The Daily Signal - #447: Free College for Everyone!

Episode Date: April 25, 2019

Today we're doing our normal headlines--and then turning the show over to "Problematic Women" which is back from hiatus.Is Sen. Elizabeth Warren's call for free universal college and student loan forgiveness really possible? Inez Stepman, senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum, joins for this week's edition of "Problematic Women" to discuss. Plus, Glamour reports a bride asks her bridesmaid to get an abortion to make sure she fits into her dress, and woke Netflix says the term chick flicks should only be used to describe movies with actual chickens.And finally, Abby Johnson, whose transformation from Planned Parenthood clinic director to pro-life activist was featured in the hit film "Unplanned," is crowned our Problematic Woman of the Week.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 Thursday, April 25th. I'm Kate Trinco. And I'm Daniel Davis. Elizabeth Warren is out this week with her free college proposal, but there's a lot more to it than meets the eye. In today's episode, our problematic women, Kelsey Bollar, Lauren Evans, and Inez Stetman discuss how the proposal would backfire. They'll also address controversies relating to Chick-fil-A, AOC, and abortion.

And if you're enjoying this podcast, please consider leaving a review or a five-star rating on iTunes, and please subscribe. Now on to our top news. Well, President Trump hit against Democrats on Wednesday amid a legal showdown over his financial documents. Democrats subpoenaed the president's financial documents, but the administration has refused to hand them over and is now suing in court. Here's what he said.

Subpoena is ridiculous. We have been, I have been the most transparent president and administration in the history of our country by far. We just went through the Mueller witch hunt where you had really 18 angry Democrats that hate President Trump. They hate him with a passion. They were contributors in many cases to Hillary Clinton. Hate him with a passion. How they picked this panel, I don't know. And they came up with no collusion.

And they actually also came up with no obstruction. But our attorney general ruled based on the information there was no obstruction. So you have no collusion, no obstruction. Now we're finished with it. And I thought after two years, we'd be finished with it. No, now the House goes and starts subpoenaing. They want to know every deal I've ever done. Last week, there was a troubling incident

where Mexican soldiers surrounded a couple of American soldiers, even though they were actually on the American side of the border. President Trump tweeted Wednesday, Mexico's soldiers recently pulled guns on our national guard. soldiers, probably as a diversionary tactic for drug smugglers on the border. Better not happen again. We are now sending armed soldiers to the border. Mexico is not doing nearly enough in apprehending and returning. President Trump recently announced he'll be visiting Great Britain in a state visit this June, but on Wednesday he appeared to take aim at British

Intelligence. He tweeted at One America News, referencing their recent report that Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst, had said British intelligence helped the Obama administration spy on the Trump campaign in 2016. Trump said, quote, wow, it is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be a beauty, end quote. Well, in response to that, a spokesman for the UK's government communications headquarters, an intel agency, told a One America news, those allegations were nonsense and utterly ridiculous. Could Sri Lanka face another terrorist attack? The State Minister of Defense, Ruan Wijar-Wadine, said, per the New York Times, there could be still a few people out there. Right now, we are asking people to be vigilant.

Within the next few days, we will have the situation totally under control. Meanwhile, the suicide bombers who killed more than 350 men and women are now believed to have been nine different people, all from Sri Lanka and one female, and largely from middle class. backgrounds. In addition, 60 people have now been arrested in connection with the attacks. A federal judge is expected to block the Trump administration's new rule that would cut off millions of taxpayer dollars to plan parenthood. On Tuesday, district judge Michael McShane, an Obama appointee, said he would grant a preliminary injunction against the rule, which he called a ham-fisted approach to public health policy. The rule, which was issued in February and would have

