Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 310 ｜ Do Democrats Decrease Abortions？

00:00:00.000 Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Wednesday. Hope everyone has had a wonderful week. Today we

00:00:15.580 are going to cover two things at least. We're going to talk about Trump having coronavirus,

00:00:19.920 some of the reactions to that and the media coverage of it, which has been absolutely insane.

00:00:27.320 And then I'll talk a little bit about masks. A lot of you guys ask me what I think about masks and I

00:00:32.720 have talked about it before, but we're going to go back and look at some of the studies about the

00:00:36.740 efficacy of masks and if all of the craziness surrounding them is actually scientifically

00:00:43.100 justified. But we're going to spend the best portion of this podcast episode answering the

00:00:49.980 question, do democratic policies actually provably lower the abortion rate? That is probably a 0.90

00:00:56.780 graphic that you guys have seen going around on Facebook. It shows the abortion rate since I

00:01:03.720 think it's Ronald Reagan. And it shows that under democratic presidents that the abortion rate goes

00:01:09.720 down more drastically than under Republican presidents. And the conclusion that people

00:01:15.660 who post this graphic come to without actually having to explain it at all is that democratic

00:01:21.780 policies lower abortions. And so if you're really pro-life, if you really don't like abortion,

00:01:27.760 then you should vote for Democrats. And I'm going to talk about some of the facts that are

00:01:33.240 surrounding that assertion and we'll assess whether or not it's really true. Okay, let us first talk

00:01:42.260 about Trump having the coronavirus. So he tweeted last week that he and FLOTUS tested positive

00:01:50.420 for the coronavirus. And there were a lot of good reactions to it. Biden had a good reaction. The

00:01:58.020 Obamas had a good reaction to it. Rachel Maddow. There were some people on the left that I thought gave

00:02:03.280 very good well wishes, respectful well wishes to the president. A lot of sympathy who I know do not like

00:02:10.400 him. And that's really the thing that we want to see. And that's what you hope for. For example, you know,

00:02:16.080 when Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, there was an outpouring of support and respect from conservatives

00:02:21.720 toward her. That doesn't mean that we agree with her decisions or her ideology at all in the same

00:02:28.200 way that a lot of people on the left don't agree with Trump. But you pay respect and kindness where

00:02:33.660 it is due. Unfortunately, for a lot of people on the left, I'll say for a good portion of people,

00:02:41.880 I don't know if a lot is necessarily correct. They were very excited about the news that Donald Trump

00:02:47.680 has coronavirus and has a couple of comorbidities, one of them being a little bit overweight and the

00:02:54.500 other one of them being old. And the hope among these people, these soulless people who do not like

00:03:01.440 Donald Trump, is that he would die or that this would just be really bad for him and he would learn

00:03:06.400 his lesson. So there were some people who were giddy over this. Zahra Rahim, former spokesperson

00:03:11.560 for Hillary Clinton, tweeted, it has been against my moral identity to tweet this for the past four 0.98

00:03:17.760 years, but I hope he dies. OK, again, that's former spokesperson for Hillary Clinton. When I read 0.72

00:03:25.900 these tweets that I'm reading, I'm not just picking random trolls. You can find random trolls on either

00:03:30.160 side that say disgusting things and then try to use those to typify the whole side. I don't think

00:03:35.020 that's fair. I'm simply pointing out to you that these blue check marks on Twitter, these people,

00:03:40.240 some of them are mainstream influencers in the Democratic Party. They really hate Donald Trump

00:03:46.020 so much that they are willing to go against their so-called moral identity to wish him death. And I

00:03:52.940 just want to point out morality is not an identity. And it's actually so revealing of someone's worldview

00:03:58.960 when they see morality as an identity, something that you just kind of self-proclaim and and dawn and

00:04:05.380 then you can change and take it off whenever you want to when the circumstances arise. That's

00:04:10.720 actually the opposite of morality. That is just deciding what to do and what to say based on your

00:04:16.220 emotions. And I think a lot of people unfortunately do think morality is something that you feel is

00:04:22.660 right in the moment. And so it's very revealing about how she thinks about the world. But Zahra Rahim,

00:04:28.160 former spokesperson for Hillary Clinton says, I hope he dies. Cody Johnston, also a also a Democratic

00:04:39.300 influencer, a liberal influencer on Twitter, said, if someone tries to scold you for thinking this is

00:04:45.040 funny, talking about President Trump testing positive, simply tell them that you hope the 0.66

00:04:49.540 president dies from the virus. OK, another blue check mark, Daniel Golson. I don't feel bad about

00:04:55.600 hoping he dies because I've been hoping that since 2015. Danielle Moscato, BLM activist. I'm not one 0.91

00:05:02.000 to laugh at other people's suffering, but ha ha ha ha ha ha. Burn in hell, you MF-er. A word that we 1.00

00:05:09.400 will not repeat on this podcast. And then we've got Kate Ouellette, who is another blue check mark. She is 0.67

00:05:17.640 a left-wing comedian. Quote tweeted the president saying that he and FLOTUS tested positive. She said in all

00:05:24.500 caps, there is joy in this life sometimes. So certainly a good number of people on the left

00:05:31.140 extremely giddy about President Trump having this virus. And like I said, there were some people

00:05:38.380 who were very respectful, I thought, and said the things that they need to say about this. They took

00:05:43.700 higher ground. And sure, you could say that, you know, the Obamas and the Bidens coming out and giving

00:05:49.620 their respectful statements that that's just political posturing and that it's not sincere.

00:05:54.160 That might be true. That's just politics, though. Whether or not it's sincere, I mean,

00:05:58.640 people on the left and the right, they give statements, whether or not they mean them because

00:06:02.520 they sound good. And so we kind of just have to realize that Democrats and Republicans are going to

00:06:08.020 do that. That doesn't really bother me. I still thought that they were good statements. But within 24

00:06:13.020 hours, it became, oh, well, Trump brought this upon himself. This is karma, basically saying that he

00:06:20.080 deserves this. By the way, as Christians, we don't believe in karma. That's something that I think

00:06:23.840 we say, you know, Christians say a lot of these superstitious phrases. I do. And I've really tried 1.00

00:06:30.620 in the past year to catch myself saying things like this, you know, like knock on wood, karma,

00:06:35.820 good luck, things like, you know, other kind of superstitious phrases and words that Christians 1.00

00:06:44.300 really shouldn't say because we don't believe in it. Karma, this idea that good comes back to you

00:06:50.660 based on if you've done something good, bad comes back to you based on if you've done something bad.

00:06:55.900 We don't believe that. We believe in a sovereign God. The rain falls on the righteous and the

00:07:01.600 unrighteous, the Bible says, and God will be just in the end and how he deals with the wicked and the

00:07:08.140 righteous according to the blood of his son and who has been covered by that. So we don't believe

00:07:16.700 in karma. There are bad people that get away with bad things their whole lives and it doesn't come

00:07:21.400 back to bite them until after they die. There are really good people that unfortunately have tragic,

00:07:27.800 terrible, really difficult lives that their lives didn't necessarily earn the things that they have

00:07:35.920 that they have gone through. And nevertheless, if they are Christians, their reward is in heaven.

00:07:41.200 So we don't believe in karma, but a lot of people were saying that this is karma for Trump. What goes

00:07:45.820 around comes around. This is just what happened. But let us just review. You know, a lot of people

00:07:51.000 saying Trump didn't take this seriously. Trump lied. People died. It is true that Trump downplayed it,

00:07:57.120 but I really believe that any president would have done the same thing, hoping that people do not

00:08:03.840 panic. No one likes panic. No one likes pandemonium. It's not good for the country. It's not good for

00:08:09.740 the economy. It's not good for your personal health. And so you can argue that he should have

00:08:14.460 been more straightforward about it from the beginning. He kind of went back and forth in his

00:08:19.300 rhetoric, I think, in the beginning saying, you know, this is really serious. And then sometimes saying,

00:08:22.980 well, actually, this is just like the flu. And so he could have been more consistent in that.

00:08:28.440 He did tell Bob Woodward, which he never should have talked to Bob Woodward, but he did tell Bob

00:08:33.340 Woodward, yeah, you know, I downplayed it. But I think a lot of leaders do the same thing in the

00:08:39.960 hopes that people don't panic and that they realize, you know, that it's that it's under control. And he

00:08:47.060 did, according to his actions, try his best to keep it under control. He banned travel from China.

