The World and Everything in It: August 18, 2025

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

Attorneys general in two states want to gag pregnancy centers—so women like this never hear about abortion pill reversal:

BARRETT: Seeing the ultrasound…I was like, Oh wow! Okay. I gotta get out of here. I’m not ready. I’m not ready.

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead on Legal Docket.

Also today the Monday Moneybeat: David Bahnsen is standing by … we’ll talk about wages, prices, and the real inflation story.

And the WORLD History Book.

250 years since a proclamation that may have sparked the American war of independence.

HALL: We might have had a very different universe … had the King … not issued that proclamation.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, August 18th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD: Time for news now with Mark Mellinger.

MARK MELLINGER, NEWS ANCHOR: Zelenskyy, EU leaders to visit White House » Leaders from the European Union and NATO will join Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for his high-stakes White House meeting with President Trump today.

The meeting comes after Trump’s summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin Friday, where the White House says significant progress was made toward a possible peace deal to end Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Among the breakthroughs: Putin agreed the U.S. and Europe could provide Ukraine with security guarantees… similar to what NATO gives its member nations.

U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff tells Fox News Sunday:

WITKOFF: We agreed on much more robust security guarantees. The Russians agreed on enshrining legislatively… they would attest to not attempting to take any more land from Ukraine after a peace deal.

Trump is expected to share details of the summit with Zelenskyy and the European leaders today… and talk more about what a peace agreement with Putin could look like.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio warns… the war won’t end without concessions from both sides.

RUBIO: You can’t have a peace deal between two warring factions unless both sides agree to give up something and both sides agree that the other side gets something, right? Otherwise, if one side gets everything they want, that’s not a peace deal. It’s called surrender.

Leaders from Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Finland will be joining Zelensskyy for today’s meeting. It’s an effort to display a united front in support of Ukraine… and to help ensure this Oval Office visit goes better than one in February, in which Trump and Zelenskyy got into a heated dispute.

Massive protests in Israel over Gaza war » Protesters interrupted everyday life across Israel Sunday… demanding a peace deal to end Israel’s war with Gaza.

A key factor driving the protests: fears that plans for a stepped-up Israeli military offensive against Hamas in Gaza… could endanger the lives of remaining hostages in Hamas captivity.

Frustrated protesters blocked roads and gathered outside politicians’ homes and military headquarters.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, interpreted through a translator, says the protests are counterproductive.

NETANYAHU: Those who are calling today for an end to the war without defeating Hamas not only harden Hamas’s position and delay the release of our hostages — they also ensure that the horrors of October 7th will be repeated and that we will be forced to fight an endless war.

Organizers representing hostages’ families say hundreds of thousands of people took part in the protests. Police say they arrested at least 38 people.

U.S. suspends visitor visas for Gazans » The U.S. is suspending visitor visas for people from Gaza.

The State Department says it’s making the move… while it looks into how a small number of medical-humanitarian visas were issued over the past few days. The visas were issued to children in need of medical aid who were accompanied by adults.

The State Department says several congressional offices have since reached out with concerns that the organizations arranging the visas have ties to terror groups like Hamas.

Conservative activist Laura Loomer first posted concerns about the children arriving from Gaza Friday on social media. The State Department has not said whether its decision had anything to do with Loomer’s posts.

More National Guard troops coming to police D.C. » Hundreds more National Guard troops are coming to Washington, D.C… to support the Trump Administration’s security takeover there.

Republican governors from three states -West Virginia, Ohio, and South Carolina- have agreed to send a combined total of 650 to 750 soldiers. They’ll join the 800 D.C. National Guardsmen and hundreds of federal agents patrolling the streets… after President Trump’s federalization of the city’s police force last week.

U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro says it’s past time to tackle Washington’s crime problem.

PIRRO: 45 teenagers killed in the last year and eight months by weapons… by shotguns, by firearms, okay?

But D.C.’s mayor calls using the military to police American citizens on American soil “un-American.” Democratic Maryland U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen agrees, telling ABC’s This Week:

VAN HOLLEN: This is all an opportunity for Donald Trump to play dictator in Washington, D.C.

