Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 193 | The Left Is Losing

Episode Date: December 4, 2019

Today I discuss this week's news stories covering the 2020 election, Greta Thunberg's return to the spotlight, and the New York Times calling out the divided Left for failing to push the pro-abortion agenda.  Today's Sponsor: Circle is the easiest way to manage your children's online time across ALL their connected devices -- inside and outside your home. Listeners get $30 off a Circle Home Plus when you use code ALLIE at: https://meetcircle.com/allie

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day Show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Hey, guys, welcome to Relatable. I hope everyone has had a great week so far. Today, we are going to get to a few news stories. There's a lot going on. I want to talk to you a little bit about the election and how the frontrunner Joe Biden is doing. Greta Thunberg is back in the news. I think that's how you pronounce her last name, talking about the climate and things like that. We're going to spend a little bit of time on that. And then I am going to give you some good news in regards to abortion, which is extremely rare. But the New York Times ran an article talking about how the left is losing on abortion.

And that is something to celebrate and for us to focus on because that subject in particular can be so distressing and discouraging to us when we feel like we are fighting a losing battle. but all hope is not lost. Of course for Christians, we know all hope is not lost ultimately, but even in this temporal battle for the lives of unborn children, all hope is not lost. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We have.

ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Let's get into today's stories. First, I want to talk about, I think I'm going to get through the kind of mini stories really

fast and then I want to get into this big abortion article in the New York Times and that's what I want to spend a lot of time on because it is worth our analysis and worth our celebration. And it also equips us to know kind of what the left is thinking on this particular subject. So Joe Biden, he's a frontrunner. latest polls have him as a frontrunner. We've talked about before that no one actually likes Joe Biden himself. Like no one is a Joe Biden stand. No one is like, you know what, Joe Biden is going to make a great commander in chief.

he's just kind of the default candidate that isn't maybe people think on the left that he's not or some democrats i would say more like corporate democrats more i don't even know if i would say mainstream democrats moderate democrats they think okay he's not insane he might be able to win over blue collar voters people in middle america that trump won so well over hillary clinton he's the guy that's going to be able to beat trump that's how people view joe biden that's really the only reason I think most people who support Joe Biden are supporting Joe Biden. No one listens to him and is like, wow, he is really compelling. No one has watched any of the Democratic debates and said, you know,

Joe Biden just kills it every time. Most of the time, we can't really understand what he's saying. And look, I just want to say this. I have been very hesitant to make fun of Joe Biden and his senile behavior because I just think it's, I just think it's rude. There are a lot of things to criticize Joe Biden on, especially policy. wise and how really radical of a progressive he's been and now he's trying to come in as a moderate. We can criticize him on all of that. I didn't like it. Like Huli and Castro, who is a candidate that

maybe you didn't even know was running, he made fun of him in one debate saying, oh, do you even remember what you said two minutes ago? I don't like the dementia jokes. Like, I think that that's rude. But, but it is getting to the point to where I think that it's worth commenting on that Joe Biden says things that don't make any sense. And I'm not trying to say that his age is a problem. He and Donald Trump are about the same age. I'm not trying to say necessarily that he's senile. I'm certainly not trying to make a dementia joke. I think that that's rude. When people have done that to Donald Trump, I think that it's absolutely terrible. That's a cruel disease that we don't want to make light of. But I do think when someone is running for president of the United States, we should talk about their

fitness for office. In the same way that people on the left talk about, Trump's Fitness for Office. Let's talk about it in a serious way. I want, I will give, well, okay, I won't. I'm joking when I say this, but I will jokingly give you $500 million, bajillion dollars if you can tell me at this rally what Joe Biden is actually saying. And by the way, you know, I sit on the stand and it get hot. I got a lot of, I got hairy legs that turned that that that that that that turn uh blonde in the sun and the kids used to come up and reach in the pool and rub my leg down so it was straight and then watch the hair come back up again they look at it so i learned about roaches i learned about kids jumping on my lap and i've loved

kids jumping on my lap so i genuinely don't know i i don't i don't i don't know and i don't i feel to see how context would make this video any better? It's weird. It's weird, especially with all of the, like, creepy stuff that people have tried to highlight about Biden, his overtouchy behavior. I mean, it's beyond that even though, this is just like an odd thing to say. I don't, I cannot follow the trail of reasoning. I really tried because it makes me sad. As much as I would never, ever support Joe Biden politically, I don't really like seeing someone's mental state. take this kind of downward spiral and especially manifest itself publicly. There was this other video that was going around and I won't even play it because it's not that interesting, but it was just weird

