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

Episode Date: October 7, 2020

First, thoughts on Trump's COVID diagnosis, the media's reaction, and whether the public's dogmatism on mask-wearing is backed by science. Then, we address the viral chart showing abortion rates drop during Democratic presidencies. It's easy to assume correlation proves causation, but the facts say otherwise.  Today's Sponsor Car Shield has affordable protection plans that can save you thousands for a covered repair including computers, GPS, electronics, and more. Visit https://carshield.com and use code 'ALLIE' to save 10%! Today's Links WHO Advice on the Use of Masks in the Context of COVID-19, April 6, 2020 https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1274280/retrieve  Advice on the Use of Masks in the Context of COVID-19, June 5, 2020 https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1279750/retrieve  A Cluster Randomised Trial of Cloth Masks Compared With Medical Masks in Healthcare Workers https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/?fbclid=IwAR003ePVBB7-siz3UeGON7zFj2YLTTIwPOgv4rIYTibXPQYGv68hDJb4a5g#__ffn_sectitle  The Physiological Impact of Wearing an n95 Mask During Hemodialysis as a Precaution Against SARS in Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/  Masks Are Rare in Stockholm as Residents Debate the Pros and Cons of Its Non-Lockdown https://www.newstatesman.com/masks-rare-sweden-stockholm-no-lockdown  ‘We See No Point in Wearing a Face Mask,’ Sweden’s Top Virus Expert Says as He Touts the Country’s Improving COVID Numbers https://fortune.com/2020/07/29/no-point-in-wearing-mask-sweden-covid/  Abortion Rates Fall During Democratic Administrations and Rise During Republican Ones https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/abortion-rates-presidencies/  The U.S. Abortion Rate Continues to Drop: Once Again, State Abortion Restrictions Are Not the Main Driver https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2019/09/us-abortion-rate-continues-drop-once-again-state-abortion-restrictions-are-not-main  Changes in State Legislative Seats During the Obama Presidency https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_in_state_legislative_seats_during_the_Obama_presidency  Americans Aren't Making Enough Babies to Replace Ourselves https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/americans-aren-t-making-enough-babies-replace-ourselves-n956931  Do Democrats Decrease Abortion Rates? https://slowtowrite.com/do-democrats-decrease-abortion-rates/  A Travesty in New York https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/new-york-state-reproductive-health-act-unjust-inhumane/  New York State Senate Passes Bill Permitting Abortions up to Birth https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/new-york-state-senate-passes-expansive-abortion-bill/  ‘Exceedingly Rare’ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/new-york-times-story-late-term-abortions-born-alive-abortion-survivors-protection-act/  Who Seeks Abortions at or After 20 Weeks? https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1363/4521013  Live Action https://www.liveaction.org/  Kamala Harris’s Abortion Absolutism https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kamala-harriss-abortion-absolutism/  The Fallacy of the Pro-Birth Argument https://gospelpatriot.com/home/the-fallacy-of-the-pro-birth-argument  One Thing Red States Do Better Than Blue States https://www.huffpost.com/entry/giving-back-_n_3781505 ------ Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

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. Happy Wednesday. Hope everyone has had a wonderful week. Today we are going to cover two things at least. We're going to talk about Trump having coronavirus, some of the reactions to that and the

media coverage of it, which has been absolutely insane. And then I'll talk a little bit about masks. A lot of you guys ask me what I think about masks, and I have talked about it before. But we're going to go back and look at some of the studies about the efficacy of masks. And if all of the craziness surrounding them is actually scientifically justified. But we're going to spend the best portion of this podcast episode answering the question to Democratic policies actually provably lower the abortion rate. That is probably a graphic that you guys have seen going around on Facebook. It shows the abortion rate since I think it's Ronald Reagan. And it shows that under Democratic presidents, that the abortion rate goes down more

drastically than under Republican presidents. And the conclusion that people who post this graphic come to without actually having to explain it at all is that Democratic policies lower abortions. And so if you're really pro-life, if you really don't like abortion, then you should vote for Democrats. And I'm going to talk about some of the facts that are surrounding that assertion and will assess whether or not it's really true. Okay, let us first talk about Trump having the coronavirus. So he tweeted last week that he and Flodis tested positive for the coronavirus. and there were a lot of good reactions to it.

Biden had a good reaction. The Obama's had a good reaction to it. Rachel Maddow, there were some people on the left that I thought gave very good well wishes, respectful well wishes to the president, a lot of sympathy who I know do not like him. And that's really the thing that we want to see. And that's what you hope for. For example, you know, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, there was an outpouring of support and respect from conservatives toward her. That doesn't mean that we agree with her decisions or her ideology at all in the same way that a lot of people on the left don't agree with Trump. But you pay respecting kindness where it is due.

Unfortunately, for a lot of people on the left, I'll say for a good portion of people, I don't know if a lot is necessarily correct. They were very excited about the news that Donald Trump has coronavirus and has a couple of comorbidities, one of them. being a little bit overweight and the other one of them being old. And the hope among these people, these soulless people who do not like Donald Trump is that he would die or that this would just be really bad for him and he would learn his lesson. So there were some people who were giddy over this. Zara Rahim, former spokesperson for Hillary Clinton tweeted, it has been against my moral identity to tweet this for the past four years, but I hope he dies. Okay, again, that's former spokesperson for Hillary Clinton.

When I read these tweets that I'm reading, I'm not just picking random trolls. You can find random trolls on either side that say disgusting things and then try to use those to typify the whole side. I don't think that's fair. I'm simply pointing out to you that these blue check marks on Twitter, these people, some of them are mainstream influencers in the Democratic Party. They really hate Donald Trump so much that they are willing to go against their so-called moral identity. to wish him death. And I just want to point out, morality is not an identity. And it's actually so revealing if someone's worldview when they see morality as an identity, something that you just kind of self-proclaim and dawn. And then you can change and take it off whenever you want to when

the circumstances arise. That's actually the opposite of morality. That is just deciding what to do and what to say based on your emotions. And I think a lot of people unfortunately do think morality is something that you feel is right in the moment. And so it's very revealing about how she thinks about the world. But Zara Rahim, former spokesperson for Hillary Clinton, says, I hope he dies. Cody Johnston, also a Democratic influencer, a liberal influencer on Twitter, said, if someone tries to scold you for thinking this is funny talking about President Trump testing positive. Simply tell them that you hope the president dies from the virus. Okay. Another blue checkmark, Daniel Golson, I don't feel bad about hoping he dies because I've

been hoping that since 2015. Daniel Muscatto, BLM activist. I'm not one to laugh at other people suffering, but ha ha ha ha ha. Burn in hell, you M. F, her, a word that we will not repeat on this podcast. And then we've got Kate Willett, who is another blue check mark sheet. is a left-wing comedian, quote tweeted the president saying that he, and Flotis tested positive. She said in all caps, there is joy in this life sometimes. So certainly a good number of people on the left extremely giddy about President Trump having this virus. And like I said, there were some people who were very respectful, I thought, and said the things that they need to say about this. They took higher ground.

