Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 655 | The Truth About Miscarriages & Ectopic Care in Post-Roe America | Guest: Alexandra DeSanctis

Episode Date: August 4, 2022

Today we're joined by Alexandra DeSanctis, pro-life writer for National Review and co-author of "Tearing us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing." Her recent article went in-depth on abortion laws at the state level, where she made clear that no law prohibits doctors from treating women with ectopic pregnancies. We discuss whether abortions and miscarriages are really treated differently, what happened with the recent Kansas abortion ballot measure, and how documented stories of abortion can reveal the true horrors of the procedure. Then, we talk about how her new book gives the pro-life movement the best evidence and support possible to argue their case in post-Roe America. --- Today's Sponsors: HealthyCell — get 20% off your first order at HealthyCell.com/ALLIE, use promo code 'ALLIE'! A'Del — go to adelnaturalcosmetics.com and enter promo code "ALLIE" for 25% off your first order! PublicSq. — download the PublicSq app from the App Store or Google Play, create a free account, & begin your search for freedom-loving businesses! Good Ranchers — change the way you shop for meat today by visiting GoodRanchers.com/ALLIE & use promo code 'ALLIE' to save $30 off your order, get free express shipping, and donate life-changing food to kids in need! Blaze Socks — get your Blaze patriotic socks at BlazeSocks.com, use promo code 'ALLIESOCKS'! --- Today's Links: National Review “How Every State Pro-Life Law Handles Ectopic Pregnancy and Miscarriage” https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/07/how-every-state-pro-life-law-handles-ectopic-pregnancy-and-miscarriage/ LiveAction “Minnesota report reveals five babies born alive after abortion in 2021” https://www.liveaction.org/news/minnesota-babies-born-alive-abortion/ --- 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 Thursday. Almost made it through the week. Today, we are debunking this myth that you are seeing over and over again on social media that the pro-life laws in various states are inhibiting miscarriage care and care for ectopopause.

pregnancies. We are going to talk to a journalist from National Review, Alexandra DeSaintest. She also just came out with a pro-life book called Tearing Us Apart. And she wrote a 4,500 word piece about every pro-life law and all of the exceptions that are included in these pro-life laws to make the point that the laws are not the problem. The laws are not. The laws are not causing doctors to stop caring for the women who are suffering from miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies. So we're going to get into all of that today. I know this is going to be a very equipping episode for you. As always, this episode is brought to you by our friends at Good Ranchers.com. Go to good ranchers.com slash alley. That's good ranchers.com slash alley.

All right, before we get into that conversation, I have yet another follow-up of the things that we have been talking about this week. So on Monday, we talked about how moms for Liberty was temporarily suspended from Twitter for criticizing the California bill revoking parents' rights of kids who want to gender transition. We also talked about how PayPal suspended their funds so they couldn't get the donations that people were sending them through PayPal out. And then we followed up yesterday by announcing that Ron DeSantis after saying, hey, we're going to put an end to that kind of thing. We're going to make sure that these woe corporations can't punish their conservative customers in PayPal unfrozed their account. And we basically said, look, that's how you do it.

That's how you play this game. That's how you push back. That's the kind of fighter that people want right now. And I know that this is just kind of turning into like Governor DeSantis fan show, but I want to give you another example of how Republican leaders should be pushing back on all of this madness. Here he is. They talk about these very young kids getting gender affirming care. They don't tell you what that is, is they're actually giving very young girls double mastectomies. They want to castrate these young boys. That's wrong. And so we've stood up and said, both from the health and children well-being perspective, you know, you don't disfigure 10, 12, 13-year-old kids based on gender dysphoria.