Since Trump’s federalization of the police force, there have been at least 240 arrests and close to 40 illegal guns taken off the streets.

Newsom calls for special election re: California redistricting » Governor Gavin Newsom is calling for a special election to allow for a new congressional map in California.

Lawmakers in that Democrat-controlled state are planning to circumvent the usual independent commission in charge of redistricting… and redraw district lines giving their party more of an advantage this week, then hold a special election in November giving voters a chance to approve the new maps.

This move is to counter efforts by President Trump and Republican-controlled states like Texas to create more GOP-friendly congressional districts ahead of next year’s midterms… through early redistricting.

Democratic California Congressman Eric Swalwell…

SWALWELL: I’m not going to wake up the day after the election and look at democracy in ashes and say, ‘Well, at least we protected California’s independent redistricting commission.’ No. I’m going to support fighting fire with fire.

Democratic Texas lawmakers who fled their state to break quorum and delay a vote on pro-GOP redistricting… could be returning this week.

Hurricane Erin could impact East Coast weather » Hurricane Erin has weakened to a Category 3 storm, but forecasters say that doesn’t wipe out its potential to cause chaos.

Though its maximum winds diminished Sunday, its actual size grew. The storm’s outer bands pelted parts of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

And this week, Erin could produce life-threatening surf and rip tides anywhere from Florida to New England. National Hurricane Center Deputy Director Jamie Rhome…

RHOME: As these waves come and strike the coast, all that energy is going to break with these big breakers at the coastline. And that’s going to increase the rip current risk significantly through the week.

Forecasters don’t expect the storm to hit the East Coast of the U.S. directly, but county leaders in North Carolina’s Outer Banks have declared a state of emergency as a precaution.

I'm Mark Mellinger.

Straight ahead: defending pregnancy resource centers and the abortion pill reversal treatment. Plus, the Monday Moneybeat with economist David Bahnsen.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 18th day of August, 2025. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. It’s time for Legal Docket.

BARRETT: I was in crisis mode. Because I always wanted the baby. I just really needed one person to say, we’ll do this together. Whether it was my sister or my neighbor… I just wanted someone to say, you’re not alone, we’re gonna do this, you know….

That’s Elizabeth Barrett. She lives in California. She was pregnant, but it wasn’t planned. The timing was all wrong.

Still, she hesitated before choosing abortion, only reluctantly taking the abortion medication, and even then, desperate for an off-ramp: abortion pill reversal: but is it a real option?

EICHER: Not for Letitia James, it isn’t. As attorney general of New York, she’s using the power of her office to fight abortion pill reversal. Twenty years ago, she was pregnant and the timing was wrong. But to hear her tell it for her, there was no hesitation, no turning back. Here she is in 20-22.

JAMES: As a former city council member…(use full quote) I was just elected and I was faced with the decision whether to have an abortion or not. And I chose to have an abortion. I walked proudly into Planned Parenthood. And I make no apologies to anyone! To no one! To no one!

REICHARD: Now she’s working to shut down pregnancy centers that tell women they have more than one choice.

Last year, James sued Heartbeat International and 11 affiliated pregnancy centers in New York. Her claim was that they had engaged in false advertising. James alleges the centers are deceiving women by promoting abortion pill reversal.

EICHER: The abortion pill protocol involves two medications: mifepristone and my-so-prostel misoprostol. The first cuts off the baby’s nutrition. The second drug is taken about 48 hours later. Misoprostol is what expels the baby from the womb.

But supporters of abortion pill reversal say that if a woman takes progesterone after the first drug instead of misoprostol that drug can counteract the deadly effects possibly keep the pregnancy going and save the baby.

REICHARD: But James says there’s no scientific evidence to support that. And the FDA hasn’t approved it.

She’s not alone in that view. California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a similar lawsuit against five pregnancy centers and Heartbeat International.

BONTA: We sued a chain of five so-called crisis pregnancy centers in Northern California and an anti-abortion group for misleading patients about so-called abortion pill reversal, a risky and experimental protocol.