00:08:53.660 And when he did that back in February, Joe Biden and other Democratic leaders said that that was

00:09:00.480 xenophobic. And the WHO even said, you know, we shouldn't do that. Bernie Sanders said that we

00:09:05.840 shouldn't close the borders. According to Cuomo and Newsom, two very Democratic liberal governors,

00:09:12.140 they praised Donald Trump saying he has given us all the supplies that we need and he has helped us

00:09:18.580 as much as we could possibly ask for. He did dispatch and empower the resources of the federal

00:09:27.180 government to help states as much as they possibly could. And of course, the media is not going to

00:09:32.180 cover that because this is just another scandal that they can use to try to get people not to vote for

00:09:37.540 him. Like I said, I think he minimized it maybe a little bit too much in the beginning. But do I

00:09:43.780 think that he did everything he possibly could the exact same as a Democratic president would do in

00:09:50.020 order to mitigate the risk and minimize this? Now, he didn't, you know, do a federal lockdown or a

00:09:56.860 federal mask mandate because individual liberty, in my opinion, is is still important here. And he didn't

00:10:03.920 want to crush the economy. As a politician, you always have to weigh the pros and cons of your

00:10:09.260 policy. Having just total draconian lockdowns without any thought to how it affects people's

00:10:15.040 livelihoods, how it affects the economy, how it affects people's even just ability to socialize

00:10:22.360 and to get the kind of psychiatric care that they need and different things like that. Any politician

00:10:28.040 that doesn't consider those risks and only considers the risk of a virus with at least a 98 percent

00:10:34.600 survival rate among all age groups is really a lot higher than that for people under 80 years old

00:10:40.080 is not a good leader. You're always weighing the pros and cons. And I believe that Trump

00:10:44.100 did that. He had to do that. I think Republican governors, I don't think Democratic governors have

00:10:49.340 done this as well, but I think Republican governors have had to weigh the pros and cons of lockdowns,

00:10:55.100 the mask mandates against the economy and kids going back to schools and people getting the

00:11:01.120 socialization that they need. You have to weigh those pros and cons. Whereas a lot of Democrats think

00:11:07.320 that, no, you shut everything down. You don't think about the economy. You don't think about anything else.

00:11:12.000 You keep people locked down for for a virus with about a 99 percent survival rate. And that's that.

00:11:18.640 But the only reason they're taking that position is because it is against Donald Trump and it is the

00:11:24.000 argument that they're making that Donald Trump or Republicans are not taking this seriously enough.

00:11:29.080 But again, if you look at Democratic run states, if you look at places like California and New York

00:11:33.840 or New Jersey, where a large bulk of the deaths were happening, where they did have lockdowns,

00:11:40.440 where they did have all of the mandates and the regulations that Democrats are saying that you

00:11:44.600 needed, you don't see that they had you don't see that they had a better a better outcome than

00:11:51.580 Republican states who didn't do draconian lockdowns. And then we'll talk about Sweden and how that kind of

00:11:57.700 disproves the whole lockdown narrative as well.

00:12:10.400 But the point is that people saying that Trump minimized this too much, that he didn't take it seriously,

00:12:16.160 that he called it a hoax. That's not true. He didn't call it a hoax. They're being hypocrites

00:12:21.840 and they're being dishonest because through his actions, he did not actually minimize the seriousness 0.97

00:12:29.260 or he did not actually convey a minimization of the seriousness of the virus, just tried to kind

00:12:37.600 of calm people down while also taking steps to to help states as much as possible. I want you to

00:12:46.360 listen to this montage. It was on Tucker Carlson of Democrats and what they were saying back in March

00:12:54.860 about the virus and how people should be reacting to it.

00:13:00.040 The risk to New Yorkers for coronavirus is low and our city preparedness is high.

00:13:07.900 This should not stop you from going about your life, should not stop you from going to Chinatown

00:13:11.420 and going out to eat. I'm going to do that today myself. Come to Chinatown. Here we are. We're again

00:13:17.520 careful, safe and come join us. There is no concern at this time for coronavirus in our region.

00:13:26.020 The Department of Sanitation is ready for Mardi Gras 2020.

00:13:29.580 The facts are reassuring. We want New Yorkers to go about their daily lives. There's really no need

00:13:36.800 to panic and to avoid activities that we always do as New Yorkers. We are hardy people. Americans do

00:13:43.920 not need to panic. What I would suggest, however, is that Americans take this as a wake-up call for

00:13:51.020 seasonal flu. There's very little threat here. This disease, even if you were to get it, basically acts

00:13:56.420 like a common cold or flu. So we're telling New Yorkers, go about your lives, take the subway,

00:14:03.080 go out, enjoy life. And certainly not to miss the parade next Sunday. I'm going to be there.

00:14:10.120 If you had to, would you close down the borders? No. We need to be honest about the American people,

00:14:16.720 with the American people about the fact that we can't keep people coming here from China.

00:14:20.660 And transmission is not that easy. I think there's been a misperception

00:14:24.160 that coronavirus hangs in the air waiting to catch you. No, it takes direct person-to-person

00:14:29.360 contact. We also know that if it were likely to be transmitted casually, we would be seeing a lot

00:14:36.500 more cases. Right, right. Because this is New York.

00:14:38.480 So a lot of people like to say that it was Trump. It was only Trump not taking it seriously. But you

00:14:43.900 saw Nancy Pelosi. You saw Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York City. They were all saying the

00:14:51.400 same thing. You saw the mayor of New Orleans saying, yeah, we're doing Mardi Gras. You saw all these

00:14:56.640 people trying to say, oh, no, it's not that big of a deal because the Democrats are always going to

00:15:01.080 take the opposite side of Donald Trump. So when Donald Trump in March started taking it seriously,

00:15:05.200 when he started banning travel and things like that, they had to say, oh, no, no, no, no, it's

00:15:09.640 not that big of a deal. Go out and live your life. It's fine. And then when it seemed like, oh, well,

00:15:14.720 actually, the better political pitch here is that Donald Trump is not taking it seriously enough.

00:15:18.700 And we've always been the very serious ones. They decided to switch that. But people's memory,

00:15:24.880 like we have so much amnesia. People's memory is so short. And we just believe what the media tells us.

00:15:31.100 We just believe the Democratic talking point so easily because they're everywhere that we forget

00:15:36.960 that it was actually Democrats in the beginning who were not taking it seriously. And they believed

00:15:41.460 that Trump was taking it too seriously. So you could argue, sure, that both parties failed. That's

00:15:46.680 fine. I'm fine with that. But to say that all 200,000 deaths from coronavirus or coronavirus related

00:15:54.480 things is because of Donald Trump is just completely dishonest. 0.52

00:15:58.680 And so to say that he deserves the sickness because of those 200,000 deaths is insane. It's 0.93

00:16:04.540 just not backed by any fact. Now, people are also freaking out because, well, they freaked out because

00:16:10.940 he took a joyride around Walter Reed. That's the hospital where he was getting treated as a precaution.

00:16:17.720 And he took, he got into the car with Secret Service and he drove around to wave and to thank people

00:16:23.880 who had been out there praying for him and cheering him on and things like that.

00:16:29.620 And people are saying, well, he needlessly exposed the Secret Service by being in a close quarter

00:16:35.380 with them. And that is just so reckless and wrong. I have a few thoughts on that.

00:16:42.260 Number one, I understand what you're saying. I do. Because it was unnecessary. He didn't actually

00:16:48.000 need to go. He didn't need to go out into the car. And so it just seems like unnecessary contact

00:16:54.640 with the people around him. But he's also he's always going to be around Secret Service. Like

00:16:59.320 they didn't just leave him at the hospital and drop him off. Like he is always going to be around

00:17:04.100 Secret Service. These are people that are getting paid to take a bullet for the president

00:17:08.540 at any point. Like they signed up to die for him. Now, at the same time, I don't think that it's wise

00:17:16.960 or prudent to kind of purposely and directly expose them to the virus if it's not necessary. I didn't

00:17:24.840 think that the ride around was necessary. But did I think it was the biggest deal in the world and

00:17:30.000 that Trump is people were leftist blue check marks on Twitter were actually trying to say that,

00:17:34.820 you know, this is attempted murder, this is negligent homicide, or this is

00:17:39.000 manslaughter. I mean, it's like every two months they're accusing Trump of something like that.

00:17:43.280 I mean, it's just it's just insane. You make it really hard to listen to you when you have a

00:17:47.440 legitimate concern. But did you know, did I think it was the biggest deal ever? A lot of people were

00:17:51.860 saying no, I didn't. But did you know, a lot of people were saying that this is this was just

00:17:56.620 vanity. It was a photo op. I actually don't think that I think Trump really loves and cares about

00:18:03.600 the people who support him. I truly do. And I know some of you out there who hate Donald Trump

00:18:08.560 are rolling your eyes. No, he doesn't. He only cares about himself. But okay, even if you say

00:18:13.360 he's a narcissist, even if if that's your thought, which I'm not, but if that's your thought,

00:18:19.380 narcissists really like the people that like them. So I think like, whether or not he is that whether

00:18:25.380 or not he's a selfish is a lot of leftist claim that he is. I personally don't think that he is.