80% of it resolves anyways by the time they get older. So why would you be doing this? I think these doctors need to get sued for what's happening. Now, what I appreciate about that is that he is clearly saying what's going on. Rather than using the left-wing euphemisms for gender affirmation surgery or gender transition, he is saying explicitly what's really going on and then he is following it up with an action saying, hey, these doctors should be sued. Now, I would say that these doctors need to go to prison. I mean, this is genital mutilation of children. Children cannot consent because they don't have the

capacity to consent. All every other Republican governor and politician needs to do, though, it's just to follow Ron DeSantis' lead and talking about these so-called culture war, which are really moral war issues in this way. People want clarity. People want courage. People want strength in the midst of all of the chaos and the confusion and the passivity and the weakness of our current age. We are waiting for people to stand up not to be our savior and not to save the day

because we know that the only savior that we have is Christ, but someone with a little backbone to stand up and say what is true and to do something about what is good, do something for what is good, and do something in opposition to the evil that we are seeing perpetuated by progressivism in so many different ways. So once again, good for Governor DeSantis and also good for our moms for liberty for continuing to stand up.

I've got a piece out today with World Magazine talking about not just moms for liberty, but really the whole movement that that organization represents and why these left-wing activists and the media and the teachers unions and the public education system is so scared of involved parents, parents who care, parents who show up, parents who push back. We will be the determining force for the future of the country. So keep going and stand. firm. 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. Alex Andrea, thanks so much for joining us again. I want to talk to you about the messages, the propaganda that a lot of us pro-lifers are

seen in regard to the consequences or the purported consequences of the pro-life laws in Red states. We are hearing that it's inhibiting miscarriage care. We've heard horror stories of women whose ectopic pregnancies, their fallopian tube has had to rupture before doctors are allowed to intervene and we're told that all of these terrible tales of woe, and I mean that seriously, are caused by these pro-life laws. So tell us you're reporting on this. What have you found? Are these laws leading to this terrible care women are receiving? Yeah, so we've been hearing this now for the month plus since Rose overturned, that pro-life laws are going to lead to disastrous health consequences for women. And as you mentioned, there are these stories kind of trickling out here and there about truly horrible things happening to women.

And the claim from abortion supporters is this is because of pro-life laws. So I decided to just read the pro-life laws since they apparently were declining to do so. There's no coverage of what the text of the law is actually said. So I went through every state law, and I should say that the Charlotte Lozier Institute also has a great report doing the same thing, going through the state laws one by one, pointing out the text where it allows for doctors to exercise their best medical judgment in cases of emergency, where many of these laws explicitly say ectopic pregnancy is not the same thing as a direct abortion. Treatment for post-miscarriage care has nothing to do with abortion. And even in cases where states don't say this explicitly, the definitely of abortion is different from care for an ectopic pregnancy or care for a woman after she's suffered a miscarriage. So what I found was essentially none of these laws have anything to do with what's happening to women, allegedly. If women are suffering in these types of situations, it's because of a doctor or an attorney or a hospital misreading the laws or misapplying them

or acting, you know, using poor medical judgment, in other words, it's not the fault of the way the laws are written. So what I'm hearing, even from people who call themselves pro-lawful, life is, well, the laws are vague. The law doesn't explicitly carve out an exception for the life of the mother or whatever it is. And it is the vagueness of these laws that is actually causing the confusion that is preventing care for these women. Is that what you found when you read the text of these laws and bills? No, that's simply untrue. Every single I looked at the laws in 23 states, which are any state that has anything from a 15-week protection for unborn children or anything from a heartbeat bill or a total or almost total ban on abortion, every single one has language

saying that if a mother's life is at risk or she's at risk of substantial impairment, a doctor can exercise his or her best medical judgment to save both the life of the mother and the baby. And that's kind of the crucial point, I think, right, that a baby's life matters, too. Both the mother's life and the baby's life matter. And there's no medical situation in which a doctor needs to directly kill an unborn child to save a mother's life. He's always able to perform necessary health care treatments that might have a side effect of harming the baby or leading to the baby dying. But that's not the same thing as an elective direct abortion. Right. And even some of these states have like pretty pretty big leeway. Like if you're looking at the state of Ohio,

