to your rooms tonight and use the Wi-Fi here, you can go on Google Earth, look at North Korea with imagery of sufficient resolution to tell me whether or not Kim the youngest is stacking a table-dung missile. Do you see what I'm saying? Whereas the one era pulled power up into the center, this era pushes power down into the edges. And for the most part, we love that. But I'm also old enough to remember I never lost any sleep over religious fanatic living in a cave in the Hindu Kush. And this era of empowerment, this post-industrial era, the pushes power down and out to the edges has created an entirely different kind of threat for you and me. Things that we thought could go bump in the night, no, things that were really bad, the real big bump in the night that was only within reach of a malevolent nation state are now within reach of sub-state groups, gangs, and actors.   So we've begun to deal with terrorism and now we're trying to deal with one of the things Karl asked me to talk about, what's the threat coming to us from the cyber domain? Lots of things can go wrong. I won't dwell on any of these. It's just kind of a category of sins in the cyber domain. Many of you probably experienced some of these. All of you have read about all these. What can go on in the cyber domain by sub-state groups, gangs, and individuals? Now I get it, nation states can do this, but it doesn't require a nation state to do it. It can be done by criminal gangs or just that last group. That's my way of describing that 400 pound guide the current president said was doing the hacking. That isolated individual who is talented enough to actually wreak harm on all of us. By the way, this industry in particular should fear that vector of threat because this industry more than most I talk to is iconic in its image to the rest of the world and your existence may be sufficient for people in that last group to feel as if they need to punish you or to disable your enterprise. So we've seen a lot of this. You read the paper, you've gotten into these. This is a big one. This is a movie, Zero Days. Alex Gimney documentary. I'm in it a bit. This is the cyber attack against the Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz, where someone, not further identified, someone launched a weapon comprised of ones and zeros to convince a whole cascade of centrifuges at Natanz, about a thousand of them, to spin at self-destructive speeds while the controllers were looking at their data and fundamentally being told there's nothing interesting to see here. And they didn't know that these centrifuges were destroying themselves until they began to hear the snap, crackle and pop from the centrifuge hall. It's just an example that in this domain, a weapon, again, comprised of ones and zeros, created great physical destruction. How about this one? Been in the paper a couple years ago, Sony attack, I'm sorry, North Korean attack on Sony, North America. Now, to be fair here, there's a modest amount of good news. This was a horrible movie. And because of the Sony attack, we didn't have to pay to not watch it. But picture this was done by a nation state, all right? But picture, again, what am I trying to, the instability, the newness, the disruption of the world in which we're now living. A nation state conducted a cyber attack against a North American based enterprise in order to punish it and coerce its behavior. That's really different. And I would suggest to you that Sony, North America might not be the only industry that would be attractive to actors out there for this kind of coercion. And then we got this one. I don't know. Have you been reading about this out here in Colorado? Yeah. This is the Russian Federation, hacking the emails of Colin Powell, John Podesta, the Democratic National Committee, the Democrat Committee for Congressional Candidates as well, stealing the emails, then weaponizing the data and throwing the data back through WikiLeaks, through a site the Russians themselves built called DCLeaks, putting internet trolls out there to highlight the data, to bring it forward into the consciousness of the world, but particularly you and me in an effort, back to slide three or four, in an effort to accelerate what Bob Kagan was talking about, the erosion, corrosion, collapse of the post World War II order largely created by American liberal international thought. I should add to, there is no doubt that the Russians did this. And a fascinating study watching, by the way, if we had done something like this, and I would be the last person to claim we've never done anything like this to somebody, all right, but if we had done something like this, we would have called it a covert influence campaign. This is the most successful covert influence campaign in human history. And the motive seemed to have shifted. It was, first of all, just mess with our heads. And then it was working so well that I think they decided, well, let's punish Hillary Clinton because actually, Vladimir's got real complaints about Hillary. She was very critical of Russian elections in 2011. Let me be very straightforward. He hates her. And so he was quite happy to use the emails to punish her. And then they thought she was going to win, so then they kind of slid in their motivation to use the emails to make her a weaker president when she became president, to kind of erode her legitimacy with all the towing and throwing in the emails. Then finally, probably late September-ish, October-ish, it's pretty clear they made the decision this other guy might win. And it seems pretty clear they began to put their thumb on the scale. Now let me quickly add, the current president of the United States is the legitimate president of the United States. And whether or not that thumb on the scale affected one vote is unknowable, and so we're done talking about it, but I'm just trying to describe for you how disruptive this new universe is in terms of trying to create the kind of stability you need for your industry to prosper. And here's just another example of using a cyber weapon to create physical effects. It's about 13 months ago, the Russians turned out the lights for three-quarters of a million Ukrainian homes. So where are we now? Where are we going as a nation? This is a quote from the president-elect at the time. If you look at the bottom half of the slide, it sounds tough. We're going to launch our military forces to protect us in the cyber domain, but I think frankly it's a really bad idea to launch DOD on this. This is not in their wheelhouse for lots of reasons, technological, legal, even political-cultural. Our government has been late to need servicing your needs in the cyber domain. It's not our government's fault. I was in that government 39 years. I try to do this. But because of our sensitivities about our civil liberties and our privacy, there are powerful pushbacks against really empowering the government to, let me use this phrase, walk the beat in the digital domain. Janine and I, my wife's here with me, we're doing a lot of traveling, but we live in McLean, Virginia. So imagine we're going to get home Monday. So imagine Monday night I can't sleep, right?  