gone into effect in early May, would bar Title X funds from going into programs and organizations that provide abortions or abortion referrals. This would force Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics to separate abortion from its other health services. The judge didn't say whether he would block the rule only in those states that sued or across the entire country. 21 states are suing. Well, this is concerning news from Canada. A court in British Columbia has said an unnamed dad is guilty of family violence because he refers to his 14-year-old daughter by female pronouns, despite the fact that the girl now identifies as male, the federalist reports. Now the dad is no longer allowed to speak to the media, nor can he show his daughter any

materials that might change her mind about her gender identity. Previously, the court had ruled that the daughter, who is also unnamed, should receive testosterone treatments despite lack of parental consent. Next up, we'll feature the Problematic Women podcast, which is back from hiatus. It will be available every Thursday, and please subscribe to it on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud to make sure that you stay updated on the latest episodes. Do you own an Amazon Echo? You can now get the Daily Signal podcast every day as part of your daily Alexa Flash briefing. It's easy to do.

Just open your Amazon Alexa app, go to settings, and select Flash briefing. From there, you can search for the Daily Signal podcast and add it to your phone. flash briefing so you can stay up to date with the top news of the day that the liberal media isn't covering. Welcome to a brand new edition of problematic women, a podcast that empowers right-minded women. I'm your host, Lauren Evans, and we have so much to impact for you today. We're going to discuss Senator Elizabeth Warren calling for free universal college and student loan forgiveness. A bride asks her bridesmaid to get an abortion to make sure she fits into her dress. Wolk Netflix is now saying the term chick flick should only be used to describe movies.

with actual chickens, and finally crown our problematic women of the week. To break down everything, I have some of my favorite ladies in the studio with me, senior policy analysts at the Independent Women's Forum, Innes Stepman. Hey, good to be here. And my colleague at the Daily Signal, Kelsey Bowler. Thanks, Lauren, happy to be here. I want to add, if you are a problematic woman yourself or support strong, right-minded women, please consider supporting our show by leaving a review or rating on iTunes

and encouraging others to subscribe. It really does make a difference. But first, we're going to talk about free college. This week, Senator Elizabeth Warren published a proposal that included free universal college and student loan debt forgiveness. In an article on the Daily Signal, Heritage Policy Research and Problematic Woman herself, Lindsay Burke, wrote about the specifics of the plan. Students with household incomes below $100,000 would have the first $50,000 of their student loan debt canceled. For every additional $3 of income over $100,000, the amount of student loan forgiveness offered would be cut by $1. Borrowers from families earning more than $250,000 annually would receive zero debt cancellation.

On the whole, her proposal would cancel out all loans for about 75% of borrowers and provide partial cancellation for 95% of borrowers. The overall total portion of this plan would cost taxpayers $640 billion. This sounds insane to me, but you guys have been following this for a lot longer. Annes, what's your take? Look, and as Lindsay wrote in that piece, and she and Mary Claire Anselaum at the Heritage Foundation have been fantastic on this. This is a really regressive policy. It sounds really great, right?

Look, I think all of us in this room are millennials. We probably all have some amount of college debt. But this is a policy that overwhelmingly benefits the children of the wealthy, in part because people from wealthy families are much more likely to go to college. college, and in part because there's plenty of scholarships available, not loans, but scholarships available to kids from families that make less money once they do get into college. So it's a combination of factors. But at the end of the day, for every $1 in loan forgiveness that goes to lower income families

and to students from lower income families, $5 goes to students from richer families. So this is a very, very lopsided plan. But that's just within people going to college. So if you actually broaden it out to the entire body politic, we're talking about two-thirds of Americans who do not have a higher degree, do not have a four-year bachelor's degree. And the average income in America is about $60,000. The household income is about $60,000 a year. So you're asking middle-class Americans, many of whom, most of whom never set foot in the hallowed halls of universities. I use the word hallowed in heavy air quotes.

and most of them have never set foot in these places, do not get the benefits of having a college degree in the workforce, and yet they're going to be the ones footing the bill for forgiveness that is mostly going to go to the children of families who make more money than they do. This is a really, really regressive policy, especially for the left that is always talking about how government needs to be used to help lower income folks. Well, this is a welfare program for higher income folks.