where Joe Biden's wife, I forget her name, was making a speech for him at a campaign rally and he bit her finger. Why? Why? Okay, like I understand maybe you're trying to be like flirty and affectionate. Okay, there are possibly probably yes, different ways to do that to show affectionate. to your wife than biting her finger, she probably was so thrown off. But to her credit, she just kind of kept going. It was like, you know what, Joe, that's really weird. But I'm just going to keep going with my campaign speech because I am going to be First Lady one day and I'm not going to let your senility get in the way of that. Also, his tour, Joe Biden's tour, is called the No Malarkey Tour. Now, I feel like I missed, you know, like when someone is, you're with a group of

people and the group that you're with starts talking about an inside joke and you're like, ha ha, please let me in. I must have missed this. Like I must have been in the bathroom when this happened because now you're all laughing about something that I don't understand. That's how I feel about the no malarkey thing. Please tell me. Did I miss something? Why malarkey? No malarkey. Who are you appealing to? That's what I want to know. Are you appealing to older voters by saying no malarkey? Are you appealing to younger voters by saying no malarkey? Are you trying to say like I'm a no nonsense candidate because we know that's not true. Everyone listened to the video at the top of this podcast or a few minutes ago. So I'm confused. I'm just a little bit confused by that.

Like who in the Biden campaign was like, you know what? This is the tagline that we are going to use that is going to take us into the White House. No malarkey. Like I always picture. I have this weird thing that I do really in all things. And I kind of wish that I didn't because it fills my head so much. So whenever I am watching a commercial or doing anything, I always think about the process that got it there. So even if I am getting my nails done, if I'm getting my hair done, I'm thinking about like, oh, what was their training like that made them make that decision?

How did this person get here? what does what does the instruction look like for this type of haircut like i'm constantly thinking about those things which is honestly really annoying i wish i wouldn't if i was getting a massage i'd be thinking about like oh why did they do this technique where did they learn that like i don't know anyway i do the same thing about commercials i can't just watch commercial i'm thinking about the process that took them to coming up took them to come up with this particular commercial idea so i'm thinking the same thing about the biting campaign Like what was that meeting like when they were sitting around the table and they were, you know,

spitballing ideas. They were like, okay, brainstorming meeting. They did like a Google calendar invite. They're like brainstorming meeting. 9 a.m. Thursday morning we're going to talk about what our campaign is going to be or what our slogan is going to be. And I want to know, I want to know how they came up with no malarkey and how someone was like, yes, doggone it.

That is it. Speaking of commercials. Okay. We're going to go off of this. for just one second because this was something funny that happened. Speaking of commercials, Peloton, did you guys see this? If you're on Twitter, you know that Peloton was trending this week. And the reason that it's trending is because the recent commercial with Peloton is so

painfully bad in no disrespect, no disrespect to the poor actress that got this part, who was really excited to do the Peloton commercial. You know, you did a great job. It's not your fault. You didn't write the commercial. but this Peloton commercial is so cringy. It's about this woman whose husband gave her a Peloton last Christmas and her present to him this Christmas is taking videos of herself all year round doing the Peloton and then giving him that present

for Christmas. First of all, that's a bad present. But also, it was just so cheesy. I want you guys to go watch it. And also look on my Twitter. I gave Peloton a really good idea for a Peloton commercial. and people were like, why are you doing this for free? Well, because I figure even if I emailed Peloton and was like, hey, I have a really good idea for your commercial, they probably wouldn't get back to me. But now I know, I can just have the satisfaction of knowing that if they see my idea

on Twitter and they use it, I can know that it was my idea. That they decided, you know what, Ali Suckie has really good commercial ideas. That is my other, like if I ever get deplatformed and I stop doing this. That is my other talent is coming up with ideas for other people, whether it be commercials, whether it be business ideas, business names, book ideas. I'm really good at coming up with ideas for other people. I'm not really that good at executing, really good at ideating, not good at executing. If I can just like give you an idea and you run with it and I don't want to tell you how to do it, then that could be my other calling in life. Coming up with commercials and campaigns, I'm good at that and I did that for Peloton. Okay,

We got off of the road when it came to the election. But I wanted to tell you, I think I got there from saying that the brainstorming for the no malarkey slogan, it led me to think about the commercial and the Peloton commercial. That was something that was trending. Speaking of trending on Twitter, we're going to take another detour. So George Conway, you know, Kelly Ann Conway, advisor to the president. George Conway, they're married theoretically. he has been slamming her on Twitter for a few years now, almost since the beginning of the Trump presidency.