And sure, you could say that, you know, the. Obamas and the Biden's coming out and giving their respectful statements that that's just political posturing and that it's not sincere. That might be true. That's just politics, though, whether or not it's sincere. I mean people on the left and the right, they give statements, whether or not they mean them because they sound good. And so we kind of just have to realize that Democrats and Republicans are going to do that.

That doesn't really bother me. I still thought that they were good statements. But within 24 hours, it became, oh, well, Trump brought this upon himself. this is karma basically saying that he deserves this by the way as Christians we don't believe in karma that's something that i think we say you know christians say a lot of these um superstitious phrases i do and i've really tried in the past year to catch myself saying things like this you know like knock on wood karma good luck um things like uh you know other other kind of superstitious phrases and words that christians really shouldn't say because we don't believe in it

karma, this idea that good comes back to you based on if you've done something good, bad comes back to you based on if you've done something bad. We don't believe that. We believe in a sovereign God. The rain falls on the righteous and the unrighteous. The Bible says. And God will be just in the end and how he deals with the wicked and the righteous according to the blood of his son and who has been covered by that. So we don't believe in karma. They're bad people that get away with bad things their whole lives and it doesn't come back to bite them until after they die. They're really good people that unfortunately have tragic, terrible, really difficult lives that their lives didn't necessarily earn the things that they have that they have gone through. And nevertheless,

if they are Christians, their reward is in heaven. So we don't believe in karma. But a lot of people we're saying that this is karma for Trump. What goes around comes around. This is just what happened. But let us just review. You know, a lot of people saying Trump didn't take this seriously. Trump lied. People died. It is true that Trump downplayed it. But I really believe that any president would have done the same thing, hoping that people do not panic. No one likes panic. No one likes pandemonium. It's not good for the country. It's not good for the economy. It's not good for your personal health. And so you can argue that he should have been more straightforward about it from the beginning. He kind of went back and forth in his rhetoric, I think in the beginning saying, you know,

this is really serious. And then sometimes saying, well, actually, this is just like the flu. And so he could have been more consistent in that. He did tell Bob Woodward, which he never should have talked to Bob Woodward. But he did tell Bob Woodward, yeah, you know, I downplayed it. But I think a lot of leaders do the same thing in the hopes that people don't panic and that they realize, you know, that it's, that it's under control. And he did, according to his actions, try his best to keep it under control. He banned travel from China. And when he did that back in February, Joe Biden and other Democratic leaders said that that was xenophobic. And the WHO even said, you know, we shouldn't do that. Bernie Sanders said that we shouldn't close the borders. According to Cuomo and New

to very democratic, liberal governors. They praised Donald Trump saying he has given us all the supplies that we need and he has helped us as much as we could possibly ask for. He did dispatch and empower the resources of the federal government to help states as much as they possibly could. And of course, the media is not going to cover that because this is just another scandal that they can use to try to get people not to vote for him. Like I said, I think he minimized it maybe a little bit too much in the beginning. But do I think that he did everything he possibly could the exact same as a Democratic president

would do in order to mitigate the risk and minimize this? Now, he didn't, you know, do a federal lockdown or a federal mask mandate because individual liberty, in my opinion, is still important here. And he didn't want to crush the economy. As a politician, you always have to. way the pros and cons of your policy, having just total draconian lockdowns without any thoughts how it affects people's livelihoods, how it affects the economy, how it affects people's even just ability to socialize and to get the kind of psychiatric care that they

need and different things like that, any politician that doesn't consider those risks and only considers the risk of a virus with at least a 98% survival rate among all age groups. is really a lot higher than that for people under 80 years old is not a good leader. You're always weighing the pros and cons. And I believe that Trump did that. He had to do that. I think Republican governors, I don't think Democratic governors have done this as well, but I think Republican governors have had to weigh the pros and cons of lockdowns,

of mask mandates against the economy and kids going back to schools and people getting the socialization that they need. You have to weigh those pros and cons. Whereas a lot of Democrats think that, no, you shut everything down. You don't think about the economy. You don't think about anything else. You keep people locked down for a virus with about a 99% survival rate. And that's that.

But the only reason they're taking that position is because it is against Donald Trump. And it is the argument that they're making that Donald Trump or Republicans are not taking this seriously enough. But again, if you look at Democratic-run states, if you look at places like California in New York or New Jersey, where a large bulk of the deaths were happening, where they did have lockdowns, where they did have all of the mandates and the regulations that Democrats are saying that you needed. You don't see that they had a better outcome

than Republican states who didn't do draconian lockdowns. And then we'll talk about Sweden and how that kind of disproves the whole lockdown narrative as well. Hey, this is Steve Deuce. 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. But the point is that people saying that Trump minimized this too much that he didn't take it seriously, that he called it a hoax. That's not true. He didn't call it a hoax. They're being hypocrites and they're being dishonest because through his actions, he did not actually minimize the seriousness or he did not actually convey a minimization of the seriousness of the virus. Just tried to kind of calm people down while also taking steps to help states as much as possible. I want you to listen to this montage.

It was on Tucker Carlson of Democrats and what they were saying back in March about the virus and how people should be reacting to it. The risk to New Yorkers for coronavirus is low, and our city preparedness is high. This should not stop you from going about your life. Should not stop you from going to Chinatown and going out to eat. I'm going to do that today myself. Come to Chinatown. Here we are. We're again careful, safe, and come join us. There is no concern at this time for coronavirus in our region. The Department of Sanitation is ready for Montefrae 2020.

facts are reassuring. We want New Yorkers to go about their daily lives. There's really no need to panic and to avoid activities that we always do as New Yorkers. We are a hearty people. Americans do not need to panic. What I would suggest, however, is that Americans take this as a wake-up call for seasonal flu. There's very little threat here. This disease, even if you were to get it, basically acts like a common cold or flu. So we're telling New Yorkers, Go about your lives. Take the subway. Go out.

Enjoy life. And certainly not to miss the parade next Sunday. I'm going to be there. If you had to, would you close down the borders? No. We need to be honest about the American people, with the American people about the fact that we can't keep people coming here from China. And transmission is not that easy.

I think there's been a misperception that coronavirus hangs in the air waiting to catch you. No, it takes direct person-to-person contact. We also know that if it were likely to be transmitted casually, we would be seeing a lot more cases. Right, right. Because this is New York. So a lot of people like to say that it was Trump. It was only Trump not taking it seriously. But you saw Nancy Pelosi.

You saw Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York City. They were all saying the same thing. You saw the mayor of New Orleans saying, yeah, we're doing Mardi Gras. You saw all these people trying to say, oh, no, it's not that big of a deal. because the Democrats are always going to take the opposite side of Donald Trump. So when Donald Trump in March started taking it seriously, when he started banning travel and things like that, they had to say, oh, no, no, no, no, it's not that big of a deal. Go out and live your life. It's fine.

And then when it seemed like, oh, well, actually the better political pitch here is that Donald Trump has not taken it seriously enough and we've always been the very serious ones, they decided to switch that. But people's memory, like, we have so much amnesia. People's memory is so short. And we just believe what the media tells us. We just believe the Democratic talking point so easily because they're everywhere that we forget. That it was actually Democrats in the beginning who were not taking it seriously. And they believed that Trump was taking it too seriously. So you could argue, sure, that both parties failed.

That's fine. I'm fine with that. But to say that all 200,000 deaths from coronavirus or coronavirus related things is because of Donald Trump is just completely disarmes. And so to say that he deserves the sickness because of those 200,000 deaths is insane. It's just not backed by any fact. Now, people are also freaking out because, well, they freaked out because he took a joyride around Walter Reed. That's the hospital where he was getting treated as a precaution.

And he took, he got into the car with Secret Service and he drove around to wave and to think people who had been out there praying for him and cheering him on and things. like that. And people are saying, well, he needlessly exposed the Secret Service by being in a close quarter with them. And that is just so reckless and wrong. I have a few thoughts on that. Number one, I understand what you're saying. I do. Because it was unnecessary, he didn't actually need to go. He didn't need to go out into the car. And so it just seems like unnecessary contact with the people around him. But he's also, he's always going to be around secret service. Like they didn't just leave him at the hospital and drop him off. Like he is always going to be around secret service. These

are people that are getting paid to take a bullet for the president at any point. Like they signed up to die for him. Now, at the same time, I don't think that it's wise or prudent to kind of purposely and directly expose them to the virus if it's not necessary. I didn't think that the right. I didn't think that the around was necessary, but did I think it was the biggest deal in the world and that Trump is, people were leftist blue checkmarks on Twitter were actually trying to say that, you know, this is attempted murder, this is negligent homicide or this is manslaughter. I mean, it's like every two months they're accusing Trump of something like that. I mean, it's just insane. You make it really hard to listen to you when you have a legitimate concern. But did, you know, did I think it was

the biggest deal ever? A lot of people were saying, no, I didn't. But did, you know, a lot of people were saying that this is, this was just fanity, it was a photo op. I actually don't think that. I think Trump really loves and cares about the people who support him. I truly do. And I know some of you out there who hate Donald Trump are rolling your eyes. You're like, no, he doesn't. He only cares about himself. But okay, even if you say he's a narcissist, even if that's your thought, which I'm not, but if that's your thought, narcissists really like the people that like them. So I think, like, like whether or not he is that whether or not he's as selfish as a lot of leftist claim that he is i personally don't think that he is i do think that he has a little bit of pride issues and he has some

thin skin for sure and he can't ever apologize or say that he's wrong but neither could obama by the way but whether or not you think that he is this selfish arrogant guy they he obviously really has a faction for his supporters and i think him going out there and ways to them was a true sign of appreciation. I don't think that he anticipated pictures. I really don't because I think he probably thought that that could get him in trouble and that the press probably wouldn't like that. And I think he did it anyway. I think he really sincerely appreciated. I really think it meant a lot to him that people were out there praying and cheering him on and he really wanted to go out there and show appreciation. I truly, I think that that is what that was about.

I don't think it was. Like I don't think it was. Now, a lot of people were also freaking out about the fact that when he went back to the White House, that he decided to take a picture without a mask, which I also understand, like, you are positive for the virus. You should take every precaution necessary to make sure that you're not infecting the people around you. But I don't know if it's worth the outrage that we saw. I just want to remind you that the science on masks is iffy. I know that's very scandalous to say. I am not. not an anti-mask person. I wear a mask everywhere 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 freak out. So please don't say that I'm encouraging people

not to wear masks ever and I am completely anti-mask. I wear a mask where it is required of me. But I also realize that the science on masks is iffy and therefore the outrage and the dogmatism that we are seeing surrounding masks is just, it's unjustified. It and it almost came out of nowhere. Let me play you a clip from Dr. Fauci back in March talking about masks. Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks. You're sure of it because people are listening really closely to this. Right now, people should not be walked. There's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it might even block a

droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often, there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask, and they keep touching their face. And can you get some schmuts sort of staying inside there? Of course. Of course. But when you think masks, you should think of health care providers needing them. And then it's in February.

we had the surgeon general say seriously people in all caps stop buying masks they're not effective in preventing general public from catching coronavirus but if health care providers can't get them to care for sick patients it puts them in our communities at risk i was actually at the doctor the other day and they had a sign up that was from um i think it was February or March and they it was interesting that they had capped it up right next to the new sign but it said masks are not effective for healthy people. You don't need to wear a mask if you are healthy unless you're in prolonged close contact with someone that has the virus or if you are sick yourself and you have to go out in public or something, then you can wear a mask. But you really don't need to wear a mask if

you're a healthy person. Now, the reason why Dr. Fauci and the surgeon general and the WHO say that they have changed on that is because a science came out that shows that you can be asymptomatic and you can actually spread the virus. But then recently, I actually saw a study that said, oh, no, that's not true. It doesn't really seem like asymptomatic people are actually sharing the virus as much. And so they've kind of gone back and forth. And in the beginning, because they were so dogmatic and so sure that we should not be wearing masks, it just makes the whole thing seem very weird that not until much after the peak in June.

At the end of June, it was when people were saying, where are your dang masks and getting mad at people and freaking out when people weren't wearing masks. Not in March, not in April, not in May, not in June. It was not until the end of June after the riots and the protests and people kind of honestly forgetting about the coronavirus. It was like all of a sudden we have to wear masks after they had been so sure that we should not wear masks. And so you can't really get mad at people for wondering about the efficacy and effective

of masks, but you can kind of think that it's just a little bit weird, a little weird how angry people are getting about them when we were told so many times that they're really not effective for healthy people. Okay, so this is from the WHO in 2019. Now, the WHO is not an organization that I really trust, but this is the organization that so many people are getting their information from, and that is seen as a trustworthy source by a lot of people. There's limited evidence that wearing a medical mask by healthy individuals in the households or among contacts of a sick patient or among attendees of mass gatherings may be beneficial as a preventative measure. So limited evidence of that. However, there's currently no evidence that wearing a mask

by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19. So I just have a hard time believing that that science, apparent science, has changed. And WHO goes on to say, the use of cloth masks referred to as fabric masks in this document as an alternative to medical masks is not considered appropriate for protection of health workers based on limited available evidence. One study that evaluated the use of cloth masks in a health care facility found that healthcare workers using cotton cloth masks were at increased risk of influenza-like illness