00:18:30.020 I do think that he has a little bit of pride issues. And he has some thin skin for sure.

00:18:35.180 And he can't ever apologize or say that he's wrong. But neither could Obama, by the way.

00:18:39.960 But whether or not you think that he is this selfish, arrogant guy, 0.96

00:18:45.780 they he obviously really has affection for his supporters. And I think him going out there

00:18:51.360 and waving to them was a true sign of appreciation. I don't think that he anticipated pictures. I really

00:18:57.020 don't. Because I think he probably thought that that could get him in trouble and that the press

00:19:01.300 probably wouldn't like that. And I think he did it anyway. I think he really sincerely appreciated.

00:19:06.900 I really think it meant a lot to him that people were out there praying and cheering him on.

00:19:11.120 And he really wanted to go out there and show appreciation. I truly I think that that is what

00:19:16.500 that was about. I don't think it was vanity. Like I don't think it was. Now, a lot of people are also

00:19:22.460 freaking out about the fact that when he went back to the White House that he decided to take a picture

00:19:28.280 without a mask, which I also understand like you are positive for the virus. You should take every

00:19:35.780 precaution necessary to make sure that you're not infecting the people around you. But I don't know

00:19:42.000 if it's worth the outrage that we saw. I just want to remind you that the science on masks

00:19:48.280 is iffy. I know that's very scandalous to say. I am not an anti-mask person. I wear a mask everywhere

00:19:56.000 it is required of me. I'm not going to put up a, you know, put up a fight about it. I'm not going to

00:20:01.720 freak out. So please don't say that I'm encouraging people not to wear masks ever. And I am completely

00:20:09.640 anti-mask. I wear a mask where it is required of me. But I also realize that the science on masks,

00:20:18.260 masks is iffy. And therefore, the outrage and the dogmatism that we are seeing surrounding masks

00:20:23.660 is just it's unjustified. And it almost came out of nowhere. Let me play you a clip from Dr. Fauci

00:20:32.660 back in March talking about masks.

00:20:36.600 Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.

00:20:42.080 You're sure of it because people are listening really closely to this.

00:20:45.560 Right now people should not be walking. There's no reason to be walking around with a mask.

00:20:50.180 When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better.

00:20:56.560 And it might even block a droplet. But it's not providing the perfect protection that people think

00:21:03.680 that it is. And often there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask

00:21:10.040 and they keep touching their face. And can you get some schmutz sort of staying inside there?

00:21:15.260 Of course. Of course. But when you think masks, you should think of health care providers needing

00:21:19.660 them. And then at the end of February, we had the Surgeon General say, seriously, people in all caps,

00:21:26.520 stop buying masks. They're not effective in preventing general public from catching coronavirus.

00:21:31.420 But if health care providers can't get them to care for sick patients, it puts them in our communities

00:21:36.760 at risk. I was actually at the doctor the other day and they had a sign up that was from I think

00:21:43.920 it was February or March. And it was interesting that they had capped it up right next to the news

00:21:49.720 sign. But it said masks are not effective for healthy people. You don't need to wear a mask if you are

00:21:55.940 healthy unless you're in prolonged close contact with someone that has the virus or if you are sick

00:22:02.260 yourself and you have to go out in public or something, then you can wear a mask. But you really don't need

00:22:06.620 to wear a mask if you're a healthy person. Now, the reason why Dr. Fauci and the Surgeon General

00:22:12.740 and the WHO say that they have changed on that is because a science came out that shows that you can

00:22:18.200 be asymptomatic and you can actually spread the virus. But then recently, I actually saw a study

00:22:23.620 that said, oh, no, that's not true. It doesn't really seem like asymptomatic people are actually

00:22:28.680 sharing the virus as much. And so they've kind of gone back and forth. And in the beginning,

00:22:33.680 because they were so dogmatic and so sure that we should not be wearing masks, it just makes the

00:22:40.540 whole thing seem very weird that not until much after the peak in June, at the end of June, it was

00:22:47.460 when people were saying, where are your dang masks and getting mad at people and freaking out when people

00:22:53.280 weren't wearing masks. Not in March, not in April, not in May, not in June. It was not until the end of

00:23:00.320 June, after the riots and the protests and people kind of honestly forgetting about the coronavirus.

00:23:06.760 It was like all of a sudden we have to wear masks after they had been so sure that we should not wear

00:23:12.360 masks. And so you can't really get mad at people for wondering about the efficacy and effectiveness

00:23:18.820 of masks. But you can kind of think that it's just a little bit weird, a little weird how angry people

00:23:25.200 are getting about them when we were told so many times that they're really not effective for healthy

00:23:30.860 people. OK, so this is from the WHO in 2019. Now, the WHO is not an organization that I really trust,

00:23:38.820 but this is the organization that so many people are getting their getting their information from.

00:23:44.420 And that is seen as a trustworthy source by a lot of people. There's limited evidence that wearing a

00:23:49.620 medical mask by healthy individuals in the households or among contacts of a sick patient

00:23:54.000 or among attendees of mass gatherings may be beneficial as a preventative measure. So limited

00:23:59.240 evidence of that. However, there's currently no evidence that wearing a mask by healthy persons

00:24:03.820 in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection

00:24:09.040 with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19. So I just have a hard time believing that that science,

00:24:14.700 a parent science has changed. And WHO goes on to say the use of cloth masks referred to as fabric

00:24:21.920 masks in this document as an alternative to medical masks is not considered appropriate for protection of

00:24:28.760 health workers based on limited available evidence. One study that evaluated the use of cloth masks

00:24:33.240 in a health care facility found that health care workers using cotton cloth masks were at increased risk

00:24:39.220 of influenza-like illness compared with those who wore medical masks. So that is from

00:24:44.700 the WHO. I will make sure to include a link to that in the description so that you can read it for

00:24:50.040 yourself. There was a randomized trial published by National Institutes of Health that found that

00:24:54.960 quote, penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97 percent, 97 percent. And so other people's

00:25:04.480 particles is going to are going to get into your nose and mouth if you're wearing a cloth mask and your

00:25:09.780 particles are going to get into other people's nose and mouth if you're wearing a cloth mask.

00:25:14.700 Now, that's only if you cough or sneeze or something like that. I think some people think that masks

00:25:20.500 protect you from like a sick person's breath. They don't. They don't. Like you're still breathing the

00:25:26.320 air that the people around you are breathing. There's another study published by the National

00:25:30.780 Institutes of Health that found, quote, wearing N95 mask for four hours, significantly reduced oxygen levels

00:25:39.560 and increased respiratory adverse effects in patients. So that's good. So we know that N95 masks are the only

00:25:47.740 kind of masks that actually filter out any virus particles. But we're reading in this study that it actually

00:25:54.660 can can can lower your oxygen rates if you wear it for a long period of time. That's why when I hear

00:26:00.340 about kids having to wear these when I wear masks, I'm wearing it for like 20 minutes when I go in the

00:26:04.700 grocery store or something. But these kids that are wearing masks eight hours a day, I just can't imagine

00:26:09.800 that that is great for them. There have been studies that show that masks do help, you know, stop the

00:26:17.280 mitigate the spread of the virus when in combination with everything else, when in combination

00:26:23.100 with social distancing, when in combination of washing your hands and basically staying around

00:26:28.200 sick people. So, I mean, yeah, those are the basic things that you always do. You always wash your

00:26:34.140 hands and stay around sick people and try not to get too close to people that you don't know. I mean,

00:26:39.080 that's what we would do in a typical flu flu year. So but wearing a mask is not really going to keep

00:26:46.480 you safe if you're sitting on a like a packed flight or public transit or something like that.