So Senator Warren suggests that the free college and debt cancellation plan would be financed by an ultra-millionaire tax. This means that the 75,000 wealthiest families in America, according to Warren, who have more than $50 million in assets, will be paying for the debt cancellation and tuition for thousands and thousands of students. What's interesting is this is this is. the same group of ultra-millionaires that she already identified to finance her free child care plan. So what do you think is the best way to push back on this idea that 75,000 families in America can subsidize the education for everybody else? Well, look, you know, millionaires and millionaires and billionaires, as Bernie Sanders would say, have already paid well more than their fair share, something like the top 1% of American taxpayers pay something like half of the taxes in America.

And if you broaden that out to the top 10%, they pay the top like 90% of taxes, right? I mean, and I can't recall the exact figures, but it's massively lopsided already. But furthermore, it's not at all clear to me that free college is worth the public investment, right? So if we go back to when we started federally backing these kinds of loans and sending federal grants to universities, the argument went something like this. You know, people coming out of university are going to be, first of all, better citizens. They're going to be wiser members of the body politic. They're going to be better voters, more informed voters. So this is sort of the liberal arts argument, right?

We're going to have better citizens. 10%. A full 10% of college graduates think Judge Judy is on the Supreme Court. Okay. And there are tons of horrifying studies showing that actually the four years in college don't, not only don't teach college students, half of whom don't know, for example, that Senator's terms are six years. So if we're just talking about civics, they're not learning that for sure. But there are a lot of studies that show that they don't learn much of anything that, in fact, scores on tests on a variety of subjects when administered to incoming freshmen versus graduating senior. don't really show a whole lot of improvement. So that argument, I think, that we're going to create wiser citizens by sending them to college is thoroughly laughable in the age of safe spaces and the oppression Olympics and cuddling parties, right? And the universities have turned into, on the whole, with exceptions, more places to, you know,

sort of explore very far left-wing ideology than they have any kind of higher notion of citizenship. So that's one promise the universities have not delivered on. The second one was that we're going to boost the GDP for everyone, that people with college degrees were going to get better jobs straight out of college. They were going to earn more money, pay more money into the tax system, then start their own businesses and hire people. There was going to be economic effects that redounded to everybody in society. And that's why we should invest in higher education as taxpayers.

And that really has been coming under fire in recent years as well. Although there's still a differential in initial income after exiting college with a degree versus not having one, one, it's not clear, especially with these recent scandals, how much of that is just elite social sorting, right? Nobody believes that somebody who already has millions of dollars who paid half a million dollars to get her daughter illegitimately into USC is paying for that because her daughter's career prospects are better because of what she learns there. And notice nobody in these college scandals, nobody stopped to think, oh, if these kids didn't get in here legitimately, won't they fail out? No, because getting in was the entire battle. So one, it's not clear that we should be paying for this kind of elite sorting, sort of social networking for four years. And two, there are increasingly more options to get around this system altogether, right? We see apprenticeships and trade as a way to get people into the middle class for folks to find a route to the middle class that don't involve shelling out $50,000 a year to a four-year university.

So both of those fundamental promises, colleges really haven't delivered on. What they have delivered on is super, super left-wing ideology that is contrary to the values of the overwhelming majority of Americans. And I speak here not just about conservatives. So the first thing to do when you're in a hole is stop digging. We should freeze these loans and we should start rolling back federal dollars that are backing this kind of massive expansion of college costs. Right. And I think that really is the bottom line here. And something important to remember when we talk about this proposal is that the cost of tuition in higher education is out of control. That is something that Democrats and Republicans can both agree on. So we agree there's a problem. We just have very different. ideas for how to address it. And on one hand, you have, you know, certain members on the left who want to dig deeper and make this problem worse than it already is by making two-thirds of

