Last week, Bari sat down with Erika Kirk for an hour-long town hall in front of a live audience on CBS.
It was an extremely powerful conversation. Erika and Bari spoke about a lot—rising political violence in this very divided country; the way some people justified or excused Charlie’s murder; what Erika thinks about some of the controversial things Charlie said in his lifetime; her response to Candace Owens and the conspiracy theories Owens and others are peddling; the growing antisemitism on the right; and her decision to forgive Charlie’s killer.
This town hall was the first of many conversations and debates Bari will be bringing to CBS News about the things that matter most. Which, of course, are often the hardest to talk about. We really hope you will tune in.
In case you missed this first one with Erika Kirk, we’re thrilled to share the conversation here on Honestly. And we can’t wait for you to catch the next one on CBS News.
The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through all book links in this article.
One of the most complex medical, ethical, moral, and religious questions of our era is that of physician-assisted suicide—also known as Medical Aid in Dying, or MAID.
Eleven U.S. states and Washington, D.C. have legalized some form of MAID for terminally ill patients. And New York might join them.
Over the summer, a Medical Aid in Dying Act passed New York’s state legislature. It is now sitting on Governor Kathy Hochul’s desk as she decides whether to sign it into law.
Under the proposed New York bill, terminally ill adults with a prognosis of six months or less to live would be able to access a prescribed, self-administered life-ending medication.
Supporters argue that this is a compassionate option—one that can relieve people of immense pain and suffering, allowing patients to choose when and where they die, and to do so surrounded by loved ones.
Opponents see this as a violation of physicians’ fundamental oath to do no harm. They also worry that while access may begin narrowly, it could expand over time to include people seeking death for reasons other than terminal illness—such as mental suffering or simply a desire to stop living. Cases like this have already occurred in Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada, and Switzerland.
Rafaela Siewert sat down with two experts who see this topic very differently for a heated debate.
David Hoffman is a healthcare attorney, clinical ethicist, and professor of bioethics at Columbia University. He argues that hypothetical future abuses of MAID shouldn’t outweigh the needs of terminal patients who need this option now.
Dr. Lydia Dugdale is a physician, medical ethicist, and professor of medicine at Columbia University. In her view, legalizing this practice of physician-assisted suicide risks undermining the responsibilities of governments, medical systems, and families to care for the mentally ill, the poor, and the physically disabled. And she fears that the potential for excessively expanded access over time is too great.
We are among the many Americans who do not know what the right answer is. We see both sides—which is why grappling with the nuances of this subject is so important.
Most parents know what goes into raising children: the time spent changing diapers in inopportune places; the hours of worrying—about what to feed them, how to educate them, how to protect them and keep them healthy; the countless hours devoted to dance classes, summer camps, pediatricians, and piano lessons—all investments meant to give them the best chance in life.
Most of us would do anything to help our kids become the most successful and happiest versions of themselves.
But what if we could start earlier? At the molecular level. What if we could ensure our babies were healthier, smarter, and stronger, before they even took their first breath?
Right now, several biotech companies are doing just that. They offer embryo screening for couples undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). These companies don’t just score embryos for disease risk, which has become standard practice for anyone undergoing IVF—they go further.
Nucleus Genomics promises “optimization” of traits like heart health and cancer resistance, as well as intelligence, longevity, body mass index, baldness, eye color, hair color, etc. It even suggests it may predict a predisposition to become an alcoholic.
In the future, we may be able to more than just screen and select. We’ll be able to make tweaks to our own embryos in order to “optimize” them. This isn’t something out of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. It’s the very real, and near, future. Some would argue it’s already here.
It all creates profound and critical questions. So we hosted a debate: Is it ethical to design our unborn children? And are we morally obligated to do so when the risks of abstaining include serious diseases? Or does designing babies cross a line? Is it wrong to play God and manipulate humanity’s genetic heritage?
Arguing that designing babies is not only an ethical choice, but indeed a moral imperative, are Jamie Metzl and Dr. Allyson Berent.
Jamie is a technology and healthcare futurist, who was a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Human Genome Editing. He’s also written several best-selling books on this subject, including Hacking Darwin: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity.
Allyson is a veterinarian who has become an incredible force for genetic research since her daughter, Quincy, was diagnosed with Angelman syndrome. She serves as chief science officer of the Foundation for Angelman Syndrome Therapeutics and chief development officer at a biotechnology company, where she helps accelerate gene therapy programs for Angelman syndrome.
