Funding for To The Contrary, provided by the E. Rhodes and Leona B. Carpenter Foundation, the Park Foundation, and the Charles A. Frueauff Foundation.

This week on To The Contrary.

First, the U.S. House passes the controversial SAVE Act, and the Supreme Court is set to hear an important case involving religious freedom, gay rights and schools.

Hello, Im Bonnie Erbé.

Welcome to To The Contrary, a discussion of news and social trends from diverse perspectives.

Up first: voting rights.

What happens to US voting rights if the SAVE or, Safeguard American Voting Eligibility Act, becomes law?

The act would require Americans attempting to vote to show documentary proof of citizenship which many say is already required.

But Democrats fear the act is really designed to intimidate would-be Democratic voters from voting in upcoming elections.

This year's version, backed hard by President Donald Trump, died last year only because the House approved but the Senate did not.

Some see claims that the bill will produce widespread voter fraud as odd, since an investigation found about 30 fraudulent votes out of tens of millions cast in the last election.

Joining me on the panel this week to talk about this and other topics: Republican strategist Ann Stone, political reporter for The Intercept, Jessica Washington, co-owner of Metro Conservative Media KJ McKenzie and former judge and federal prosecutor Debra Carnahan.

Okay, Ann, will this act as it's supposed to do, make it easier for so-called at risk groups, women and people of color to vote or not?

Well, the question is not whether it's easier, but will it mean the elections are more secure and we all have to get the real ID, ID cards now, too, and they have the same hurdles, so it's just become a fact of life.

What do you mean, a fact of life Well, for the real ID—for you to board an airplane and for a lot of your identification in the country, for a lot of things, besides voting is going to be required as of May 7th.

So, and that meets the same threshold, the same sort of ID that has to be presented to get that.

So it's a fact of life.

You're going to have to present these kinds of documents to get real identification in the country as of May 7th.

Jessica, your thoughts, please.

This is a solution in search of a problem.

Most of our understanding of voter fraud, and I think you can turn to the Brennan Center for justice on this.

Our understanding is less than 1%.

We have less than 1% of cases of actual identified voter fraud.

Most voter fraud was a result—identified voter fraud is a result of clerical errors and issues of that like.

We really don't have a massive voting rights problem.

Sorry, a massive voter fraud problem in this country.

We do have a voting rights issue, and this will make it significantly more difficult for women, for trans people, for multiple different groups to—to vote in this country.

I keep hearing voter fraud, voter fraud, we all do.

It's been investigated.

I'm assuming we're referring to the election of 2020 when discussing that.

But, I've seen this firsthand, Bonnie.

Years ago, both my sister and I were adopted by my stepfather at age 8, and everything was fine for me for getting a passport.

But there was something wrong on her birth certificate from the day that said she was born, to where it showed he was her father.

And since she was born in 1967, it took her over six months.

And that's with federal bureaucracies and agencies, that were working and fully funded, to get a passport.

It was very hard for her to prove who she was and where she was born.

And actually, they ended up using—my mother had saved our records from grade school, and they actually accepted a grade school record showing how old she was.

And they said, also, if you can get a baptism certificate.

So right there, it caused a problem for my sister.

My name has been changed twice.

The one I was born with, the one I was adopted to when I was six, and then when I changed my name when I got married.

So yeah, this is just an obstacle.

And when we're looking at voting rights like we did with the Jim Crow laws, it's not a matter of, oh, well, we just have to have all these things in place to you—you know—can convince us of this.

It was what is the chilling effect upon the voter by having these unreasonable requirements that simply seem to pertain mainly to women, people who are trans.

It certainly doesn't pertain to white men, unless they were adopted.

Let's bring in KJ, and good to see you again.

Your thoughts on this law?

Will it help get rid of societal prejudice towards people of color and women?

Not at all.

For many years, I worked in customer service.

And people always push back on when companies, businesses put in authentication factors.

But it's really there to protect people's identity to protect against waste, fraud, and this is the same thing.

Rare doesnt mean non-existent.

It means under investigated.

Studies claim fraud is rare.

Rely on undocumented—or, I should say, documented prosecutions or convictions not actual detection mechanisms.

In 2022, the Public Interest Legal Foundation found thousands of voter registrations flagged due to citizenship status, only discovered when individuals self-reported or were actually caught by accident.

This is going on and to protect our democracy, to protect— Yeah, but how big a problem is it, really?

I mean, 30 people out of millions and millions.

I'm an African American married woman.

I have had to present my identification in various situations when I first got married.

It's just an extra step that I'm willing to do to make sure our voting system is protected.

Does anybody on the panel feel threatened by, these so-called ‘at risk groups having to bring documentary evidence that they have the right to vote?