the population who's not attending college subsidized, the one-third that is, it's highly problematic. And, you know, conservatives, on the other hand, want to use the free market. to naturally drive down the price of attending college so that it's more affordable for all students to attend, not just the wealthy elite who can afford to be cutting those checks. And that will only happen until the government gets out of servicing these loans. Right now, they are servicing 90% of all student aid. That will not change. The cost of tuition will not change until the government stops enabling these colleges

to continue raising it year after year. Absolutely, Kelsey. And I think something to bear in mind here is the only people really making out like bandits in this system, this federally backed system, are the universities, right? We are the members of the indebted generation. I actually think sometimes conservatives are slightly too harsh on millennials who took out a lot of debt to go to college. I think it's a little ridiculous to ask a 17 or 18 year old kid to be more financially savvy

than his parents and the broader culture. Everyone was telling us that the route to the middle class, the route to success was to not worry about your debt, go to college, and everything will be fine. The only people who are really doing well in this system, right? The taxpayers are getting hosed. Millennials are heavily in debt and struggling to make student debt payments based on promises from universities that they did not keep in terms of their income after getting a degree. The only people who are really doing well in this system are the universities themselves. And by the way, it's not at all clear to me that a single public dollar should be going to forgive loans that were already paid out to a school like Harvard that has $38 billion, billion with a B in endowments. These are sensibly, quote unquote, non-profit organizations.

These are universities are big business. And if we're going to provide debt relief, which I absolutely oppose, but if we're going to provide that debt relief, the first place we should be looking aren't. those heavily taxed one percenters, how about the one percenters at Harvard? Why don't we tax that $38 billion? Right now, it's completely tax-free. Completely tax-free. So, I mean, if we're looking for places to, you know, sort of pay off student loan debt, I would first look to the universities that made these grand promises to students

and then fail to follow through on them. They're the only ones who are really benefiting from endless federal aid to their industry. Yeah, I couldn't agree more. And as someone who loves college football, I'm so conflicted about seeing, you know, these giant athletic budgets. But thanks you guys for your perspective. We'll make sure to keep an eye on this issue. We're going to take a quick break. But up next, we're going to be talking about a bride who actually asked one of her bridesmaids to get an abortion just so she can fit into her dress.

Don't go far. Liberals have pretty much cornered the market on 101-style podcasts that break down tough policy issues in the news. Until now, did you know that every week, Heritage Explained? intermingles personal stories, news clips, and facts from heritage experts to help explain some of today's hardest issues from a conservative perspective. Look for Heritage Explains on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcasts. This week, Glamour published an article which included a Facebook post from a woman who claimed her friend asked her to get an abortion in order to be in her wedding. The post reads, about a year before the wedding, I found out I was pregnant. I was always told I couldn't have kids, and obviously my daughter was not planned, but I was over the moon, she says.

So I told Kate, expect excitement, right? Nope. She immediately told me that I was going to be so stressed trying to get my bridesmaid dress fitting on my own since I'd have to do it after everyone else already had theirs. She reminded me that this was a kid's free wedding. And then after thoroughly explaining how difficult her wedding would be for me, she said verbatim, so don't you think it might be better for you to have an abortion? I had to read that one allowed a few times. So good news, the story concluded.

that the bridesmaid decided to dump the friend rather than the baby. So we don't know if this is true or not. This is just on Facebook. But it was kind of crazy. And I think it says a lot about normalizing abortion in our culture that the bride would just think, like, hey, no big deal. My wedding's more important. What do you guys have to say? So much for safe, legal, and rare.

