Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 641 | RESPONSE: Emmanuel Acho’s 'Uncomfortable' Abortion Conversation

Episode Date: July 12, 2022

Today we're giving a long-form response to a recent video posted by Emmanual Acho, in which he had an "uncomfortable" conversation about abortion with several women. The thing is, there were really no pro-life voices involved; everyone on the show, including, allegedly, a pastor, seemed to accept the progressive view of abortion and Roe v. Wade. And that's where we come in. We'll play several clips from Emmanuel's video and respond to things that he and his guests say, as well as providing sorely needed biblical commentary to the pro-abortion "arguments" being made. --- Today's Sponsors: EdenPURE — get 3 Thunderstorm Air Purifiers for under $200 at EdenPureDeals.com when you use promo code 'ALLIE'! ExpressVPN — take back your online privacy today at ExpressVPN.com/ALLIE & get 3 extra months free! Annie's Kit Clubs — month-to-month subscriptions & you can cancel anytime at AnniesKitClubs.com/ALLIE plus get your first month 75% off! Moms for Liberty — visit MomsforLiberty.org/ALLIE today to join the army of moms fighting for the survival of America! --- Show Links: Uncomfortable Conversations with Emmanuel Acho: "Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice: Overturning Roe v. Wade" https://bit.ly/3z0zkHi Journal of Interpersonal Violence: "Racial Disparities in Pregnancy-Associated Intimate Partner Homicide" https://bit.ly/3uEwt44 Obstetrics & Gynecology: "Homicide During Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period in the United States, 2018-2019" https://bit.ly/3c9LJ2C --- Previous Episode Mentioned: Ep 527: Healing from Abortion & Using Your Story for Good | Guest: Victoria Robinson https://apple.co/3P3sne2 --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise- use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: 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 Tuesday. This episode, as all episodes, is brought to you by our friends at Good Ranchers. Go to Good Ranchers.com slash All right.

For a discount, that's good ranchers.com slash All right, guys. We've got a little bit of a different episode for you today. we're going to play a YouTube video, a recent conversation that was hosted by Emmanuel Ocho, and we are going to respond to it. This conversation was about Roe v. Wade and abortion. If you don't know, Emmanuel Ocho hosts a show that it goes on YouTube and it goes on Instagram called Uncomfortable Conversations with a Black man. This was started in the summer of 2020, and he has people come on and they talk about things

that he would call systemic racism and systemic discrimination and things like that. This time he had a so-called uncomfortable conversation about abortion. He had four women on there, two women who have had abortions, one woman who had an ectopic pregnancy that she calls an abortion. And then a woman named Chelsea Smith, who is the wife of Judah Smith, who is the pastor of the megachurch. You've probably heard about him. She also calls herself a pastor.

She is supposed to bring like the Christian perspective on all of this. Now, to give a little bit more context about who Emmanuel Ocho is, he is a former NFL player. And he, for his work in uncomfortable conversations with the black man, he has won, I think, an Emmy Award for that. And so he's gotten not just a huge platform, but a lot of accolades for this. He guest hosted for Ellen DeGeneres. He also was like a temporary replacement for Chris Harrison. on The Bachelor after that whole thing blew up with Chris and he said something that some people thought was racially insensitive. I was looking at Ocho's Wikipedia page and I didn't realize

that we both grew up in Dallas around the same time. He went to a very elite private school called St. Marks. We did not know each other. He went to the University of Texas, played football there, and then he went to the NFL. So he's had a large platform for a very long time, but he's really kind of burst on the scene in the last couple of years with the uncomfortable conversations with the black man. Now, those so-called uncomfortable conversations I take issue with, they are all coming from a progressive perspective. And now he says that he's not. He would probably say that he's coming from a nonpartisan perspective. He is a professing Christian. So he would also say that he's coming from a Christian perspective. But what I found in all of these uncomfortable conversations and the reason why I kind of use

a tone of scare quotes around uncomfortable. And why I say so-called uncomfortable conversation is because they're all coming from the same perspective. They all make the same assumptions about where racial disparities come from and why it seems like black Americans aren't as successful as white Americans. The assumption is always that it is because of the legacy of slavery. It is because of the legacy of racism and Jim Crow. and oppression and discrimination.

I would love for him to have an actual uncomfortable conversation with, say, a black conservative, maybe wrestle with some points that are made by Thomas Soul, who says that not all disparities are due to discrimination and actually uses data to prove that. I would like for him to wrestle with some uncomfortable facts about why the disparities exist as they do in the United States rather than just kind of repeating the popular left-wing narratives about this. A lot of Christians have been taken in by these narratives that he and other activists have pushed. He's had conversations with Chip and Joanna. He's had conversations with Jamie Ivy and her family and her husband. He's had conversations with Matthew McConaughey.

Again, all coming from the same perspective. So I'm not sure how uncomfortable they really are. And then the same thing in this conversation about abortion. All of the people in this consider themselves pro-choice. All of the people, who were a part of this conversation agree. They agree on abortion and that overturning Roe v. Wade is dangerous. So of course, that's my biggest gripe with this, is that it wasn't an uncomfortable conversation. There was no highlighting, as you'll hear me say, a few times of what an abortion is or what life is being taken or even any uncomfortable wrestling with the moral question that exists in the abortion conversation and debate. So, I mean, this conversation

really missed the mark in so, so many ways, especially when it comes to the theology behind it as you will hear me articulate. So I hope you enjoy this kind of new format. I'm really excited to get into it. 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. Okay. So how this is going to work is I'm going to to play a little clip from the video and then I'm going to respond to it. Now, we will link the full video in the description because I don't want you to think

that I'm decontextualizing these people or trying to make it sound like they're saying something they're not by not playing the full video. I would play the full video and respond to it. I thought about that. But then once I got into it and started kind of outlining what I would be saying and how I would be responding, I realized that would be like a giant two hour long episode. So this is going to be kind of longer as it is. It was just impossible to respond to every single line of the episode.

So we're going to take chunks of it. And I'm going to try to keep it in context to let you know what's really going on. But if you want to see the full context, you can go and you can watch the entire thing. I am trying to approach this from as honest of a perspective as I possibly can and give people credit where it's due and give them the benefit of the doubt. but I just wasn't able to give you the entire video and then respond to that. So for this first part, we are going to hear from M.J. Acosta Ruiz talked to us about her abortion that she had in 2004. Take me back to the moment in which you had to make that very difficult decision of having an

abortion and how are you feeling now in light of the Supreme Court's decision. Yeah, I was about barely 20 years old. I think I had just turned 20 years old. and I had just dropped out of college. So very much a point in my life where I was lost. My parents are immigrants. They immigrated to this country well into their 30s, leaving behind very good careers in their homeland for opportunities for me.

So there were so much going on at that point in time where I felt like I was already letting them down in so many different ways. And then I found out that I was pregnant. And I just remember thinking, my parents did not do all of this to bring me here. for me to now bring a child and for them to be in poverty. So this is a very common reason that women have abortions. She's 20 years old.

Parents very often have children at 20 years old. She felt like she wasn't ready, but it came down to finances for her. And this is not a reason, however, to kill a child. This is not a reason to take someone's, life. I mean, if you apply any standard that people apply as a justification for abortion to human beings outside of the womb, like poverty, you see very quickly how that leads us down a path of barbarism. Abortion is already barbaric, of course, but consider if you had a child and you said, well, I can't afford this child or this child may grow up to be poor or this child may grow up

to have a hard life or I'm going to disappoint my parents. Is that a logical justification for killing a child outside of the womb? If not, then why is it a logical or sympathetic justification for killing a child inside the womb? The reasons are so arbitrary because of location, because of size, because of development, because it's legal. None of those are very good or solid or moral or logical reasons to end a human life. And no matter what you think about abortion, scientifically, life starts at conception. Maybe you don't think that life has rights. Maybe you don't think that life has value. Okay, that's your philosophical pseudo-religious position. The scientific position, however, is that life, human life begin to conception when there is separate DNA. And so whether

it's for finances, whether it's for convenience, whether it's for comfort, whether it's because you don't want to disappoint your parents, these are not legitimate, morally or logically, reasons to end the life of a human being. All right, now we are going to hear the reasons for Sonia Richards-Ross, the Olympic gold medalist, for her abortion in 2008. Some young girls might think of like their wedding day and, you know, have all these different kinds of dreams. But from the age of nine, the one soul dream that always felt very real to me was becoming an Olympic champion. For me, in that moment, when I found out I was pregnant right before I left for Beijing, I felt like I was in an impossible situation because I knew I was with my forever.

I was with my soon-to-be husband. I knew I wanted to have a family with him. But I also wanted to be an Olympic champion more than anything. The day before I left for Beijing, I had an abortion. And as a woman who also identifies as a Christian woman, who truly identifies, who, tries to be Christ-like, I never, ever thought that I would be in that situation. It was, it still is really hard for me to talk about it. But I am grateful, however, that I had the choice.

Now, I can hear in her voice that this seems hard for her. I don't, I don't know her. I haven't talked to her personally. However, it does seem, and we will see throughout this conversation, that she is still kind of wrestling with this, but also she makes. it makes clear that this is not something that she regrets, that she wanted to pursue her dreams. She wanted to pursue her career. This is yet another common reason why women have abortions. It's not that she was abandoned. It's not that she was alone. She had the person that she

ended up marrying. She knew that she wanted to start a family, but because she had these career goals, she thought that it was justified to end the life of her child. And she is still grateful. she says that she had the choice to do that. One thing that you are going to notice probably in this conversation is that there is never any discussion of the moral question of abortion, which is when is it and why is it okay to end the life of an innocent human being that has never wrestled with? Again, this is not an uncomfortable conversation because the other side of this that you're ending the life of a human being is never even discussed.

us. We are only told that we must have sympathy for these women who, for their career, or because they didn't want to disappoint their parents, or because they felt like they didn't have enough money, ended the life of the child that was in their womb. So now we are going to hear a little bit more from her. And Emmanuel's response to this is really what gets me. I don't know what my life would have been like. Had I given up this dream that I had my whole life. I don't. I don't know if I would have been all of who I am today. Would I still have shown up in the world the way I do now? So then would you say or submit in the figurative sense,

your abortion also saved your life? Yeah. So you literally end the life of your child. You literally end the physical life of your child to save your figurative life. Is that what it is here that someone's figurative life is more, valuable and more important than someone's literal and physical life, the life of a defenseless innocent child. And by the way, it didn't even figuratively save her life. She was able to pursue her career more, but at the cost of her child's physical, literal life. She also says in there,

and we weren't able to play it, that she didn't end up winning the race that she wanted to win. And she felt like she was being punished her. Like that was some kind of consequence, which I don't think is like a theologically solid position necessarily. But I mean, she literally sacrificed the life of her baby to run in a race that she didn't even end up winning. So she didn't even get the fulfillment that she was running toward, which really just breaks my heart. I'm not coming from a place of self-righteousness here. I am not trying to like pile on. We'll talk about the difference in like guilt and shame and repentance and the importance of all of that. But I'm not trying to come from a position of meanness here or self-righteousness. I am coming from a position

of sadness and sorrow that still you can see she is trying to justify the choice that she made by saying that while she wouldn't have been able to show up in the world, the way that she has now post-abortion, you don't know that. That shows such a mistrust in God. and his sovereignty, he is never going to command us to murder in order to be our full selves. I mean, that is just a fancy way of kind of sugarcoding selfishness in narcissism. And that is, unfortunately, what we are seeing being demonstrated here. And then we've got Dr. Yini Abraham, the pelvic floor therapist who says that last year she had an ectopic pregnancy and that the abortion that she says that she had saved her life.

So here she is describing that. I remember going for like three scans that we just to confirm and we could not find baby. And then eventually on one of the scans, we did see baby, but the baby was trapped in my tube. And so it's the first thing she tells me. My doctor tells me is, you know, I think that we are going to either have to have surgery or we're going to have to figure out a way to make this a medically sound abortion. This is not an abortion. It's not an abortion.

And it really irks me to no end that they are trying to say that it is. In no state is treatment for ectopic pregnancy and abortion. And it is dishonest to include this. It's dishonest to include this. And like the music behind that they're playing in order to persuade, us that this is something that we should. I mean, I am sad about the ectopic pregnancy. That's a horrible thing to suffer. And I'm very sad that she had to go through something like that. But it's obviously supposed to convey that we are meant to be sad that she had to endure an abortion when, again,

that is just misinformation. So here she is describing a little bit more about why the situation was so precarious. I live in Texas. And unfortunately, this was right around the time that the six-week band had started. And I remember having that difficult conversation with my doctor that I, yeah, you have to have a medical abortion, but I don't think I can give you one. And I thought, well, this is life saving. Like, this is my life, you know. And she's like, I know, but I don't think I can give you one. And so. Why couldn't your doctor give you one? Because she was afraid that either someone in her office was going to make a call and say, you know, there was a conduct that she conducted a medical abortion, that there was going to be a question of her medical

reasoning. So we were going back and forth for two weeks, just trying to figure out how we could get this done. So suddenly she tells me, you know what, just come in after hours. Come in after hours. It's her, when trusted staff member, they essentially give me the medical abortion. I go home for the whole weekend and I lay in bed for three days as the pregnancy passes. So you have to have abortion in private. I did. I did. So this is a horrible doctor if this story is true. An absolutely atrocious doctor. I don't know if this counts as medical malpractice, but this certainly seems like mistreatment because here's what the Texas law says. Here's what the text of the law says, exception for medical emergency. So the law does not apply. The law says if a physician believes a medical

emergency exists that prevents compliance with this subchapter, with this text of the law. A physician who performs or induces an abortion under circumstances described by subsection A shall make written notations in the pregnant woman's medical record of the physician's belief that a medical emergency necessitated the abortion and the medical condition of the pregnant woman that prevented compliance with this subchapter. So basically saying, look, if this is a medical emergency and it is necessary to save a woman's life. It doesn't even put a gestational limit on this. It just says, hey, if the doctor thinks that the abortion is necessary to save a woman's life, then the doctor can do it. She just has to make a note and say,

this is why we had to do this. And this woman, Dr. Abraham, is saying, well, her doctor was just so scared that she couldn't actually treat her properly and in a timely fashion, which is actually terrifying, but it's not the law's fault. Now, I know people are saying, well, it is the law's fault because it is putting this kind of like undue burden on doctors who are scared about losing their license or losing their job or being sued or whatever it is. But look, doctors in all states have had to comply with some kind of restriction on abortion. Like doctors have always had to distinguish between an induced abortion and a spontaneous abortion and induced abortion and treatment for ectopic pregnancy. So you're telling me all of a sudden with new restrictions that doctors

are so confused that they're unable to treat their patients, it's actually this kind of propaganda that is going to hurt women. Because if doctors are misled to believe that, oh, you better be really careful treating these miscarriage patients. You better be really careful treating these ectopic pregnancy patients, even though the law does not restrict that, then that could inhibit the care that they provide to someone. This is what will make, women die not the laws themselves, which provide the exception for these women to be treated, but the propaganda surrounding it. And that is really troubling.

And actually, we see the consequence of that in what Dr. Abraham says next. Here that is. Do you feel as though more women's lives will be jeopardized by the Supreme Court rule? 100%. Emmanuel, it's already happening. So I see that a lot of women are delaying these life-saving surgeries just out of fear. Yeah, that is because of what they're seeing on social media. That's because of what they're seeing on social media.

That is because of the misinformation and the propaganda that is even being pushed by the president of the United States. And even in this video, that is what is scaring women. It's not the law's fault, which provides the exception. And as I said before, there have always been laws on the books that have been restricting abortion in some way that doctors have had to comply with, that hospitals have had to comply with, that nurses have known about. out. Now all of the sudden, you're telling me the doctors have no idea how to do it, that they're willing to let their patients die or almost die. I don't know. The timing of all of these stories coming out is very suspect. You didn't even hear all of these stories when the law first hit the books in Texas, which was last fall. So it is actually the propaganda and the misinformation,

the fearmongering that we're seeing on social media that is going to cost women's lives because they are going to think that they can't be treated at a hospital. Doctors and nurses, unfortunately, you would think that they would know better. You would think that the hospitals and their lawyers would know better. But because they're believing this misinformation, reminds me a lot of what happened during COVID, they are actually mistreating their patients. And that in itself is terrifying. But it is not the fault of a law that is trying to protect the dignity and the right to life

of a preborn child. All right, let's listen to this next part. Do you feel like this recent decision is an attack on women? 100%. I do. And not just women, but women who are minorities, women who are poor, communities who are poor, that don't have the privilege of finding an abortion clinic. Okay, so Acosta Ruiz says that this is an attack on women.

that it's particularly an attack on poor women, that's an attack on minority women. Again, my question is, what about the baby? Like, what about the attack on the baby? So we're not even going to talk about what an abortion is. Like, we're not even going to talk about what an abortion procedure is. You guys have heard me describe explicitly what an abortion procedure is many times in the first, second, and third trimester. It is a brutal and violent and obviously murderous procedure.

And whenever I describe what an abortion is, especially after the 10, week mark that you have to starve the baby, you have to dismember the baby, you have to crush the baby's skull. Later on in the second trimester, there is a needle filled with the same chemical combination that is used in the lethal injection of murders that is inserted into the woman's abdomen, straight into the wiggling baby's heart to cause a heart attack so that the baby dies and then, again, is dismembered and crushed and pulled out of the womb. The third trimester abortion, as you can imagine is even more brutal than that. And that is happening about 10,000 times a year in the United States, hopefully less now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned. There's no talk about that.

It's just, well, now women aren't going to be able to do that. And that's really sad. There's no uncomfortable conversation about what an abortion is. They completely ignore the human life. Now, you're hoping that this pastor, as she calls herself, Chelsea, Smith, the Christian voice in all of this, would be kind of the other side, would say, hey, you know, I sympathize with your stories. I'm sorry for what you went through. I'm sorry for any hurt that you have experienced and I'm sorry that you felt like that was the option. But, hey, let us also recognize that child in the womb was made in the image of God. That God knit them together in their mother's womb and that they were created with purpose and abortion

kills them. So like, let's have, that would be an uncomfortable conversation. that I would have liked to see that I think the audience would have benefited from. But here's the first thing that Chelsea Smith has to say. Also very aware that I'm a white woman sitting here and that whether it's the mortality rate of pregnant women of color or the amount of abortions that affect women of color is much more than white women. So I just want to pause right there. Of course, she had to do like the, I'm very aware that I'm a white woman.