which of course was the center of that scandalous story about the 10 year old who apparently had to travel to Indiana to receive an abortion after she was raped. If you look at the Ohio abortion law that is currently on the books, it leaves an exception for the doctor to perform an abortion, not just if the physical life of the mother is at risk, but even if her health is at risk. So that's a pretty big exception that a lot of these even red states have. So again, it just doesn't really seem to be adding up to me. No, that's right. And there really is no reason if you look at the text of these laws to think that the laws are the reason why, if these situations are happening here or there, why the laws are at fault. And when I found so interesting when I wrote this big piece kind of cataloging and pulling the text from every law, putting it together, the response I got from abortion supporters was the text doesn't matter, even though they've now spent a month saying it's the fault of the text of these laws and they're written too vaguely, then when they saw the text and realized the text actually is not vague at all, it's extremely clear. The response was, well, it's a chilling effect or, you know, various other things about how it's not actually about the text. It's just about how there's this general fear among doctors because of abortion.

laws. And to me, it's very clear, all they're trying to do is undermine any pro-life law whatsoever. There's no pro-life law that would be written in a way that these people would accept because the goal is not for them to protect women. It's to enable abortion. So what do you think is going on here? If all of these stories are true, or even if some of the stories are true of women in states like Texas and elsewhere, they're going apparently to the emergency room and they have a miscarriage or some kind of emergent situation and apparently they are being told sorry, we have to wait until you are basically dying on the table before we can remove this child, before we can treat you, before we can remove the ectopic pregnancy because of the pro-life law. I'm hearing that it could be

because of lawyers, that it could be because of insurance companies, but I'm really curious, like, what is actually going on since we know that it's not the fault of the law? Yeah, I mean, it could be any number of things. I think one thing we have to keep in mind is a lot of these stories, at least many of the ones I've seen are very poorly sourced, not that clear. It isn't super obvious whether these things have actually happened or not. Now, that's not to say it doesn't ever happen, but it's not as though there's evidence of a massive trend across the entire country. So I think we need to keep that in mind. Secondly, to my mind, there's two other possibilities. One is that you just have bad doctors, and it's certainly possible, right? We know there are a lot

of bad doctors who don't know what they're doing. And if a doctor really thinks that he can't save a woman's life because of an abortion law, he is mistaken. And either an attorney is telling him that he can't do it or, you know, he himself thinks that he can't save a mother's life because it's an abortion. And that leads me to the third possibility, which is that abortion supporters are the ones who have caused this confusion, right? Because pro-lifers have been saying since long before Roe was overturned, that it's always

morally permissible to save a mother's life, even if the health care procedure required, would have the indirect effect or the foreseen consequence of the baby being harmed. And of course, that's not ideal. We wouldn't hope that that would happen. We would hope that a doctor would always try to save both of them, but a mother's life is of equal value to her child. And pro-lifers have always said that. That's why these laws are written this way. That's why pro-lifers are trying to clarify them if that's necessary. That's always been the pro-life position. It's the other side of this debate that's trying to pretend that treatment for an ectopic pregnancy or treatment after a miscarriage is the same thing as an abortion because they don't want to defend their position

on abortion. They want to just talk about these rare heartbreaking cases. And I think that leads to confusion, right? They're the ones causing confusion. And so if there are doctors out there who sincerely don't know the difference between treatment for an atopic pregnancy and a direct abortion, that confusion was caused by abortion supporters, not by the pro-life movement. Yes. And something that I have said is that these doctors have always had to navigate some kind of regulation. around abortion and miscarriage care. It's not like all of the sudden they are having to deal with the law. They've always had to deal with some kind of restriction, some kind of parameter.

And they've been able to, I guess, successfully navigate that thus far. So you're telling me that only now right after Roe was overturned right before the midterms, only now they're confused about how to do their job legally. and keep women alive who are suffering ectopics or miscarriages, I just have a hard time believing that. And that doesn't mean that all of these stories are false. But as we like to say in the South, there seems to be a fly in the buttermilk.

I don't want to go to the most nefarious, I think, option, which is the possibility that there are bad actors trying to cause this pain and cause this chaos for political purposes that are actually allowing the suffering of women so they can run to the media and say, see, this is what's happening because of these pro-life laws. I don't know. Yeah, I mean, I would really hope that's not the case. I don't think there's enough evidence to assume that that's happening everywhere, but I do think we have to keep in mind. We're talking about a movement that does not put women first, right? This is a movement that pretends that abortion is health care that pretends that women are better off if they have

access to abortion, which is an act that kills their own child, that is not medically necessary. This is not a movement that has shown a great deal of care for women's health. Think about the risks posed by abortion, by telemedicine chemical abortion. This is a movement that sues states that try to impose informed consent laws on abortion clinics. And one point I've raised is Catholic hospitals haven't been performing elective abortions forever, right? Catholics won't do that. And yet somehow in Catholic hospitals, doctors are perfectly able to treat women with ectopic pregnancies, to care for women after miscarriages because they know the difference.

Pro-life doctors, pro-life people know the difference between directly killing an unborn child and trying to save a mother's life. And so the idea that other doctors can't figure it out, I think, is just kind of ridiculous. I've seen a lot of talk on Instagram that, well, miscarriage is also an abortion. And therefore, that is why the insurance, the companies won't cover miscarriage care, or that is why doctors are now confused because it's an abortion. Of course, that is manipulative. Doctors know the difference between what is called sometimes a spontaneous abortion, a miscarriage, and an induced abortion. But it seems like some of them, activists, are pretending that we don't know the difference and that there's not a difference. Yeah, I think there's some, you know, sincere confusion from people who have heard that these are labeled the same way medically, which, as you point out, it is true ones called spontaneous abortion.

The other ones induced abortion. So that might lead to some actual confusion among people who just haven't done their research and don't know any better. But I think there's a serious attempt to conflate these things. I mean, there was an op-ed just a couple of days ago, maybe yesterday in the New York Times that asked, why do we treat miscarriage and abortion differently? And well, it's obvious, right? A miscarriage is an unintended, spontaneous loss of a child's life. And an abortion is an active choice to kill that child.

And the idea that these are the same thing is, first of all, wrong, but deeply offensive, I think, to women, to couples who have suffered from a miscarriage and who know this is completely different from an act that chooses to kill that child. Yes. And actually, that is a good question. She is asking it from the wrong end. The question that we also ask as pro-lifers, why do we treat abortion differently than a miscarriage? So in a miscarriage, it's a baby. It's a valuable life. It's something that's mourned. And then abortion, at least on the activist side of it, is just a clump of cells. It's something that's removed. It's something that's empowering. So that's a legitimate question. Why are we treating abortion differently than miscarriage? Why do we react to it differently? But the question, really is why do we disregard the humanity and why do we disregard the value of that life when the abortion is induced rather than spontaneous? They believe that we should, I guess, dehumanize the baby in both cases. It's a good question. They just simply have the wrong answer for it. Tell us what happened in Kansas. Why are pro-lifers kind of mourning what happened there? What went on?

Yeah, so a couple days ago there was a vote on a ballot measure, which would have essentially undone a state Supreme Court ruling in Kansas that had found a right to abortion in the state constitution. So it was essentially a state version of Roe v. Wade that happened in 2019. And so since then, pro-lifers have been working to put some kind of ballot measure out for voters to kind of to reverse the Supreme Court ruling and to say, actually, our state constitution does not protect a right to abortion. And the ballot measure failed pretty significantly by pretty significant margin. So I think a lot of people are trying to cast this as evidence that Americans at large are very pro abortion or that there's not an appetite for pro-life policy. But I think what we have to keep in mind is it was kind of a confusing

situation, right? The amendment was not on any particular pro-life policy. It wasn't super clear what laws were going to be put in place after the amendment if the amendment succeeded. And the other side really got away with framing it as, you know, if this amendment passes, it's going to be a total abortion ban in Kansas, which of course was not, factually speaking, not true. It would have just gone back to abortion neutrality. But I think a lot of people probably bought that line and voted on that basis. Yeah. And it's so strange how many professing pro-lifers and even Christians kind of buy that, that, okay, well, I don't like abortion or I want abortion to maybe be restricted in some cases, but they believe that either overturning Roe or something like this would have banned

abortion. And they kind of buy this idea, well, that's unempathetic. That's not nuanced enough. I've seen this a lot among evangelicals after the Dobbs decision was published, that it's so nuanced that we can't possibly support any restriction on abortion. What do you make of that reaction and position? Yeah, I mean, I think this is a really common. This is probably where most Americans come down. There's kind of a small segment on one side that wants totally unlimited abortion on demand. The other kind of small segment on the other side, like you and me, I assume, who want unborn children be protected at all stages of life. But in the middle, you have this big group of people who kind of feel like, yeah, it's probably a baby. We should probably protect them most of the time.

But what about women? And what about women who are suffering? What about women who need abortion? And I think a lot of people have unfortunately bought the lie that abortion actually is some kind of solution, that women are better off if they have this option. that the fact that women suffer or are abandoned by men or are in a difficult position means that sometimes they might need abortion as a necessary evil. And so for me, and that's something Ryan and I talk about in our book at great length, the idea that abortion is a solution for women is a total lie. Women are not better off because of abortion. No woman is better off

if the solution we offer her is to kill her child. And unfortunately, I think too many Americans believe that. So that's really, to me, a huge goal of the pro-life movement is to convince people that that's not true. Yeah. Tell us about the Biden administration's reaction to the pro-life legislation that has gone into place. I believe I just read that they are now suing the state of Idaho for restricting abortion. Yeah. So I think the Biden administration is in kind of a tough position. Obviously, Biden tried to bill himself as this pro-abortion champion. He flip-flopped on the Hyde Amendment and how supports forcing taxpayers to fund abortion. But in their immediate response to to the Dobbs ruling. They barely said anything. It took two weeks for there to be any kind of

full statement. And when he actually released it in an executive order, it was very wishy-washy. It was kind of, you know, vocally very supportive of abortion, but there wasn't anything actionable in it. And so I think really the administration realizes that if they try to do very much policy-wise, it's probably going to get struck down. There are courts that are not going to allow them to overstep the executive role here. And so really, all they can do is be responsive. So like you point out, if a law goes in place somewhere, the DOJ might try to go in and block it and say that it's unacceptable. But they can't do very much, or I guess they've decided they don't want to risk trying to leverage executive authority too much to advance pro-abortion policy. And how big of a factor do you think the abortion issue actually will be in the midterms?

I don't think it'll be much of a factor at all. I think that the number of people who vote with abortion as one of their top line issues is very small. We've seen that in polls even after Roe was overturned. Most Americans still say the economy, gas prices, inflation, these types of things are much more at the top of their mind than abortion is. And in the past, even among people who vote with abortion as a top priority, pro-lifers typically have an edge. And so that might be a little bit different this year because Roe was overturned.

But my sense is there are not going to be very many swing voters who are motivated by the Democrats' stance on abortion. Most Americans, most Democrats even, don't actually support what Democrats want on abortion. And so while they might want a more moderate abortion policy than you or I, I don't think they're at all going to be motivated to go to the polls to vote for abortion on demand. Yeah. Beto O'Rourke is running on this in the governor's race in Texas. And he has kind of a, it's kind of a tongue-in-cheek ad. I don't know if you've seen it of the woman. I don't think we have it to play. But it's a woman and she's told by her doctor, hey, your baby has a fetal