00:26:51.040 It's just probably not this. The science just really isn't there from what we know. But I do

00:26:56.840 understand that stores and airlines, they want to be able to say that they are doing everything they

00:27:01.680 can to mitigate the risk. And so I do understand that a lot of that is PR and a lot of that is the

00:27:08.040 feeling of safety of their customers and the people who work for them so they can have as much

00:27:12.140 business as possible, make as much money as possible so they don't have to lay people off. And so

00:27:16.420 I do understand it. And hey, if you don't want to wear a mask, you don't have to go into that

00:27:20.680 grocery store. You don't have to use that airline, whatever it is. All I'm saying is that the science

00:27:26.400 does not demand that people are as dogmatic and mean as they are about masks. And I don't think

00:27:34.920 that it's necessary, certainly for two year olds to be required to wear masks on airlines. I just don't

00:27:40.340 think there is science, enough science to prove that it is worth that. So the fact that Trump hasn't

00:27:47.980 always been gung ho about masks just means that he is in line with science, which is mixed. Do I think

00:27:54.240 it's probably a good political look since the vast majority of the country seems to like masks and to

00:28:00.680 wear masks? Do I think it's a good political look for him to wear a mask? I actually do. There's,

00:28:06.360 of course, a minority of people who thinks masks are terrible and do think that they're a sign

00:28:11.340 of weakness. But I think for the most part, when people see Joe Biden wearing a mask, that it seems

00:28:16.780 like a sign of respect or something like that. Even if it's totally political posturing, it's

00:28:21.320 probably better politics to wear a mask right now, even though, like I said, the science isn't

00:28:26.820 really backing up the complete and total efficacy of masks. And OK, one more thing I wanted to say,

00:28:33.060 I'm actually talking about this longer than I thought that I would. But before we get to our

00:28:36.520 million dollar question about abortions, I just want to point out about Sweden. A story came out

00:28:42.200 that hospitalizations and deaths will flatline in Sweden by the end of the year. And the interesting

00:28:47.780 thing about Sweden is that they have never had a mask mandate, that the vast majority of people in

00:28:53.700 Sweden do not wear masks when they go outside. Very, very rare for a Swedish person, according to these

00:28:58.820 studies, to wear a mask when they go outside. And they never had any lockdowns. They did have

00:29:03.620 certain restrictions, but no mass lockdowns. They've only had 5,895 total deaths. And while that

00:29:09.740 is more than Denmark, they are also not having the same economic repercussions as Denmark. And it is

00:29:17.780 comparable per million people as Denmark. Let me read you some of this. Chief epidemiologist in Sweden,

00:29:26.200 Anders Tegnell, has said he is unconvinced by the evidence for masks and he is not even

00:29:31.600 recommending them, let alone urging legislation to make them compulsory. Instead, he says Swedes should 0.97

00:29:37.380 avoid situations where they get too close to other people. Now, doesn't that just seem like common sense?

00:29:43.100 Tegnell is once again taking Sweden down a different path than most other countries. Sweden did not lock

00:29:49.680 down. Instead, promoting voluntary measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Public gatherings of more

00:29:55.660 than 50 people were banned, as were visits to care homes for the elderly. But school, restaurants,

00:30:02.240 gyms, offices remained open. Predictions that Sweden's strategy could lead to intensive care

00:30:08.500 being overwhelmed or that up to 80,000 people would die by early July were wrong by an order of magnitude.

00:30:16.320 The number of confirmed cases started falling off at the end of June and kept declining through July.

00:30:21.360 While in Norway and Denmark, the rate has been creeping up, the number of people dying of

00:30:26.140 coronavirus in Sweden peaked in April with 115 deaths in a day and was in single digits per day

00:30:32.360 by August. Economically, this is from all of that was from newstatesman.com, and I will link that

00:30:41.060 source. Economically, Sweden is faring better than most. Its second quarter contraction of 8.6 percent

00:30:46.600 looks almost trivial when compared to Britain's 20.4 percent or the EU average of 12.1 percent.

00:30:53.000 Fortune.com says, with numbers diminishing very quickly in Sweden, we see no point in wearing a

00:30:58.160 face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport, their chief epidemiologist, Tegnell, said. And so

00:31:05.260 I think it's interesting here in America how things are so politicized and it really can

00:31:10.840 have such an effect on policy and what people think about masks and lockdowns.

00:31:14.840 The fact of the matter is, is that the science is not good in proving that lockdowns are necessary

00:31:21.700 in in preventing the spread of the virus might help a little bit. But really, what we should

00:31:27.500 have done all along is to protect the vulnerable, quarantine the vulnerable and then take, you know,

00:31:34.780 as many social distancing precautions as we possibly can and continue to live our lives.

00:31:40.700 That is what Sweden did. They avoided the lockdowns. They avoided the drastic economic

00:31:45.960 downturn and the social isolation that leads to suicides and depression and anxiety and people not

00:31:52.380 getting the care for other sicknesses that they need. I mean, I don't even think that we realize

00:31:57.640 the damaging and long-term effects that these draconian and unscientific, in many cases,

00:32:02.840 lockdowns have caused on people's lives. And that doesn't mean that we don't care about the

00:32:07.860 people who died from the virus or that we just want to be cavalier about it and that their lives

00:32:11.880 don't matter. But again, politicians, leaders, they have to weigh the pros and cons of everything

00:32:18.640 they do. There are risks, no matter what decision that you make. There are always pros and cons.

00:32:23.420 And I don't think that our nation as a whole did that well at all. And I think it's because we're in

00:32:28.700 an election year, quite frankly. And it seemed like Sweden did that really well. And it's going to pay

00:32:33.920 off. So good. I'm very happy for them. I'm glad that is working out for them. I wish more people

00:32:39.380 would have listened. Now, for the million dollar question, there are more things I wanted to talk

00:32:44.600 about today. I wanted to talk about the craziness, the crazy assertion that Republicans are trying to

00:32:51.860 overturn Obergefell, the decision that decided gay marriage. But I don't have time for that. I'll have 1.00

00:32:55.780 to talk about it maybe next week. But I do want to answer this million dollar question that so many

00:33:00.640 people have asked me about. And that is, do democratic policies reduce abortion? So if you're

00:33:08.920 watching on YouTube, I'll put up the chart that's been going around on Facebook. What you see is the

00:33:14.520 abortion rate, the sources, the CDC from 1980 to 2016. And we see a steady decline. But what we see,

00:33:22.380 according to this chart, is that abortion went down only by 4% under Reagan, 4% under Bush, 30% under

00:33:30.080 Clinton, a Democrat, 3% under the next Bush, and 26% under Obama. And so people who are sharing this

00:33:36.600 chart are saying, see, if you really care about reducing abortions, then you need to vote Democrat

00:33:41.200 because according to this chart, democratic policies lower the abortion rate. Except this chart doesn't

00:33:48.120 prove that. A correlation does not prove causation. So you could look at the divorce rate. I saw someone

00:33:56.500 share a funny, a funny chart to make that point that correlation doesn't prove causation. You could

00:34:03.020 look at the divorce rates in Maine, for example, and the use of margarine in Maine, and they might go

00:34:09.300 down at similar rates throughout history. Does that mean that the divorce rate is causing the decrease in

00:34:18.220 the use of margarine? Does that mean that the use of margarine, the decrease in the use of margarine is

00:34:23.060 somehow affecting the divorce rate? No, these two things don't necessarily have any kind of causal

00:34:29.200 relationship. And just saying that two things happen at the same time is not enough to prove a

00:34:34.360 causal relationship. And that, of course, is true in this chart. So there are some things that we have

00:34:39.960 to ask ourselves. And it's so funny, the people who are sharing this chart are saying, see, democratic

00:34:44.260 policies lower abortions, but they're not naming those policies. Tell me, what specific policies did

00:34:49.040 Clinton and Obama put in place that Reagan, Bush, and the other Bush did not put in place that actually

00:34:54.300 provably lowered the abortion rate? It's like no one's asking that question. We're just like, oh,

00:34:58.500 okay, blue, red, bad, good, got it. Yep, that sounds about right. But we actually have to dig a little

00:35:05.080 bit deeper. So I looked up this claim just to see what would come up. And the first thing that came up

00:35:12.480 was a Snopes article from 2016. And it was assessing this claim, abortion rates fall during

00:35:19.060 democratic administrations and rise during republican ones. And they rated this false. And here is what

00:35:24.480 they say about that. The claim that abortion rates fall under democrats, while true, ignores the fact

00:35:29.420 that rates have also continued to decline through republican administrations as well. The claim then that

00:35:34.900 abortion rates have risen when republicans have held the White House is therefore equally false. At most,

00:35:40.460 one can argue the rate of decline appeared to slow during the presidency of George W. Bush before

00:35:44.880 increasing under Barack Obama's administration. But that would be based on a comparison between only

00:35:49.980 two administrations and would do nothing to demonstrate causation, would do nothing to

00:35:55.680 demonstrate causation. In fact, causation between the presidency and abortion rates would be difficult

00:36:01.180 to demonstrate in any case, because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government

00:36:06.180 policy, let alone presidential policy. There are differences between those two things. Remember,

00:36:11.700 Congress makes laws and abortion procurement. Nearly all challenges to open access to abortion have come

00:36:17.920 at the state and not the federal level, according to a 2013 report by the pro-choice Guttmacher

00:36:24.080 Institute. Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. The Guttmacher Institute

00:36:30.200 said this, 22 states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013. This makes 2013, that's while Barack

00:36:38.480 Obama was president, second only to 2011 in the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a

00:36:44.900 single year on the state level. To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were

00:36:52.280 enacted over the past three years, 2011 to 2013, but just 189 were enacted during the previous decade.