Arguing that designing babies is unethical are O. Carter Snead and Dr. Lydia Dugdale.
Carter is a bioethicist and law professor at Notre Dame. He served as general counsel to the President’s Council on Bioethics under George W. Bush and as an appointed member of UNESCO’s International Bioethics Committee. He is also an appointed member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, which advises the pope on bioethics.
Lydia is a physician, medical ethicist, and professor of medicine at Columbia University, where she serves as director of the Center for Clinical Medical Ethics. She is also Co-Director of Clinical Ethics at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center.
It’s a critical debate you won’t want to miss.
The Free Press is honored to have partnered with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression to present this debate. Head to TheFire.org to learn more about this indispensable organization.
Few lines in the Constitution have provoked as much passion—or confusion—as this one:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
What did the Founding Fathers mean by “well regulated”? What did they mean by “Militia”? And, do any of those definitions hold in 21st-century America?
Guns are one of the most divisive symbols in the country. At the same time, the idea of surrendering weapons and trusting the state feels dangerous, and to many, guns are not symbols of violence, but symbols of freedom.
Still, the question remains: freedom at what cost? With mass shootings now a fixture of American life, with countless families being wrecked by gun violence—what exactly are we protecting?
This debate is about what the Second Amendment really means, what its limits should be, what the root causes of our gun violence are. And how, if at all, we can address them.
We think about this subject a lot: Would America be safer without the Second Amendment?
To debate this topic we brought together Dana Loesch and Alan Dershowitz recently in Chicago—a city that has had more than its fair share of gun violence.
Alan argued yes, that America would be safer without the Second Amendment. Alan is a lawyer, a law professor for 50 years at Harvard, and the author of too many books to mention. He has litigated and won hundreds of cases in multiple countries, including his pro bono defense of dissidents such as Natan Sharansky, Václav Havel, and Julian Assange. And he is a fierce advocate for tighter gun control in the United States.
Dana Loesch argued no, that America would not be safer without the Second Amendment. Dana is one of the country’s top nationally syndicated talk radio hosts with The Dana Show, a television commentator, preeminent Second Amendment advocate, and author of several books, including the best-selling Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America. She is also a former spokesperson for the National Rifle Association.
You probably know Jonathan Haidt as the guy trying to save your kids from smartphones and social media apps. Likely you’ve read The Anxious Generation, which has been translated into 44 languages and sold nearly 2 million copies. One might say that Jon is Elvis for 21st century moms who don't understand Discord.
But when Haidt gets written about decades from now, it will be for much more than this book and the powerful movement that came out of it. He will be regarded as one of the most important writers of this epoch.
Because he has this remarkable ability to understand—and explain—our social condition. He holds up a mirror to us.
He did it with his book The Righteous Mind, which explained why people are so passionately divided over politics and religion. He did it again with The Coddling of the American Mind, cowritten with Greg Lukianoff, which explored why young people—especially on college campuses—can become totally intolerant of opposing views. And in his latest book, The Anxious Generation, he asked the obvious question: Why are teens suddenly so unhappy? Why are they losing attention, self-confidence, and the ability to socialize? Perhaps it has something to do with the mesmerizing device in their hands.
In a world gone mad, Haidt has turned common sense into a radical mission. Bari sat down with him in front of a live audience in New York City to talk about how we got here—and where we go from here.
You probably know Jonathan Haidt as the guy trying to save your kids from smartphones and social media apps. Likely you’ve read The Anxious Generation, which has been translated into 44 languages and sold nearly 2 million copies. One might say that Jon is Elvis for 21st century moms who don't understand Discord.
But when Haidt gets written about decades from now, it will be for much more than this book and the powerful movement that came out of it. He will be regarded as one of the most important writers of this epoch.
Because he has this remarkable ability to understand—and explain—our social condition. He holds up a mirror to us.
He did it with his book The Righteous Mind, which explained why people are so passionately divided over politics and religion. He did it again with The Coddling of the American Mind, cowritten with Greg Lukianoff, which explored why young people—especially on college campuses—can become totally intolerant of opposing views. And in his latest book, The Anxious Generation, he asked the obvious question: Why are teens suddenly so unhappy? Why are they losing attention, self-confidence, and the ability to socialize? Perhaps it has something to do with the mesmerizing device in their hands.
