On today's episode of The Excerpt podcast: House Republicans have authorized an impeachment investigation into President Joe Biden. USA TODAY Supreme Court Correspondent John Fritze breaks down a pair of cases that justices have agreed to take on. An appeals court denies Donald Trump presidential immunity in the E. Jean Carroll defamation suit. The Federal Reserve leaves its key short-term interest rate unchanged. Adrianna Rodriguez looks at how paternity leave can change dads' brains.

Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here

Hit play on the player above to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript below. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.

Taylor Wilson:

Good morning. I'm Taylor Wilson, and today is Thursday, December 14th, 2023. This is The Excerpt.

Today, House Republicans have authorized an impeachment inquiry into the president, plus we'll look at two cases the Supreme Court will take on, and how fathers who spend more time with their infants see changes to their brain.

♦

House Republicans yesterday formally authorized their impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. It's their most significant step yet toward impeaching the president. The House voted along party lines 221 to 212 to green light the inquiry. Republicans have alleged that the president financially benefited from his family's foreign business dealings, though they have not publicly released evidence supporting those claims. House Republicans have also accused the White House of disrupting their investigation. Though the White House says it has cooperated fully with the investigation and provided plenty of evidence disputing allegations. Ian Sams, White House spokesperson for oversight and investigations, said that the impeachment inquiry "only proves how divorce from reality this cham investigation is." Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson and GOP investigators leading the inquiries say it's simply an investigation and that they have not predetermined whether to draft articles of impeachment against Biden. Johnson said this week, "We're not making a political decision. It's not, it's a legal decision."

♦

The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to take on a pair of cases, one dealing with the abortion pill, Mifepristone, and another related to January 6th. I caught up with USA Today Supreme Court correspondent John Fritze for more. Hey there, John.

John Fritze:

Hey, Taylor.

Taylor Wilson:

John, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments about the abortion drug, Mifepristone. Can you just first remind us, John, what this drug is and what it functionally does?

John Fritze:

Yeah, I mean, we've been describing it as an abortion pill. It's a pill that's usually taken in conjunction with another drug that induces an abortion. This is a pill that took on a lot of significance after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, because a lot of states are making it harder for people to get abortions, and so a lot of people are turning to medication abortion instead of in-clinic procedures. Roughly half of the abortions in this country are handled through drugs.

Taylor Wilson:

You mentioned overturning Roe v Wade. What else legally led to this moment, John, and what will justices actually be deciding here?

John Fritze:

So this is a debate that's been going on in the courts now for months and months and months. It's been up and down and all over the place. It's actually been to the Supreme Court before on the emergency docket. At that time, back in April, the Supreme Court froze everything, put everything on hold. What we're really talking about here is restrictions to the drug. This drug was approved during the Clinton administration. So the drug's been around for a long time.

Over the course of the last many years the FDA has made it easier to gain access to the drug, such as by allowing non-physicians to prescribe it. So think like nurse practitioners. The other thing that they did that I think most people are paying attention to is they allowed people to get it through the mail. So instead of having to go pick it up in a doctor's office, they allowed people to get it delivered to them. That was, of course, done during the COVID-19 pandemic. So that was the ostensible reason for it. But the Biden administration has continued and expanded that provision to make clear that people who want to get this drug don't have to go to the doctor's office to get it.

Taylor Wilson:

John, while the court works toward a decision here, will people have access to the drug in the coming months or is everything just kind of on pause?

John Fritze:

Yes, they will. In fact, they'll continue to have the same access that they had before because of a Supreme Court ruling back in April that said that everything would maintain where it was before this litigation started and nothing would change until the Supreme Court resolved the issue.

Taylor Wilson:

Meanwhile, in a separate case, John, justices have agreed to take on an appeal from a man involved in the January 6th attack. What's at issue here?

John Fritze:

The federal prosecutors charging the folks that were involved in January 6th have been repeatedly charging this one crime, and it's a federal crime, and it deals with obstructing a "official" proceeding. That's not entirely clear what official proceeding means. And the defendants, including this gentleman who is bringing this case to the Supreme Court says, look, this was a provision that was passed during the Enron scandal many years back. It really deals with financial impropriety. It really deals with the destruction of evidence and trying to stop people like corporate executives from destroying evidence. Prosecutors say, I mean, official proceeding is official proceeding and the counting of the votes, the electors by Congress on January 6th, the government argues should count as an official proceeding.

The reason why this is important is that whatever the Supreme Court decides here, it's going to affect two things. One is roughly 200 other people that have been charged with this crime and one of those 200 people, the second thing, is former President Donald Trump has been charged with this crime. So depending on what the Supreme Court does here, it could implicate the charges against Trump. I should say one last thing. The reason prosecutors are really eager to charge this crime is that it carries a potential 20 additional years in prison. So it's no joke, it's a serious crime and for prosecutors trying to maximize sentences, that is why they are relying on this provision for so many of these cases.