She is the only white person sitting there. and I guess you just have to, I don't know, confess your skin color so people recognize and confess her privilege. I think that's kind of what she's implicitly doing there. And I just want to pause because I know it might seem like it doesn't matter with the big picture, but I do think it's important to just kind of not correct that information, but give some context about what she is saying. So it is true that the maternal mortality rate among black women is higher than among white and Hispanic women. one thing that's not discussed because the assumption is always that it is racism. It's systemic racism within the health care system, which I am not discounting real instances of racism that leads to adverse health outcomes for black women. I'm not saying that doesn't happen. I'm not saying

that's not a problem. I don't disbelieve the women who have said that they have had disparate treatment because of their skin color. But it is never talked about that there may very well be other reasons why that disparity exists. The highest cause of it. maternal mortality according to the CDC, it's heart disease. Also, according to the CDC, black Americans are in general two times more likely to die from heart disease than white people. That's all black Americans, not just black pregnant women. So you would think that that is, that probably has something to do with it. Also, by far, the number one cause of maternal mortality across all races, which I'm not saying that Chelsea Smith is discounting this. I don't even know

if she knows this, but I'm just saying this is never talked about when we are talking. about disparities when it comes to how pregnant women are treated among races, this is never discussed that black pregnant women or postpartum women are three times more likely to die by intimate partner homicide than white or Hispanic women. And by far, the number one cause of maternal mortality across all races is homicide. Now, that's not included in the CDC numbers. Unfortunately, I think it should be. I think that should be talked about a lot more. postpartum women three times more likely to die by the intimate partner homicide than white or Hispanic.

Black women who are pregnant or postpartum are eight times more likely to be murdered by their partner than black women who are not pregnant or postpartum. There are two studies that I can link in the description of this episode that you can look at yourself that show that. So I do think that this is yet another statistic that is typically put forth to say see systemic racism exists everywhere when that really doesn't show us the whole picture or diagnose the problems properly. Also, she says the amount of abortions affect women of color that's much more than white women. She's right about that. That is true, sadly, about one third of all abortions are

performed on black women, even though they only make up about 6 to 7 percent of the population. So about 33 percent plus of all abortions in the United States are performed, on black women, even though they only make up six to seven percent of the population. So it's wildly disproportionate. The abortion rate among black women is about 25 per 1,000 women. And among white women, it's about six per 1,000 women. And there may be many reasons for this, but no matter how you shake it, that's a tragedy that is not talked about here. And consistently, more black babies are aborted in New York City in a year than born alive. Like, why aren't we talking about that travesty? all of these like woke churches in New York City that refuse to celebrate the overturning of Roe v. Wade

because they claim Christians need to be doing more for women, which I'll get into in a little bit how much Christians already do for these vulnerable women. Like are they not on the hook at all for the fact that black women in New York City are more likely to abort their baby than to birth their baby alive? then Emmanuel asks Chelsea why the church has either been insensitive or silent. He says that's basically what describes the church, insensitive or silent. And she says that she's been quiet because she's humbled. She says it's impossible to figure out how to follow the teaching of Jesus to rejoice with those who rejoice and to mourn with those who mourn. And then here's a snippet of one thing that she said that I want to respond to.

And I am embarrassed by some of the rejoicing at the cost of somebody's pain. So she's embarrassed by the people who are rejoicing for the overturning of Roe v. Waig. So I've got a lot to say. As I said at the beginning, most of what I have to say is to what Chelsea Smith says, especially since she is supposed to be the representative of the church here. She's supposed to be the representative of Christianity. And I'm not saying that she's not saved. I'm not saying that she hasn't done maybe a lot of wonderful things and that her ministry

has never impacted people. That's that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that at least in what we see in this video, she gets it so awfully wrong that it is painful. It was painful to watch and painful to listen to. So here's what I have to say to that. She's embarrassed by this decision. this Dobbs decision to overturn Rovi-Wa-Waid. Has she read the decision? I have my doubts.

And that we're supposed to rejoice with those who rejoice and mourn with those who mourn. I think she totally decontextualizes and misuses that verse. The reality is that Christians rejoice in righteousness, always, unequivocally. This is what Psalm 33-5 says. He loves righteousness. The Lord loves righteousness and justice. He loves it. The earth is full of the steadfast love of the Lord. Celebrating the Dobbs decision isn't even though celebrating righteousness. It's celebrating the potential of righteousness. And this is what I mean by that. Dobbs doesn't declare abortion illegal.

It doesn't recognize the personhood of the baby inside the womb. It just allows states to decide their laws on abortion. A righteous law would outlaw abortion. Making clear that life-saving care for women and miscarriages or topic pregnancies or early delivery is not considered abortion. and should not be prohibited by law, that is worth celebrating, and the potential of that law is worth celebrating as well because of the Dobbs decision. That pre-born human beings are now going to be more protected by law in many states is worth unabashedly celebrating.

That some people in the world are so darkened in their understanding about this issue. It is not a reason to withhold our celebration. There are six things that the law. Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him, haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil. That's Proverbs 616 through 18. If you love God, you will hate what he hates. You will hate the shedding of innocent blood. You will love the unborn child. And you will also love these women, which means that you will not want them to take part in that which God hates.

And for those who already have, they've already taken part in that, you don't minimize the evil that is abortion to make them feel better. Why? Because your goal, as a disciple of Christ and as a discipler of others, as a Christ follower, wanting to draw others to Christ, which Christians inherently do, is to bring people to repentance, not to assuage their feelings of guilt, not to make them feel better about sin, not to help them justify their sin or help them shift blame toward other people. No, your job is to help them in gentleness and grace. See and face what is true so they can honestly repent and be healed. Trying to make someone feel better about their sin when they have yet to own that and repent from it is actually delaying healing for that person and

that is not love. Love is a desire for someone's good. As good, God defines good. This is, again, a professing Christian, as we say so often, thinking that they can out love and out compassion God. So sure, God says he hates the shedding of innocent blood, but I can't say that here. Sure, God says thou shalt not murder. Sure, God says that he formed us in the womb with purpose and care. But that might be too harsh.

