The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 999 - No Roe V. Wade Is Armageddon For Libs

Episode Date: May 5, 2022

The Young Turks’ Ana Kasparian gets to the heart of the liberal freakout over abortion, the Supreme Court gives Christians a major free speech win, and Biden’s HHS secretary doubles down on irreversibly mutilating kids. Join the Daily Wire and get 20% off your membership with code KNOWLES: https://utm.io/uewve. — Today’s Sponsors: With an Alto Crypto IRA, you can trade crypto like Bitcoin. Open your Alto CryptoIRA account for as little as $10 at altoIRA.com/MICHAEL.     With thousands of satisfied customers and an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau, Birch Gold can help you protect your savings. Text KNOWLES to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit. Use Promo Code KNOWLES at EpicWill.com for 10% off your will. Shop auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers. Visit www.RockAuto.com and enter "KNOWLES" in the 'How Did You Hear About Us' Box.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We have entered day three of the liberal freak out over the potential overruling of Roe versus Wade. Very few of the sounds and shrieks that the liberals are making even vaguely resemble arguments. But one guttural moan in particular that I heard, while still not constituting an argument, did get to the heart of the issue. This came from Anna Kasparian at the Young Turks. These comments might be strong, but it's how I genuinely feel. I don't care that you're a Christian. I don't care what the Bible says. I feel like it's a clown show like sitting here trying to decipher what your little mythical book has to say about these very real political issues, right?

I don't care if you're Christian. In fact, I will fight for you to have your religious liberty and practice your Christianity. I believe in that. I don't believe in Christianity, which means that you do not get to dictate the way I live my life based on your religion. I don't care what the Bible says. You have every right in the world. All those women who identify with your religion have every right in the world to not get an abortion, to not take birth control.

But they do not have the right to dictate my life. And what I decide to do with my body, I don't care about your goddamn religion. Anna doesn't care about our religion. Anna doesn't care what we believe. And I think she is expressing the actual view of what the left thinks here. The thing is, I don't care what she believes about this. I don't care what she believes about abortion, about infanticide on a separate issue. I don't care what she thinks about transgenderism. I don't care. And she doesn't get to force those views on me just because she really, really wants to.

We live in a political community. We get to persuade one another of our views. I think that my view is correct on abortion, on transgenderism, on all sorts of other issues. And so we're going to to persuade one another and we're going to have standards and we're going to decide how to live together in a political community within the bounds of the Constitution. That's how this works. So you can scream and yell and say, me, me, me, I want it my way. That's not the way government works. That's not the way politics works. We have a political community and limits called the Constitution and there is simply no question. Whatever you think about abortion or anything else, there is simply no question. There is no right to abortion in the Constitution.

I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles show. Welcome back to this show. My favorite comment yesterday is from Mikey 79, who says, when we are told abortion is reproductive rights, I just want to ask them, well, what are you reproducing? Right? The very word, it's an ironic term, reproductive rights, because, of course, abortion is not a right, and it results in the opposite of reproduction. The very fact that one is acknowledging that this is about reproduction tells you that there is a baby present, and the baby has certain rights, and you don't just have the right to kill the baby.

We have a guest coming up who is going to articulate the pro-abortion side of this issue because, look, we don't want to knock down straw men. All right. First, though, you got to text Noles to 98-98-98-98. Finally happened, the Fed is realizing the dire straits that our economy is in, thanks to our loose monetary policy. Turns out, you can't just spend trillions of dollars every year with no repercussions. Now, to play catch-up, the Fed has been raising rates and plans to seven times this year. You're already starting to see those ripple effects in the House. market as people's buying power diminishes. Have you considered what could happen in the stock market if our economy stalls out? Do not wait till that happens. Take some of your profits from the

stock market. Now solidify them with gold from Birch Gold. Throughout history, gold has maintained its value better than any other investment in the world. Text Noles, KNAW-L-E-S to 98-98-48- for a free zero-obligation info kit on holding gold in a tax-sheltered retirement account. Join the thousands of happy Birch Gold customers with countless five-star reviews and an A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau. I trust the professionals at Birch Gold. Text Knowles, KNAW-L-A-S to 98-98-secure the gains that you've made while you still can. We don't want to just be talking in an echo chamber here. We don't want to be pyromaniacs in a field of straw men. And so we sometimes invite LeftWingers on the show to present the strongest version of their point of view. I'm always very grateful

when Left Wingers come on the show. Not an easy thing to do. Most of them just refused to do it. So I'm very pleased that our guest is Bronte Remzik, who is a third-year medical student, a social activist, very much in support of legal abortion. We've gone back and forth on TikTok and Twitter and MySpace and all sorts of social media platforms. So we thought, let's just have her on the show and discuss the issue. Bronte, thank you so much for coming on. Hi, Michael.