00:37:00.720 2001 to 2010. At the federal level, legislators have had more trouble passing abortion restrictions

00:37:06.560 into law, making it difficult to argue that any presidential policy specifically has had an effect

00:37:11.960 on abortion rates. The only relevant federal legislation that has been signed into law are the 1976 Hyde

00:37:18.000 Amendment, which prohibited federal money from funding most abortions and the Partial Birth Abortion

00:37:22.880 Ban Act of 2003, which criminalized abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy and was upheld as

00:37:28.660 constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2007. According to the CDC, multiple factors can affect

00:37:36.200 abortion rates. Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion, including the availability

00:37:40.920 of abortion providers, state regulations such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws

00:37:46.700 and legal restrictions on abortion providers. These are all Republican policies, by the way, increasing

00:37:52.180 acceptance of non-marital childbearing, shifts in the racial ethnic composition of the U.S.

00:37:56.180 population and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to

00:38:01.540 health care services, including contraception. So correlation does not prove causation.

00:38:08.460 What we are seeing from the CDC and from the Guttmacher Institute is that presidential policy

00:38:13.620 has not affected the abortion rates. There's no proof of a causal relationship between who is president

00:38:20.620 and how many abortions are happening in the United States while they're president. On the federal level, 0.99

00:38:27.880 very little has happened in regards to abortion. And when we and like we just read, according to the

00:38:33.220 Guttmacher Institute, that while Obama was president and abortion went down by 26 percent, according to that

00:38:38.860 viral chart, here's what Guttmacher Institute says. Twenty-two states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013.

00:38:45.380 This makes 2013 second only to 2011 and the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single

00:38:52.100 year. To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past

00:38:59.420 three years, but just 189 were enacted during the entire previous decade while Bush was president.

00:39:05.640 So that means that while Bush was president, when abortion only went down by four percent,

00:39:10.680 there were very few state abortion restrictions put in place. But when Obama was president, when abortion went down

00:39:16.240 by 26 percent, there were more state abortion restrictions put in place in just two years than in the entire eight 0.59

00:39:22.700 years that Bush was president. So if anything, someone could deduce that that is why abortion went down while Obama

00:39:30.020 was president, because of Republican regulations in states, not Democratic policies at the presidential level.

00:39:36.000 I'm not even going to make that argument because, again, correlation doesn't prove causation.

00:39:41.440 And because I cannot prove directly that those Republican policies that restricted abortion in such in such a

00:39:50.020 big way in Republican states actually reduced the abortion rate, I won't make that claim definitively

00:39:56.840 because I don't know. But we have more facts to back up that conclusion than we do that Barack Obama

00:40:05.340 affected the abortion rate at all. Here's what the Guttmacher Institute says.

00:40:09.420 Abortion restrictions were not the main driver of the decline in the U.S.

00:40:13.600 abortion rate between 2011 and 2017. Rather, the decline in abortions appears to be related to declines

00:40:20.100 in birth and pregnancies overall. There are a number of potential explanations for this broad decline,

00:40:26.420 some more plausible than others. So it seems like that is that's a little bit biased because

00:40:34.980 they don't want to say that abortion restrictions are the reason for reducing abortions. But they do go

00:40:40.940 on to admit this. Still, abortion restrictions, particularly those imposing unnecessary, intentionally

00:40:47.400 burdensome regulations on providers. Remember, this is a pro-choice organization, played a role in

00:40:52.540 shutting down abortion clinics in some states and thereby reducing access to abortion. So they are

00:40:57.100 admitting that Republicans reducing access to abortion is lowering the abortion rate. They also go on to

00:41:03.520 admit this. The number of abortions fell by 196,000, a 19% decline from the 1,058,000 abortions. That's

00:41:11.720 1,058,000 children, by the way, in 2011 to 862,000 abortions in 2017. The abortion rate fell by 20% from 16.9 in

00:41:24.480 2011 to 13.5 in 2017. The abortion ratio fell by 21.2 in 2011 to 18.4 in 2017. The question of what is

00:41:35.200 behind these trends has important policy implications and the 2011 to the 2017 period warrants particular

00:41:42.120 attention because it coincided with an unprecedented wave of new abortion restrictions. During that

00:41:49.000 time frame, 32 states enacted a total of 394 new restrictions, with the vast majority of these

00:41:55.340 measures having taken effect. So even the Guttmacher Institute isn't attributing a decline in abortion to

00:42:01.560 democratic policies or to President Obama. Again, I can't and they can't say definitively that the

00:42:07.860 Republican restrictions reduced abortions, but the evidence is a lot stronger for that, even according to

00:42:14.140 the Guttmacher Institute, than it is for Obama's policies reducing abortion. Presidents don't make

00:42:19.980 laws. Congress does. State legislatures do. So even if you want to say that non-abortion-related

00:42:26.840 liberal policies lowered the abortion rate while a Democrat was president, you would need to look

00:42:32.380 at who was passing the laws while those Democrats were president. So the original chart claims that

00:42:38.700 during Reagan's presidency and George H.W. Bush's presidency, abortion was only reduced by

00:42:43.540 4%, whereas in Clinton's presidency, abortion was reduced by 30%. While Democrats controlled the

00:42:49.380 House throughout Reagan's presidency, Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and George

00:42:54.860 H.W. Bush's presidency, and Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, most of Clinton's

00:43:00.080 presidency. From 1995 to 2001, Congress makes laws. So the argument saying that Democrat presidents

00:43:07.280 reduce abortion, reduce abortion using those examples is not good. In George W. Bush's presidency,

00:43:13.660 where apparently abortion only went down by 3%, he did have mostly a Republican Congress while he was

00:43:20.280 in office, except for his last year. In Obama's presidency, when abortion apparently went down by

00:43:25.660 30%, Republicans controlled the House almost his whole presidency and controlled both chambers the last

00:43:32.740 segment of his presidency. So the argument using that chart that abortion goes down when Democrats are

00:43:39.460 president because of liberal policies just is not a good logical argument at all. It's just not backed

00:43:46.180 by the facts. Furthermore, while Barack Obama was president, according to Ballotpedia, Democrats

00:43:51.420 experienced a net loss of 968 state legislative seats, the largest net loss of state legislative seats

00:43:59.500 in this category since World War II. So while Barack Obama was president, when abortions decreased by 26%,

00:44:07.820 a lot more than they did when Bush was president, Republicans dominated both Congress and state

00:44:12.980 legislatures. And according to the Guttmacher Institute, an unprecedented number of abortion 0.89

00:44:18.020 restrictions were passed by state Republicans while Obama was president. So tell me what liberal

00:44:25.420 policies reduced abortion. Like, show me what liberal policies during this time that Republicans were

00:44:31.500 dominating everything except for the White House reduced abortion. It just doesn't make sense. In 2009,

00:44:38.120 the year Obama took office, Democrats controlled both chambers of 27 state legislatures. In 2009,

00:44:45.420 eight years later, when Obama left office, Democrats controlled both chambers in only 13 states.

00:44:50.640 And let me just reiterate, once again, from Planned Parenthood's own research institute,

00:44:56.360 under Obama, states enacted a record number of abortion restrictions. So the idea that under Obama,

00:45:03.340 liberal policies reduced abortion, there's no facts whatsoever to back that up. And again,

00:45:09.580 I'm not arguing that it's the Republicans or Republican policies who reduce the abortion rates. I do not have

00:45:15.300 the data to prove directly a causal relationship. I'm saying it's definitely not the Democratic

00:45:20.940 president who did it. It definitely wasn't Clinton or Obama, like that chart asserts. There are literally

00:45:26.940 no facts whatsoever to prove that and plenty of facts to prove otherwise. Experts say the decline

00:45:33.740 isn't due to a single cause, but rather a combination of several factors, including changing economics,

00:45:39.040 delays in childbirth by women pursuing jobs and education, the greater availability of contraception,

00:45:44.040 and a decline in teen pregnancies. The trend scene in the United States is also seen in much of the

00:45:49.860 developed world, including Western Europe, said Dr. John Rowe, a professor at Columbia University's

00:45:56.060 Mailman School of Public Health. One important factor driving this is the changing roles of women 1.00

00:45:59.980 in society, Rowe said. In general, women are getting married later in life. The pro-life cause has also 0.83

00:46:07.780 been very strong, that we have been working really hard to educate people on what abortion is,

00:46:12.980 and perhaps people are seeing the atrocity of abortion and they're deciding not to have abortions.