One of the lawyers defending the pregnancy centers is Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society. Breen says they’ve been fighting for a couple of years now.

BREEN: They wanted to use state false advertising and deceptive practices laws. Started with Illinois, they actually passed a new law to try to target pregnancy center speech. We were able to go to court and get that enjoined and eventually defeated entirely.

EICHER: Breen’s team is both defending and filing counterclaims. 

And they’re up against a medical establishment that says abortion pill reversal is not supported by scientific evidence. A-COG, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, as well as the AMA, the American Medical Association.

Both of them insist abortion pill reversal may be harmful.

REICHARD: So I contacted ACOG and the AMA and requested an expert to make that case, or at least to point me to the scientific studies they rely on.

Only ACOG responded—declining an interview but pointing me to the organization’sfact sheet. So I read it. Here’s what I was able to find out: the studies that it cites are inconclusive. They show neither clear harm nor clear benefit. And yet, supplemental progesterone has been used for decades to help women at risk of miscarriage.

EICHER: When you go to trial, you need expert testimony to help make your case. Both sides do have experts, but Breen says ACOG has no study that shows that supplemental progesterone is harmful.

Indeed, supporters of abortion pill reversal point to case studies, animal studies, evidence of the mechanism of action, and hundreds if not thousands of women who say it worked for them.

The other side says: sure, but what they don’t have are gold-standard clinical trials.

Breen says there is a very good reason they don’t:

BREEN: It's unethical to tell a woman who wants to save her baby, we're going to give you a placebo instead of giving you progesterone. I mean, you just can't do that study. And what was funny is ACOG was saying, well, there's no randomized controlled trial. Well, we went back through ACOG's other recommendations in other areas of reproductive health. They repeatedly rely on case studies. The same thing we have in this situation, because a lot of times it's unethical to do a randomized controlled trial on human women who are pregnant or considering being pregnant.

This isn’t just about science. It’s also about politics—similar to what’s happened in policy fights over gender transitions for minors.

Professional medical societies sometimes mix political values into their medical recommendations even when long-term, good quality evidence isn’t there. And that means women who want objective and pressure-free advice may not get it.

REICHARD: Elizabeth Barrett knows that frustration firsthand. 

You heard her a few minutes ago—conflicted, uncertain, searching for help. 

The moment that changed everything came right in the middle of a breakup:

BARRETT: I was not trying to get pregnant…everyone around me was like, it's the easiest way. Hold off till you're ready. Have an abortion.

She made multiple appointments at Planned Parenthood.

During one visit, she says staff didn’t want her to see the image of her baby.

BARRETT: Seeing the ultrasound which I had to fight to see it they didn’t want to show me…and when I finally got to see it, I was like, Oh wow! Okay. I gotta get out of here. I’m not ready. I’m not ready.

Still, she was torn. She went back. She swallowed the medication then she heard from the baby’s father, Ben.

BARRETT: Maybe a minute, maybe at most, after I took the first pill, he texted me: 'You know what? Kids are wonderful. I don't regret my two children. Let's do this. We can do this. If you haven't taken the pill yet, get out of there.'

EICHER: Of course she had taken it, so they Googled frantically, and buried on page three of Google search results found the Abortion Pill Reversal hotline.

BARRETT: I didn't want to call… I was like, this is a gimmick, and they're going to want a credit card number. So I did call, and they never asked for a credit card… and that was the beginning of our journey that way.

Within 20 minutes, a local doctor called in a prescription. But when she got to the pharmacy, her insurance wouldn’t cover it. She didn’t have the money, and at the counter, she broke down—until someone stepped in.

BARRETT: And he was like, 'Is this a life saving medication?' Is this something that someone will die if they don’t have it? And I said yes. He said, 'Okay, I can put it through as an emergency order then,' and I can give it to you right now. So that’s what he did and I started taking it that night.

Barrett had been through a chemical abortion before.

That time, she began to miscarry even before taking the second pill, so she braced for the worst.

BARRETT: And I got a completely different result this time from taking the progesterone… She was born… healthy, and it's been the best decision I ever made.

