In this episode of CURE America, host Jonathan Alexandre, Vice President of Governmental Affairs and Senior Counsel at Liberty Counsel, explores what it means to protect lives that most Americans will never personally meet—the unborn, the elderly targeted by fraud, and women facing unregulated abortion drugs—through federal policy, appropriations, and state constitutional fights.
Alexandre opens with the Hyde Amendment, the decades-old provision that has barred most federal funding of elective abortion. Joined by Jamie Dangers, Director of Federal Affairs at Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, and Paul Teller, President of Teller Strategies, the discussion traces the amendment’s origins after Roe v. Wade, when Medicaid began covering hundreds of thousands of abortions each year. Dangers explains how the measure, first advanced by freshman Congressman Henry Hyde, has been reaffirmed annually and, according to Charlotte Lozier Institute analysis, is associated with roughly 2.7 million lives preserved over fifty years. The guests examine why that once-bipartisan restraint has eroded, how Obamacare and later reconciliation bills created funding workarounds by subsidizing plans that cover abortion rather than paying for procedures directly, and why making Hyde permanent remains unfinished business. They also address the political reality that the Democratic platform now calls for its repeal and that some Republican platforms and negotiations have shown cracks, underscoring that Hyde itself was already a compromise rather than the outer limit of protection.
The program then turns to the protection of older Americans navigating an expanding landscape of online and telephone fraud. Marty Dannenfelser, Vice President of Government Relations and Coalitions at Cure, discusses the rise of scams that exploit vulnerability—memory lapses, isolation, or unfamiliarity with digital tools—through fake Social Security notices, cryptocurrency schemes, and deceptive ads on major platforms. Drawing on a column by Star Parker, the segment examines legislation that would require social-media companies to verify advertisers, investigate reported fraud within tight deadlines, and cooperate with federal agencies such as the FTC. Dannenfelser frames the issue as a legitimate exercise of federal authority over interstate and international commerce, while noting successful multinational operations that have disrupted transnational criminal networks and rescued trafficking victims. The conversation stresses that limited government still has a clear role in stopping bad actors who use technology to steal savings or lure people into danger.
In the closing segment, Dannenfelser returns for a broader look at the abortion pill (mifepristone and its companion regimen). He describes how Biden-era changes removed earlier in-person safeguards and how those loosened rules have remained in place, allowing the drugs to be mailed into states with protective laws. Alexandre and Dannenfelser review Louisiana’s lawsuit against the FDA, the agency’s delayed safety review (now projected into 2027), and studies—including one from the Ethics and Public Policy Center—documenting serious adverse events in a significant share of cases. They note the absence of gestational-age verification when the drugs are obtained by mail and the documented instances in which the pills have been obtained by abusers or used past the labeled window. The discussion closes by connecting these policy questions to the immediate electoral calendar: state constitutional amendments (including one in Virginia that would embed expansive abortion language and potentially undercut parental notification, conscience protections, and funding limits) and the broader choice facing voters in the coming weeks between candidates who treat the issue as settled and those who continue to press for limits.
Throughout, Alexandre keeps the focus on the practical mechanisms—appropriations riders, regulatory authority, platform accountability, and state constitutions—through which government either advances or withholds protection. The episode presents the arguments of its guests directly and leaves viewers with a clear sense of the stakes in both the ongoing appropriations process and the ballot measures already before voters.
