{"id":471,"date":"2026-06-23T18:07:18","date_gmt":"2026-06-23T18:07:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=471"},"modified":"2026-06-23T18:07:18","modified_gmt":"2026-06-23T18:07:18","slug":"the-supreme-courts-campaign-to-expand-religious-liberty-now-has-a-glaring-exception","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=471","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court\u2019s campaign to expand religious liberty now has a glaring exception"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

A Louisiana prison committed one of the most obvious violations of a man\u2019s religious liberty that has ever made its way to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Read more The fall of Britain\u2019s prime minister is a warning for America<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Damon Landor is a Rastafari who, for religious reasons, does not cut his hair \u2014 according to his lawyers, he kept this vow for more than two decades, until his dreadlocks grew nearly long enough to reach his knees. But then, in 2020, while he was serving a five-month sentence for a drug-related offense, prison officials handcuffed him to a chair, held him down, and shaved his head.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Incredibly, when Landor was transferred to the prison where this forced shaving occurred, he brought with him a copy of a federal appeals court decision, which held that it violates federal religious liberty law for Louisiana prisons to cut the hair of Rastafari prisoners, at least when those prisoners wish to keep it long for religious reasons. But, when Landor presented this decision to prison guards, they threw it in the trash and shaved his head anyway.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

And yet, in its 6-3 decision in , which the Supreme Court handed down on Tuesday, the Court\u2019s Republican majority held that Landor has no remedy against these prison officials, despite their clear cut violation of federal religious liberty law.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The Court\u2019s Republican majority is normally very sympathetic to religious liberty plaintiffs, especially when those plaintiffs are Christian. So Landor<\/em> is a break from this Court\u2019s broader efforts to read religious liberty law expansively. It\u2019s unclear why the Republican justices broke from their ordinary pattern of favoring religious plaintiffs, though one explanation is that Landor<\/em> could undermine civil rights and public health statutes that Republicans oppose.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Justice Neil Gorsuch\u2019s decision for himself and his fellow Republicans rests on a hypertechnical distinction between how the federal law at issue in this case, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), was actually drafted, and how it could have been drafted to protect people like Landor. In theory, Landor<\/em> does little to limit Congress\u2019s ability to protect religious liberty \u2014 or any other right. But it requires Congress to write laws in the way that Gorsuch prefers.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Indeed, it\u2019s not even clear that Gorsuch\u2019s opinion is wrong. Numerous federal appeals courts agree with Gorsuch\u2019s approach to this case. Thus, one of the most baffling questions embedded in the Landor<\/em> decision is why the Court decided to hear this lawsuit to begin with. Why take a case involving truly egregious facts, if all the justices planned to do was reaffirm existing law? They could have just let the lower court\u2019s decision, which also ended in a loss for Landor, stand.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Instead, the justices decided to put their own prestige behind the shocking, if legally defensible, decision in Landor<\/em>. The question is why.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

One possible explanation is that the Court\u2019s Landor<\/em> decision most likely resolves an ongoing dispute about whether women in red states may receive emergency abortions, if one is necessary to save their life or to ward off serious health consequences. Although federal law requires hospitals to perform these emergency abortions, Gorsuch\u2019s opinion in Landor<\/em> could nullify that law \u2014 at least in states where abortion is illegal.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The Court\u2019s Republican majority often reads the law in ways that are inconsistent with its precedents when doing so will shut down access to abortion. Additionally, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson\u2019s lists other federal statutes, including one protecting nursing home residents, that could be undermined by Gorsuch\u2019s opinion.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

In any event, the immediate effect of the Court\u2019s most recent decision is that Landor has no remedy, despite the fact that his religious liberty rights were clearly violated.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

So what is the specific legal dispute in Landor<\/em>?<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

As Gorsuch concedes, RLUIPA prohibits state prison systems that receive federal funding from \u201cimposing \u2018\u2019 of state prisoners outside exceptional circumstances.\u201d There\u2019s little doubt that, by forcibly shaving Landor\u2019s head, Louisiana\u2019s prison system violated RLUIPA.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