It has been really, really painful to watch. Like it hurts our soul because he will constantly not only deride the president, which of course is his First Amendment, right? Yes, he can criticize the president and it's publicly and it's as vehemently as he wants to. But it's a little weird when your wife works for the president, even if you disagree. like hash this out at home. You can passionately, you know, disagree as much as you want. It's really painfully, crinchfully awkward to watch this. So the most recent back and forth that happens was George Conway said, oh, I lost it. So Kelly Ann Conway said that something about Joe Biden, like, oh, we need Ukraine to beat this guy because Joe Biden is so easily beatable. And then George Conway quote tweeted it and said, your boss seems to think so and got like 100,000 likes.

And people were commenting saying, you know, this is really weird. You seem kind of abusive. And I can't necessarily give that accusation. But it's weird. It makes me feel bad. I mean, they've got four kids. I hope and pray that their kids are not on Twitter. I don't know how old their kids are. Maybe they're not old enough to have a Twitter. But I can imagine if this is how he treats her publicly, how it goes privately. I mean, I really, I should, I should pray for him because he seems to be a very miserable person. And I cannot imagine, even if you disagree with your spouse, if you even have a scintilla of respect for your spouse, a scintilla of love for your spouse, that you wouldn't go down this

trail of publicly shaming them. I mean, you really, you have to hate someone, not just be apathetic towards them. You have to hate someone. You have to hate your spouse in order to publicly. drag them like this. It makes me very sad. I hope that he, that they, that he gets some help because it's just so hard to watch. And I feel very badly for Kellyanne Conway, although I know that she's a very strong person. She can handle it. It's fine. But I know that hurts. I know it hurts. I know it hurts. And even if they would never talk about that, even if she would never talk about that, I know it

hurts. Of course. No one likes that, especially by someone that you at least, whatever. I don't want to go into all of that. It just makes me sad and I didn't know if you guys caught it. Okay. Next I want to talk about Greta Thunberg. So Greta Thunberg, she is back in the news, like I said, she's talking about climate change. She did an op ed in Project Syndicate with two other climate extremists. Yes, I call her a climate extremist because, sure, we can talk about climate change. We can talk about solutions to climate change. You might be on the side that thinks it's a complete hoax. You might be on the side who says, okay, you know what? There are some things that we can do better to steward the environment, especially as Christians. We are called to responsibly steward the earth.

Animals, creation, all of that. I did do a podcast if you haven't listened to it yet on a biblical perspective on animals, how we should treat our pets and veganism and all of that. A couple weeks ago, I think it's titled, we're too obsessed with our pets. Anyway, so yes, we should steward the earth responsibly, but she's an extremist because she says the world is going to end and fossil fuels are the devil and they are going to end the world and they are choking us out. That is an extreme view. That's an extreme view. And she showed the cards of climate extremists in this particular op-ed. She says, after all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment. There we go. We always knew this. This is exactly why conservatives are skeptical about the whole movement.

it is a crisis of human rights, of justice and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all. Our political leaders can no longer shirk their responsibilities. So when the left calls us climate deniers, this is what we are skeptical about. We're not skeptical about at least, I mean, I'm speaking for the majority of conservatives that I know, all of conservatives I know. I don't know any conservatives that are like against recycling or against taking practical steps to caring for the environment. But I know a lot of conservatives that think that the climate radicalism is really just a power grab and that it's not really about the climate.

And Greta Thunberg, in all of her wisdom, reveals that it is a crisis of human rights of justice and of political will, colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression. She also talks about how capitalism has created this and we need to dismantle all of that. So this really isn't just about the climate. This is about social change. This is about fundamentally reversing a lot of the things that have made America great, like capitalism, like the free markets, like the freedom of speech, like the freedom of religious expression, the freedom to live the life that you want to live. live and pursue the happiness that you want to pursue. All of these things I'm sure Greta Thunberg would say are colonial and racist and patriarchal systems. Now, of course, do I agree with her and do I agree with all the people that say racism is bad and a problem? Of course. And I believe that we should

address instances of racism where they exist. But am I going to say that all the systems that currently exist, capitalist systems, free market systems are colonial and racist and patriarchal and that there are systems of oppression? Of course not. I do not agree with her on that. This is a Marxist worldview of the oppressed versus the oppressor. And her brand of leftism believes that everything needs to be flipped on its head, completely dismantled, completely taken down, and that we need to rebuild things again. Barack Obama just the other day said that the left has moved too far left, the Democrats have moved too far left, and that not everyone, the majority of the country doesn't believe that we need to break down every single system in order to,

rebuild it in order to make it better. And Barack Obama is right, even though it was his presidency that led us exactly to where we are right now. This is why, by the way, Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal had things about, you know, racial justice and all of that. It is not just an environmental stance. It is a social stance. It is a political stance. This is about power. This is about them being in control, being able to control the means of production being able to redistribute wealth so that everyone has equal outcomes. Well, guess what? This is what I'm sure Greta Thunberg believes and this brand of leftism definitely believes. They believe that the wealthy should redistribute their wealth to the poor so everyone is more