No.

Any threat on democratic values, democratic norms, the right to vote, whether or not they personally implicate me, any threat to that is—any threat to democracy anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere—is a threat to all of our rights to—to vote.

And I think, while you're right that there are certain areas where we do have to bring identification, you mentioned shopping, for example.

We're talking about fundamental rights to participate in our democracy and to the fact that certain groups are being asked to, particularly married women in this example but trans individuals as well, are being asked to provide different documentation than people, who are not members of those classes, I think should be incredibly troubling that were putting an extra burden— That's not true.

That's not true.

The law doesn't ban married women from voting.

It asks everyone, regardless of gender, to provide proof of citizenship.

Well get back to that, But Jessica, how are their right threatened?

I mean, it's— Why— —and why was this designed?

It was designed by conservatives to keep people of color and women away from the Yes.

Go on.

So my—my answer to that is, why was this designed?

I mean, I think we've seen over the years Republicans have been going after— the GOP—has been going after the right to vote, after the rights of American to participate in our democracy.

I don't think it's shocking tha that would extend to the federal And we've seen throughout, various states, particularly states that have been previously banned from making these kinds of restrictions on voting, that those restrictions have gone forward in those states.

So it's not at all surprising that we're seeing this pop up at the federal level.

And what I'm talking about with different documentation for different groups.

What we're discussing is, if you are a married woma and your last name is different on your ID than it would be on your birth certificate, then you have to provide additional documentation like a passport, which is something that half of Americans don't possess.

So we are talking about additional barriers for certain groups to entry, to access to a fundamental righ which is voting in this country.

A few things.

Number one, majority of the public—the vast majority wants to have more secure voting.

They want voter ID at the polls.

That's number one.

Number two, I've served as an election chief for over 20 years for my precinct.

Trust me, nobody's going to get banned if they can provide anything at all.

And there's several ways they can prove not just through a real ID, driver's license, which now will have that verification or a passport.

There are other ways they can prove it, or they can file a provisional ballot and provide proof later, if its challenged.

But can you imagine being an—a person without an advanced degree, but maybe somebody who was bor in another country, coming here have to—having to fish out all these official documents to show up just to sign up to vote?

Actually, if they were born someplace else, theyre more likely to have their passports.

So they will be able to prove it.

But the point is, the public does want this.

They want to feel secure.

And—and wait a minute, Bonnie, the reason the SAVE Act was—was passed was because too many states were allowing illegal aliens to get driver's licenses.

Before then, drivers license was a fine form of I.D., but because there's so many—so much misuse of the driver's license criteria, that's why they felt nationally this had to be passed.

My state of Virginia, that's not a problem.

But other states, it was a problem.

Just talking about this rea ID that you mentioned, Ann, all 50 states, the District—D.C.

and five territorie are now compliant with real ID, and if you have a real ID, that's all you need.

So it shouldn't—you won't have to bring all these different documents.

The real ID would be sufficient.

My driver's license is not a real ID yet.

I've gone down to the Division of Motor Vehicles twice and had problem with my document certification.

I don't have a copy of my original birth certificate.

It is sealed in Richmond, Virginia, and I will have to petition the court to get that birth certificate if there's any problem in the chain of my name changes that have happened over the years.

So that's a real problem.

Second of all, my sister-in-law was Secretary of State in the state of Missour for eight years.

In this state, I have seen voters turned away and have had to step up to election judges and say they can vote.

What you're requiring them to show you is not the law.

And, you know, she has all these telephone call coming in, of course, on Election Day.

So I don't buy the—trust me, you will never be turned away, just some form of ID.

That's not true.

The example you just gave predate this act.

So youre proving our point.

This act doesn't change anything, make it any worse than any of the obstacles that remain and would remain there for you, Debra, regardless.

Well, what's the point, then, of all this change?

To feel secure, that the idea they're giving is of somebody who actually was born here or has a—has a real citizenship in the United States if they weren't actually born here.

The problem, again, is if states had not relaxed the way they were doing driver's licenses, we wouldn't be having this issue, because in the old days, driver's licenses, it would indicate whether or not they were a foreign national or they were American.

Because some of the states relaxed it, that's what required this act to be passed.

If they hadn't screwed with the system, we wouldn't have needed the act.

All right.

I don't know too many people, and I know—I make a point of knowing, lots of people on both sides of the aisle and lots of people from different backgrounds.

Poor, rich, you name it.

I have not heard complaints about vote not getting registered, but hey, maybe it's just me.

Let us know what you think.

Please follow me on X, @BonnieErbe.

From voting to school policy.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case involving religious parents challenging a school policy that includes LGBTQ-themed storybooks in the elementary curriculum without allowing parents to pull out their children from the class.