I can't celebrate a just ruling that may lead to righteous laws. I can't celebrate that because that may make someone feel bad. that may add to someone's pain. So basically, that's saying that you are more loving and kinder and more considerate than God, the God who is love, 1 John 4-8. God is love, and He is also holy, and he is also righteous, and he is also just all at the same time. I'm reminded of Romans 2-4, or do you not, or do you presume on the riches of his kindness

and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant. to lead you to repentance. So the kindness of God is supposed to lead you to repentance. So contrary to what the world says, making someone feel better about their sin is not love. Guilt over sin is good. For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. 2 Corinthians 7.10. There's no godly grief on display in this conversation. There is justification. There's willful suppression of the truth. It actually reminds me of a passage that most of you guys are really familiar with, and that is Romans 1, 18 through 22. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against

all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world and the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, which seems to describe the women in this video, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking. And their foolish hearts were darkened, claiming to be wise, they, claiming to be wise,

they became fools. And that saddens me again, this is not coming from a position surely. of perfection on my part. Like, I have no sense that I have struggled over or that I never had any faulty thinking at any point in my faith. That's certainly not what I'm saying. We have all had points in our faith, even after we have been truly saved where we had bad theology, where we didn't feel guilt over our mistakes where we didn't realize the

evil that we did before we were Christians. But the Holy Spirit is supposed to sanctify you of that. And Christians are supposed to be vessels of that Holy Spirit. And Chelsea Smith in this video fails. Now, after repentance, feelings of condemnation from the deceiver, from the accuser, Satan should be silenced. But they're not silenced by someone saying that what you did was sin or refusing to say that what you did was sin. But by pointing to God's goodness, his holiness and forgiveness, those accusations by Satan toward the Christian are silenced by the reminder that Christ is standing in your stead to silence the accuser by pointing to his righteousness, which he has given. given to you by grace through faith. But that is not what is going on in this video. And as you can see,

it really makes me angry when people miss such a blatant opportunity, which we all have, we all have, but such a blatant opportunity to share the gospel to women who obviously so desperately need the healing and the goodness of God that comes through the kindness that leads them to repentance. And yet what is going on in this video, which is only uncomfortable like for me, for people like me. It's obviously not uncomfortable for any of them because all they're doing is the justification of sin. Now, not the ectopic pregnancy story. I'm not talking about a sin, but the purposeful killing of a child inside the womb. They're making excuses for the murder of children without a single acknowledgement so far of what an abortion procedure is or the life that's being taken.

I am for hearing stories of women who have had abortions and pouring out compassion for them and shedding tears for them. We had a woman on here. Last fall, Victoria Robinson will link that past episode who told her abortion story. And we both cried. I could cry right now thinking about just how compelling and sad her story is. But the difference in that story is that she has grieved over her choice. And she has allowed the Lord to forgive her, to heal her, to use her in redemptive ways to warn other women about the dangers and the evils and the deceit of abortion. But again, that is not what is happening here. Affirmation of sin is not love. It is actually a form of hate.

It's selfishness, which is a form of hate because you care more about how that person perceives you than what is actually good for that person. What God says is good for that person. And it's a shame. It's a shame. These women in this instance are not being loved because they are not being told the truth. They are being made to feel good about evil. And we are going to continue to see that on display here.

So Emmanuel asks Chelsea, well, what should the church do about all? this. What role can and should the church play to support those now that are not empowered to make the decision? As I think about the story of Jesus with a woman who was caught in the midst of adultery. And that's very much a woman-based story in the Bible because she was caught in the very act. So where was the man in this story? You know, very similar to a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy. She just could be left alone, the same way this woman was left alone. And in the same way this woman was left alone. And in this moment, Jesus didn't say anything. It's one of the beautiful silent moments of Jesus.

And he just got down and wrote in the dirt. And then he just said this incredible statement. He said, let him who is without sin throw the first stone. And I think as Christians, as faith leaders, as community leaders, we need to be really in touch with our own shortcomings and our own weaknesses so that we aren't prone to just chucking those stones because it feels good. Oh, man.

Once again, I have a lot to say. I have a lot to say about this response. So first, his question is loaded with very obvious bias. So it's a gut-wrenching decision, as he describes it. But you know what's gut-wrenching? Abortion. Abortion crushes the skull of a living baby. Then also, he says, women won't be empowered to make that decision.

So you're empowering someone by legalizing the killing of an unborn child. So it's very obvious the perspective that he's coming from. Now, onto her response, what a strange answer? So he asks, what role does the church play? And she goes to John 8. So multiple reasons, this is strange. So one, I think that this passage, John 8, is being misused. And I think it's being misunderstood a lot. I misunderstood this passage until recently, until I looked at, I heard this explained in a very clear expisional way looking at the biblical and historical context about this. So this is not a passage about forgiveness, actually. It's not primarily. It's actually a passage primarily about hypocrisy. It is not a passage as she seems to be implying,

telling us not to call out sin where it exists. It is a passage about how much God hates sin and pride and fake righteousness and false obedience. The context of the story is hugely important to knowing what it means. And this is a passage of the story. And this is a actually important to understand what we're talking about in general here. So as Jesus was used to during his ministry, the Jewish scribes and Pharisees in this passage we're trying to trap Jesus with difficult questions about the law. You see that also in Matthew 19. They ask him about divorce and marriage and all of that.