00:46:17.860 Of course, they're not going to admit that. So the chart that you have seen going around is misleading

00:46:23.880 on purpose. It is meant for people who, and this is a lot of us on social media, at least at one time or

00:46:32.160 another, who are scrolling through and are just not thinking. The purpose is for us to go, okay, oh, okay,

00:46:38.440 so blue, good, red, bad. Okay, got it. Not going to think about this anymore. But I think that we're

00:46:44.120 smarter than that. I think we have to be smarter than that. Gosh, Christians have to be smarter than 0.75

00:46:48.620 that. As Samuel say, he is someone I've had on this podcast before. He's a great blogger. He has a blog

00:46:54.460 called Slow to Write, and I'll include the link to this blog post. It's really good. He writes an

00:46:59.500 article that says this. In America, the states with the highest abortion rates are Democrat-controlled

00:47:04.360 states with the most expansive welfare programs in the country, and that's consistent with

00:47:09.080 international data. The top 14 nations with the highest abortion rates in the world are either

00:47:14.300 current or former socialist nations. Of course, because socialism and eugenics and abortion always 0.94

00:47:22.260 go hand in hand. They always go together. And atheism, I should say socialism, eugenics, and atheism. 0.88

00:47:29.140 That's the trifecta of Marxism. They always are intertwined. A welfare program, Samuel say,

00:47:36.160 goes on to say, and socialistic policies do not decrease abortion rates. There's actually more

00:47:40.580 reason to believe they increase abortion rates. Stealing from people to stop others from murder 0.85

00:47:45.460 isn't helpful. Overtaxing innocent people to decrease abortion rates doesn't stop one injustice. 1.00

00:47:51.020 It creates two injustices. Amen. After all, is that God's reaction to people who kill their babies in

00:47:57.420 the Bible when the ancient Israelites sacrificed their children to Malak? Did God instruct the 0.94

00:48:02.180 priests and kings to create welfare programs to stop the parents from killing their babies? 0.93

00:48:06.740 Beginning in 1980, pro-life advocates and pro-life politicians worked together to produce the Hyde

00:48:12.040 Amendment, a bill that prevents federal taxpayer money from funding most abortions. Abortion rates

00:48:16.980 started to decline for the first time shortly after the bill was passed. In fact, research shows the

00:48:22.380 bill has prevented 2 million abortions over the last 40 years. However, Joe Biden and the Democratic

00:48:27.920 Party have officially listed repealing the Hyde Amendment on their platform. Pro-life party, right?

00:48:36.940 Let's talk about the fact, though. So we've covered all the evidence. We've covered all the counter

00:48:42.340 arguments that you're not going to see online. But let's go a little bit deeper. Is this really a good

00:48:49.420 argument anyway? If you believe that abortion is the moral atrocity that it is, it's killing a child.

00:48:56.500 It's what it is. You can call it a fetus. You can call it a zygote at a certain stage. It's still a stage

00:49:02.680 in childhood. In the same way that it's not inaccurate to call an infant a child, it is not

00:49:09.400 inaccurate to call a fetus a baby. It's just a stage in babyhood. So abortion is the intentional

00:49:16.280 killing of a baby. If you think that is a moral atrocity, do you think that the best approach to

00:49:23.120 that is simply to reduce it? Like, is that the right moral response in regards to any other kind

00:49:30.940 of injustice, any other kind of murder, of assault or rape? Do we say, eh, let's not ban it.

00:49:38.620 Let's not make it illegal because that'll just kind of make it more dangerous. People do,

00:49:42.360 you know, back alley murders now. We want to keep murders super, super safe for the murder.

00:49:47.820 So let's see what policies we can we can pass to just encourage people not to do these things. But

00:49:54.100 let's just give them the choice to murder and rape if they want to. Like, why do unborn children 1.00

00:49:59.420 get different treatment in our thoughts about morality and legality than other victims of atrocities do?

00:50:07.200 That's that's insane. That's literally like the definition of insanity. That's injustice.

00:50:11.880 Why do unborn babies matter less than victims of other crimes? Because they're located in the womb? 0.96

00:50:17.540 That seems like a really arbitrary standard for policymaking and more importantly, morality.

00:50:22.780 The point for someone who is against the killing of babies in the womb is not a reduction in abortions.

00:50:28.540 Yeah, of course, we want there to be fewer abortions because we want more babies to live. 1.00

00:50:32.740 But the point for us is that the personhood of unborn children should be recognized by law.

00:50:38.440 Our stance is very simple. Babies in the womb are humans. Therefore, they are entitled to

00:50:43.900 fundamental human rights, the most fundamental being the right to life, the right to be an innocent

00:50:49.800 person who is the right to be an innocent person who is given a shot at life instead of murdered.

00:50:55.600 So I cannot vote for the party who, through both enacted and proposed legislation in New York,

00:51:03.760 in New Mexico, in Vermont, in Illinois, in California, in Virginia, in other democratic states

00:51:08.700 that have pushed for babies in the womb to be stripped of any recognition of personhood.

00:51:14.600 In New York, if you assault a pregnant woman, hurting her and killing her baby,

00:51:18.680 you are guilty of assault, not murder.

00:51:20.460 An unborn child in New York, because of the Reproductive Health Act of 2019,

00:51:24.920 does not have rights as an individual. You want to tell me that that's the party of pro-all life?

00:51:31.900 Really? You think that's God's definition of justice? You think for some reason,

00:51:35.660 because a baby is located in the womb, that God cares less about that life?

00:51:40.980 This is according to National Review, quote,

00:51:43.180 Anthony Hopson allegedly dragged his pregnant former girlfriend into the stairwell of her

00:51:46.960 queen's apartment building and stabbed her in the stomach, neck and torso. 1.00

00:51:50.460 Irogion, I think that's how you pronounce her last name, Irogion, was in her second trimester.

00:51:56.960 Neither she nor her unborn child survived. The queen's direct attorney initially announced

00:52:02.900 that Hopson would be charged with second-degree murder and abortion, reasonably enough,

00:52:06.760 considering that he stands accused of killing both Irogion and her child. Then he dropped the

00:52:13.500 abortion charge in light of the state's radical new pro-abortion law. The law aims to bless any 0.97

00:52:19.700 abortion under any circumstances and with a grim consistency does not allow the state specially

00:52:25.720 to punish even violent attacks on the unborn. The New York State Catholic Conference warned of

00:52:30.600 exactly this prior to passage. Moving abortion from the penal law to the public health law,

00:52:35.700 which is what the law did, is a major policy shift that removes accountability for those who

00:52:41.080 would harm unborn children outside the context of medical termination of pregnancy.

00:52:45.280 As long as you cite, according to New York law, that you are getting an abortion for your emotional

00:52:52.020 well-being or your financial situation or your familial situation, as long as that is your reason

00:52:57.640 to obtain an abortion in New York, you can get an abortion through nine months. No questions asked. 0.65

00:53:03.540 Also, according to National Review, quote,

00:53:05.420 the legislation provides a further exception to permit abortion at any point during pregnancy

00:53:10.360 if a health care practitioner deems it necessary for the mother's life or health. The exception that

00:53:15.120 was defined in Roe Companion case Dovey Bolton as all factors relevant to the well-being of the

00:53:22.100 patient. So not just physical health, any kind of health. In other words, abortion will be available

00:53:26.680 to women essentially on demand up to the point of birth. The Reproductive Health Care Act will also

00:53:33.760 decriminalize abortion, moving it from the state's criminal code to the public health code.

00:53:38.100 Let me just remind you, abortion in the first trimester is performed through poisoning the 0.90

00:53:43.160 womb through pills, then sucking the baby out. After 12 to 14 weeks, they have to use potassium

00:53:48.900 chloride. And this is a shot that they give you through your abdomen, into your uterus, hopefully 0.98

00:53:54.780 into the baby's heart if they can be accurate enough. And if the baby doesn't wiggle too much,

00:53:59.780 forcing the baby into cardiac arrest and then pulling the baby apart and out using forceps.