The parents argue the policy violates their First Amendment rights to freely exercise their religions by directing their children's upbringing.

The schoo district defends the curriculum, which they say is inclusive and optional.

Critics on the left warn about a potential chilling effect if a court sides with the plaintiffs.

So, Jessica, is this gonna make voters feel more secure or less secure?

There's a lot of obviousl very interesting issues at play.

I mean, from my perspective, just as a reporter who's covered education, certainly it could have a chilling effect if parents religio is able to enter the classroom.

So if parents are able to say for example, I am a creationist and I don't want my children learning about how old the Earth is.

I think whenever we start interjecting— So obviously in this case we are talking about parents who, because of their religious values, do not want their children learning about the existence of non-binary people or queer people in general.

I think, obviously, whenever we allow religion to dictate exactly what kids cannot and can learn in the classroom, we're getting into incredibly tricky territory.

So I do think this could potentially be a very big risk of including more religious education into the classroom.

And am I—am I losing my mind, or do there seem to be more and more and more challenges coming from the right, saying that voters on the left have plenty o control over their right to vote and, this is taking it to an extreme.

I, 110% support the parents in this, and I've actually been through this.

Im a—I'm a—I live—a resident of Maryland.

I had pulled my son.

I had the privilege, and the means, of pulling my son out of a school that did this exact same thing, and they did not make parents aware of the gender ideology that they were teaching in third grade.

This actually goes for 12—K— —starts at kindergarten I believe, this particular case.

So I am 110%— Folks, this is very dangerous.

It is a war on parental rights.

The court has found in numerous cases that parents should have the ultimate right to dictate what their child should read and learn in school.

They are not allowed to opt out.

They will not be forewarned about what—what they plan on teaching in just gender ideology.

It's really crazy.

I don't think it's crazy.

And I think what is crazy is to say, with all the different religions, with all the different opinions that parents have, that every single parent will be able to go in and say, well, that's not my philosophy.

That's against my religion.

I mean, perhaps we shouldn't teach about slavery because some people don't believe it was a bad or evil institution.

So I don't want you teaching that to my children.

And—and this is a real slippery slope.

You've got school boards, you've got all kinds of avenue here to have input as a parent.

And you also have the ability to pull your child out of school.

I mean, if we can say, hey, just go get a passport, have 160 bucks and do this so you can vote.

Well, then go ahead and put your in a different school.

Put them in a parochial school that has the viewpoints that you have, but to come in to the schools, the public schools in this way is—is a mess.

It's a complete mess for the teachers, for the educators— I just wonder about the future of America.

It seems like we're getting—we're adding religions all the time.

Not that that's a bad thing, but it's a thing with implications for how we live our lives.

And so more and more confusion, more and more different laws, more and more opportunities to squeeze some people out of the process.

And then people are complaining because there's too much craziness going on.

A lot of this argument speaks to the issue of school choice, and giving parents greater leeway to be able to put their kids in schools where they want to.

But I want to address a couple things.

First of all, slavery should be taught—its a part of history.

That's a different issue than what we're talking about here, what we're talking about here is something that is more, I see, as elective and actually maybe could be taught after school, and be totally elective because I want to see my tax dollars going to really teach reading, writing and arithmetic.

We have fallen to 40th among the industrialized nations from when the Department of Education was opened, when we were, you know, in the top 5 or 10, we're now 40th.

That's ridiculous.

I want my tax money going to make these kids, you know, competent to be able to have full and productive lives by having the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic.

How does your president, you know, he's trying to cut trillions, if not billions out of the budget, including trying— He would prefer to shut down the Department of Education.

He's trying to transfer it to the state level.

He's trying to transfer it so that the people at the state level have more control ove whats taught in their schools all the way down to the local— When Jim Crow laws came along, everybody said, oh, it's just harmless.

And it was really meant to keep discrimination going.

But A) we've grown past that, B) you have a lot more ways to fight it in today's world.

You can't get away with stuff like that with social media and alternative media that's out there.

That would never happen again, I believe.

But again the basics are not being taught.

Our children are not competent to compete in the world.

That is bad.

That is a threat to our national security as well as to our own economic security here.

I want to see my money spent on effective programs to teach kids the basics.

I understand Anns point and concerns about where we are in our education system.

I think one could argue that teaching children compassion and teaching them how to read and write are not mutually exclusive.

I'll give an example from my own life.

I attended a Quaker institution, and I was taught many amazing values about the light of, you know, the divine, whatever you consider it, and every single person.

I was taught that, you know, inclusivity is important and valuable.

But I was also taught math.

I was also taught to read and write.

And I think there's a lot of value in teaching children to love their neighbor, to be kind to each other, to not single out other children.

And I think those lessons aren't at all divorced from the lessons of, you know, basic reading and writing.

I mean, I learned to write about people with identities that were different from my own.

I learned empathy for reading.

I think those are all amazing values that we should be teaching our children.

And it makes me sad to see those values as held—as somehow exclusive from, the values, other values that education provides to our children.

I just find it a little disingenuous that they're—to say oh, we support education, and the problem that we're having with their education—reading, writing, arithmetic— is because we are talking about when your neighbor looks different from you, or if kids have questions about that, that a teacher can actually respond and they think it's disingenuous because then we slash funding, we slash programs, we don't pay our teachers, and we go, oh, I wonder, you know what the problem is here?

When we don't fund our educational system at the correct level that we should be supporting.

But this is more—this is more th talking about being empathetic and, and teaching kids about being kind and respectful.

We're talking about gender theory.

We're talking about intersectionality.

We're talking about books that talk about boys kissing boys and transgenderism and things like this.

This goes well beyond respect and empathy.

And this should not be in the classroom.

It's Marxism.

The whole Democrat Part has been infiltrated by Marxism to the point where in Colorado now, we have them trying— —I think it actually passed, an act which would classify parental misgendering of a child as coercive control.

This is where we're going.

And this is why the country chose and elected President Trump, because we see that the left, the Democrat Party, has gone way too far.

We have to put a stop to this.

But my question is, in terms of reforming, is the Republican Party now going too far?

Absolutely not.

They're putting the rights and the control back into the—for the parents, where it should be.

But the Marxist agenda within the— within the Democrat Party hates family.

And we know this.

Karl Marx came across this: it says the abolition of the family, even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the communists.

They hate family.

They want to get parent—parents out of the schools.

We've seen this as they've been trying.

They've locked up parents going to PTA meetings.

They had—Biden's Department of Justice going after parents.

So what—do I have to be an illegal immigrant here?

Where you guys classify me as a “Maryland Dad” in order to get any type of due process and inclusion within my family's, uh, within the family.

It's just ridiculous.

It's ridiculous.

My parents never got to come into school, whether I was at Lutheran parochial school or whether I was in the public high school, and tell the teachers what the curriculum is going to be.

Theyre not telling the teachers what theyre—they want an opt out.

It's that simple.

They want to know what you're going to say.

And if you're going to teach this gender, this radical gender ideology, they just say, I want to keep my kid home.

Or I prefer he is not in—she is not in the classroom at this time.

That's it.

When I went to grammar—I went to grammar school in Connecticut, and the only time my mother ha to come to school was to have the kindergarten teacher called on the carpet for telling me there was no Santa Claus.

Okay, so I'm sorry about that traumatic experience.

It was very traumatic.

I know, and, you know, I'm going to say this has been brought under freedom of religion.

So when you talk about radical ideas, and somehow I'm a Marxist and all this stuff.

This has been brought up under religion and that they have a right to do this as a religious exception.

Yes.

And that is crazy.

Its multiple religions.

No, not with as many religions as we have in this country.

You do have the right to have freedom of religion.

You do have the right to homeschool.

You also have the right to send your child to parochial school or a school that has that philosophy that you like, but to bring this in under religion.

And anything that's taught tha I say is against my religion, my child's out.

That's nuts.

It violates their First Amendment right to direct the moral and religious upbringing of their children.

It's a First Amendment constitutional right.

So I understand you may have an issue with it, but as a constitutionalist, its against their rights and they should bring this up.

You have Muslim and Jewish families.

This isn't a culture war issue.

It's a basic rights issue.

Who raises my child?

Is it me or is it the state?

The idea that in our classrooms, we can mandate that all of these religious views have to be presented in the classroom, have to be acknowledged in the classroom, I think is a little bit complex and a slippery slope to say that we have to mandate these specific religious views and make our classrooms comfortable to every single parents religious values.

I think that is obviously a slippery slope.

And I would love to see more teachers teach compassion to non-binary and transgender students in the classroom.

I think the fact that that's happening, makes me happy.

It makes me happy that there are ten year olds who are non-binary, who are transgender, and who are going to walk in the classrooms and feel seen.

That makes me feel better.

So yeah.

All right.

We are out and out of time.

Thank you all for a very enlightening discussion.

And that's it for this edition.

of To The Contrary.

Keep the conversation going on our social media platforms: Instagram, Facebook, X and TikTok.

Reach out to us @tothecontrary and visit our website.

The address is on the screen and whether you agree or think, to the contrary, see you next time.

Funding for To The Contrary, provided by the E. Rhode and Leona B. Carpenter Foundatio the Park Foundation and the Char A. Frueauff Foundation.