compared with those who wore medical masks. So that is from the WHO. I will make sure to include a link to that in the description so that you can read it for yourself. There was a randomized trial published by National Institutes of Health that found that, quote, penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97%. 97%. And so other people's particles are going to get into your nose and mouth if you're wearing

a cloth mask and your particles. are going to get into other people's nose and mouth if you're wearing a cloth mask. Now, that's only if you cough or sneeze or something like that. I think some people think that masks protect you from like a sick person's breath. They don't. They don't. Like you're so breathing the air that the people around you are breathing. There's another study published by the National Institutes of Health that found, quote,

wearing an N95 mask for four hours, significantly reduced oxygen levels and increased respiratory adverse effects in patients. So that's good. So we know that in 95 masks are the only kind of masks that actually filter out any virus particles. But we're reading in this study that it actually can lower your oxygen rates if you wear it for a long period of time. That's why when I hear about kids having to wear these, when I wear masks, I'm wearing

it for like 20 minutes when I go in the grocery store or something. But these kids that are wearing masks eight hours a day, I just can't imagine that that is great for them. There have been studies that show that masks do help, you know, stop the, mitigate the spread of the virus, win in combination with everything else, win in combination with social distancing, winning combination of washing your hands and basically staying around sick people. So, I mean, yeah, those are the basic things that you always do. You always wash your hands and stay around sick people and try not to get too close to people that you don't know. I mean, that's what we would do in a typical flu year.

So, but wearing a mask is not really going to keep you safe if you're sitting on a like a packed flight or public transit or something like that. It's just probably not. The science just really isn't there from what we know. But I do understand that stores and airlines, they want to be able to say that they are doing everything they can to mitigate the risk. And so I do understand that. A lot of that is PR and a lot of that is the feeling of sense. safety of their customers and the people who work for them so they can have as much business as possible, make as much money as possible so they don't have to lay people off. And so I do

understand it. And hey, if you don't want to wear a mask, you don't have to go into that grocery store. You don't have to use that airline, whatever it is. All I'm saying is that the science does not demand that people are as dogmatic and mean as they are about masks. And I don't think that it's necessary, certainly for two-year-olds to be required to wear masks on airlines. I just don't think there is science, enough science to prove that it is worth that. So the fact that Trump hasn't always been gung-ho about masks just means that he is in line with science, which is mixed. Do I think it's probably a good political look since the vast majority of the country seems to like masks and to wear masks? Do I think it's a good political look for him to wear a mask? I think it's a good political look for

him to wear a mask. I actually do. There's, of course, a minority of people who thinks masks are terrible and do think that they're a sign of weakness. But I think for the most part, when people see Joe Biden wearing a mask, that it seems like a sign of respect or something like that, even if it's totally political posturing, it's probably better politics to wear a mask right now, even though, like I said, the science isn't really backing out the complete and total efficacy of masks. And, okay, one more thing I wanted to say. I'm actually talking about this longer than I thought that I would. But before we get to our million dollar question about abortions, I just want to point out about Sweden. A story came out that hospitalizations and deaths will flatline in Sweden by the end of the year. And the interesting

thing about Sweden is that they have never had a mask mandate that the vast majority of people in Sweden do not wear masks when they go outside. Very, very rare for a Swedish person, according to these studies, to wear a mask when they go outside. And they never had any lockdowns. They did have certain restrictions, but no mass lockdowns. They've only had 5,895 total deaths. And while that is more than Denmark, they are also not having the same economic repercussions as Denmark. And it is comparable per million people as Denmark.

Let me read you some of this. Chief epidemiologist in Sweden, Anders Tagnell, has said he is unconvinced by the evidence for masks and he is not even recommending them. let alone urging legislation to make them compulsory. Instead, he says Swedes should avoid situations where they get too close to other people. Now, doesn't that just seem like common sense? Tegnell is once again taking Sweden down a different path than most other countries. Sweden did not lock down instead promoting voluntary measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

Public gatherings of more than 50 people were banned as were visits to care homes for the elderly, elderly, but school, restaurants, gyms, offices remained open predictions that Sweden's strategy could lead to intensive care being overwhelmed or that up to 80,000 people would die by early July were wrong by an order of magnitude. The number of confirmed cases started falling off at the end of June and kept declining through July while in Norway and Denmark the rate has been creeping up. The number of people dying of coronavirus in Sweden peaked in April with 115 deaths in a day

and was in single digits per day by August. Economically, this is from, all of that was from new statesman.com, and I will link that source. Economically, Sweden is faring better than most. Its second quarter contraction of 8.6% looks almost trivial when compared to Britain's 20.4% or the EU average of 12.1%. Fortune.com says with numbers diminishing very quickly in Sweden, we see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport, their chief epidemiologist, Hegnall said. And so I think it's interesting here in America how things are so politicized and it really can have such an effect on

policy and what people think about masks and lockdowns. The fact of the matter is, is that the science is not good in proving that lockdowns are necessary in preventing the spread of the virus might help a little bit, but really what we should have done all along is to protect the vulnerable, quarantine the vulnerable, and then take, you know, as many social distancing precautions as we possibly can and continue to live our lives. That is what Sweden did. They avoided the lockdowns. They avoided the drastic economic downturn and the social isolation that leads to suicides and depression and anxiety and people not getting the care for other sicknesses that they need. I mean, I don't even think that we realize the damaging and long-term effects that these draconian and unscientific in many cases lockdowns have caused on people's lives.

And that doesn't mean that we don't care about the people who died from the virus or that we just want to be cavalier about it and that their lives don't matter. But again, politicians, leaders, they have to weigh the pros and cons of everything they do. There are risks no matter what decision that you make. They're always pros and cons. 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 an election year, quite frankly. And it seemed like Sweden did that really well. And it's going to pay off.

So good. I'm very happy for them. I'm glad that that is working out for them. I wish more people would have listened. Now, for the million dollar question, there are more things I wanted to talk about today. I wanted to talk about the craziness, the crazy assertion that Republicans are trying to overturn Obergefell, the, the decision that decided gay marriage, but I don't have time for that. I'll have to talk about it

maybe next week. But I do want to answer this million dollar question that so many people have asked me about. And that is do democratic policies reduce abortion? So if you're watching on YouTube, I'll put up the chart that's been going around on Facebook. What you see is the abortion rate, the sources the CDC from 1980 to 2016. And we see a steady decline. But what we see, according to this chart is that abortion went down only by 4% under Reagan, 4% under Bush, 30% under under Clinton and Democrat, 3% under the next Bush, and 26% under Obama. And so people who are sharing this charter saying, see, if you really care about reducing abortions, then you need to vote Democrat because, according to this chart, Democratic policies lower

the abortion rate. Except this chart doesn't prove that. A correlation does not prove causation. So you could look at the divorce rate. I saw someone share a funny, a funny chart to make that point that correlation doesn't prove causation. You could look at the divorce rates in Maine, for example, and the use of margarine in Maine. And they might go down at similar rates throughout history. Does that mean that the divorce rate is causing the decrease in the use of margarine? Does that mean that the use of margar, the decrease in the use of margarine is somehow affecting the divorce rate? No, these two things don't necessarily have any kind of causal relationship and just saying that two things happen at the same time is not enough to prove a causal relationship.