I can tell you my instinct at seeing that is, I like that. That's my tax dollars at work. I like the fact that Fairfax County is protecting me. Now you imagine whatever it is you think the digital equivalent is, and there is no one in this room can say they're happy with that.  And the instinctive reaction from Americans is, no. Which then means that in terms of actually defending ourselves in this domain, the private sector has an incredibly powerful role to play. And I'm just going to end with a few thoughts on the private sector and the role they need to have. Yeah, so you're probably wondering why I've got Ulysses Grant and Robert E. Lee up here. I can make it work. Give me a minute. When the Department of Defense issues an execute order, there's a paragraph in there called command.  All right, get prime, secondary. In the Civil War, when these guys wrote orders, they would say something like, sir, sir, your core, sir, your core is the main body. And you gentlemen, you will conform the movements of your core to the movements of the main body. You get the relationship? With 39 years in government, I thought that the main body in keeping America safe in the cyber domain was the main body responsible for keeping America safe in physical space, the government. I am now convinced that this domain is so different, the dynamics I've been trying to suggest to you, so disruptive that actually the main body in this domain is the private sector. And if I go back here and you got President Trump saying, I'm going to launch the Starfleet from the Department of Defense to defend us, actually I think the right answer is for the Department of Defense and the rest of the federal government to tuck themselves in behind the private sector. And to be supportive of the private sector in terms of empowering, removing impediments, giving them broader legal authority, sharing information more quickly and more readily, and so on to make the private sector all it can be because for lots of reasons they're going to want to lose this bad one cyberspace. With regard to your infrastructure, my emails, your websites, the private sector is on point. This is an important one. This is putting an exclamation point and highlighting in yellow what I just tried to say to you. You all familiar with San Bernardino and the iPhone and Director Comey and Tim Cook and you got to bust the encryption, I got to get into the phone, remember all that? Yeah, okay. Would it surprise you that Mike Hayden, Mike McConnell, former director of NSA, former director of national intelligence, Mike Chertoff, former secretary of homeland security, Dave Petraeus, former whole bunch of things in the military, and Keith Alexander, also a former director of NSA, all of us sided with Apple. Now that, a lot of people instinctively said, what? What? Jim Comey had a good case. In order to do his job, he would be enabled by getting inside that phone. But we ultimately said, we're not sure that's a good idea. Not for civil liberty, not for privacy.  There are no expectations of privacy for dead people, all right? And it wasn't because we didn't think the government had the right, didn't have the right to do it. Of course the government had the right to do it. Get a warrant. Tell them to open it up. We objected to the demand on purely security grounds. Director Comey had a strong security argument to get into the phone. If you have believed what I just told you, if the private sector is on point for keeping us safe in that domain, then you should think three or four times before even for legitimate security reasons in physical space, you make it harder for the private sector to do what I've just suggested to you is what only they can do to keep us safe in the cyber domain. That argument I just gave you has really gotten a fair bit of traction in DC. And so I'm just trying to suggest to you that this put the private guys on point is actually gaining some energy. President Trump appointed Rudy Giuliani to former mayor of New York appointed Rudy Giuliani to head up a 90-day look at how we do cyber. Giuliani has made it very, very clear that he agrees with what I've just told you, that the secret sauce here is to enable the private sector. Now the government has a role. There are some things only governments can do. But I guess the homily for the industry I'm addressing here tonight is you're going to be more responsible for your personal safety in cyberspace than you've been responsible for your safety in physical space since the closing of the American frontier in 1880. And you're going to have to turn to American industry more often than the American government to give you what it is you need to keep you safe there. This is just a classic risk equation. Risk is equal to threat times vulnerability times consequence. I can use it for aerial combat. I can use it for automobile insurance. It's just a constant risk equation. All I want to suggest to you is that the private sector is going at it in each one of those factors. By the way, you all quickly notice this multiplication, right? So if you get any one of the factors kind of hugging near zero, you're kind of okay. The history of cybersecurity, again, I'm talking private sector, has been in the vulnerability reduction, you know, McAfee, Symantec, firewalls, passwords, hygiene. That's good. Keep doing it. I talked to Kevin Mandia. Kevin owned the Mandian Corporation bought by FireEye. Kevin was a captain when I was a two star. Hey, Kevin worked for me. He's done very well. All right. Having sold Mandian for 1.5 billion to FireEye. All right. But he still talks to his old boss. And when I talked to Kevin about V, he says, boss, if you do V perfectly, the vulnerability reduction, you're going to keep 80% of the bad people out of your network, which is a good idea. But you understand what the other side is, right? 