Taylor Wilson:

All right. USA Today Supreme Court correspondent John Fritze. Thanks as always, John.

John Fritze:

Thank you, Taylor.

♦

Taylor Wilson:

An appeals court ruled yesterday that former President Donald Trump cannot point to his time in the White House in an effort to duck a civil defamation lawsuit tied to sexual assault allegations. The case concerns Trump's denial in 2019 while he was president of having sexually assaulted writer E. Jean Caroll in the 1990s, he called her account a false accusation. In a separate civil case, Trump was ordered in May to pay Caroll $5 million after a jury found both that he sexually abused her and defamed her with a statement last year denying the assault. Trump has appealed that verdict.

♦

The Federal Reserve left its key short-term interest rate unchanged yesterday. The Fed also hinted that rate hikes are likely over for now, and forecast three cuts next year amid falling inflation and a cooling economy. The decision leaves the Fed's benchmark short-term rate at a 22-year high of five and a quarter to five and a half percent after a slew of rate increases aimed at subduing the country's sharpest inflation spike in four decades. The Central Bank has now kept its key rates steady for three straight meetings since July. That brings more relief for consumers who have faced higher borrowing costs for credit cards, adjustable rate mortgages, and other loans as a result of the Fed's moves. After the Fed's announcement, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at our record high yesterday, up 1.4% from the previous day. The S&P 500 and NASDAQ saw similar climbs.

♦

Research finds that fathers who spend more time with their infants experience brain changes, but not every dad can take paternity leave. I spoke with USA Today health reporter Adrianna Rodriguez, to learn more. Adrianna, thanks for hopping on The Excerpt.

Adrianna Rodriguez:

Thanks for having me.

Taylor Wilson:

So what does research say about what happens to father's brains when they spend large amounts of time with their infants?

Adrianna Rodriguez:

Basically what happens when a father spends a large amount of time with their newborns, they undergo these changes to brain patterns that we typically see in mothers right after birth, except obviously the father has not gone through this sort of flush of hormones and the experience of pregnancy. Yet we see this more subtle, but still very visible brain change. In the first study that we had looked at, the most recent study, researchers had found that these brain changes were more pronounced in the men who had spent more time with their children.

Taylor Wilson:

And how does some of these brain changes actually influence paternal behavior?

Adrianna Rodriguez:

Basically what happened in this one mice experiment, researchers had looked into the brains of both female and male mice and looked at the connectivity and certain cells that were being stimulated when they were performing parental behaviors. In the mice world, the parental behavior was looking for their pup and retrieving it. And they saw that these same cells were being stimulated in both the male and the female mice that were performing these behaviors sort of suggesting that they're going through the same patterns in the brain.

Taylor Wilson:

Adrianna, anecdotally, what does some dads say about their experiences with paternity leave and this time with their newborns and what it's done for them?

Adrianna Rodriguez:

That was the best part of the story, talking to these new dads. They absolutely loved their experience in paternity leave. They loved being able to just focus on their child 100%. They loved not having to think about work and just think about their bond and their relationship. When I told them that this is a story about how your brain changes, they told me, "I could see that, because I don't know if I would've been able to understand my infant's different cry cues, whether she or he needed to be fed or needed to be burped or needed to be changed if I didn't spend this sort of time with them bonding and understanding what they're trying to communicate."

Taylor Wilson:

Adrianna, not every dad can do this. I mean, there are structures that exist in this country that in some cases prevent it. What does US law say right now about paternity leave across the country?

Adrianna Rodriguez:

Yeah, so unfortunately US is one of the only high-income countries that doesn't guarantee paid family leave. They have FMLA, which sort of guarantees unpaid parental leave for parents of newborns and newly adopted children of up to 12 weeks. But that's also still fluid because it only guarantees unpaid weeks and not every parent can afford that. And on top of that, it only applies to companies that have at least 50 employees or more. Even though we have that throughout the country, federally, a lot of parents still don't have access to paid paternity leave.

Taylor Wilson:

All right. Adrianna Rodriguez covers health for USA TODAY. Thanks as always, Adrianna.

Adrianna Rodriguez:

Thank you.

♦

Taylor Wilson:

Thanks for listening to The Excerpt. Be sure to stay tuned this afternoon when of my colleague Dana Taylor talks with Mary K. Cunningham from the Urban Institute for ideas on how to solve the housing crisis. You can find the episode right here on this feed. You can get the podcast wherever you get your audio. And if you use a smart speaker, just ask for The Excerpt. I'm back tomorrow with more of The Excerpt from USA TODAY.

Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.