We're now at the point where anyone would consider asking a friend to get an abortion because she wants that friend to look good in wedding pictures, I imagine. Pretty insane. Look, I'm someone who just participated in the crazy, crazy, expensive wedding industry not too long ago. But this is obviously a step way too far. And I think it shows that we're really in a problematic place when it comes to the conversation of abortion. I did see a lot of the comments. Even people who identify as pro-choice were not okay with the bride asking this. And again, we don't fully know if this was true, but it certainly

opens an interesting conversation. It was reported on in glamour and the sun. But yeah, I think it is yet another example of how far abortion has come in this country. And really, that is the result of groups like Planned Parenthood normalizing it and telling us to go out there and shout our abortions rather than handling abortions in the way Democrats used to want to do that in the past, safe, legal and rare. Yeah, I mean, this really does highlight how far the left has moved on this issue and how far they've moved away from the actual experiences of women, right? Because I just don't, you know, I'm sure you all, you know, have female friends who have

been as well who have been in situations where they had unplanned pregnancies, things were not ideal timing was not ideal for them. You know, this is a really hard decision. Even for people who were pro-choice, right, this used to be a universally considered really difficult position that no woman would want to find herself in. I think the vast majority of Americans and American women are still there. They still think that, wow, what a terrible position to find yourself in. It's difficult, you know, and pro-lifers.

would say, well, we want to help. We want to provide you with help for you and the baby and medical care and supplies. And then, you know, this is where the role of family is so important. But we've now moved so far in our culture, at least the left has, where their perception of abortion, I think it's entirely political. It's funny because they're always screaming about how like, you know, women's rights shouldn't be politics. Keep your, what is it, ovaries, your rosaries off my ovaries. but their perception of this is now completely political as opposed to the real experiences of women that are not, I mean, I just, I can't imagine that any perceptible number of women who even who have gone through abortions would, you know, sort of laugh about it and talk about fitting into a dress. This is not a, this is not an event that women experience in a frivolous way, but the left insists on talking about it that way.

And we see that with pop culture too, where increasingly they try to have abortion storylines in films and movies that are more like, oh, I got an abortion, moved on with my life. And that just rings so false, I think, even to pro-choice audiences. And I think it shows how far and extreme and politicized the left has gone on this issue. Speaking of pop culture, our next topic is equally as ridiculous. Netflix is so woke in a series of tweets. It asks people if we could quote unquote stop using the first.

phrase chick flick. They continue on in their tweet thread that for starters, chick flicks are traditionally synonymous with romantic comedies. This suggests that women are only people interested in one, romance, and two, comedy, which I can promise from the men I've come across my life simply isn't true. There were three other tweets in the thread before ending. Overall, there's nothing inherently gendered about liking a lighthearted film with a strong female lead and emotional arc. So next time you call something, quote unquote, a chick flick, you better be referring to chicken run. So my first question to you guys, especially Inez, how have you been able to survive this long through this chick flick oppression? It's just, it's just laughable,

right? What feminists now consider oppression of women is so far removed from any actual struggle. And maybe this is just a symptom of sort of prosperousness and decadence generally. But I mean, can you imagine going up to, you know, a, you know, a woman. woman who lived through the Revolutionary War, Abigail Adams, and saying, well, the term chick flick oppresses me, right? It's just, it's ridiculous on its face. And furthermore, this, this idea that women are not allowed to have preferences that are different from men's, men have movies like this. They're called, you know, Transformers or Gone in 60 Seconds or, you know, those kinds of action movies. I mean, I personally don't like either one of those genres, neither the action nor the chick flick genre.

but men have those kinds of, you know, turn off my brain and just relax for entertainment's sake movies. But somehow it's offensive to say that women have different preferences than men when it comes to mindless entertainment. I just think it's silly. And it shows the undervaluing of the feminine among ironically, I think those on the left who call themselves feminists. They undervalued the feminine. And somehow because it's related to relationships or interpersonal relationships that women on average focus on, more than men, that it's somehow inherently sillier than, I don't know, a bunch of car races where, you know, men get into fights on the track. Like, that's, that's supposed to be somehow deeper than that.

I don't know. Right. And I have to say, I know a lot of men who love watching chick flicks. So the idea that this is offensive either to men or women is insane. I am someone who does enjoy a chick flick from time to time. And I feel like I would be a little. lost without that label. What do we call these lighthearted movies instead if they're not chick flicks? We're just going to need another name for them. But it's also very arrogant of Netflix to think that they, look, they are powerful, but they're so powerful that they can completely change the genre of movie, you know, this whole genre movie, movies that men and women like and Hollywood produces. They've been around for generations and generations. And they will still be

around whatever label is attached to them. But while we're on the topic of Netflix, I have to take a minor sidetrack and mention that there's a very interesting article in the Wall Street Journal talking about whether or theorizing that Netflix is in part responsible for why the fertility rates in the United States has hit an all-time low recently. So a 2017 paper in archives of sexual behavior revealed that Americans were having less sex on average than they did decades ago offering streaming videos as one possible cop right. Look, I have to theorize that there is some truth to this because our generation does Netflix and chill a lot. And usually that ends with at least one person falling asleep.

And if you read this article, it talks about in past generations, people were kind of bored. Your nightly TV ended at 10 o'clock and there was nothing else to do. But now we have endless options for entertainment available for streaming at our convenience. Maybe we're spending our time doing that instead of some other things. What do you guys think? I mean, it's obviously, and I don't think that the article really made this claim, It's obviously reductionistic to say that these long-term trends with sexuality are due to Netflix, but I nevertheless feel personally attacked by this article. No, look, as you said, we have more options than ever before.

It's on demand rather than sort of the three news networks ending at a certain time. But I do think there are way deeper issues between men and women and about masculinity and femininity and courtship and. and dating and sexuality, there are probably way more important issues than Netflix feeding into those kinds of lower fertility stats. But nevertheless, kind of at least makes us, you know, think a little bit about how we're spending our Wednesday nights. The best part about this story is that the Wall Street Journal reached out to Netflix about the allegation. And Netflix said, quote, getting credit for a decades-long decline in sex is beyond even our point. programming abilities. Okay, with that, we're going to take a short break, but when we come back, we're going to

crown our problematic women of the week. Do conversations about the Supreme Court leave you scratching your head? Then subscribe to SCOTUS 101, a podcast breaking down the cases, personalities, and gossip at the Supreme Court. Can I get a drum roll, please? This week's Problematic Woman is Abby Johnson. Abby Johnson is a former Planned Parenthood Clinic Director, who, after seeing an ultra-year Guidance Guided Abortion, actually left Planned Parenthood.

She became a pro-life activist and started a nonprofit and then there were a none, which helps abortion workers with financial aid and emotional support to leave the industry. Her story was turned into a movie released on March 29th called Unplanned. It was a surprising success making over $6.1 million opening weekend, and so far has made almost $17 million. So, Kelsey, have you seen the movie? I did see the movie. just about a week ago.

I was nervous because I had read there are some very graphic scenes and I want to say those do exist. One of them is in the very beginning of the movie. So if you're worried about what you see is an actual abortion taking place through an ultrasound, if that's something, if that is a reason that you would not go see the film, I want to tell you that you can close your eyes. It is the very, you know, in the first probably 10 minutes of the movie. So you don't have to actually watch it if that is going to disturb you. I do give them a lot of credit for including that in the film because I've always thought

if women, men and women really knew what abortion was and they actually saw one for themselves, they would have a much more difficult time defending it. But that said, you know, with an open like that, I guess you expect the movie to be raw, raw, pro-life. the rest of the two hours. And it's really not. What the movie does is humanize the Planned Parenthood workers, which I thought made it very fair and very different from anything you'd expect coming from the quote-unquote pro-life movement. My big takeaway is that, you know, these workers really in their hearts believe they are doing the right thing for women. They are genuinely helping women through one of the hardest times of their life.

The problem is they are feeding them misinformation and they are not being, you know, and they are not being honest about the options that women have and they're not being honest about what the option of abortion entails. But that said, the Planned Parenthood workers come off as not monsters, but normal women, and you walk away realizing they, are just brainwashed. Our society has brainwashed them. And I'm so glad you brought that up, Kelsey. I wanted to play this clip of the writer and director of the movie, Chuck Consulman, who actually

appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. And he talked about that effect. And these abortion workers who actually saw the movie have been deciding to leave the industry. Industry, I believe we have something approaching 1% of the abortion workers in the United States seeking help to relieve the industry. Now, that's based, partly on a hard number and partly on an estimate. The number of actual workers who have reached out is 94. I believe there's something on the order of about 700 clinics nationwide, if they all did, had 12 employees. I wasn't a math major, but I think we still get to about one, a little better than 1%. So I think on the order of 1% of the abortion workers in the United States, after getting one look at them being portrayed on film,

and it serves, I think, also some evidence that they're not being portrayed as monsters, have decided to change. their lives and their profession and what they do for a living. So Kelsey, you broke some news about the way Google classified this movie. Can you tell us about that? Yeah, so Google, if you Google the movie unplanned, for a while, it was coming up with the label propaganda. So every movie has a label. Some of them might be chickfix.

It might be interesting to look whether or not Google classifies movies as Chick-Fliks. Others are drama, others are documentary, and so forth. I found a very interesting that Google labeled unplanned propaganda, and then I did some further research to see what other movies might qualify as propaganda. So I googled Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. That was labeled as a documentary. Fahrenheit 119 was labeled by, of course, Michael Moore was labeled a political documentary. None of those were propaganda. For those who might have forgotten

or never watched it to begin with, Fahrenheit 9-11 was a 9-11 truther movie made by it. So that's not propaganda. No. Continue. No, but according to Google, unplanned was, but I did tweet out a screenshot of this.

The tweet got a lot of traction so much that Google actually went back and changed the category of the film. It is no longer labeled as propaganda. It should not be labeled as propaganda. It is a drama. Again, it is very fair to both sides.

If you haven't seen it yet, I encourage you to bring a friend who maybe has a different perspective on this issue. Because ultimately, what this film does is open the door for a conversation regarding abortion in a way that I don't think has been done before. in a way that really shows, you know, people from the pro-life perspective are not out there to demonize people who have different opinions on abortion. We genuinely can understand they come from a good place. We just want to show them the truth. And that's what unplanned does. It shows them the truth. And I know the Daily Signal has covered unplanned before. We've talked about it, but since problematic women was on our hiatus, we wanted to make sure we had this conversation

because it's been very encouraging to see the amount of money that this film has brought in the success. And ultimately, I hope that the conversation continues and that more people from different perspectives go in and watch this movie. Well, congratulations to Abby. We just wanted to crown her problematic woman of the week. Like Kelsey mentioned,

and we were on hiatus, but we just admire her for her courage, for her story, and for telling her story in such a compassionate way. But that's going to be it for this week's edition of Problematic Women. I'd like to thank Kelsey Bowler and Annette Stedman for joining me today. Can you let people know how to follow you on social media? Thanks for having me, Lauren. And you can follow me at Inez Belcher. That's hard to spell, but you can type in Inez Stepman as well into Twitter.

And you can find my work at IWF.org. the Federalist. Inez is having the same problem with the two different last names as I have. A lot of problematic women listeners know me as Kelsey Harkness. I did take on my husband's last name, so my Twitter handle is now at Kelsey Fuller. And you can follow me on Twitter at Lauren Elyss Evans. Join us next Thursday morning for a brand new edition of problematic women. And in the meantime, please subscribe and share.

conservatives need your support in the podcast world and you would greatly appreciate a five-star review on Spotify, SoundCloud, iTunes or wherever you get your podcast. And that will do it for today's episode. Thanks for listening to The Daily Signal podcast brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe to the Daily Signal and problematic women on iTunes, Google Play or SoundCloud and please leave us a review or rating on iTunes to give us feedback. We'll see you again tomorrow.

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.