anomaly and is going to die and there's only one person who can decide what to do and it's Greg Abbott. And so basically saying, you know, women are put in this terrible position of having to basically go to these male politicians in Texas to make these very intimate choices. They've put out some other kind of fear-mongering ads in the same way, in the same vein. And I'm just wondering if you think on the conservative side that Republicans are doing a good enough job of showing the other side of the moral question or the other side of this debate, which is that it's a human being. It's a child. And that pulls out our heartstrings too. I'm not sure that I'm seeing it quite as much on the Republican side, but I'm curious what you think about the messaging. No, I have always

had a problem with Republican messaging on this issue. And I don't think that it's gotten any better lately. if anything, I think it's gotten worse. Now, of course, there are great pro-life groups who really kind of advertise on behalf of Republicans who highlight this issue. But Republicans themselves, I think, for the most part, really don't want to touch it. And I'm afraid that something like the result in Kansas the other night is going to send the wrong message, which is the pro-life issue is toxic. I don't think that's true. I think the pro-life position, by and large, is far more popular than Democrats. And Democrats don't have the luxury of being incrementalist, right? Their only position is abortion on demand. And if they start trying to draw,

draw lines. They're in kind of an ethical and logical dilemma, right? How do you draw a line at 20 weeks? But for Republicans, they can say, look, I would prefer to protect all unborn children and their mothers, but I can vote for a 20-week ban if that's all we can get right now. I can vote for a 15-week ban. And so I think we have a luxury as pro-lifers and Republican politicians of kind of meeting Americans where they are and kind of trying to convince them that only a total protection would be just, but really meeting them where they are. And I really hope that Republican politicians become more comfortable doing that because the truth is on our side on this one. I'm not sure if Republicans realize how effective it can be just to highlight the atrocity of abortion.

And as you talk about so much and as you talk about in your book, the atrocity of abortion for women, not just the child. There's this story that I'll get your reaction to. You just came out the other day from live action. Minnesota report reveals five babies born alive after abortion in 2021. And so these babies were born alive and they were denied medical care and they all died. I mean, who knows how painful, how gruesome that death was. Of course, abortion is always painful and gruesome, but we're talking about slow death after the baby has exited the womb.

They were probably somewhere in the second trimester. And when Ben Sass tried to pass a few years ago, I think it was 2019, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, all Democrats, including our current vice president, voted against it. Do you think stories like this can kind of show people the reality of the abortion industry? And I guess just what's your reaction to this? Yeah, I mean, it's an absolutely horrifying reality. This does happen. And abortion supporters claim that it never does.

But we have documented evidence of people, you know, human beings walking around who survived after being born alive and abatched abortion. And so it does happen. We know this for a fact. And I mean, I'm glad you raised this because to my mind, the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act that Ben Saff sponsored was the biggest pro-life success story, just legislatively speaking over the last couple of years. Now, of course, the bill didn't pass because we didn't have the numbers. But I think it was an extremely effective bill because it forced Democrats either to be

consistent on abortion or to vote for something heinous, right? Their options were to say, yes, because this baby was supposed to be aborted, you can leave it to die. Or, no, actually, once it's born, we should protect it, but five seconds before, it's still okay to kill it. And so either way, they're kind of caught in this very difficult position, and both votes or both positions really expose what abortion is. And the bill itself exposes what abortion is, because we all know that baby is not a different

entity two seconds later, you know, after coming out of the birth canal. So if we can leave it to die then, you know, what kind of position do we have if we're supporting abortion to say that you can then leave it to die because it was supposed to have been killed in the womb. It's just the whole thing is grotesque. Yes. Yes. And it did reveal that, but of course, it didn't get the kind of media attention that it should have. The bill did not restrict abortion at all. And yet every single Democrat voted against it. Also, the story that came out of Washington, D.C., that live action also had a part of reporting. But I think it was actually a progress. anti-abortion activist group that originally reported on the five babies that I don't think

they were born alive after an abortion, but they were late-term abortions and they could have been illegal abortions. Again, the people who say that we are the ones who are only pro-birth, that we are the ones who don't care about babies after they exit the womb, or the womb, I didn't see any reporting or any outrage about that. So they really do kind of tell on themselves that this is kind of an anti-life movement more than a pro-abortion movement? No, that's exactly right.

I mean, the fear about that story and the desire not to talk about it, I think, is so telling about the pro-abortion movement, right? Just the total, if you think abortion is okay, it should be legal, it's a great thing for women, why not just say, well, who cares, right? This is fine. What are you so upset about? But they didn't even want to talk about it, because we all know that that's morally heinous.

And when you see a tiny baby with its skull-crushed or whatever it is, we all know that that is evil and disgusting and not good for women. and immoral, not good for our society. And no one wants to look at it. That's how the abortion movement succeeds. That's why we are where we are, because abortion is painful to look at and too many people look away. And I think that's why the other side has spent the past month talking about things like

ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage, because talking about abortion is gross and painful, and everyone knows that it's a horrible act. And so they just try to talk about anything other than what happens in an abortion. Yeah. And we talked about it at the time, just those images of the baby, there was one like baby girl and as you said like the back of her skull was crushed from the abortion and her eye was still open just like peering into the camera and how anyone could face that reality and still justify this as something that should be legal much less acceptable and celebrated

I mean it's just beyond me but that's exactly why as you said people don't want to look at it and as you said earlier the truth is on our side that's a really good way to know if you're on the right or wrong side does the truth help you or does it hurt you Do you have to rely on euphemisms and propaganda, or can you just tell the truth, which you have done, especially in this, I think you said it was a 4,500 word piece about the laws and their actual effects on what is happening in these red states. What has been the reaction from the pro-abortion side? To the piece, I mean, everyone was very unhappy with me, yeah.

I mean, I had spent a lot of time. I had written multiple shorter pieces, just kind of. explaining the difference between treatment for ectopic pregnancy or treatment after a miscarriage and a direct abortion. But it didn't really seem to be getting through. And so I said to myself, you know, I'm just going to put it all in one place, collect all the laws, so there's nothing to debate anymore. And kind of like I said before it, nobody cared about the text, right? The same people who had been attacking my earlier pieces or kind of responding to me online personally about it didn't care. Their response was the text doesn't matter and it's still the fault of the laws.

And essentially what they were saying was, no matter how you write these laws, we're not going to support them. And to me, I'm glad I wrote the piece, even though it doesn't seem to have changed people's opinions if they were already inclined to disagree or to be making this argument. But it really exposed, I think, that the other side doesn't care about the language of the laws. It's actually not about whether we word it carefully enough. There is no way to word a pro-life medical exception or a pro-life ectopic pregnancy definition or whatever it might be to satisfy these people, because all they're doing, is trying to distract from the abortion debate. Actopic pregnancy and miscarriage have nothing to do with the debate over whether abortion should be legal.

And pro-lifers know that, right? The other side doesn't want to talk about what's in the laws even. They just want to talk about anything other than abortion. Well, your piece is helpful in equipping pro-lifers because I know that you said that pro-lifers know that, but actually my inbox is filled on a daily basis and has been from the past month. How do I answer this? How do I answer this?

I'm pro-life, but I had... one person reached out to me and said, oh, I've got a friend's daughter. I'm in Indiana. And she went to, she tried to get a care for a miscarriage and she wasn't able to. She was denied until she almost died. And I told this person, well, look, there's no new restriction on abortion in Indiana. They haven't passed any restriction on abortion. And this person said, well, I'm just telling you what I know. So that's kind of, I think, the reaction and the confusing place that people are in that they're not, a lot of times even pro-lifers aren't even asking the question, but what does the law say? What is the truth? They just don't want to be seen as someone who is anti-woman. Or they think,

okay, well, I'm pro-life. But if these laws are leading to the inhibition of miscarriage care, then I can't be for it. So your piece actually, I mean, it does a lot. It does a lot to equip people and make them feel prepared to have these conversations because it's rough out there in a liberal woman, Instagram, unfortunately. It really is. I've not been enjoying my time on Instagram for the past month. And I will say kind of like you mentioned, the lies, the euphemisms, the propaganda, this chaos is the point, right? The other side has created this chaos on purpose because it's easier to do that than to defend

their preferred abortion policy, which is deeply unpopular, deeply grotesque. And that's really what they want. They're trying to create confusion on purpose. And so that's why I wrote the piece. That's why I wrote my book with Ryan. We really want pro-lifers to have access to the best information so that we can very confidently say this chaos, this confusion is good for nobody, and here's the truth. Yeah. Tell us more about this book tearing us apart. Yeah, so the idea, we started working on it last fall, actually,

in the hopes that it would come out in a post-row America. Yeah, very grateful, of course, and joyful that I did. Three days after the court overturned row, the book came out. And our thesis is basically, look, pro-lifers are great at explaining how abortion harms the unborn child. And that is the fundamental grave moral evil of abortion, of course, we have to be able to articulate that. But if it's true that this is a grave moral evil and that hundreds of thousands of unborn babies are killed every year in this country, how could it be that this doesn't harm everything else? And so we go through in catalog all the ways in which almost 50 years of legal abortion have harmed women, torn apart families, harmed our medical system, harmed communities who are already

vulnerable, you know, the disabled, the poor minority communities. We talk about how it's harmed our politics, our law, the Democratic Party in particular, just kind of the corruption there and our culture. And so we really try, you know, along the way we assemble about 30 pages of footnotes because we really want readers to be able to trace all of our arguments, to read for themselves, to do their own digging. And while we would hope abortion supporters could read it and kind of at least see where we're coming from, it's a very reasonable case, we really do want to equip pro

lifers for the future of the post row country. Yes, well, thank you so much. I encourage everyone to go get it. They can get it on Amazon. I'm guessing they can pick it up at their local bookstore too. Yes, they can get it wherever books are sold. Awesome. And they can follow you and they can follow your work and national review. Thank you so much, Alexandra, for taking the time to come on. Thank you. Great to be with you. All right, guys. We've got lots of good stuff coming down the pipeline. We've got a fun video, a skit that will be coming out soon, maybe this weekend, maybe next week, don't

know, keep you on your toes. We've got an amazing interview coming out on Monday. As always, please send your feedback. What topics do you want to see? What things do you want to see broken down? What guest do you want back? What segment ideas that you have? We are always open to the ideas of you guys who are, as I've said before, officially my executive

producers, executive executive producers. We, your wish is our command. Also, also, we've got a lot of good merch that you guys can check out. I do want to tell you specifically about Blaze Sox. So I've got my own relatable merch. You can check that out. We'll link it. But also we have Blaze socks and they've got a special deal going on right now.

They've got different kinds of patriotic socks. They've got DeSanta socks. They've got some Macs. socks. They've also got like making fun of the world economic socks. They're all American made. They're really awesome. You can go to blaze socks.com. You can use promo code Ali socks for a discount. That's blazed socks.com and you can check out that merch. So there is one more thing that I wanted to say that I meant to say at the beginning of the episode. I just want to send my condolences to the families of the Indiana Congresswoman Jackie Wolorski.

her two staffers who died in a car wreck yesterday. Actually, our previous producer was very good friends with the young woman who died, Emma Thompson. Emma Thompson, she was only 28. And then Zachary Potts was the other staffer age 27. They all three died in a car wreck yesterday. They were driving to an event. Someone coming the opposite direction accidentally veered over. head-on collision and everyone involved died. I just cannot imagine what the families are experiencing right now, especially the parents of these two young adults who lost their lives too early. So I just wanted to make sure that we put a word out about that and that you can be praying

for their families, of course, that they would be comforted, that they would be given peace and also that somehow God would be glorified through this awful tragedy. All right. That's all that we have. time for today. I hope you guys have a wonderful weekend. We will be back here on Monday. 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.