And that, of course, is true in this chart. So there are some things that we have to ask ourselves. And it's so funny, the people who are sharing this chart are saying, see, democratic policies, lower abortions, but they're not naming those policies. Tell me, what specific policies did Clinton and Obama put in place that Reagan Bush and the other Bush did not put in place that actually provably lowered the abortion rate. It's like no one's asking that question. We're just like, oh, okay, blue, red, bad, good, got it. Yep, that sounds about right. But we actually have to dig a little bit deeper. So I looked up this claim just to see what would come up. And the first thing that came up was a Snopes article from 2016. And it was assessing this claim, abortion rates fall during Democratic

administrations have rise during Republican ones, and they rated this false. And here is what they say about that. The claim that abortion rates fall under Democrats, while true, ignores the fact that rates have also continued to decline through Republican administrations as well. The claim then that abortion rates have risen when Republicans have held the White House is therefore equally false. And most, one can argue, the rate of decline appeared to slow during the presidency of George Bush before increasing under Barack Obama's administration. But that would be based on a comparison in between only two administrations and would do nothing to demonstrate causation, would do nothing to demonstrate causation. In fact, causation between the presidency and abortion rates would be

difficult to demonstrate in any case because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy, let alone presidential policy. There are a difference between those two things. Remember, Congress makes laws and abortion procurement. Nearly all challenges to open access to abortion have come at the state and not the federal level. According to a 2013 report by the pro-choice, Guttmacher Institute. Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. The Guitmacher Institute said this. 22 states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013.

This makes 2013, that's while Barack Obama was president, second only to 2011 in the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single year on the state level. to put recent trans and even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past three years, 2011 and 2013, but just 189 were enacted during the previous decade, 2001 to 2010. At the federal level, legislators have had more trouble passing abortion restrictions into law, making it difficult to argue that any presidential policy specifically has had an effect on abortion rates. The only relevant federal legislation that has been signed into law are the 1970, Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal money from funding most abortions and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which criminalized abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2007.

According to the CDC, multiple factors can affect abortion rates. Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion, including the availability of abortion providers, state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers. These are all Republican policies, by the way. Increasing acceptance of non-marital childbearing shifts in the racial ethnic composition of the U.S. population and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception.

So correlation does not prove causation. What we are seeing from the CDC and from the Gutmacher Institute is that presidential policy has not affected the abortion rates. There's no proof of a causal relationship between who is president and how many abortions are happening in the United States while they're president. On the federal level, very little has happened in regards to abortion. And like we just read, according to the Guttmacher Institute, that while Obama was president, and abortion went down by 26 percent.

According to that viral chart, here is what Goupmacher Institute says. 22 states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013. This makes 2013 second only to 2011 and the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single year. To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past three years, but just 189 were enacted during the entire previous decade while Bush was president. So that means that while Bush was president, when abortion only went down by 4%. There were very few state abortion restrictions put in place. But when Obama was president, when abortion went down by 26 percent, there were more state

abortion restrictions put in place in just two years than in the entire eight years that Bush was president. So if anything, someone could deduce that that is why abortion went down while Obama was president because of Republican regulations in states, not Democratic policies at the presidential level. I'm not even going to make that argument because, again, correlation doesn't prove causation. And because I cannot prove. directly that those Republican policies that restricted abortion in such in such a big way

in Republican states actually reduced the abortion rate. I won't make that claim definitively because I don't know. But we have more facts to back up that conclusion than we do that Barack Obama affected the abortion rate at all. Here's what the Guttmacher Institute says. Abortion restrictions were not the main driver of the decline in the U.S. abortion. rate between 2011 and 2017. Rather, the decline in abortions appears to be related to declines in birth and pregnancies overall. There are a number of potential explanations for this broad decline, some more plausible than others. So it seems like that is, that's a little bit biased because they don't want to say that abortion restrictions or the reason for reducing abortions,

but they do go on to admit this. Still, abortion restrictions. particularly those imposing unnecessary, intentionally burdensome regulations on providers. Remember, this is a pro-choice organization, played a role in shutting down abortion clinics in some states and thereby reducing access to abortion. So they are admitting that Republicans, reducing access to abortion is lowering the abortion rate. They also go on to admit this. The number of abortions fell by 196,000 and 19% decline from the 1,058,000 abortions. That's 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 2011 to 13.5 in 2017.

The abortion ratio fell 13% from 21.2 in 2011 to 18.4 in 2017. The question of what is behind these trends has important policy implications in the 2011 to the 2017 period warrants particular attention because it coincided with an unprecedented wave of new abortion restrictions. During that time frame, 32 states enacted a total of 394 new restrictions with the vast majority of these measures having taken effect. So even the Guttmacher Institute isn't attributing a decline in abortion to Democratic policies or to President Obama. Again, I can't and they can't say definitively that the Republican restrictions reduced abortions, but the evidence is a lot stronger for that, even according to the Goopmacher Institute,

than it is for Obama's policies reducing abortion. Presidents don't make laws. Congress does. State legislatures do. So even if you want to say that non-abortion related liberal policies lowered the abortion rate while a Democrat was president, you would need to look at who was passing the laws while those Democrats were president. So the original chart claims that during Reagan's president's president's,

and George H.W. Bush's presidency, abortion was only reduced by 4%, whereas in Clinton's presidency, abortion was reduced by 30%. While Democrats controlled the House throughout Reagan's presidency, Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and George H.W. Bush's presidency, and Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, most of Clinton's presidency. From 1995 to 2001, Congress makes laws. So the argument saying that Democrat presidents reduce abortion using those examples is not good. In George W. Bush's presidency, where apparently abortion only went down by 3 percent, he did have mostly a Republican Congress while he was in office, except for his last year. In Obama's presidency, when abortion apparently went down by 30 percent, Republicans controlled

the House almost his whole presidency and controlled both chambers the last segment of his presidency. So the argument, using that chart, that abortion goes down when Democrats are president because of liberal policies, just is not a good logical argument at all. It's just not backed by the facts. Furthermore, while Barack Obama was president, according to Ballotpedia, Democrats experienced a net loss of 968 state legislative seats. The largest net loss of state legislative seats in this category since World War II. So while Barack Obama was president, when abortions decreased by 26 percent, a lot more than they did when Bush was president. Republicans dominated both Congress and state legislatures. And according to the Guttmacher Institute, an unprecedented number of abortion restrictions were passed by state Republicans while Obama was president.