And as Jesus typically, as Jesus typically does, he answers them with a tougher challenge to the challenge that they are trying to give to him. So here's what the passage says. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and placing her in the midst. They said to him, teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such a woman. What do you say? This, they said, to test him that they might have some charge to bring against him. So Jesus, knowing everything, knew that this was a test. And as he often did, he responded to their attempt to prove his misunderstanding the law by proving their misunderstanding of the law. So he responds, you who are without sin, be the one to cast

the first stone and they all drop their stones and they walk away. So what does he mean by that? So the problem with the Pharisee is just to kind of give some context. The problem with the Pharisees isn't that they were too holy or too righteous or too obedient. That's what a lot of people like to say today or that they were too religious. It was that they looked holy and righteous and religious and obedient, but that their hearts were unrighteous and irreligious and disobedient. They followed the letter of the law and even added to the law, but they did not follow the spirit of the law, the heart of the law. They added to and manipulated and finagled the law to place an impossible burden on the average person so they could look like they were the only

people who could bear that heavy burden of the law of Moses. And in this instance, that's what they were doing. They looked like they were following the law by calling for the execution of this woman, because Leviticus 2010 calls for the death penalty for those who commit adultery. But Jesus knew that they weren't following the full law. So what was the full actual law? The actual law called for both the man and the woman caught in adultery to be put to death. That's Leviticus 2010. Also, God demanded due process before penalties for crime, which included the testimony of two or three eyewitnesses.

That's Deuteronomy 176 through 7. So we don't see here that any of these men were eyewitnesses. So when Jesus says, you who were without sin cast the first stone, he is not speaking of sin in general. He's not saying, oh, no sin should be condemned because that would mean that there could never be any punishment for sin. And clearly God doesn't think that as we see throughout scripture. He is talking about their sinful hypocrisy in this instance. They are not actually following the law that they say that they are. They are about to stone this woman for breaking the law, even while they are breaking the law because they are not punishing the man. They are apparently not witnesses here. So what

Jesus is doing is calling out their hypocrisy as he told the Pharisees, they are like whitewashed tombs. They look good on the outside, but they are decaying on the inside. As Jesus also says, he doesn't come to abolish the law. A lot of people see this passage is like abolishing the law or abolishing standards for right and wrong or like negating the need for condemnation and calling out sin. but Jesus says that he came to fulfill the law. So this is an instance of Jesus fulfilling the law, of taking the law to the next level, the heart level, which is what he always does when he says things like it's not enough not to commit adultery, but you also must not lust in your heart.

It's not enough not to murder. You also must not hate in your heart. So this is Jesus doing that. Again, people think that this is Jesus saying, oh, well, you know, we shouldn't be talking about sin or calling out sin at all. No, he has taken it to the heart of the matter. So a Christian shouldn't be hypocritical in calling out a sin while they are committing sin. That's absolutely true. And if that's what she's saying here, I guess I agree with her.

It doesn't seem like that's what she's saying. But that does not mean that we are not to call it sin and call sinners to repentance. I mean, if you read all of the epistles to the early church, you will see Paul calling out sin and exhorting leaders in the church to do the same. Ephesians 414 through 16 so that we may no longer be children tossed to and fro by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine by human cunning by craftiness and deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love. We are to grow up in every way into him who is the head into Christ. Paul says this to Timothy. Preach the word, be ready in season and out of season,

reprove, rebuke and exhort with complete patience and teaching for the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching. 2 Timothy 4. 2 through 3. Now another reason, why this, I think, is a weird response to Emmanuel saying, so what should the church do? Like, maybe it was edited out, but in the answer that they include, like, she doesn't even talk about, like, tangibly what the church can be doing. Like, how can we help vulnerable women? How can we help pregnant women? She doesn't even mention that here, or they don't include it if she did mention it, you

know, in another part of the conversation. She doesn't even talk about all the work that the church is doing and has been doing for several decades to help these women and children and fathers, these families. She says women with unwanted pregnancies are left alone. So the answer to that for the church is to not be too judgmental. How about we continue to dedicate our time, our money, and our resources and our help and our love to these women as pro-life pregnancy centers that are run by pro-life Christians have been doing for decades.

Again, I ask, as I said on an episode a couple weeks ago, I ask, I ask, These finger-wagging Christians who claim that Christians now need to be doing X, Y, Z, or acting in a certain manner, having a certain tone after a row. Look, we've been out here. We've been doing the work. What have you been doing? Like, you're welcome to get off the couch and join us. Like, you're welcome to get out of these so-called uncomfortable conversations and do the work

that Christian pro-lifers have been doing for these communities for decades. But we're not interested in your chiding and your misapplication of scripture. that is not helping anyone. All right. So Sonia, the athlete, talks about her experience again and how her fiance, who is now her husband,

reacted to her decision to get an abortion in 2008. My husband understood the situation that we were in. We were in. This was something that we had done together. At the time, Ross and I were not planning

to start a family. That was not on our to-do list. And so I do feel like my husband realized we were in this together. The part about that was always challenging for me, however, and I write about in my book, is that he never ever said, do it.

And I think a part of it for him was, if I never actually say it, in some ways, I remove the burden of having an abortion. Does that unfair to you? Very. So she later says in this that she wished she had had the option, to not have the responsibility to bear in this choice as her husband did. But she did.

She did have the option. She could have not done it. She could have not done it. If she is worried about bearing that responsibility, she could have made a different decision. Now, I will say that her husband does bear responsibility here. Like, he might pretend, like not saying do it abdicates the responsibility. that he has, but it actually doesn't. I mean, this is so similar to the Garden of Eden, is it not? So

Satan says to the woman, did God really say you will die if you eat of this fruit? Did God say this is wrong? No, eat it. He's just afraid that you'll be like God. Of course, I'm paraphrasing Genesis 3 here. Apparently, Adam just stood there. I mean, he knew better. He knew what God had said. He had heard God's command that you can eat of any fruit of any tree in the garden except for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And he did nothing to stop it. And then when God, recognized or when God confronted them about what he knew happened and he asked Adam, what went on here, Adam blamed Eve. And that didn't go over very while. They were both responsible according to God. They were both cursed. So the same thing obviously happened here.