In a world gone mad, Haidt has turned common sense into a radical mission. Bari sat down with him in front of a live audience in New York City to talk about how we got here—and where we go from here.
That’s the question on everyone’s mind since last Tuesday night—when the richest city in America elected 34-year-old democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani as its mayor.
You can see Mamdani’s win as a one-off—a charismatic contender facing a rival mired in controversy. But the other way to see it is as emblematic of something larger: a sign about the state—and future—of the left.
Here was a candidate promising to solve the affordability crisis with free childcare, free buses, rent freezes, and even government-run grocery stores. And despite the socialist bent, most establishment Democrats fell in line to support him—from Kathy Hochul and Hakeem Jeffries to Barack Obama, who reportedly called Mamdani to offer himself as a sounding board.
If that’s true—if Mamdani is the new standard-bearer for Democrats in the way Obama once was—then where does that leave someone like Senator John Fetterman?
The Pennsylvania senator didn’t just withhold his endorsement—he went so far as to say that socialism is not the future of the Democratic Party.
It’s an interesting stance, given that just a few years ago, Fetterman ran a progressive Senate campaign focused on reforming criminal justice, legalizing marijuana, and raising the minimum wage. He was backed by AOC and Bernie Sanders. The right even called him a “silver-spoon socialist.”
Then came his near-fatal stroke on the day of his Democratic primary—followed by calls from both sides to drop out. Instead, he stayed in the race and won, flipping a GOP Senate seat.
Since coming to Congress, Fetterman has stood out—and not just because he’s six-foot-eight. He’s shown strong support for Israel, a departure from many in his party. He’s said Democrats mishandled border security under Biden. He praised the president for his peace deal in Gaza—and even met with him in Mar-a-Lago.
He’s also publicly blamed Democrats for the government shutdown, saying: “I follow country, then party.” He refused to “play chicken with the food security of 42 million Americans,” and voted 15 times with Republicans to reopen Washington.
On Sunday night, the Senate finally voted to reopen the governement—but only after 40 days of missed paychecks, travel chaos, and millions at risk of losing SNAP benefits.
It was just the latest litmus test for Democrats, highlighting the divide between the centrists and the progressives—between, for lack of better words, the Fetterman wing and the Mamdani wing. And now, Democrats may have to decide which impulse to run on—in 2026, and in 2028. Today, Bari asks John Fetterman about his decision to speak out against his own party; his recent dinner with Donald Trump—and the backlash that followed; the shutdown and whether he believes the Democratic Party is heading in the right direction; and finally, his new book Unfettered, which chronicles his journey to the Senate, his stroke, his battle with depression, and his time in office.
The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through all book links in this article.
A startling legal twist changes the case’s outcome, possibly forever. As we reflect on Samantha Woll’s legacy—especially that of a bridge builder between opposing views, her loved ones undertake the hard work of healing as they continue to fight for justice.
---
Become a paid subscriber to The Free Press to binge the full series today, and with reduced ads. Click here to subscribe.
Do you feel uneasy? Do you feel a level of ambient anxiety? Do you feel despair, despite the fact that we live in the most luxurious time and place in human history?
The point is, you are not crazy. If you feel these things, you are simply attuned to reality—and it’s not a problem that’s solvable with less screen time or with meditation, red light, or sea moss.
My brilliant guest, Paul Kingsnorth, argues that the reason you feel this way is not this or that social media app or algorithm or culture war issue. That these are all superficial expressions of a thousand-year battle with what he calls “the Machine.” What exactly that means, he’ll explain tonight.
To personally fight the Machine, Paul has moved his family out of urban England to live off the land in rural Ireland, where his family grows their own food, draws water from a well, and homeschools their children. To learn more about his life, you’ll have to go back and listen to the Honestly episode we did with him in 2024.
In his new book, Against the Machine, Paul makes the argument that what this moment requires is something of a rebellion. He says the West is not dying, but already dead. And this book is an attempt to understand how we got to this profound feeling of disquiet—and how we might return to true peace. It’s being billed as a “spiritual manual for dissidents in the technological age.”
Click below to listen to our conversation, or scroll down for our favorite moments.
The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through all book links in this article.
The prosecution believes the case is airtight, but when the defendant takes the stand, the case takes a turn. With alternate suspects introduced, the jury must decide what they believe really happened to Samantha Woll.
---
Become a paid subscriber to The Free Press to binge the full series today, and with reduced ads. Click here to subscribe.