So tell me what liberal policies reduced abortion. Like show me what liberal policies during this time that Republicans were dominating at everything except for the White House, reduced abortion. It just doesn't make sense. In 2009, the year Obama took office, Democrats controlled both chambers of 27 state legislatures. In 2009, eight years later, when Obama left office, Democrats controlled both chambers in only 13 states. And let me just reiterate, once again, from Planned Parenthood's own Research Institute under Obama, states enacted a record number of abortion restrictions. So, the U.S. idea that under Obama liberal policies reduced abortion. There's no facts whatsoever to back that up.

And again, I'm not arguing that it's the Republicans or Republican policies who reduce the abortion rates. I do not have the data to prove directly a causal relationship. I'm saying it's definitely not the Democratic president who did it. It definitely wasn't Clinton or Obama like that chart asserts. There are literally no facts whatsoever to prove that and plenty of facts to prove otherwise. Experts say the decline isn't due to a single cause, but rather a combination of several factors, including changing economics, delays in childbirth by women pursuing jobs and education, the greater availability of contraception, and a decline in teen pregnancies. The transcene in the United States has also seen in much of the developed world,

including Western Europe, said Dr. John Rowe, a professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. One important factor driving this is the changing roles of women in society. Roe said. In general, women are getting married later in life. The pro-life cause has also been very strong that we have been working really hard to educate people on what abortion is. And perhaps people are seeing the atrocity of abortion and they're deciding not to have abortions. Of course, they're not going to admit that. So the chart that you have seen going around is misleading on purpose. It is meant for people who, and this is a lot of us on social media, at least at one time or another, who are scrolling through and are just not thinking.

The purpose is for us to go, okay, oh, okay, so blue, good, red, bad, okay, got it, not going to think about this anymore. But I think that we're smarter than that. I think we have to be smarter than that. Gosh, Christians have to be smarter than that. As Samuel say, he is someone I've had on this podcast before. He's a great blogger. He has a blog called Slow to Write, and I'll include the link to this blog post.

It's really good. he writes an article that says this. In America, the states with the highest abortion rates are Democrat-controlled states with the most expansive welfare programs in the country. And that's consistent with international data. The top 14 nations with the highest abortion rates in the world are either current or former socialist nations. Of course, because socialism and eugenics and abortion always go hand in hand. They always go together. And atheism. I should say socialism, eugenics, and atheism. That's the trifecta of Marxism. They always are intertwined. A welfare program, Samuel Say goes on to say, and socialistic policies do not decrease abortion rates. There's actually

more reason to believe the increase abortion rates. Stealing from people to stop others from murder isn't helpful. Overtaxing innocent people to decrease abortion rates doesn't stop one injustice. It creates two injustices. Amen. After all, is that God's reaction to people who kill their babies in the Bible? when the ancient Israelites sacrificed their children to Malac? Did God instruct the priests and kings to create welfare programs to stop the parents from killing their babies? Beginning in 1980, pro-life advocates and pro-life politicians work together to produce the Hyde Amendment, a bill that prevents federal taxpayer money from funding most abortions.

Abortion rates started to decline for the first time shortly after the bill was passed. In fact, research shows the bill has prevented 2 million abortions over the last 40 years. However, Joe Biden and the Democratic Party. party have officially listed repealing the Hyde Amendment on their platform, the pro-alt life party, right? Let's talk about the fact, though. So we've covered all the evidence. We've covered all the counter arguments that you're not going to see online.

But let's go a little bit deeper. Is this really a good argument anyway? If you believe that abortion is the moral atrocity that it is, it's killing a child, 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 in childhood. In the same way that it's not inaccurate to call an infant a child, it is not inaccurate to call a fetus a baby. It's just a stage in babyhood. So abortion is the intentional killing of a baby. If you think that is a moral atrocity, do you think that the best approach to that is simply to reduce it.

Like, is that the right moral response in regards to any other kind of injustice, any other kind of murder, of assault or rape? Do we say, eh, let's not ban it. Let's not make it illegal because that'll just kind of make it more dangerous. People will do, you know, back alley murders now. We want to keep murders super, super safe for the murder. So let's see what policies we can pass to just encourage people not to do. these things, but let's just give them the choice to murder and rape if they want to.

Like, why do unborn children get different treatment in our thoughts about morality and legality than other victims of atrocities do? That's insane. That's literally like the definition of insanity. That's injustice. Why do unborn babies matter less than victims of other crimes? Because they're located in the wound. That seems like a really arbitrary standard for policymaking and more importantly, morality.

The point for someone who is against the killing of babies in the womb is not a reduction in abortions. Yeah, of course, we want there to be fewer abortions because we want more babies to live. But the point for us is that the personhood of unborn children should be recognized by law. Our stance is very simple. Babies in the womb are humans. Therefore, they are entitled to fundamental human rights, the most fundamental being the right to life. The right to be an innocent person who is the right. to be an innocent person who is given a shot at life instead of murdered.

So I cannot vote for the party who, through both enacted and proposed legislation in New York, in New Mexico, in Vermont, in Illinois, in California, in Virginia, in other Democratic states that have pushed for babies in the womb to be stripped of any recognition of personhood. In New York, if you assault a pregnant woman, hurting her and killing her baby, you are guilty of assault, not murder. An unborn child in New York because of the Reproductive Health Act of 2019 does not have rights as an individual. You want to tell me that that's the party of pro all life? Really?

You think that's God's definition of justice? You think for some reason because a baby is located in the womb that God cares less about that life? This is according to National Review, quote, Anthony Hobson allegedly dragged his pregnant former girlfriend into the stairwell of her Queen's apartment building and stabbed her in the stomach, neck and torso. I think that's how you pronounce her last name. Erygoian was in her second trimester. Neither she nor her unborn child survived. The queen's direct attorney initially announced that Hobson would be charged with second degree murder and abortion, reasonably enough, considering that he stands accused of

killing both Irogyn and her child. Then he dropped the abortion charge in light of the state's radical new pro-abortion law. The law aims to bless any abortion under any circumstances and with a grim consistency does not allow the state specially to punish even violent attacks on the unborn. The New York State Catholic Conference warned of exactly this prior to passage. Moving abortion from the penal law to the public health law, which is what the law did, is a major policy shift that removes accountability for those who would harm unborn children outside the context of medical termination of pregnancy.

As long as you cite, according to New York law, that you are getting an abortion for your emotional well-being or your financial situation or your familial situation, as long as that is your reason to obtain an abortion in New York, you can get an abortion through nine months. No questions asked. Also, according to National Review, quote, the legislation provides a further exception to permit abortion at any point during pregnancy if the health care practitioner deems it necessary for the mother's life or health. The exception that was defined in Roe Companion case, Dovey Bolton, as all factors relevant to the well-being of the patient. So not just physical health, any kind of health. In other words, abortion will be available to women essentially on demand up to the point of birth. Through a reproductive health care act will also decriminalize abortion, moving it from the state's criminal code to the public health code. Let me just remind you. Abortion in the first trimester is performed through poisoning the womb, through pills.

then sucking the baby out. After 12 to 14 weeks, they have to use potassium chloride. And this is a shot that they give you through your abdomen into your uterus, hopefully into the baby's heart if they can be accurate enough and if the baby doesn't wiggle too much, forcing the baby into cardiac arrest, and then pulling the baby apart and out using forceps. A late-term abortions, which do happen, according to Planned Parenthood, more than 10,000 times a year.

They say, oh, this is so rare. This is just 1%. Well, there are about a million abortions every year. So 10,000 times a baby who can very well feel pain, who is able to live outside the womb, is aborted by ensuring, quote, fetal demise, by causing a heart attack through potassium chloride, and then inducing labor to deliver the dead baby. Of course, we know that even worse measures are taken illegally, but we know Kermit Gossnell would induce labor and then would just snip the spinal cord.

of the baby as the baby is coming through the birth canal this kind of stuff happens unfortunately in this country remember our abortion laws are less restrictive than the vast majority of the world's abortion laws we are right up there with china and north korea baby so you're telling me the democratic party who is pushing for this is the pro all life party are you kidding me are you kidding abortion advocates love to claim by the way that i'm making this all up that oh that's not really what happens in an abortion as if babies are killed by what sprinkling fairy dust like you think the picture of abortion is better like it's not grotesque like how do you think they kill the baby in a way that is like i don't know sweet and kind and gentle i mean i will include the link to this you can

you can look it up you can look it up for yourself plan parenthood in so many words will tell you that this is what happens in an abortion they're not going to say baby they don't even say fetus they just say pregnancy and they'll see a combination of medical tools but you can read between the lines. And you can read other sources that tell you exactly what happens. Live action has a lot of good resources on this. When the law was passed in New York, Democrats in the legislature, along with abortion activists erupted in cheers. And Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo lit up the buildings pink in celebration. Similar bills and laws in New Mexico, Virginia, California, Illinois, other states controlled by Democrats have been either passed or presented. Nayroll, Planned Parenthood, shout your abortion.

organizations who want to make it as easy as possible to kill on born babies. Do you have any doubt in your mind who they're voting for? Any doubt? I mean, of course they're voting for Joe Biden. They've already said that they're voting for Joe Biden. He's promised to overturn the Hyde Amendment so our federal tax dollars fund abortion. He will make sure Planned Parenthood gets the millions in Title X funds that they rejected under Trump's new rule.

He has promised to try to codify Wade or codify Roe, which severely like, limits any kind of restriction that a state can put on abortion. It would make abortion of federal law so that the Supreme Court wouldn't have any say in that. Kamala Harris herself was funded by Planned Parenthood when she was Attorney General in California and running for Senate. She actually authored the most aggressively pro-abortion piece of legislation in the Senate that has ever been presented. According to National Review, as a senator, Harris has co-executive.

Harris has co-sponsored the most aggressively pro-abortion piece of federal legislation ever introduced, the Women's Health Protection Act, which would override state restrictions on abortions in the last three months of pregnancy, well after fetal viability. The bill would invalidate any state law that prohibits abortion after fetal viability when, and the good faith medical judgment of the treating physician continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant woman's life or health. According to reporting from, oh, this the article goes on to say, to reporting from my colleague John McCormick, the bill sponsors have said that it does not

distinguish between the mother's physical and mental health. So if a woman feels like she is emotionally unwell when she's nine months pregnant, she can get an abortion according to law. If you say, oh, well, that never happens. It actually happens around 10,000 times a year. And the majority of the time, the reason for that is not actually, it's not actually the physical health of the child, which of course, you don't kill a child just because a child is sick. and you don't have to kill a child just because there is a physical problem with the mom in the third trimester. In the third trimester, a baby is viable. You got to get the baby out of you because the mom is sick. You get the baby out of you. Either way, the baby's coming out of you. You don't have to kill the baby

and the process that doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever. And so even if it is rare that it happens, it still happens. And it doesn't matter how rare it is. It should still be illegal. But Kamala Harris, the most liberal senator right next to Bernie Sanders in the Senate proposed this aggressively pro-abortion piece of federal legislation that strips unborn children of all rights whatsoever. So no, I'm not going to vote for that party. I'm not going to vote for that ticket. If you have believed that the Democratic Party, the party who wouldn't even sign on a bill to that was presented by Republicans in the Senate in last year to simply protect

babies who survive abortions, the Born Alive Infant Survivors Protection Act. If you have believed that that party who refuses to even legally protect babies who survive abortions, babies who are outside of the womb, is the party of pro all life, you've been duped. You have believed a complete lie. You have been deluded into thinking something that is not true. Let me read you this also from Samuel Say's blog. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a co-founder of the First American Pro Abortion Advocacy Group,

NARAL, and an abortionist who killed. over 75,000 babies before he became pro-life, admitted the pro-abortion movement relies on lies to advance their agenda. He said, we fed the public a line of deceit, dishonesty, a fabrication of statistics and figures. We succeeded in breaking down the laws limiting abortions because the time was right and the news media cooperated. We sensationalized the effects of illegal abortions and fabricated polls, which indicated that 85% of the public favored unrestricted abortion when we knew it was only 5%. We unashamedly lied. And yet our statements were quoted by the the media as though they had been written by law. Of course, they lied. People who kill babies for a

living for profit are going to lie. Have you ever tried to get a pro-abortion, so-called pro-choice advocates, tell you what happens in an abortion? Have you ever tried to give them to describe what actually happens in an abortion? I sat next to an abortion provider when I was testifying before Congress on this subject, who was pressed on this, who would not say what actually happens in an abortion. If you want to know what happens in an abortion, really? Like, you literally have to go to a pro-life person, a pro-life person who has seen an abortion like Abby Johnson or someone who used to work in a Planned Parenthood, like they will not tell you what it is. If you are a part of a group that relies on euphemism and lies in manipulation who fight so hard

against women who are considering abortion, seeing their baby on an ultrasound or hearing the heartbeat, you have to wonder just for a second, right? Like if you're on the right side, I just, it's so amazing to me. I saw this article and, I think it was the Christian Post that evangelicals, pro-life evangelicals for Joe Biden. The same Joe Biden that wants to codify way and overturn the Hyde Amendment, whose vice president is the most aggressively, rabidly pro-abortion senator that we have. Like the Democratic Party, who in states across the country has stripped unborn children of their personhood and has made it accessible and available and legal to have an abortion through nine months.

are you all right? Here's what Proverbs 813 and 36 says. The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate. This is wisdom talking, by the way. All who hate me love death. Perverted speech I hate. All who hate me love death.