Satan tempted her. Tempted her into thinking that God didn't really say that this was wrong, that she could be like God in the sense that she would have more power. She would have more of an ability to pursue her dreams. And the father of her child, she says, was silent. But he does bear responsibility for that in God's eyes. And so I do hope, I really do hope that the grace of God brings them to their knees into a point of really being able to reckon with this choice. Unfortunately, this video is, this conversation that they're having in this video is going to do nothing to bring them there. If anything, is going to push them further away. All right. And then, M.J. Acosta Ruiz says that she kind of had the opposite situation and that she was actually

pressured to have an abortion. So here she is saying that. You just mentioned that your husband never said, do it. When I had an abortion, my partner at the time said, do it. So it was a completely different where I felt unsupported in a completely different way. Not, well, yes, pressured. That's really sad. And that's really common. Women are very often pressured. And it's interesting. how she doesn't say that in the beginning when she's describing it. She acts like this was a decision that she made on her own because she didn't want to disappoint her parents and for financial reasons. And now she mentions that actually she felt pressure.

And I do wonder, like, if she had felt supported by the person who chose to, who chose to impregnate her, who was a part of the conception, if she had been supported, would she had still made, would she have still made this decision? I don't know. And it's kind of strange how pro-choice, pro-abortion advocates talk so much about women's autonomy and their choice. And they very rarely talk about the women who feel pressured by their boyfriend or their boss or their parents or their pimp to get an abortion. All right. Let's hear the next part of this.

And I think it is unfair for somebody who I have never met who cares nothing about me to make a decision about my body. So she's talking about she doesn't think that these laws should. are legitimate because they're made by people who like have never met you and who don't care anything about you. But I mean, that's true of all laws, right? Like all laws have something to do for the most part with what you do with your body. Like you can't use your body to assault someone. There is someone who created that law who doesn't know you and who doesn't care about you. There are laws that say that you cannot use your body to murder someone. There are all types of laws that restrict what we can do with our body and they're made by people who are, you know, in a far away place

who don't know us. So this doesn't de-legitimize the law. And also, we're not making a law that restricts what you do with your reproductive choices when it comes to your body. I mean, obviously you had the freedom to make the choice to have the sex that led to the pregnancy. And there is no law restricting that. There is a law restricting what you can do to another human beings, a distinct human beings body. All right. This is another trope that we hear a lot. And this is Emmanuel saying this one.

No woman wants to have an abortion. I'm sorry, but that's just not true. It's not true. Sadly, it's not true. First of all, while these women may have wrestled with it, they ultimately did what they wanted to do in this. I mean, they say that. They ultimately did what they wanted to do.

Maybe they felt like they had to do it. Maybe they did feel pressured. But in this, in this video, they make pretty clear that ultimately they did what they wanted. Maybe he means no one is happy about having an abortion, but I wouldn't say that's necessarily true either. I mean, there's an entire organization called Shout Your Abortion. If you go on TikTok, you will find women happy to have an abortion, bragging about their abortions. I don't think that's the majority of women who have abortions, but they do exist. So to say that no one wants to have an abortion, I just

don't think that that is true. Michelle Williams, Busy Phillips, celebrity after celebrity. has said that they're glad that they had an abortion. And in this conversation, the athlete, Sonia said that the abortion saved her figurative life and allowed her to show up in the world the way that she wanted to. And so it doesn't sound to me like they didn't want to have the abortions that they did, even if it was a difficult decision. I just think it's wrong, incorrect of him to say that, even judging on the conversation that he is having right now. Here's something else he has to say. By saying I am pro-choice, it's implying that I am anti-life. Right.

But the choice you made literally save your life. Now, he is talking to Dr. Abraham here. And again, in a topic pregnancy removal is not an abortion. It's not an abortion. It is not considered the same thing as purposely killing a child inside the womb. And now, if you are for the choice, like if you are for the choice of someone abusing someone, you can't say that you are against it. Maybe you can say, okay, you're not for it,

but you're saying, well, you're against rape, you're against assault, you're against theft, but you don't actually think there should be any restriction on it, then that at the very least means that you're not actually against it. Here is what Dr. Abraham says about what she thinks about the consequences of overturning Roe v. Wade. This overturning of Roe versus Wade has eliminated the nuance, has now said you've got to either be on.

one side or the other. And if you're not on the right side, per the law, you're in trouble. So first, my response to that is nuance. That word is so often used as an excuse to ignore reality and morality. Abortion, as we've said many times, brutally ends the life of a human being, period. That is not ectopic pregnancy treatment. That is not miscarriage treatment. That is not early delivery to help the woman live. Everyone agrees that the mother's life is just as valuable. The pro-life position is that every measure should always be taken to save both the mothers and the child's life. That's impossible in an ectopic pregnancy. The mother is the only one with the chance of survival, so you have to tragically remove the baby. That is not the same as killing

a living human being in the uterus. I'll say that over and over again. Over turning Roe does not remove any nuance if you want to call it that. I mean, have these people even red Dobbs, Roe eliminated any nuance because no state was allowed to restrict abortion before a certain point. So states had to allow abortion, even if its constituents, didn't want it to be legal. Talk about a lack of so-called nuance. And then we have this explanation of why she believes being pro-choice is correct. Like to me, pro-choice introduces and infuses the nuances and compassion. So that was Sonia.

So much nuance. So much nuance. Is it compassion to give the powerful, the choice to kill the vulnerable and the defenseless? That's an interesting definition of compassion. And then this is what Acosta Ruiz has to say. I feel it's about power and control. Wow.

More so than anything else. And so that is the part that I just can't sit with and be silent about. Again, who has the power and control in an abortion? The only person without power and control in this scenario is the baby. Unless the woman is being forced to have an abortion. And then in that case, she doesn't have power control either. But in the vast majority of these abortions, the power and control is being exercised

by the woman and the doctor over a baby who doesn't have any power of control. That's the only reason why we're having this conversation. By the way, this is the only reason why this is nuanced and why this is complex and why this is great. The only reason that we're talking about this in these terms is because this baby doesn't have any power or have any control. Because it can't defend itself. That's the only reason why we're having these conversations with those like mood music in the backgrounds to distract from what an abortion is because this baby doesn't have any power. control. So here is something else that Acosta Ruiz has to say. Multiple things can be true. You can hold space for a lot of different things. You can love God. You can be a member of your church.

