Hi, everyone. This is Curtis, and I am excited to tell you about a new feature of the GoodFaith podcast, and it's called Campfire Stories.

Now, in a great campfire, everyone has the opportunity to share their stories. And so, in Campfire Stories, we want to hear from you.

We want to hear a story about what you are doing along the themes of the GoodFaith podcast, perhaps it's something about how you're living out your relationships with political polarization, how you are trying to reflect the image of God in your institution and organization, or what you're doing with your money, or your vocation, anything that has been sparked by the themes that we've covered here in the GoodFaith podcast is fear game.

It doesn't matter if it's a big story, a small story, or something in between, as long as it's a story about what you are doing in your life.

We're not so much interested in hearing just thoughts, we want to hear stories of doing.

So, we'll put a link in the show notes where you can just click on it and then supply us the basic outlines of your story of doing, of living out the themes of GoodFaith podcast.

And we'll look at it and we may invite you to share that story on a GoodFaith blog, a social media, or perhaps even invite you to come on the GoodFaith show yourself and talk to me and share your story.

Like, how cool would that be? I'd love to hear from you. I'd love to talk with you. So, please consider joining the Campfire by actually joining actively and sharing your story with others gathered around the Campfire.

Thanks.

Welcome to the GoodFaith podcast. I'm David French with Curtis Chang and we're going to do this podcast just a little bit differently.

We're going to kind of do a format. We're going to have a discussion like normal, but we're going to kind of start it with Curtis quasi sort of interviewing me in a way about the Dobbs decision.

All right. Well, it's not a decision yet draft opinion that Justice Alito has issued. And what does it mean? And we're going to go a little bit into law, but we're just going to go a lot deeper than the law in this podcast.

This is not a legal podcast. We're going to go a lot deeper than the law. And, you know, as some background, this is an issue, the pro life issue is something I've been working on.

Oh gosh, ever since college, when the first things I did as a quote unquote activist was propose a what I believe to be a pro life measure at my Christian college that I went to regarding essentially asking the school not to suspend unwed mothers for extramarital sexual activity because thinking that if you have a punitive response to someone who's married out of wedlock, then you're going to perhaps make people

be more tempted to abort rather than they lose their college community. That was a long, long time ago. And I've been doing pro life work ever since both in law and in the court of public opinion. And this has been quite a week this week.

So we're going to do that, but we're going to go a lot deeper than law, but we're going to really stay. We're going to talk about sort of the institution of the Supreme Supreme Court, the pro life movement more generally lots of stuff Curtis.

So yeah, let's just get started. All right. And I should probably lay my cards on the table. I, you know, feel a lot for theological reasons. I am pro life.

But I have not been an activist in this. This has not been my cause in the way that it has been for you. So this is partly why I wanted to play a little bit of the role, at least for the first half of this podcast as interviewer of your expert and draw upon your expertise.

And I want to actually approach this whole issue, this whole podcast with the overarching theme of integrity and what it means to have integrity both intellectual integrity and institutional integrity.

So intellectual and institutional integrity because I think both of those concepts are critical in our day and age and yet sadly even understood really much less practiced.

And I really want to divide this with the intellectual by exploring intellectual intellectual integrity of the draft opinion itself as the substance of it.

And then explore institutional integrity by exploring the leak as the process by how we got the draft opinion.

...