The entire abortion movement is based on perverted speech and death. Lies and death. And the Republican Party isn't nearly as pro-life as I want them to be. Not even, not even close. But to say that the party who celebrates, who advocates, who wants to fund the murder of living, moving defenseless babies inside the womb because what? Because they believed, because they believe in socialized medicine that they're the pro-life party. It's insane. It's insane.

It's just not true. Show me the policies that Democrats support that are pro all life, that Republicans don't support. Show me the results. Not just the intentions, but the results. of how democratic policies have actually supported life. Obama built the cages that the kids at the border are in. Obamacare has not solved the problem of unaffordable health care, as we talked about in a previous episode,

as we will talk about more in our health care election episode coming up. You're going to tell me that the Democratic Party cares for the poor. Have you been to a Democrat city and seen the homeless population, which has grown and has only been incentivized by liberal policies in L.A., Austin, Seattle, New York, Baltimore, more homeless people living in squalor in L.A. than any other city in the country, and you can't get more liberal than L.A. The cities with the cases of purported police brutality and riots and looting and arson have all been happening over the past few months, not just by liberals leftists themselves, but in cities and states run by Democrats,

bailed out by funds that are promoted by people like Kamala Harris. So again, this myth that these are actually right-wing white supremacist starting this anarchy, if that's the case, why are Democrats like Kamala Harris bailing them out of jail? Come on. Come on. And again, I am not saying the Republican Party is our safer. But if you're going to make the argument that caring for life outside the womb is the Democratic party's platform, you're going to have to tell me how the Democratic Party is tangibly doing that. more than the Republican Party is, again, not just by intentions and where they say they're going to throw their money, but what they've actually done, the problems they have actually provably solved.

I mean, I've seen people like Beth Moore, like Tony Evans, a group of so-called pro-life evangelicals for Biden, saying that abortion isn't the only issue, that we have to care about life outside the womb. I agree. But tell me, how do Democrats do that anymore than Republicans do? by advocating for abortion through nine months, eliminating school choice, incentivizing homelessness and unemployment, draconian lockdowns unbacked by science that have led to joblessness, depression, and suicide, allowing riots and looting to go on with impunity, making it harder for people to defend themselves, how they see fit via the Second Amendment? Was it the cages that Obama and his administration built for the kids at the border? I want to know. Like, what is it?

What are these pro all life policies that have actually realized? resulted in the betterment for these demographics more than Republican policies have. Are you really going to argue that Democrats are more pro all life just because they support the government taking more of your money and spinning out on programs that sound good but don't actually help? I came across a blog post on the site, Gospel Patriot. I've never heard of them, but I found it to be very articulate and credible. And I'll link it so you can see their sources.

It says this, while it is true that political conservatives are not in favor. of their tax dollars being spent on many social government programs that doesn't mean that we are, I'm saying we, they said they are anti-giving, anti-health, or anti-child. Actually, the numbers indicate that those who live in predominantly red states tend to give more to charity by almost 10%. At the same time, they are again almost 10% more likely to volunteer for a cause. For those that insist that the efforts of civil society alone will not be enough, consider this. Outside of the numbers listed by predominantly red states, the United States as a whole is more philanthropic than any other nation in the world. In fact, according to author Jeremy Beer in a Johns Hopkins University study, the value of

American philanthropy is equivalent to 5.5% of the national GDP. No other nation in the world even reaches the 2% mark. Most social and or political conservatives are in favor of helping their fellow man. They just don't think the government should be in the business of forcing its citizens to do so. Thank you very much, Gospel Patriot. That is. is a great word, and you're absolutely right. The Huffington Post in 2013 wrote an article about how red states give more in charity than blue states by far. The top nine out of ten most generous states are all highly religious and conservative states. Fifty four percent of Republicans gave to charity in the previous year versus 45 percent of Democrats, 33 percent of Republicans volunteered for a cause,

versus 24 percent of Democrats. So yes, conservatives also believe in helping these families after birth. The assertion that we are just pro-birth, which, by the way, is a lot better than type birth. But the assertion that we are just pro-birth if we don't agree with liberal policies that don't actually even support life is just untrue. We just don't believe in the government being the primary vehicle to help. That's not generosity. That's coercion. That's not charity. The more money you give the government, even and especially in the name of compassion, the more power they have. It is not necessarily righteous or moral or loving to simply vote for the party who promises to do more for the poor. Look at their record of their party. In fact, anytime a politician

left or right promises to do something for you to make your life better by giving you things, you need to be very wary. That is not their job. The government's job is not caretaker. There's a role for the government, but it is the job, the primary job of you, individuals, family, the church, to do what the government can't, and that is to actually care for people without controlling them. The government just can't do that. Jesus told us to care for the poor and the orphan and the widow. We are their primary helpers. And God says in 2 Corinthians 9-7, each one must give as he has decided in his heart not reluctantly or under compulsion for God loves a cheerful giver. Voting for politicians who promise to take more of your tax money or other people's tax money

and distribute it to people how that politician sees fit does not cut it for loving the least. of these. It does not cut it for compassion. Again, does the government have a place in helping the poor? I think so. But it doesn't replace our generosity in helping care. And the people who vote for bigger governments and for social programs are not more compassionate or more pro all life than those who take up that responsibility ourselves. And by the way, people who believe in legalizing the dismemberment, the murder of unborn children do not have the moral authority to say what is pro all life and what's not. So Christian, please. I don't, I don't care if you vote for Republicans. I have never argued for the perfection or the saving abilities or the redemptive abilities of

the Republican Party, unlike some people talk about the Democratic Party on the left. But I don't care if you vote for Republicans. I don't care if you agree with me. I don't care. But please give up this dishonest argument that voting for Joe Biden and the Democratic Party is pro all life and compassionate. Say that you agree with their policies. Say that you like his personality. Say that you don't like Donald Trump. Whatever. But to say that you can't really be pro life and be a conservative, that you can't really be pro life and vote for Donald Trump, you don't know what you're talking about. You just don't. Stop making the dishonest argument that liberal policies or liberal presidents or what reduced the abortion rate. There are no facts to back that up whatsoever. So vote for Biden if

you want to. Don't try to make a biblical argument for it. Don't try to make a pro all life argument for it. It's not there. It's just not there. And unfortunately, a lot of people have been duped into thinking it is. But hopefully this adds a little bit of clarity. Okay, another long episode. We will be back here on Friday with a very special guest. 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.