equal. That's why you hear Bernie Sanders talking about wealth inequality like it's this big problem. The left sees any inequality, any discrepancy between two groups as proof of injustice. And that is just not always true. That's not to say that injustice doesn't exist. That's not to say that discrepancies don't point to injustice. Sometimes they do. But differences between groups, for example, the fact that Asian Americans, that they score higher than white Americans do in general on SATs and ACTs, that there is a higher graduation rate high school and college among Asian Americans versus white Americans, Asian Americans excel in all of those things. average in a lot a lot more successfully than white people do, that gap doesn't necessarily,

or it doesn't point to any kind of injustice, any kind of bias towards Asian people and a bias against white people. But the left sees any gap as some kind of proof of discrimination. Now, they wouldn't use that example. They would use the example between white students and black students. They would say the fact that white students are graduated at a much higher rate than black students that show some kind of inherent discrimination and systemic racism. Well, if it doesn't show systemic racism in the case of Asians excelling more than white people, then why does it show systemic racism in the case of white people versus black people? So they're very picky and choosy about this. But the thing is, when you look at something, you say, okay, there's a

discrepancy and outcomes between these two groups so that has to mean, injustice. So that means we need to redistribute the success or the wealth of one group and give it to the other group or we need to elevate the lower group so that they're on the same level as the upper group, whatever. It just doesn't work. Equality of outcomes just doesn't work except through tyranny. That is why when you talk about socialism and you talk about inequality being a problem and trying to redistribute things to make it even, it just doesn't work outside of authoritarianism. And even then, it's just, it goes against human nature.

If tomorrow, and I think it was Thomas Sol that once gave this example, if tomorrow, you made it, the government made it to where everyone had $100,000. So no one had any more than $100,000. No one had any less than $100,000. Next week, you would have people below the poverty line and you would have millionaires. Maybe not next week. Next year, whatever. You would have people below the poverty line and you would have millionaires.

Why? Because people make different choices. It is not possible to guarantee equality of outcomes unless you stop people from succeeding and doing more. You have to. It's funny how equality always brings the upper group down, never the lower group up. That's not to say systemic compression doesn't exist. It does, but it does not account for all the discrepancies in success in outcomes that we see. and in order to make perfect equal outcomes, you have to have a tyrant in charge. Okay, that went on another tangent. Now, let's talk about some good news.

Let us talk about this article in the New York Times. It is by Elizabeth Diaz and Lisa Lerer, and it's titled, How a Divided Left is losing the battle on abortion. The article describes the battle that abortion supporters thought was fought in one in the 1970s, with the decision of Roe v. Wade, but has now been rekindled by an onslaught of abortion restrictions in states like Georgia and Alabama. It is true that huge threats to abortion have risen up, especially in the past few years, a Republican-powered state legislatures, a judiciary that has been

majorly reshaped for the better under Trump, much thanks to Mitch McConnell, by the way, a conservative-leaning Supreme Court and a pro-life administration on top of the on the ground work of pro-life groups. All of these have been doing amazing work, not just in the halls of Congress, but also in shaping public opinion. And then there are individuals like you and me who simply talk about this stuff. We talk about what abortion is. We talk about the humanity of life in the womb. We give our arguments. We give our own experiences. We challenge a deception where we see it. That too has a significant impact. There are protesters that go outside of Planned Parenthoods and abortion clinics and who share the gospel and who pray with these women,

that makes a difference. Here's what this New York Times article says. In a six-month period this year, states across the South and Midwest passed 58 abortion restrictions. Alabama banned the procedure almost entirely. Lawmakers in Ohio introduced a similar bill shortly after Thanksgiving. And in March, the Supreme Court will hear its first major abortion case since President Trump added two conservative justices and shifted the court to the right. how it rules could reshape the constitutional principles governing abortion rights.

As Planned Parenthood and its progressive allies have rallied, have rallied the resistance, the shift in fortunes in the abortion wars has been mostly attributed to the rights well-executed game plan. True, true New York Times. It is not every day that the New York Times print something that is true, but sometimes, sometimes they do. And in this case, I would say they are right. the goal for all of these major pieces of legislation, state legislation that they're talking about is to take it to the Supreme Court. So we want the Supreme Court to relook at the egregious decision made in 1973 that abortion is a constitutional right because it was always a poorly decided decision. Now, whether you are on the pro-choice side, the pro-abortion side, or the pro-life side, you can criticize how the decision was made in Roe v. Wade.