You can choose to have an abortion and you can still be a good person all at the same time. So there's so much wrong with this statement. First, like what is meant by a good person, Mark 1018. No one is good except God alone. Jesus says that. Now, to be fair, I don't fault her for using that phrase. We all have. We know what we mean that we're saying someone is not like a mean person or they're generally kind. But look, abortion is bad.

It is unkind. It is violent. So while absolutely there is grace and forgiveness for all sinners, including women who have had abortions, including for abortionists, it is wrong to say that there is no disconnect between goodness and abortion. Someone who is truly saved will not be able to justify abortion either in their own life or in general forever. If they are truly saved, the Holy Spirit will sanctify them of that belief. Or perhaps they are just not saved. Like, I don't know if these women are saved or not. Maybe they are

and the Holy Spirit is working on them on this subject. I hope so. I've certainly had false beliefs while being a Christian. But to say that there is no incongruance between going to church and abortions and goodness and abortions is just, again, suppressing the truth. It's making hearts. It's making hearts. callous. And then Ocho asks Chelsea about Christians who use Psalm 139, you know the passage where I formed you in your mother's womb. A lot of pro-lifers use that passage to say, look, like God perfectly and purposely designs babies inside the womb. They're made in the image of God. And so he wants to know what Chelsea has to think about that. I have so much empathy and understanding for followers of Jesus who would say,

I believe that life begins at conception. And I believe that stopping an abortion is saving a life. That's a very, saving a life is a very valid cause. But that's not the only life that we're called to save with your pro life. Wow. There's a lot of life. It's also taking one verse and making that as making that one verse, Psalm 139. making that as black and white as the verses of the forgiveness and love of Jesus Christ.

It's one verse versus thousands and thousands of verses that are in the Bible. And we have a conviction when we look at the Bible is we put the emphasis where God puts the emphasis. And he puts the emphasis on love. He puts the emphasis on forgiveness. He puts the emphasis on compassion. And so as a follower of Jesus, wouldn't I put the emphasis there? So much. So much.

First of all, that's not how we interpret scripture. We don't say, well, let's count how many times God says this and then decide what he really wants us to take away based on that. 2 Timothy 316 through 17. All scripture is breathed out by God, profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training and righteousness that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. Also, Psalm 139 is not the only passage we look to, even if it were.

That would be okay. But it's not. What about all the commands not to murder? What about all the passages about love, which she says that we are to emphasize? What about the fruit of the spirit? Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, abortion, the act of killing a human being made in God's image is the opposite of these things. It is the opposite of love.

There is nothing loving or compassionate about killing an innocent person that God has purposely made in his image, in the womb, just because they're underdeveloped, just because they're young, just because they're small, just because they happen to reside in a certain location that we can't see in a mother's womb? God is love. And he says some things are wrong and evil and sinful, one of them being murder, one of them being child sacrifice. We are not going to outlove him by denying those things. That is self-idulatory. That is self-righteousness to think that you can. I cannot say enough about how much Chelsea Smith. And I think that this is the nicest and the kindest way that I can say this. As a fellow believer, as a sister in Christ, I hope that we are truly sisters in

Christ, how badly she failed here. Now, if she says, you know, wow, I did fail. I didn't share the gospel here. I didn't share the truth about sin and repentance. I didn't draw them towards Christ and towards healing. And I should have done that. Like, yeah, we've all made mistakes. Okay. fail publicly and privately. It's hard to have a public platform. It's hard to be in those positions and say the right thing. There's like so much grace for that. I'm glad that I have grace for doing the same thing. So I'm not saying, wow, there can be no forgiveness or like restoration for this person. But like let's just acknowledge that this was such an utter disaster and failure as someone who claims to be a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ. You didn't share the gospel. The gospel isn't

Jesus loves you. The gospel isn't that you shouldn't feel bad for your sins. The gospel is that we are all dead in our sin apart from Christ and only by grace through faith can we be made alive in him. Part of that, part of that process that graciously the Holy Spirit works out through us and also through fellow believers is repentance, repentance from sin, dying to our flesh, dying to our sin, becoming a new creation by the power of Christ. God uses the truth of his word. God uses the conviction of the Holy Spirit. God uses the boldness of other Christians to do that. And he doesn't need us. God can do the work entirely on his own, but he does choose to use us as vessels of truth. And here she was not. She was not. She made sin seem more palatable.

She never acknowledged the other side of this debate. She never acknowledged the dignity of the child inside the womb. She never acknowledged the work that the church has been doing. She never drew these women to repentance into a knowledge of the truth and into the hands of the healer. She didn't do that because it seems like, it seems like she cared more about how she was perceived and making these women feel good, not just about themselves, but also about her, than she did actually stepping in to what should have been an uncomfortable conversation with the gospel of Jesus. And that is who my ire is mostly directed at here. I feel for these women. I'm sad for these women for what they experienced. I hope that they hear this and listen to this and see this

and know that the grace of God is for them, that it is painful when someone turns on the lights, when you've been sleeping for a long time in darkness, it hurts your eyes and you kind of get angry, but the light is so much better than darkness. Having the truth revealed to you, being confronted with your sin really hurts. It's really hard to give that up, to let that go, and to recognize the depravity that we are all guilty of. It's really difficult to grapple with the evil that is inside you, but there is nothing that you have done that is too big or too much for God to forgive. But do not deny your sin.

Stop suppressing the truth. God is there for you, but the suppression of the truth is only going to lead to your bondage, not your liberation. So this is such an incredible failure of a conversation. it's such a disastrous conversation and I hope that hopefully I've added a little bit of clarity and I hope that everyone who watched that video comes to watch this video too for a varying perspective for a little bit of harsh truth and an actual uncomfortable conversation. All right.

So I know that was a longer episode, but I hope you guys enjoyed it. It's different than what we typically do. If that's something that you like, if you liked that format, if you liked that kind of like listen and response format. Please let me know. If you love this podcast, please leave a five-star review wherever you listen, subscribe on YouTube.

Don't forget, we've got lots of good merch. We can link that in the description of this episode, hats, t-shirt, stickers. They make for great gifts for yourself or for someone who loves relatable. Thank you guys, as always for listening. I really appreciate it. And we will be back here tomorrow. Hey, this is Steve Deast. 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.