But Landor sought more than a mere judicial declaration that his rights were violated; he sued the prison officials who actually shaved his head, arguing that they should personally be liable to him. Gorsuch\u2019s opinion holds that these officials are immune from paying money damages to Landor.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

To reach this result, Gorsuch fixates on the fact that RLUIPA does not directly regulate prisons or prison guards. Instead, it imposes a condition on state prisons that accept federal grants. Those prisons are free to turn away that money if they wish, but if they take that money, they are required to comply with RLUIPA\u2019s religious liberty protections.<\/p>\n

Read more The Supreme Court is about to decide if children still have free speech rights<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

This arrangement, Gorsuch argues, is similar to a contract, and thus can only bind the parties that agree to it. While the state prison where Landor was incarcerated agreed to comply with RLUIPA, Gorsuch claims, the employees of that prison did not. And thus they cannot be personally sued for violating RLUIPA.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

On the surface, this is a narrow holding, because Gorsuch also writes that Congress could have made the prison guards liable to people like Landor . \u201cCongress,\u201d Gorsuch writes, \u201ccould have said that, as a condition of federal funding to LDOC, its officers had to agree to enter separate contracts with the federal government consenting to answer suits under RLUIPA.\u201d Or it \u201cmight have conditioned its funds on Louisiana\u2019s agreement\u201d to enact a state law permitting prisoners to sue prison guards who violate RLUIPA.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

If the United States had a functioning Congress, it could fix RLUIPA tomorrow.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Indeed, Gorsuch draws such a fine distinction that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson spends much of her dissent arguing that her Republican colleagues should have cut Congress more slack. \u201cThe Court\u2019s ruling apparently boils down to dissatisfaction with the precise way Congress structured RLUIPA,\u201d Jackson writes for herself and her fellow Democrats. She adds that this \u201chairsplitting undervalues Congress\u2019s lawmaking prerogative; we ought not substitute our rigid contract-based preferences for Congress\u2019s considered statutory design.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Yet, for what it is worth, lower court judges have largely preferred Gorsuch\u2019s formalism to Jackson\u2019s more pragmatic approach. As Louisiana pointed out in its , many federal appeals courts have agreed that prisoners like Landor are not allowed to sue prison officials for money damages. So, while the Landor<\/em> decision may shock nonlawyers, it is not really a surprise to anyone who has followed this case closely.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Landor<\/em> will probably have very bad consequences for women who need an abortion to save their life<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Given this consensus among lower courts, it\u2019s very odd that the Court decided to hear this case at all. If the Court had turned Landor\u2019s petition asking the justices to review his case aside, the lower court\u2019s ruling against him would have stood, but the Republican justices would have avoided the embarrassment of having to sign their names to such a seemingly unjust result.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

One possible explanation for the Court\u2019s decision to take up Landor<\/em>, however, is that it potentially allows them to dodge an ongoing dispute about an even more contentious issue: abortion.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), requires hospitals that accept Medicare funding (which is nearly every hospital in the US) to provide \u201csuch treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition\u201d of \u201cany individual\u201d who arrives at the hospital\u2019s ER with an \u201cemergency medical condition.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

EMTALA contains no exception for abortion. So, under EMTALA\u2019s text, federal law unambiguously requires hospitals to perform emergency abortions. EMTALA also says that state and local laws are superseded by EMTALA\u2019s provisions \u201cto the extent that the [state law] directly conflicts with a requirement of this section.\u201d Red states, in other words, may not prohibit hospitals from performing emergency abortions that are required by federal law.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Nevertheless, Idaho refused to comply with EMTALA, and a dispute over whether Idaho\u2019s broad abortion ban could restrict emergency abortions reached the Supreme Court in (2024).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Though a majority of the justices voted to dismiss the Moyle<\/em> case without deciding it, Justice Samuel Alito wrote a that closely resembles Gorsuch\u2019s opinion in Landor<\/em>. (Gorsuch joined most of Alito\u2019s dissent.)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Alito argued that, much like RLUIPA, EMTALA operates like a contract \u2014 hospitals receive federal funding, and in return they agree to perform certain medical procedures. But the state of Idaho, Alito claimed, is not a party to this agreement much as the prison guards in Landor<\/em> did not agree to be bound by RLUIPA\u2019s provisions. And thus the state did not agree to have its broad ban on abortions limited by EMTALA\u2019s provisions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