00:54:05.800 A late-term abortions, which do happen, according to Planned Parenthood, more than 10,000 times a

00:54:10.980 year. They say, oh, this is so rare. This is just 1%. Well, there are about a million abortions every 0.54

00:54:15.520 year. So 10,000 times, a baby who can very well feel pain, who is able to live outside the womb,

00:54:24.160 is aborted by ensuring, quote, fetal demise, by causing a heart attack through potassium chloride,

00:54:31.020 and then inducing labor to deliver the dead baby. Of course, we know that even worse measures are

00:54:37.480 taken illegally. But we know Kermit Gosnell would induce labor and then would just snip the spinal

00:54:43.840 cord of the baby as the baby is coming through the birth canal. This kind of stuff happens,

00:54:49.540 unfortunately, in this country. Remember, our abortion laws are less restrictive than the vast 0.90

00:54:55.820 majority of the world's abortion laws. We are right up there with China and North Korea, baby.

00:55:00.520 So you're telling me that the Democratic Party who is pushing for this is the pro-all-life party?

00:55:05.640 Are you kidding me? Are you kidding? Abortion advocates love to claim, by the way, that I'm

00:55:11.100 making this all up, that, oh, that's not really what happens in an abortion as if babies are killed 0.77

00:55:16.120 by, what, sprinkling fairy dust? Like, you think the picture of abortion is better? Like, it's not

00:55:21.100 grotesque? Like, how do you think they kill the baby in a way that is, like, I don't know, sweet

00:55:26.480 and kind and gentle? I mean, I will include the link to this. You can look it up. You can look it

00:55:32.660 up for yourself. Planned Parenthood, in so many words, will tell you that this is what happens in

00:55:36.400 an abortion. They're not going to say baby. They don't even say fetus. They just say pregnancy,

00:55:40.600 and they'll say a combination of medical tools. But you can read between the lines, and you can read

00:55:44.440 other sources that tell you exactly what happens. Live Action has a lot of good resources on this.

00:55:49.960 When the law was passed in New York, Democrats in the legislature, along with abortion activists,

00:55:54.760 erupted in cheers, and Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo lit up the buildings pink in celebration.

00:56:01.060 Similar bills and laws in New Mexico, Virginia, California, Illinois, other states controlled

00:56:05.260 by Democrats have been either passed or presented. NARAL, Planned Parenthood, shout your abortion,

00:56:11.920 organizations who want to make it as easy as possible to kill unborn babies. Do you have any doubt in 0.99

00:56:16.660 your mind who they're voting for? Any doubt? I mean, of course, they're voting for Joe Biden.

00:56:22.080 They've already said that they're voting for Joe Biden. He's promised to overturn the Hyde Amendment.

00:56:26.120 So our federal tax dollars fund abortion. He will make sure Planned Parenthood gets the millions in

00:56:31.500 Title 10 funds that they rejected under Trump's new rule. He has promised to try to codify

00:56:37.500 Wade or codify Roe, which severely limits any kind of restriction that a state can put on abortion.

00:56:45.800 It would make abortion a federal law so that the Supreme Court wouldn't have any say in that. 1.00

00:56:52.120 Kamala Harris herself was funded by Planned Parenthood when she was attorney general in California

00:56:56.400 and running for Senate. She actually authored the most aggressively pro-abortion piece of legislation 1.00

00:57:04.420 in the Senate that has ever been presented. According to National Review, as a senator,

00:57:10.480 Harris has co-sponsored the most aggressively pro-abortion piece of federal legislation ever

00:57:14.680 introduced, the Women's Health Protection Act, which would override state restrictions on abortions in

00:57:19.720 the last three months of pregnancy, well after fetal viability. The bill would invalidate any state law

00:57:25.300 that prohibits abortion after fetal viability when, in the good faith medical judgment of the treating

00:57:30.340 physician, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant woman's life or health.

00:57:35.980 According to reporting from, oh this, the article goes on to say, according to reporting from my

00:57:42.260 colleague John McCormick, the bill sponsors have said that it does not distinguish between the

00:57:46.040 mother's physical and mental health. So if a woman feels like she is emotionally unwell when she's nine

00:57:51.160 months pregnant, she can get an abortion according to law. If you say, oh well, that never happens. It 1.00

00:57:55.900 actually happens around 10,000 times a year and the majority of the time, the reason for that is not

00:58:02.900 actually, it's not actually the physical health of the child, which of course, you don't kill a child

00:58:08.760 just because a child is sick and you don't have to kill a child just because there is a physical

00:58:14.160 problem with the mom in the third trimester. In the third trimester, a baby is viable. You got to get the 1.00

00:58:18.360 baby out of you because the mom is sick. You get the baby out of you. Either way, the baby's coming out 0.99

00:58:22.380 of you. You don't have to kill the baby. And the process, that doesn't make any logical sense 0.98

00:58:26.700 whatsoever. And so even if it is rare that it happens, it still happens. And it doesn't matter

00:58:34.180 how rare it is. It should still be illegal. But Kamala Harris, the most liberal senator right next 1.00

00:58:40.900 to Bernie Sanders in the Senate, proposed this aggressively pro-abortion piece of federal

00:58:46.640 legislation that strips unborn children of all rights whatsoever. So no, I'm not going to vote for

00:58:52.280 that party. I'm not going to vote for that ticket. If you have believed that the Democratic Party,

00:58:57.680 the party who wouldn't even sign on a bill that was presented by Republicans in the Senate

00:59:04.940 last year to simply protect babies who survive abortions, the Born Alive Infant Survivors

00:59:11.620 Protection Act. If you have believed that that party who refuses to even legally protect babies who

00:59:18.180 survive abortions, babies who are outside of the womb is the party of pro-all life, you've been

00:59:22.940 duped. You have believed a complete lie. You've been deluded into thinking something that is not

00:59:28.240 true. Let me read you this also from Samuel Sayes' blog. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a co-founder of the

00:59:34.280 first American pro-abortion advocacy group, NARAL, and an abortionist who killed over 75,000 babies

00:59:39.960 before he became pro-life, admitted the pro-abortion movement relies on lies to advance their agenda.

00:59:44.520 He said, we fed the public a line of deceit, dishonesty, a fabrication of statistics and

00:59:49.380 figures. We succeeded in breaking down the laws limiting abortions because the time was right 0.93

00:59:53.860 and the news media cooperated. We sensationalized the effects of illegal abortions and fabricated

00:59:58.760 polls, which indicated that 85 percent of the public favored unrestricted abortion when we knew

01:00:04.260 it was only five percent. We unashamedly lied. And yet our statements were quoted by the media as

01:00:08.820 though they had been written by law. Of course they lied. People who kill babies for a living,

01:00:14.940 for profit, are going to lie. Have you ever tried to get a pro-abortion, so-called pro-choice

01:00:20.320 advocate to tell you what happens in an abortion? Have you ever tried to get them to describe what

01:00:24.600 actually happens in an abortion? I sat next to an abortion provider when I was testifying before

01:00:28.840 Congress on this subject, who was pressed on this, who would not say what actually happens in an

01:00:34.900 abortion? If you want to know what happens in an abortion, really? Like you literally have to go

01:00:39.220 to a pro-life person, a pro-life person who has seen an abortion like Abby Johnson or someone who

01:00:45.000 used to work in a Planned Parenthood. Like they will not tell you what it is. If you are a part of a

01:00:50.040 group that relies on euphemism and lies and manipulation who fight so hard against women who 0.99

01:00:55.200 are considering abortion, seeing their baby on an ultrasound or hearing the heartbeat, you have to

01:01:00.340 wonder just for a second, right? Like if you're on the right side, I just, it's so amazing to me.

01:01:06.320 I saw this article and I think it was the Christian Post that evangelicals, pro-life evangelicals for Joe

01:01:15.020 Biden, the same Joe Biden that wants to codify way and overturn the Hyde Amendment, whose vice president

01:01:21.020 is the most aggressively, rabidly pro-abortion senator that we have. Like the Democratic Party,

01:01:27.780 who in states across the country has stripped unborn children of their personhood and has made 0.97

01:01:32.760 it accessible and available and legal to have an abortion through nine months. Are you all right?