There are pro-choice people who have done so. side note whenever you hear a pro-abortion person argue that men should have no say an abortion remind them that seven justices on the Supreme Court were men and decided Roe v. Wade, all the more reason, of course, to overrule it, right? The so-called right to abortion should have never been a Supreme Court decision. It should have been left to the people to decide through a legislative process. justices Byron White and William Rehnquist joined in the dissent. Roe v. Wade, here's what White said about the Roe decision.

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the court's judgment. The court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and with scarcely any reason or authority for its action invest that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this court. In 1973, an article by legal scholar John Hart Eli was published in Yale Law Journal saying this. What is frightening about Roe is that this super protected right is not inferrable from the language of the Constitution. The framework's thinking respecting the specific problem and issue in any general value derivable from the provisions they included or

the nation's governmental structure. The problem with Roe is not so much that it bungles the question it sets itself, but rather that it sets itself a question that Constitution has not made the court's business. Roe is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to beat. Roe v. Wade and his companion case, Jovi Bolton, have always been vulnerable because of this, and pro-lifers have been doing a full court press against abortion for decades, but especially in the last decade and especially in the last few years. I think one reason is because Obama's presidency was the most leftward-leaning presidency that we have seen in this generation that we've seen in our lifetimes. We have also seen Planned Parenthood become more aggressive.

We've seen them gain ground. We've seen the strategy of their PR campaign. We've seen them abandoned, safe, legal, and rare to in exchange for through nine months on demand. for any reason without apology, we have seen them shift from normalizing or allowing abortion to glorifying abortion. As the Planned Parenthood director said in the congressional hearing that I was a part of a couple weeks ago, quote, abortion is moral. You can buy t-shirts now that say pro-abortion, pro-family. There's a billboard that caused a ruckus in recent weeks that said abortion is self-care. A Planned Parenthood ousted its CEO, Leanna Wim, for not focusing enough on abortion. Their tweet a couple weeks ago emphasized in all caps. You know, they really mean it when

they do this. They said it over and over again that abortion is health care. The reason they want to say abortion is health care because Democrats line right now is to say that health care is a human right, aka taxpayer should pay for it. You will hear them. They talked about this in the hearing, too, overturning the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment says that taxpayer funds cannot directly fund abortion. But if they overturn the Hyde Amendment, that means that our funds will be directly, our taxpayer dollars will be directly funding abortion. Of course, we already have a problem with our taxpayer dollars going to Planned Parenthood because even if technically our taxpayer dollars can't directly fund abortion, we know that money is fungible and we don't want to be,

we don't want our hard-earned money to go to Planned Parenthood at all, period. But overturning the Hyde Amendment, which is what every Democratic candidate said that they would do or said that they want to do would mean that we are directly finding abortion. So just so you know, that is a part of the Democratic platform. In New York and Illinois, New Mexico, other states, we have seen the pro-abortion side successfully push legislation that strips an unborn child completely of personhood until he or she is outside the womb allowing abortion for virtually any reason through nine months of pregnancy. They will tell you that's not true. You can read the bills yourself or the bills that have become law yourself. And yes, it is virtually for any reason because Dovey Bolton specifies that it has to be

for the health of the mother, but health of the mother could be emotional health. So it could just be the well-being of the mother. Read for any reason. This New York Times article goes on to say that the left has made serious miscalculations. They have relied too heavily on Obama. They didn't think that Trump was going to win. I also think that they didn't know that Trump was going to fight so hard on this. Trump in 2016, their administration reinstated the Mexico City policy that it blocks federal funding for non-governmental organizations that provide abortion, counseling, or referrals all over the world. In 2017, he appointed Neil Gorsick in 2018. He appointed Brett Kavanaugh. And this was the big thing in 2019, just a few months ago, the Trump administration instituted a new rule regarding Title 10 family planning

funds that said if you are going to receive these funds, you have to financially and physically separate your abortion services from the rest of your services. And you can't encourage someone to get an abortion. Planned Parenthood will call this a gag rule, but that is not what it is. Planned Parenthood opted out from following that rule and chose not to receive Title X funds. According to Planned Parenthood's own site, as President Trump has reshaped the federal courts, the efforts of abortion opponents have shifted into high gear. There have been tons of abortion restrictions over the past few years. You can read about them, like I said, on Planned Parenthood's own website.

The New York Times piece says that Planned Parenthood is more concerned about political power than helping local abortion clinics. That's part of their problem. It says this. The Democratic Party has rejected the message that drove its politics since President Bill Clinton's administration that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. And they have embraced abortion rights with few stipulations. Every leading Democrat presidential, Democratic presidential candidate has fallen in line.

So this article argues that maybe it's too radical considering the people's views on abortion are virtually unchanged since 1973, unlike something like same-sex marriage, where the public opinion about that has grown extremely favorable in the past few years before it was actually legalized abortion, whether it's legal or not, people's views on it have drastic. changed. Most people want abortion to be restricted at least, at least to the first trimester. So as a reminder, according to, and this is what I think is important. I always want to bring this up because this is why we are winning or this is why at least right now we've got a good foothold. This is why we are gaining ground. This is why they have a losing argument. This is all we

have to do and it's never going to change. All pro-lifers have to do is say what an abortion is. Planned Parenthood, the pro-choice side, the pro-abortion side, they won't say what it is. All they have are euphemisms. All they have is this weird kind of philosophy about maybe when life begins and when life has value, they even try to make this obscure theological argument from numbers five. And I think most people, if they're undecided, they look at the one side, the pro-life side who says, here's the facts. Here's what an abortion is. Here are the facts about fetal development. Here's what a baby looks like at this time. And you get Planned Parenthood. Their reaction to that is just anger. Their reaction to that is defensiveness. They have no response to it. If you

listen to the hearing that I was a part of a couple weeks ago on C-SPAN, you will see that the abortionist wouldn't even say when viability is. Anyone who is pregnant, anyone who has access to the internet, access to Google knows when in general viability is. She wouldn't even say that. She wouldn't say what an abortion is. She wouldn't say what happens in a procedure. I was the only one to say, I can tell you what a DNC abortion is. I can tell you what a DNE abortion is.

I can tell you what a DNX abortion is. Anyone can read it. You can read it on pro-abortion sites. Or, I mean, they say that they're neutral sites, but you can read about it on medical sites. But when it comes to their PR, when it comes to being out in public, when it comes to their messaging on social media and elsewhere, they won't say it. They won't say it. They shroud their arguments with all kinds of vagueness and obscurities. And I think that if you are a bystander or if you are trying to decide what is right and what is wrong,

it's very hard to look at the side that won't even own up to scientifically and medically what an abortion is and says, yeah, you know, that's probably, that's probably the good side that I want to be on. So I just want to give you a reminder of what an abortion is. I will give you a warning. This does get graphic. If you don't want to listen to this, you can fast forward. You can stop listening. But I think it's important.

I think it's important for us to always remember what an abortion actually is. So this is according to Planned Parenthood's own website. And in clinic abortion in the first trimester is, quote, a doctor or nurse uses medical instruments and gentle suction to remove the pregnancy from your uterus. Remove the pregnancy. What are you pregnant with? Squash blinds. They don't say.

They just remove the pregnancy. like a tumor. Or they say you take pills that end your pregnancy and make your uterus expel the pregnancy tissue like in early miscarriage. They can't even say fetus. They can't even say kill. They say pregnancy as if pregnancy is just a state of being and not something that necessarily involves a human being. They say words like remove and expel. They can't even describe what the procedure is in exact terms because they know that by recognizing the scientific reality that there is a human being that is killed in abortion, people get scared. They get queasy.

They get really uncomfortable. And they don't want people scared because abortion pays plan parenthood a lot of money. So just think about this. If you were on the side that can't even say what this medical procedure is that you are claiming to be moral, don't you think there's something a little sketchy about that? Don't you think that maybe you should take a step back and say, okay, this is the party of science.

This is the party that says they care about health care. they care about caring for women, they can't even use proper accurate terminology. They can't even expel pregnancy tissue. What is pregnancy tissue that doesn't even make any logical sense? If you're on the side that is afraid to use medically accurate terminology, you should maybe look at the validity of your stance. So that's the first trimester. And the first trimester, by the way, your baby looks like a baby at 10 weeks.

So whatever fantasies people have of babies, clumps of cells, as soon as you see that baby at 10 weeks on an ultrasound, which is exactly why Planned Parenthood doesn't show women the ultrasound picture, as soon as you see that baby at 10 weeks gestation, those fantasies disappear. You see moving arms, legs, fingers, toes, brain, of course, a beating heart, which has been beating for a long time. My baby at 11 and a half weeks was flipping around, kicking. That is the first trimester. So when we talk about dismembering a fetus or a poisoning a fetus with an abortion pill. We're not expelling a glob of tissues. No matter when an abortion is, by the way, no matter when after conception and abortion is, but if you want to, if you imagine in your head that an abortion in the first trimester is just a blob, it's just not factual. It's just not true. No matter what stage of pregnancy, someone gets an abortion, it is a violent, brutal procedure. It is not just like a root canal. So you can get that out of your head. That is just the first trimester. Second trimester, you can either do the dilation and extraction, which is the drying up of the amniotic fluid and then dismembering the baby and crushing her skull with forceps. So each part can be