EICHER: They named her Evelyn, only later learning the name means “wished for child,” or, “desired.” Her parents are now engaged and they are expecting a baby boy soon. The pregnancy center offered free counseling that helped them work through challenges and stay together.

Barrett believes women deserve the chance to try—to save their babies and to make decisions based on accurate medical information.

REICHARD: She sees miracles in the chain of events that saved baby Evelyn; appointments she didn’t keep, a hotline she almost didn’t find, a pharmacist who could’ve locked the door.

BARRETT: I hate the thought that other people will be robbed of the opportunity to even try and I just don’t think it’s fair to shut that opportunity off to anybody who wants it.

Medical societies like the AMA say baby Evelyn doesn’t prove abortion pill reversal works, only that some pregnancies survive the first abortion pill.

For attorney Peter Breen, the issue is both medical and legal:

BREEN: For a woman who has started a chemical abortion in that two-pill regimen, she is desperately wanting to change her mind. She needs help right away. And so the state has no role in stopping a woman who is trying to save her baby from a chemical abortion in progress. Abortion pill reversal provides her that alternative. It gives her a fighting chance for her and her baby.

Breen argues the constitution will not tolerate courts silencing one side of a public debate—

BREEN: What is the upshot here? These attorneys general are not just suing to say, you're wrong. They're suing to say you're wrong and a court should enjoin you, silence you from saying this message.

Appeals are pending in both states, and this matter may eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: The Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Time now to talk business, markets, and the economy with financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen. David heads up the wealth management firm The Bahnsen Group. He is here now. Good morning to you, David. It’s been too long, good to talk to you!

DAVID BAHNSEN: Good morning, Nick, good to be with you.

EICHER: Well, the July producer price index came in jumping almost a full percentage point. This, of course, the biggest in years. A lot of it looks tariff driven, but you've said in your Dividend Cafe devoted entirely to inflation, David, that inflation, “is politically convenient, but an economically sloppy way of looking at it.” So why do you say it's wrong to say that tariffs cause inflation, and what's a better way to think about tariff driven price changes like this?

BAHNSEN: What I first have to do to answer the question is encourage listeners to understand the definition of inflation. As long as we’re defining inflation the way a regular person would—if we’re just defining inflation as when a price goes up—then I certainly believe tariffs are very often going to be inflationary for a period. What happens is some prices that go up because of the new cost of tariffs then can go down because companies start to lose market share, and they have to compete, and it’s going to be different product by product.

I use the example of coffee, where there is really not a lot of options. People are going to drink coffee even if it’s 20 or 30% more, so that price tends to stay higher. But then there’s other things that can be easily substituted, easily competed for. Then what companies then have do is give up the price increase and take a cut in profits, which becomes a different economic problem. I don’t believe it is less of an economic problem. In fact, I think it leads to greater economic problems, because corporate profits serve as the bedrock for job creation, wage growth, new investment, and what we call the factors of production.

If inflation is meant to be when there’s real economic inflation—meaning the monetary phenomena of a broad and aggregate price level—well, if there’s a new tariff on coffee and coffee prices go up, but there’s no new money supply and no new production of goods and services, there’s just an increase in price on coffee, in theory that would mean something else in the economy went down in price. That’s why I say tariffs are in and of themselves not inflationary, but they do cause prices to rise for the thing being tariffed.

The issue, though, that nobody has wanted to really address is the fact that healthcare, higher education, and housing—that all conveniently start with the letter H—are the only three things that have had substantial price inflation above the level of broad inflation. CPI, consumer prices, have grown about two and a half percent over 25 years. It had been lower than that until the post-COVID boom that we had. Those things, to me, represent a really embedded, systemic, policy-error-driven problem impacting society, creating a rift in society that’s not being discussed.

So that’s the two-headed monster I’m trying to take on. Number one: understanding the data around tariffs and prices and economic growth with more than just “what prices went up this week.” Number two: looking at the deeper level of inflation that I think is more significant to our understanding of the economy.

EICHER: I'm glad you brought that up, because that was on my list of things to ask about, because I appreciated the fact that you had done that 25-year analysis and showing that inflation has been running along at about 2-1/2% a year, even with the COVID era spike. So that's interesting. You mentioned those three items: housing, health care, college costs, racing ahead of everything else, and they're all subsidized by government. So I think this is a good opportunity to talk about why government subsidies tend to cause those prices to go up.

BAHNSEN: If you want more of something, subsidize it. In other words, if something costs $5 and I’m going to put money into it, now the seller can charge $6. There is a very easy explanation. The way the price function works: prices are pockets of information, and humans respond to it. That’s intuitively understood with things like coupons and sales, right? You’re going to move more product when prices go lower, and then when people hear prices have gone lower, they respond. When they hear prices are going to go higher, they might respond quicker. That’s embedded in the way retail prices might work. All those things are just a basic, logical outflowing of the price mechanism.

When the government is making something more readily available and helping to pay for it—either through cheaper financing, through Fannie-Freddie mortgages, or an unlimited student loan market in higher education, or quite literally being the buyer in healthcare, particularly Medicare and Medicaid—then the price function has to respond accordingly.

EICHER: David, you also pointed out in the Dividend Cafe this week that wages have outpaced prices over that 25-year stretch, but then you zoom in on the things where people really feel it—food, shelter, utilities—that everyday basket of goods, wages are not keeping up with those. So how do we square rising wages over the long term with this middle class angst?

BAHNSEN: What I did is put two different charts in Dividend Cafe. One was 25 years, showing that wages had surpassed price increase other than in healthcare and higher education, but that in the last five years, basically since COVID, the study referred to it as a “common man basket”—utilities and food, shelter and energy, things like that, unavoidable expenditures—and that is where real wages have not kept up.

This was a data point that really played to the President’s advantage in his first term. President Trump saw a good period of real wage growth—meaning after inflation, wages had grown. I think this is likely the most practical element of how a society’s standard of living is growing. It’s kind of a disingenuous thing when people say, “Can you believe an ice cream cone used to cost five cents?” but they don’t ever mention that the average salary used to be $9,000. You have to take both to really get an understanding of how it has been applied to our quality of life.

The problem, of course, Nick, is averages are averages. There are always some people where the cost of living has grown more than their wages have. Yet all we can do at the macro is look at the overall big picture. You ask how these two things square? This is a really important point for WORLD listeners. You have a 25-year period where, in macro, for the most part wages had gone up more than prices. But those really significant areas of housing (big ticket items), college (big ticket items), they were growing more and more and leaving more people out, creating a little bit of this rift of there’s an outsider-insider divide in the economy.

There are people who can afford a house and go to a good university and send their kids to college, and there are people that can’t. The people that can’t—well, it’s true, their cost of a VCR became a cheaper DVD player, and then became a cheaper DVR, and then it became streaming. Their prices did not grow as much as wages, but there was still a part of the economy that was becoming more unaffordable.

I believe housing is the elephant in the room. It’s the subject I’ve probably talked about the most over the years.

It’s not a monetary inflation issue. It’s government subsidy on the loan side, pushing prices up, distorting ther market. You have politicians that want to go throw money at it by giving people a tax credit to buy a home or giving people the money for the down payment. Yet we have this massive supply problem where we haven’t built enough housing and too much regulation, impediment, and burden to do so. That’s the area where I think the common man angst has struggled.

The wage growth will come back, but not if corporate profits are being eroded. Real wages have to be able to grow through market forces in order for all quality of life to go up. That’s the area where I think there’s tension and a lot of misunderstanding as to what has really gone on.

EICHER: All right, David Bahnsen is founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer at The Bahnsen Group. He writes regularly for WORLD Opinions, and at dividend-cafe.com. David, thanks.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick. See you next week.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Today is Monday, August 18th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. Up next, the WORLD History Book. 250 years ago this week, King George III issues a Proclamation from the Court claiming that the British colonies in America are in a state of open rebellion.

REICHARD: That doesn’t go over too well with the colonists. The Proclamation dramatically changes the relationship between the colonies and the Crown and ultimately leads to the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

WORLD’s Emma Eicher has the story.

RICH ROSZEL: WHEREAS many of Our Subjects in diverse Parts of Our Colonies and Plantations in North America, misled by dangerous and ill-designing Men …

EMMA EICHER: On August 23rd, 1775, the King of England issues a declaration condemning traitors in America and it becomes the last straw for the colonies. Voice actor Rich Roszel reads from the Proclamation of Rebellion.

ROSZEL: … have at length proceeded to an open and avowed Rebellion, by arraying themselves in hostile Manner to withstand the Execution of the Law, and traitorously preparing, ordering, and levying War against Us.

King George III wants to send a strong message to the colonies across the pond. It’s been 11 years of what he labels “insubordination.”

But it isn’t “insubordination” to the colonists. It’s a fight for the rights they’d been guaranteed in various charters. And the British Parliament has overstepped its authority.

MARK DAVID HALL: In 1764 for the first time … the parliament decided to tax the Americans to raise revenue.

Mark David Hall is a professor of politics at Regent University in Virginia.

The colonists boycott British products. And they even set up smuggling rings for goods to avoid paying taxes. It's a peaceful protest against unlawful taxation.

But Parliament believes it can legitimately tax all British citizens including American colonists under the 1766 Declaratory Act.

HALL: … which basically says we can do whatever we want. There are no limits on our power. And to the Patriots, it sounded like tyranny. No limits on governmental power? That's the very definition of tyranny.

The protesters remind Parliament that they still aren’t allowed to tax the colonists without equal representation. It’s unconstitutional, and a denial of their rights as Englishmen.

These rebelling colonists are called “Patriots.” They fiercely defend liberty and individual rights. Think of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson these founding fathers draw on even older laws, going all the way back to 1215.

HALL: Now, according to the Patriots, if you go back to the Magna Carta, you cannot be taxed without being represented.

But Parliament doesn’t back down. And neither do the colonists. The tension results in a standoff in April, 1775 culminating in the “shot heard round the world” at the battle of Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts as the colonists defend their munitions against British soldiers.

HALL: There hadn't really been armed conflict prior to 1775 but beginning at 1775 there is armed conflict, and so the Americans saw this as a defensive war.

In July, the Continental Congress sends an Olive Branch Petition to the King, pleading for his intervention but he refuses to even look at it.

HALL: The King responds by saying, I'm not going to receive your petition, and moreover, I'm going to declare you out of my protection.

There will be no compromise with the Patriots. In the Proclamation of Rebellion, the King writes that revolutionary colonists are now considered traitors to the Crown.

ROSZEL: We do accordingly strictly charge and command … all Our obedient and loyal Subjects, to use their utmost Endeavours to withstand and suppress such Rebellion, and to disclose and make known all Treasons and traitorous Conspiracies which they shall know to be against Us.

The King’s Proclamation does more than just disavow revolutionaries. To all the colonists, it seems the King has just forfeited his authority over them. And now the Continental Congress has a choice to make: continue to peacefully resist and seek compromise, or take up arms to defend their rights.

HALL: Even in 1775 I think a lot of Americans would have been perfectly happy to reconcile with Great Britain. They just wanted their rights respected.

What would have happened if the King had tried to make amends with the Patriots? Hall says America may still have remained under British rule for much longer.

HALL: We might have had a very different universe in which we live had the King been more responsible and not issued that proclamation.

So the Continental Congress finally declares independence from Britain on July 4th, 1776:

ROSZEL: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they're endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness …

HALL: It has been said that America is the only nation founded on a proposition, on a set of principles. What the founders did is extraordinary. Not only did they stand up to the greatest military power of the age, they crafted a regime based on these principles, principles that they didn't live up to fully, but they attempted to work out and we’re still attempting to work out today.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Emma Eicher.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: What’s next for Russia and Ukraine? We’ll talk about it.

And, a special report on Russia’s persecution of Ukrainian Christians.

That and more tomorrow.

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio.

WORLD’s mission is Biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Bible records that “Soon afterward [Jesus] went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means.” —Verses 1 through 3 of Luke Chapter 8.

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.