20% are getting in. So now where private industry is, they're in consequence or consequence management. It's presumption of breach. They're getting in. Get over it. Quick, quit whining. Defend yourself. Where V is about prevention, C is about resilience, recovery, discovery, response. And then there is private industry over here with regard to threat. Now in physical space, threat is about threat reduction. All right.  Hard to do in cyberspace. What we're seeing in T in the private domain, private sector now is not threat reduction, but threat intelligence. And there are amazing companies out there who can provide you and your industry cyber threat warning of the kind that looks very familiar to the former director of CIA and NSA. In any event, we could dwell, like I said, we're speeding through a lot of stuff here. It's hard to get all of this into a box. The private sector is active in all of these. And you as an industry need to interact with that private sector to make yourself more safe in this domain. Again, the first instinct is don't turn just to the government. All right. That's the last slide. I'm looking for something happy to say here and not thinking of very much. All right. But again, remember where I began. I wanted to give you a sense of environmental conditions. The two big ones, cyber domain remains a very vulnerable domain. And the longer we go in this, the more I'm convinced that the secret sauce, the answer, the best response comes from the private sector, not government. And the other is the melting down of things we thought were permanent. Not just the structures we had out there, but the tools we had to preserve the structures are going away. So it is going to be a very turbulent 20 to 30 years. And unfortunately, the epicenter of the turbulence is going to be in a part of the world in which this industry is very, very much involved with that. I'll stop. I think it's how we got a few questions. I'm happy to take whatever use you've dished up. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. That was fabulous. First question. How has the export of Wahhabism from Saudi Arabia impact or how is it impacting the civil war in the Middle Eastern civilization? Yeah. So this is back to the civil war in Islam. All right. And talk about Wahhabism, which is a particularly fanatical form of Islam. I almost get emotional about this. I mean, I'm a pretty tough guy. I'm a security guy, right? But if you look at what is going on inside this religion and know what has gone on inside, for those of you who are Christians in the room, what has gone on inside Christendom 400 years ago, you can see really, very powerful echoes. And we've decided, we're going to separate the secular and the sacred. Islam got that now as a jump ball. So the Wahhabis are one group in that internal debate within Islam that really demands that which we in the West rejected in the 17th century, that really demands that man should be governed only by God and manmade institutions shouldn't get in between.  I apologize. All right. The three monotheisms, Christianity, Judaism and Islam all come out of the same desert. We're all people of the book. We're all children of Abraham. They're powerful, common roots. Christianity got washed through the Greeks as it came out of those deserts. And so we in Christianity, depending on a denomination in different measures, we in Christianity allow a fair amount of space for what you and I would call human intervention, human reason, even in questions of faith. Islam doesn't get washed through the Greeks. Islam remains that fundamentally transcendental religion that came out of the came out of the desert and remains in the desert. So this debate is going to be very, very difficult. Wahhabism is over here on one side and it remains to be seen where it goes. The fundamental departure point for all this is 1979. In 1979, you had the Iranian revolution, a fundamentalist regime taking over what at that point had been a very successful secular state. You had the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. For them, that's the secular against the sacred. That's Christianity against Islam. And you had the occupation of the Grand Mosque in Mecca by Wahhabist. The occupation of the Grand Mosque in Mecca by these Wahhabist fanatics was so upsetting to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia that in my mind, they made a deal with the devil. They essentially said, there will be nobody to our religious right. In other words, the way we're going to handle Wahhabism is we're going to put our arms around it and we're going to hug it. And therefore they will not be a threat to the monarchy and to the kingdom. I think the Saudis now recognize it is what I told you it was, a deal with the devil and they're trying to unstick themselves from it. And that's part of the civil war that's going on. A related question. So on your maps of where this civil war was taking place, if I'm not incorrect, the boundary was on the Eastern boundary of Iran. And there's Afghanistan, there's Pakistan. There are also other nations with a large Islamic population. Are they all in this sort of same civil war? Or are those spillover? And are the boundaries going to grow? So what's happened, all right, in the last four or five years with ISIS, the spread of ISIS, Boko Haram in Nigeria is what you just described. That which had been confined to a relatively small number of actors, al-Qaeda largely in Pakistan, Afghanistan grows to Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Chad. And what you've got now is the geographic spread of what it is I'm trying to describe for you, this grand struggle inside this religion. Overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly all the dead people who were made dead by this struggle are Muslim. The number of what you and I would call Westerners, all right, who have been killed by this, significant by our standards, Paris is awful, Brussels is awful. But it's a very small fraction compared to the deaths inside of Islam. And it's that fight is spreading and spreading.  So when you're approached to this struggle, which should be taken on some existential historical tones for you here, when you're approached to this struggle is we're going to bomb the blank out of them, and then we're going to come home, that's not going to solve this. This is their issue. We can tuck it in here, we can tuck it in here, we can influence it there, we have a right to defend ourselves, I don't mind the bombing. All right, but this is going to go on until it's resolved within Islam. Well, you know, we've come to the end of our time. So there are questions that didn't get answered, but we will forward those on to you. Okay. And anyway, thank you so much. Thank you. Wonderful. Thanks.