removed through the vaginal canal easily. This is according to the American College of obstetrics and gynecologists, by the way, who are very poor abortion. You can tell from the rhetoric on their site. You can also induce labor in the second trimester, which ACOG, that's what I'm going to call American College of Obstetrics and Gynaecologist, says, is less cost effective and more dangerous. The doctor inserts drugs inside of you that causes an abortion and induces labor, so you literally give birth to a dead child. That is legal in the United States in the second trimester when the child can feel pain, by the way. ACOG also says this. In rare instances, second trimester abortion may be performed by hysterectomy or

hysterootomy. They don't mention how the baby is actually killed in that case. All of these procedures can and are done well after the mother has been able to feel the child move. Acoq describes the unborn child as a developing organism. That's how they define fetus. They don't even say the word human, which tells you where they stand. You know that we have become a post-truth society. Well, medical organizations can't even use accurate term as if we don't know what kind of organism is. Is it a human? Is it a fungus? A cog says they don't know. Here's what they also say about third trimester abortion. Abortion later in pregnancy may also be necessary when complications severely compromised women's health their life, conditions which may also

reduce the possibility of fetal survival. What a bunch of dishonest drivel. They know that abortion in the third trimester is far more dangerous for the mother than inducing it labor or giving birth. They know this. They know that because they already admitted that the later an abortion is, the more dangerous it is for a mother. An abortion in the second trimester, carry significant risks. A third trimester abortion is never necessary. Just logic tells us that common sense tells us that the solution is delivery, not abortion. If the baby has to actually come out of you, there's no reason to kill it first. Third trimester abortion involves an injection into the woman's abdomen and into the baby's heart. Of course, the doctor has to actually

be looking at the ultrasound screen while putting the needle into the woman's stomach to make sure that he is hitting the heart of the baby. It would be at this point that a baby who has been able to feel pain for weeks if we're in the first trimester or third trimester, this is a baby who could survive outside the womb. And we know from firsthand accounts that the baby physically resists the pain of the abortion needle. Imagine a needle going through your chest and to your heart, how badly that would hurt. This is called induced fetal demise. If you don't believe me, you can look it up yourself. Of course, pro-choicers, pro-abortioners say that this is all made up. This is hyperbolic. It's not. Go read it for yourself. Now, it's hard to find because the internet

Google doesn't want you to read this. But it's true. You can find it on neutral sites. Potocin and other medications are used to induce labor. And the abortionist pulls out the dead baby and disposes of her little body like medical waste. That is a third trimester abortion, which is very rare, but it does happen. And it is not always in the cases of a health problem, which, as we know, that doesn't even make any sense because the solution would be delivery, not abortion. Anyone who has had a baby, full term or premature, who has held that baby on your chest, you know how precious, how real that life is. There's no denying that. Now, what happens if a baby survives an abortion like that? Well, we know the governor of Virginia

Ralph Northam told us the baby would be put off to the side to struggle or to struggle for breath while the mom and the doctor decided what should do to give medical care or to we don't know. Let the baby die or further, quote, induced demise. This is why conservatives say that they are for infanticide. Of course. Of course. Have we heard anyone on the left say, wow, Ralph Northam, that was really draconian. That was really terrible. That's awful. You know, that's too far for me. Of course. we haven't. They are for this. You will notice that pro-choicers will say, oh, that's wrong, that's manipulation, that's misinformation, but they won't correct you. They'll just say, oh, that's wrong. That's not true. You're lying. You're feeling lies to women, but they won't say what's actually true. And so, okay, what is it? If I'm wrong about what an abortion is, how an abortion happens, you tell me, you describe to me what an abortion is. Do you think you just sprinkle fairy dust on the woman's womb? And, you know, And then all of a sudden the baby disappears into La La Land.

Is that how you imagine an abortion happening? So please tell me, correct me. There are firsthand accounts of utility closets in hospitals storing babies who survive abortions. I don't have to tell you about Kermit Gosnell, who routinely killed babies as they were being delivered by severing their spinal cord. Dr. Leah Torres is in OBGYN and Salt Lake City. And she tweeted that she cuts the vocal cords of babies as she is aborting them so they

don't have the opportunity to scream. This is abortion. This is abortion. If you are so-called pro-choice, this is what you are in favor of. It does not make sense to say that you're okay with someone making this decision even though you are against abortion personally. Are you against rape for rape for other people, but against rape yourself? Are you for murder for other people, but against murder yourself, oh, you don't feel like the government should have a say in that, that people should just make a decision to murder, people should just make a decision to rape. Is that where you stand on that? I don't think that makes logical sense. I think that you probably know better than that. In every case, at every stage, abortion is brutal, it is

violent, it is killing. There's no logical or moral or scientific or theological defense for it, period. On the portions of its website talking about abortion, ACOG uses the term fetus, which they describe as a developing organism, but on the portion of talking about pregnancy uses the term baby. Why? Because even though fetus means offspring, the word sounds more sterile and less human. This is what George Orwell calls double think in 1984, which is defined as the acceptance of mental, or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the exact same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination, if that doesn't describe the pro-abortion side, or even the, if you're talking about transgenderism, it definitely describes

that side as well, being pro-woman and pro-feminist and also pro-boys can be girls and girls can be boys that is double-think. This is why the pro-abortion side is losing. It is hard to keep up with lies. It is hard to come up with new euphemisms to cover up what abortion is a science and technology develop. Humanity inside the womb is undeniable. And they are having a hard time bending over backwards to convince people that it's not. They can't even speak in factual clear terms. You guys remember that from the hearing that I was a part of. We are winning because all we have to do to convince people that abortion is wrong is to say what it is. Because everyone is made in God's image, there still remains, and most people, this moral instinct that flinches

the description of an abortion. Now, some people have been totally corrupted and they have become so numb that even when they know what an abortion is, they're okay with it. But most people, most people cannot bear to hear what happens in the procedure and it hurts them. So what do they do? They either change their mind. They either in humility say, okay, I was wrong. Or they tell us that we're lying. They get defensive because they don't want to deal with those bad feelings. That's what we all do. We don't want to deal with bad feelings. We don't want to admit that we were wrong and that our worldview has been turned upside down. We get defensive. We say, oh, no, no, that's misinformation. We say that, oh, no, you're exaggerating.

You're making it up. They don't even, they don't even the pro-choice side, the pro-abortion side. They don't even tell their patience what's going on because they operate under manipulation and misinformation. All we have to do is tell the truth. And that's really easy. We don't have to keep up with anything. We don't have to remember the lie that we told last week. All we have to do is tell the truth. And that's what I encourage you to keep doing. Tell the truth. There have been two instances in the past week of people on Instagram getting dragged for saying things that are just true. There was one vegan YouTuber that is really popular that talked about her child at 15 weeks gestation and everything just scientifically. What's going on with her child in the womb? A child develops rapidly.

She got dragged, dragged by her followers for simply saying, hey, this life, it's real, here's what's going on in development and life has value. Didn't say, hey, I'm against abortion, just said, hey, factually here's what's going on. I mean, the people who follow her, who won't even eat cheese because they think it's immoral, are, were stunned and shocked and appalled and grossed out that this woman would believe that life inside the womb, that a baby inside the womb actually has value. And even after she said all of the things that are happening with her child inside the wound. You still had people saying, this is a glob of cells. I mean, when we read that Satan has blinded the mind of unbelievers,

that he is the prince of the power of the air, that he operates in darkness, that he is the father of lies. So everything he says is deception. That's the only way that people on that side of the issue. That's the only way their so-called logic makes any sense. When you realize that they are just so inundated with deception, which is why the gospel is so important when it comes to this issue because we can't expect people to fundamentally, to really ultimately change their hearts and to change their minds on something like this without the power of Jesus Christ, who is the author of truth, who is the giver of life, who ascribes value to life inside the womb. So that's why it's so important for us to be on

the side of truth. And yes, in a post-truth society, we are going to be more and more unpopular. There's a speech therapist who said, hey, I teach regular pronouns. I teach he, she, them as plural. And I don't believe that God made mistakes. And if God made a boy, a boy, then he is supposed to be a boy. And man, I don't know if I've ever seen someone on the internet dragged as hard as she was. And we need to encourage these people who are their jobs are being threatened. Their livelihoods are being threatened for stating basic biological truth. People get very angry at when it upsets their feelings and we need to be strong. And that speaking the truth and love, that doesn't mean that we don't, that we're not gracious, that we're not merciful and that we don't

serve these people. Of course we do. This is what people on the other side don't understand is that we love these people, but that doesn't mean we compromise on truth. And so it's very, it's scary, but it's refreshing to be on the side of truth because you don't have to keep up with the ton of lives. Like you don't have to be burdened by the latest cycle of outrage. You stand on the word of God, which does not change. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today. tomorrow and forever. And that is our steadfast hope. That is the anchor for our souls. We don't have to be worried about keeping up with what culture is mad at and what culture thinks is right and wrong. No, we stand on the truth, which does not change. That's my entire message today. This is a long

podcast. But hope you guys enjoyed it. And I will see you back here on Friday. We're talking to Andrew Claven from The Daily Wire. He was awesome. I'm so excited to talk to him. And you guys will enjoy our conversation too. See you then. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and

follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this T-Day Show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.