After Landor<\/em>, it\u2019s now fairly clear that Alito\u2019s position should control Moyle<\/em>. Indeed, after Landor<\/em>, lower courts are likely to reject attempts to enforce EMTALA against red states, thus saving the Republican justices the trouble of having to nullify EMTALA\u2019s protections for women who need emergency abortions themselves.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

And thus, thereafter, women in red states who need emergency abortions to save their life will simply die.<\/p>\n

Read more What happens when it breaks 100 degrees in Europe<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

See More:<\/span><\/p>\n
    \n
  • Life<\/li>\n
  • Politics<\/li>\n
  • Religion<\/li>\n
  • Supreme Court<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Why the Court just ruled against a Rastafari man whose rights were violated in the most blatant way imaginable.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":470,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-471","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-interesting"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Supreme Court\u2019s campaign to expand religious liberty now has a glaring exception - American Living Report<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=471\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Supreme Court\u2019s campaign to expand religious liberty now has a glaring exception - American Living Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Why the Court just ruled against a Rastafari man whose rights were violated in the most blatant way imaginable.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=471\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Living Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-23T18:07:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=471#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=471\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7b970e3bc484fe2e26860a4380d70de8\"},\"headline\":\"The Supreme Court\u2019s campaign to expand religious liberty now has a glaring exception\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-23T18:07:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=471\"},\"wordCount\":1564,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=471#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/bb1a83653ff6262f2b1d3fbc4c6d1f0f.webp\",\"articleSection\":[\"Interesting\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=471#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=471\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=471\",\"name\":\"The Supreme Court\u2019s campaign to expand religious liberty now has a glaring exception - American Living Report\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=471#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=471#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/bb1a83653ff6262f2b1d3fbc4c6d1f0f.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-23T18:07:18+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7b970e3bc484fe2e26860a4380d70de8\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=471#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=471\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=471#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/bb1a83653ff6262f2b1d3fbc4c6d1f0f.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/bb1a83653ff6262f2b1d3fbc4c6d1f0f.webp\",\"width\":613,\"height\":318},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=471#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Supreme Court\u2019s campaign to expand religious liberty now has a glaring exception\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"American Living Report\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7b970e3bc484fe2e26860a4380d70de8\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Supreme Court\u2019s campaign to expand religious liberty now has a glaring exception - American Living Report","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=471","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Supreme Court\u2019s campaign to expand religious liberty now has a glaring exception - American Living Report","og_description":"Why the Court just ruled against a Rastafari man whose rights were violated in the most blatant way imaginable.","og_url":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=471","og_site_name":"American Living Report","article_published_time":"2026-06-23T18:07:18+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=471#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=471"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7b970e3bc484fe2e26860a4380d70de8"},"headline":"The Supreme Court\u2019s campaign to expand religious liberty now has a glaring exception","datePublished":"2026-06-23T18:07:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=471"},"wordCount":1564,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=471#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/bb1a83653ff6262f2b1d3fbc4c6d1f0f.webp","articleSection":["Interesting"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=471#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=471","url":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=471","name":"The Supreme Court\u2019s campaign to expand religious liberty now has a glaring exception - American Living Report","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=471#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=471#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/bb1a83653ff6262f2b1d3fbc4c6d1f0f.webp","datePublished":"2026-06-23T18:07:18+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7b970e3bc484fe2e26860a4380d70de8"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=471#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=471"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=471#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/bb1a83653ff6262f2b1d3fbc4c6d1f0f.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/bb1a83653ff6262f2b1d3fbc4c6d1f0f.webp","width":613,"height":318},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=471#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Supreme Court\u2019s campaign to expand religious liberty now has a glaring exception"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/","name":"American Living Report","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7b970e3bc484fe2e26860a4380d70de8","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/americanlivingreport.com"],"url":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/471","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=471"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/471\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/470"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=471"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=471"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=471"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}