01:01:39.080 Here's what Proverbs 8, 13 and 36 says. The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil, pride and arrogance

01:01:44.500 in the way of evil and perverted speech. I hate all. This is wisdom talking, by the way, all who hate me 0.85

01:01:50.400 love death. Perverted speech I hate. All who hate me love death. The entire abortion movement is based 0.99

01:01:58.980 on perverted speech and death, lies and death. And the Republican Party isn't nearly as pro-life as I

01:02:05.260 want them to be. Not even, not even close. But to say that the party who celebrates, who advocates,

01:02:11.420 who wants to fund the murder of living, moving, defenseless babies inside the womb because what? 0.97

01:02:16.140 Because they believed, because they believe in socialized medicine, that they're the pro-life

01:02:21.480 party? It's insane. It's insane. It's just not true. Show me the policies that Democrats support

01:02:28.940 that are pro-all life, that Republicans don't support. Show me the results, not just the intentions,

01:02:34.420 but the results of how Democratic policies have actually supported life. Obama built the cages that

01:02:40.900 the kids at the border are in. Obamacare has not solved the problem of unaffordable health care,

01:02:46.360 as we talked about in a previous episode, as we will talk about more in our health care election

01:02:50.220 episode coming up. You're going to tell me that the Democratic Party cares for the poor? Have you

01:02:55.440 been to a Democrat city and seen the homeless population, which has grown and has only been

01:03:00.040 incentivized by liberal policies in L.A., Austin, Seattle, New York, Baltimore? More homeless people

01:03:06.580 living in squalor in L.A. than any other city in the country. And you can't get more liberal than L.A.

01:03:12.460 The cities with the cases of purported police brutality and riots and looting and arson have

01:03:20.340 all been happening over the past few months, not just by liberals, leftists themselves, but in cities

01:03:26.480 and states run by Democrats, bailed out by funds that are promoted by people like Kamala Harris.

01:03:33.160 So, again, this myth that these are actually right wing white supremacists starting this

01:03:37.240 anarchy, if that's the case, why are Democrats like Kamala Harris bailing them out of jail? 1.00

01:03:41.740 Come on. Come on. And again, I am not saying the Republican Party is our savior. But if you're

01:03:47.920 going to make the argument that caring for life outside the womb is the Democratic Party's platform,

01:03:53.700 you're going to have to tell me how the Democratic Party is tangibly doing that more than the

01:03:58.980 Republican Party is, again, not just by intentions and where they say they're going to throw their

01:04:02.880 money, but what they've actually done, the problems they have actually provably solved.

01:04:07.600 I mean, I've seen people like Beth Moore, like Tony Evans, a group of so-called pro-life

01:04:11.860 evangelicals for Biden, saying that abortion isn't the only issue, that we have to care about life

01:04:16.860 outside the womb. I agree. But tell me, how do Democrats do that any more than Republicans do?

01:04:23.540 By advocating for abortion through nine months, eliminating school choice, incentivizing 1.00

01:04:28.800 homelessness and unemployment, draconian lockdowns unbacked by science that have led to joblessness,

01:04:34.060 depression and suicide, allowing riots and looting to go on with impunity, making it harder for people

01:04:39.760 to defend themselves, how they see fit via the Second Amendment. Was it the cages that Obama and

01:04:45.940 his administration built for the kids at the border? I want to know. Like, what is it? What are these pro-all

01:04:50.780 life policies that have actually resulted in the betterment for these demographics more than

01:04:58.440 Republican policies have? Are you really going to argue that Democrats are more pro-all life just

01:05:03.540 because they support the government taking more of your money and spending it on programs that sound

01:05:08.140 good but don't actually help? I came across a blog post on the site Gospel Patriot. I've never heard of

01:05:13.560 them, but I found it to be very articulate and credible, and I'll link it so you can see their sources.

01:05:18.040 It says this, while it is true that political conservatives are not in favor of their tax

01:05:23.300 dollars being spent on many social government programs, that doesn't mean that we are, I'm

01:05:28.160 saying we, they said they, are anti-giving, anti-help or anti-child. Actually, the numbers indicate that

01:05:33.360 those who live in predominantly red states tend to give more to charity by almost 10%. At the same time,

01:05:39.640 they are again almost 10% more likely to volunteer for a cause. For those that insist that the efforts of

01:05:45.340 civil society alone will not be enough, consider this. Outside of the numbers listed by predominantly

01:05:50.320 red states, the United States as a whole is more philanthropic than any other nation in the world.

01:05:55.280 In fact, according to author Jeremy Beer in a Johns Hopkins University study, the value of American

01:06:00.660 philanthropy is equivalent to 5.5% of the national GDP. No other nation in the world even reaches the

01:06:07.640 2% mark. Most social and or political conservatives are in favor of helping their fellow man. They just

01:06:15.000 don't think the government should be in the business of forcing its citizens to do so. Thank you very

01:06:19.480 much, gospel patron. That is a great word, and you're absolutely right. The Huffington Post in 2013

01:06:25.080 wrote an article about how red states give more in charity than blue states by far. The top 9 out of 10

01:06:30.380 most generous states are all highly religious and conservative states. 54% of Republicans gave to charity in the

01:06:35.700 previous year versus 45% of Democrats. 33% of Republicans volunteered for a cause versus 24% of

01:06:42.040 Democrats. So yes, conservatives also believe in helping these families after birth. The assertion

01:06:47.920 that we are just pro-birth, which by the way is a lot better than anti-birth, but the assertion that we

01:06:53.140 are just pro-birth if we don't agree with liberal policies that don't actually even support life is just

01:06:59.760 untrue. We just don't believe in the government being the primary vehicle to help. That's not

01:07:05.400 generosity. That's coercion. That's not charity. The more money you give the government, even and

01:07:12.240 especially in the name of compassion, the more power they have. It is not necessarily righteous

01:07:17.680 or moral or loving to simply vote for the party who promises to do more for the poor. Look at their

01:07:22.780 record of their party. In fact, anytime a politician left or right promises to do something for you to

01:07:30.240 make your life better by giving you things, you need to be very wary. That is not their job.

01:07:35.420 The government's job is not caretaker. There's a role for the government, but it is the job, the

01:07:41.040 primary job of you, individuals, family, the church, to do what the government can't, and that is to

01:07:46.840 actually care for people without controlling them. The government just can't do that. Jesus told us to

01:07:53.020 care for the poor and the orphan and the widow. We are their primary helpers. And God says in 2 Corinthians

01:07:58.980 9.7, each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion,

01:08:04.200 for God loves a cheerful giver. Voting for politicians who promise to take more of your

01:08:09.100 tax money or other people's tax money and distribute it to people how that politician sees fit does not

01:08:15.380 cut it for loving the least of these. It does not cut it for compassion. Again, does the government

01:08:22.700 have a place in helping the poor? I think so. But it doesn't replace our generosity and helping care.

01:08:27.940 And the people who vote for bigger governments and for social programs are not more compassionate

01:08:32.280 or more pro-all life than those who take up that responsibility ourselves. And by the way,

01:08:38.820 people who believe in legalizing the dismemberment, the murder of unborn children, do not have the

01:08:44.380 moral authority to say what is pro-all life and what's not. So Christian, please, I don't care if you 1.00

01:08:52.940 vote for Republicans. I have never argued for the perfection or the saving abilities or the

01:08:59.340 redemptive abilities of the Republican Party, unlike some people talk about the Democratic Party on the

01:09:05.620 left. But I don't care if you vote for Republicans. I don't care if you agree with me. I don't care.

01:09:13.280 But please give up this dishonest argument that voting for Joe Biden and the Democratic Party

01:09:20.140 is pro-all life and compassionate. Say that you agree with their policies. Say that you like his

01:09:25.760 personality. Say that you don't like Donald Trump. Whatever. But to say that you can't really be pro-life

01:09:32.840 and be a conservative, that you can't really be pro-life and vote for Donald Trump, you don't know

01:09:37.420 what you're talking about. You just don't. Stop making the dishonest argument that liberal policies

01:09:43.180 are liberal presidents or what reduced the abortion rate. There are no facts to back that up whatsoever.

01:09:47.920 So vote for Biden if you want to. Don't try to make a biblical argument for it. Don't try to make

01:09:53.560 a pro-all life argument for it. It's not there. It's just not there. And unfortunately, a lot of

01:10:01.380 people have been duped into thinking it is. But hopefully this adds a little bit of clarity. Okay,

01:10:06.140 another long episode. We will be back here on Friday with a very special guest.

01:10:11.440 Please be back here on the podcast.

01:10:13.460 Bye.

01:10:13.920 Bye.

01:10:14.520 Bye.

01:10:16.460 Bye.

01:10:16.520 Bye.

01:10:16.720 Bye.

01:10:16.860 Bye.

01:10:17.840 Bye.

01:10:18.100 Bye.

01:10:18.200 Bye.

01:10:19.120 Bye.

01:10:19.780 Bye.

01:10:20.640 Bye.

01:10:20.760 Bye.

01:10:21.700 Bye.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - October 07, 2020

Ep 310 ｜ Do Democrats Decrease Abortions？

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript