The Daily Signal - #433: They Had Twins at 26 Weeks. Now They’re Advocating Protecting Babies Born Alive.

Episode Date: April 4, 2019

As House Republicans attempt to force a vote on protecting babies born alive after abortion, activists from around the country came to advocate for these children's lives. Rachel del Guidice speaks to the Balek family, who came from South Carolina to attend the event put on by Heritage Action, the lobbying and advocacy arm of The Heritage Foundation. We also cover these stories:•President Trump is pulling back from his threat to shut down the border over massive flows of migrants.•Senate Republicans voted to eliminate aspects of the filibuster for executive and judicial nominees.•Sen. Ted Cruz is threatening legal action against Yale Law School, saying the school is blacklisting Christian organizations.The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Friday, April 5th. I'm Kate Trinco. And I'm Daniel Davis. This week, Republicans are looking to force a vote on a bill to protect infants who survive abortion attempts. One woman who's pushing for that bill is Linda Baalick. She gave birth to her child at just 26 weeks. Our colleague, Rachel Del Judas, sat down with her and her family to discuss her story and the life of her son. We'll bring you that interview.

Plus, a popular ancestry company is giving its customers DNA. to the government. We'll discuss. And if you're a fan of the podcast, please consider leaving a review or a five-star rating at iTunes and please subscribe. Now, onto our top news. Well, President Trump is pulling back from his threat to shut down the border over massive flows of migrants, but he's not letting the pressure off Mexico. He says if Mexico doesn't help stem the tide of migrants and drug trafficking across the border, they can expect auto tariffs. Here's what he said on Thursday.

If the drugs don't stop, Mexico can stop them if they want. We're going to tariff the cars. The cars are very big. And if that doesn't work, we're going to close the border. Well, last week, the president had threatened to shut down the border, but that was met with protests over the potential economic fallout. Border officials are grappling with huge numbers of illegal immigrants crossing over and claiming asylum, many of whom are now being released into the country.

The New York Times reported Wednesday, citing unnamed sources, that, quote, some of Robert S. Mueller, the 3rd's investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Barr indicated. Now the Justice Department is pushing back with spokeswoman Carrie Kupak saying in a statement, given the extraordinary public interest in the matter, the Attorney General decided to release the report's bottom line findings and his conclusion. immediately, without attempting to summarize the report with the understanding that the report itself would be released after the redaction process. Well, after two years of delay over President Trump's executive and judicial nominees, Senate Republicans have had enough.

On Wednesday, they voted to eliminate aspects of the filibuster for executive and judicial nominees, taking the quote-unquote nuclear option. The change in rules means that debate time on district court nominees and sub-cabinet executive nominees will be cut from 30 hours to just two hours, allowing Republicans to fill vacancies that Democrats have held open for months. Among those are 130 district court vacancies. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer lambasted the move, calling it a disgrace and a debasement of the Senate, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell didn't care much for Schumer's thoughts. Pointing at Schumer, he said, quote, he started this whole thing. This is not a sad day. This is a

glad day. On Thursday, the House reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act 263 to 158. Some Republicans have been critical of the bill arguing it could hurt due process, among other concerns. Representative Debbie Lesko, Republican of Arizona, and herself

a survivor of domestic violence, spoke out against it in a video for the Daily Signal. Here's part of what she had to say. I am voting no on the Democrats' version of the Violence Against Women Act. because it is a radical bill that I believe will actually hurt women more.

This bill, under the weight of federal law, would force domestic violence shelters to take in biological males who identify as women. She also said, The Democrat version of the Violence Against Women Act takes awake Second Amendment rights from people without due process. Well, as House Democrats get ready to dive into the Mueller probe, they're also using their new power to formally demand Trump's tax returns. Democrats formally requested on Wednesday that the IRS turn over six years of Trump's returns, paving the way for a new clash with the president that could land them in a lawsuit. President Trump has refused to release his returns ever since running for president, but the decision here will ultimately rest with the Treasury Department, which oversees the IRS. In his letter to the IRS, Weizan Means Chairman Richard Neal

said his committee had a right and obligation to review Trump's business activity before and during his first term in office. But Ranking Member Kevin Brady said that Democrats were abusing the committee's statutory authority. In a 247 to 176 vote, the House voted

Thursday that the U.S. should stop assisting Saudi Arabia in its participation in a civil war in Yemen against Iran-backed forces. The Senate had previously passed the resolution, and it is now expected that President Trump will veto it. Well, Yale Law School created a stir earlier this week when it announced it would no longer give stipends to students who work summers at law firms that disagree with the school's views on sexuality and gender identity. Senator Ted Cruz is now threatening legal action, saying that the Yale Law School is blacklisting Christian organizations.

The Texas Senator opened an investigation into the law school for potential discrimination against students with traditional Christian views. In a letter sent to Yale Law School President Dean Heather Gerkin, he said that the school's new policy stems from a, quote, unconstitutional animus and a specific discriminatory intent both to blacklist Christian organizations and to punish Yale students whose values or religious faith lead them to work there, end quote. He also said his investigation could lead to a subpoena or a referral to the Justice Department. Former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams said in a speech this week that she did win the Georgia election. The Agrabian, here's what Abrams had to say. We had this little election back in 2018. And despite the final tally and the inauguration and the situation we find ourselves in, I do have one very affirmative.

the statement to make. We won. And that wasn't all Abrams had to say at the event she was speaking at the convention hosted by Reverend Al Sharpton's National Action Network. What I believe was a stolen election.

I'm not saying they stole it from the voters of the court. According to Fox News, Abrams lost Republican Brian Kemp by over 50,000 votes. Up next, Rachel sits down with a family who had a child at 26 weeks. Do you own an Alexa? You can now get the Daily Signal podcast every day as part of your daily flash briefing. It's easy to do. Just open up your Alexa app, go to settings, and select

flash briefing. From there, you can search for the Daily Signal podcast and add it to your flash briefing so you can stay up to date with the top news of the day that the liberal media isn't covering. We're joined on the Daily Signal podcast today by Tom and Linda Bollick and their son, Jeff Bollick, who traveled to Washington, D.C. from South Carolina to ask lawmakers to sign a discharge petition to force a vote on legislation to protect babies born alive after an abortion. Thank you all so very much for joining us today. Oh, you're welcome. Happy to be here.

So Tom and Linda, you have a very moving personal story about your son, Jeff, and why he has made you so passionate about this issue. Could you share that story with us? Well, we're, our family is very pro-life, and it's largely because of the experience we had with son Jeff. Jeff was born in 1980. He was a 26-week-term baby. He was a twin, premature twin. And Jeff is living, walking, breathing, drumming proof that second trimester babies are people.

So we're not only opposed to abortion. We're very opposed to late-term abortion for that reason and very, very, very opposed to infanticide, which is the direction things seem to be going in the pro-abortion movement. Jeff, what has it been like to advocate and to speak to lawmakers about this issue that you're so passionate about as well? I'm just glad that I'm living and walking and like to love to talk to the lawmakers yesterday with, It was a good discussion. Well, thank you for talking to us. Tom, and we were talking yesterday.

You said that not only was Jeff a viable baby and a human being, he's also an asset to the community and your family, and this is your walking defense against abortion. Can you tell us more about all that Jeff's, so many things he's accomplished? Sure. Yeah, Jeff is a community treasure. He has received a lot of awards nationally and locally for his volunteer service. He has been working as a tutor,

of at-risk elementary students for many years. And I volunteer for the hospice patients, too, in Charlotte. Love doing that. Read the Bible to him. Jeff has done all kinds of volunteer work. And he's a real advocate for at-risk kids. He uses Twin Vision Braille books that have braille overlays along with the text and images in the regular kids' books.

And that's really interesting to them. And as much as anything, they're fascinated meeting a blind guy who can read and function. The great thing about talking to little kids is they will ask the craziest questions that will just make you roll on the floor. And then Jeff will just answer them

and it's just all good. Oh, wow. That is beautiful. Well, you spent your time here in our nation's capital joining 50-plus Heritage Action Sentinels from across the country who came here to do. D.C. to encourage lawmakers to sign the discharge petition in support of the Born Alive Bill. What has this experience been like and what kind of response have you been receiving

from lawmakers? Well, every trip to Heritage in Washington is an absolute blast. We get to see all of our friends. We've been active with the Heritage Sentinel's program for many years and have made a number of trips to the Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action. So when we're here, we get to see our friends and get some important work done. It was great to be on the Hill yesterday. We didn't get to meet any congressman other than our own, our wonderful Ralph Norman from our district in South Carolina. But we talked with staffers and got some good responses about our promotion of the Born Alive Act, and we're encouraging them to sign a discharge petition so that that bill can be moved from committee to the floor for vote. My understanding is we need like 18 more, isn't that right, Linda?

I think so. They seem to be a lot more receptive on this issue than other issues we've gone up and discussed. It's hard for them to say something like it's a partisan issue because it's not. It's a life. And I think that makes a little bit less pressure on them. However, I think it's going to take some encouragement and follow up to make sure they stay on task. We can share some of the interesting responses we got yesterday on the Hill if you're interested in that. Yeah, I love to hear what you guys were talking about.

We were speaking to staffers in one of the congressman's offices, and they said they had been receiving phone calls all day about the discharge petition. And they said, we don't know if this is true or not, but they said about half of our callers are in favor of the Born Alive Act and about half are opposed. and I asked the question of the legislative director. So why are half of them opposed to it? Do you ever ask the question, why are you opposed? Just got a blank stare. I don't think anybody would admit that they are in favor of leaving a living, breathing baby on a shelf to die. Who's going to admit to that?

I mean, this is such a slam dunk. It's mind-boggling that there's. any opposition to this at all. And I don't understand why every congressman hasn't signed that that discharge petition. Well, and my whole question is, when does life start then for these people? Does somebody have a three-year-old that they're tired of being a mother to a three-year-old? They can be a little trying at times and say, gee, I just don't want a baby. Just put it in the dumpster. I mean, it's about that crude. It's just as crazy as what they're doing with this born-alive baby. We're from York County, South Carolina, and a recent item in the news there referred to a woman who had 22 horses and 15 dogs and cats that all died on her property because she was ill and in the hospital and hadn't arranged to get them fed.

And she was being charged and likely will have, you know, jail time or, you know, significant sentence for not feeding horses and that. dogs and cats. That's clearly illegal in everybody's mind. And I'll bet you all of the Democrats on the Hill would think that's horrific. Yet they can't support providing medical care to a newborn baby who's alive in front of the doctor. Mind-boggling. That is, it is so mind-boggling. What would your message be Tom and Linda to parents who might have received news that

there's complication with their pregnancy and are being encouraged to have an abortion, given your own personal experience, what would your message to them be? You know, doctors are practicing. They aren't God, and they don't really know what's going to happen. I believe that every child has a value. I have seen kids that are so unnormal, for lack of a better word, that they have blessed their families so much. Our sons were born at 26 weeks.

Jeff was the tough one. He survived. And he, you know, has had some residual problems and really not exactly as a result of his premature birth. But that was 39 years ago. That was in 1980. So for people to second guess, you know, the viability of an in-utero baby. is, I think, is appropriate at all. Like Linda said, that's a human life.

Our Christian belief is that that is a soul since conception. So besides the advocacy work you all do, your family also has its own band. Can you tell us a little bit about that? Jeff, tell us about the band. Band is named Caution Blind Driver. And, of course, the drummer is the driver of the band. We have a lot of funny photos on our website.

I was, we were at my sister's, my sister's house and all of us were in the car, my sister, her husband, my mom and dad, and me. And we, I had my cane outside the window rolled down at my hands on a steering wheel, my knees on the seat of the truck. And everybody all terrified, ah, caution blind driver, you know, and there was a sign there said, sorry officer just going to our next gig. Yeah, it's cane traveling with our truck. Yeah. I've got to tell you, I've been a musician all my life, and I'm really old. And there is no drummer in the world I'd rather play with than this blind guy right here next to me. He's an incredible musician.

So in addition to being a good volunteer and a pretty good guy, I don't know what I'd do without him in our band. My daughter plays bass with us to his family band. This weekend, we're playing a festival in the Charlotte area. It's a big dog festival. Thousands of families come with their dogs, and we'll be playing for several hours there on the big stage. And of course, we had to learn a whole bunch of dog songs, didn't we, Jeff? Yes, we did. That's incredible.

So you spent your time here in D.C. petitioning to support the born-alive legislation. And I know you talked to some lawmakers, but you weren't able to obviously speak to each one. If you had the opportunity to talk to each one of them, like, What would be the one thing that you would want to say to them? Rather than say to them, I would ask them, how or why are you opposed to protecting a newborn baby, offering it the medical care that you would make available to any other human being? What's the difference between a baby that's six minutes old, six days old, six years old, person's person and entitled to medical care?

and that would be my question for every single one of them. What is it that you'd oppose? Some of them tend to be getting lost in the weeds and furthering their side by saying, well, who's going to pay for this? And what are we going to do with the baby and things like that? There are plenty of people out there that I know personally have had to go to foreign countries to adopt children and would take a baby in a heartbeat in any condition. I think the thing to remember, too, is a lot of our homegrown adoption agencies have been sued to oblivia that are faith-based and therefore are no longer being able to adopt out these babies.

We have a lot of different organizations just wanting them to adopt them to just anybody, and they oftentimes believe that they're supposed to be a man and a woman and a family, and they're supposed to stay at home. somebody is to raise a child and and be parents. And when there's a human life at stake, you deal with what's in front of you. You don't take the time to question who's paying, who's responsible, what about custody, what about this and that detail? You save that human life because human life is precious. As someone said yesterday, she goes by, in D.C. here, homeless people all the time. And occasionally there's somebody that's OD'd, the services,

and help them, and they don't go through his pockets to see how he's going to pay for it or if he's going to pay for it, they just take care of the person. You save that human life, yeah. Well, Tom, Linda, and Jeff, thank you so very much for being with us today. Thank you guys for all you do. We are just tremendous fans and advocates of the Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action. And as a conservative activist, there's no place else I'd rather be than right here in the Heritage Building. Well, thank you all.

Did you know you can now listen to all of our events through SoundCloud or just by visiting our events page on Heritage.org? You now have access to hundreds of events and compelling discussions on policy issues from your car, on the train, or the comfort of your own home. Visit Heritage.org slash events for more information or search for the Heritage Foundation on SoundCloud. Hello, I'm Ed Smart, father of Elizabeth Smart. When a loved one is the victim of a violent crime, fan. families want answers. There is more DNA available at crime scenes than any other evidence. If you are one of the millions of people who have taken a DNA test, your help can provide the missing link. That's a new ad for Family Tree DNA, which sometimes works with law enforcement on using DNA people have

submitted to find out about themselves to track down criminals. Just a few months ago, an infamous serial killer in California was tracked down by the method. Essentially, if law enforcement can find out what family the killer likely belongs to, they can then look at members of the family and see who could be a possible suspect. But do we want law enforcement to have our DNA? Joining us today is Daily Signal and Heritage video producer Michael Gooden. Who has some thoughts? I really wish I had more concrete thoughts because I'm so split-minded on this thing. Like everybody else, when the Golden State killer was apprehended. It was just a, it was a nationwide media circus and everybody was talking about

how this, this, one of the most notorious serial killers was captured after all these years. And the way they did it was ingenious. It was a way that could not have ever been possible outside of this era in technology. And it was, I was fascinated like everybody else. And it was also very illuminating to see just exactly what goes into these sendaway DNA test sites. And the FBI getting involved on this truly opened it up. So on one side of the coin, I really see its potential in finding a lot of the more offenders in this world who are rapists, killers, murders, and other people who have done some horrific, terrible things who have possibly could be apprehended, even if, you know, decades have passed. I find that amazing. Now, the

flip side of that is whether or not everybody is okay with the government having unfettered access to you. Right. And that's something that I also share your mixed feelings about because what really interested me about the case of the Golden State Killer is when he was doing his killings, they didn't even know about DNA. So he didn't know to avoid, you know, leaving it around. And then, I mean, this was from the 70s, 60s.

And yeah, and then, of course, he's now an old man and some relative of his must have used the DNA tests and then they looked at the family tree, I guess, and figured out, oh, this person lived in the right areas at the right times and it seems likely. But at the same time, I wouldn't be so, I wouldn't be too worried about the government right now having my DNA, but I feel like, you know, we're conservatives. One of the things we think about is bad people can go into government. And then if they have access to that stuff, you can't really take it back. And I mean, it was interesting for me. I don't know if either of you have done the DNA testing. I haven't, but my sister decided to do it for Christmas, and she actually texted everyone in our family and was like,

hey, everyone cool with their DNA being out there, and then no one. That's interesting, because I've never really thought about how if you're giving your DNA, then that's sort of almost like halfway your family giving it. Like you're doing it on their behalf because they'll be closely related to you. And it's funny, I've kind of wanted to do the DNA test. I haven't done it because I'm just curious to see the breakdown of where, you know, like I have in my mind what I think my lineage is, and I'd like to see that matched up with the science.

Although the science is a little bit. And my dad doesn't think, you know, he doubts the science. He's like, ah, they probably just put statistics on there. And he's also been concerned about them giving it to the government. Like, I'm just, so I'm kind of glad that at least this company tells you that they're giving it to the police or the FBI. I believe you have to opt into that option. Which is also good.

Actually, I think it may be the other way around, but I'm not sure. I think you may have to opt out. Oh, that much of life. We all. But at least it's all explicit. And you know that it's. happening, whereas it kind of leaves me wondering, well, some of these other companies just doing it behind, you know, behind the scenes.

And the whole precedent of, well, why not do it? I mean, you have nothing to hide. That's, okay. I understand that. But as a lot of these things have been proven, many of these databases and organizations can be compromised. They can be hacked. And now I'm not saying that, you know, you could find a mismatch in DNA and possibly somebody

would be accused of a crime they didn't commit. But, you know, the door is open for that kind of activity. The closest I've done to this is, again, like you said, goes around the family table at the holidays. Does everybody want to do this? Or what would be cool? And we had talked about doing the MyHeritage one or the DNA family tree or whatever it's called. The closest I've ever come to it is sending away my dog and seeing exactly what breed. Wait, you've checked your dog's DNA, but not yours?

I don't know what he's done. might have a checker past. I, you know, got to get that information out there. What is your dog? He is Australian border collie of some sort. And mini pincher, which was crazy to see. I find this stuff fascinating. I really do.

And not only would I like to see the exact breakdown of the lineage of my family tree, or maybe I don't, I think that this is a new era in solving crimes. And honestly, I'm very, very interested to see if some of the more prolific serial killers and, you know, criminals of this world have possibly been linked to things that we can get them to. But so I guess my question is, why does the private company have to be the middleman? Why doesn't the FBI just start a DNA campaign to get everyone to voluntarily hand over their DNA for the purpose of fighting crime? Because you've got to sell it. And then you'll have, yeah, but then you'll have private sector kind of stuff on the side, which would be private. it. I just don't know how I feel about the, because like, so right now, it's voluntary.

No, I get what you're saying that that gives me all kind of ick. So it's better to have a private sector middleman? Well, so part of the issue here is the FBI wouldn't, I think they have to have, I guess it wouldn't be a warrant. Like, there has to be a credible reason, I think, or they're matching it up to DNA they already, that's actually an interesting question. Like, I'm just assuming they don't have access to everyone's DNA, but maybe that's not really the case when it comes. like everyone on the platform's DNA. But maybe they effectively do.

It's also the conspiracy theorist in me, but you have to make this something that people voluntarily want to be a part of. You have to make it worthwhile to them. All right. Sell them a back story. Well, they're making a good case. Absolutely they are. But there's a case that we made that, you know, you've heard the theories that the whole face recognition on your phone is just another way to, you know, catalog people's face and databases and stuff like that. Oh, yeah.

And nobody, if you volunteer, if you say voluntarily, I'm. I would like everybody to send me a selfie so we can cap. Nobody's going to do that because inherently a lot of people don't trust the government. But if you say, well, you could access your phone in your car by just looking at it, then a bunch of people will do it because it's a cool, nifty trick. So actually, I am not cool with stuff like that because I feel like, one, that means you're vulnerable to having your eye hacked out or something. If it's like eye recognition or some of that other technology, like I hate that stuff. I would rather use a password.

Or if it's some technology, someone's going to hack off your thumb. I mean, probably not likely. But I just, yeah, I don't like the way security technology is trending, to be honest. It's like Jason Bourne, you know, using the, and they use the fake fingerprints to get into rooms. Cool. Nice flashback. Yeah, that's my pop culture savvy right there. 10-year-old films.

All right, we're going to leave it there. Michael, thank you for coming in and sharing. And we're going to leave it there for today. Thanks so much for listening to The Daily Signal podcast brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Founder. please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud, and please leave us a review or a five-star rating on iTunes. Robin Rachel will be with you on Monday. You've been listening to the Daily Signal podcast,

executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis, sound design by Michael Gooden, Lauren Evans, and Thalia Rampersad. For more information, visitdailySignal.com.