I can't say that it's a pleasure, but I'm excited to help you expand your perspective. Well, that's very kind of you to do that. So, Bronte, before we get to the issue of abortion itself, which I suspect we will get to, I guess we have to get to this issue that Anna Kasparian raised and that is really at the heart of this Supreme Court decision in the past week of the news cycle, namely, does the Constitution enshrine a right to abortion? It seems very difficult to argue that it does, one, because I don't see that right anywhere. The judges who decided that there was a right in 1973, a right that previously had never been acknowledged in the Constitution, they said that it was

found within the emanations and the penumbras, and they couldn't quite point to exactly where it was, but, hey, anyway, it's there. Then you had Planned Parenthood v. Casey in the early 1990s, which actually overruled part of Roe versus Wade, at least in the argument for why we needed legal abortion, but nevertheless upheld legal abortion, and it was all kind of just a big jumbled mess. So is it your position that the Constitution provides for some heretofore invisible right to an abortion, regardless of what you think about the issue? It is my opinion that we have a right to privacy and abortion is a medical procedure and the right to privacy does extend to the discussions between a patient and a medical provider. Okay, but I could have a right to privacy with my mafia capo and we could decide to whack my political enemy.

And I guess those conversations would be private. I don't think there is some generalized right to privacy in the Constitution. But even if they were, that would have no bearing on the life of the person that we're going to kill, right? Well, the discussion between you and your mafia friend is very different from a discussion between a patient and a medical provider. We have laws that protect patient privacy for this exact reason. But I suppose you're right. The distinction is that right now it's illegal for me to talk to my mafia boss and call out a hit on someone I don't like. and it is legal right now, at least according to the civil law, for a woman to talk to a doctor and kill her child.

But that very likely will not remain legal if Roe v. Wade is overturned in 13, 14 states. Instantly, that will become illegal. So I guess I'm just talking about the matter itself, beyond questions of the civil law, which might be changing in real time right now. What's the difference? If you're saying it's all about a right to privacy, I'm saying, no, it's about the baby that's being killed. So do you have an answer for that or are we just denying the humanity of the baby? No, absolutely. So when you put up a scenario of trying to put out a hit with the mafia, you are talking about murdering a born-living, conscious, sentient, autonomous person. When we talk about abortion, we are talking about ending a non-autonomous life. You do not have the right to bodily autonomy if you are not autonomous.

And if you are a fetus prior to the limit of viability, you do not have autonomy. Therefore, you do not have the right to bodily autonomy. This is a great point. You reside inside of the body of an autonomous person. And the right to bodily autonomy allows you to refuse to use your body to support the life of another person. So this is a precise and important point you've made. You've acknowledged that abortion ends alive. But you've said, those were your exact words.

you just said that the life is not autonomous. Would you say that a two-day-old post-birth baby is autonomous? It is, it has bodily autonomy and its body system is able to function autonomously, yes. The baby can feed itself? You are trying to get to the point where they require external resources, but any person can provide that infant external resources. The utilization of someone's internal organs is very different from providing external resources. You cannot force someone to be a parent and provide external resources. You can give up that child at any point that you stop consenting to your parental responsibilities and your parental rights. Okay. So that's fine. So we've acknowledged now that the baby is living in the womb or outside the womb.

It's a living being. And that the baby is not really autonomy. Maybe it has, it's not attached by an umbilical cord, but it certainly doesn't have autonomy when it's two days old. It needs to eat. It needs everything taking care of for it. What you're saying is, though, once the umbilical cord has been severed, the baby can be taken care of by someone else. So then my question is, why would we not merely encourage adoption? If the mother feels she can't take care of the baby, why not just give up the baby for adoption rather than killing the baby in the womb. Because pregnancy in itself is a very serious medical condition that has physical, mental, emotional, and financial burdens for the pregnant person. And to force a person to endure that experience

against their will is simply immoral and it's belittling the experience that pregnancy is. Well, so when you say against their will, what you're referring to cases of rape, basically. Right? Because when you engage in sex, you are engaging in an act of the will, the consequence of which is historically speaking, always pregnancy. Correct. But when you consent to sex, you're not consenting to pregnancy. You are consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. But you can think of it like this. You can think of it like this. You understand the difference between consensual sex and sexual assault. You should then understand the difference between wanted pregnancy and unwanted pregnancy. Technically,

physically, they are the same thing. But when your body is being used against your will and without your consent, those are very different experiences for the person. But Bronte, you've just acknowledged that when you consent to sex, you are consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. So there you have it. There you are. You have consented to that. Now, you might not want to become pregnant. You might want to use all sorts of contraceptives and things like that. But surely, I mean, you've just said it yourself, you're consenting to that possibility. And so now you're telling me that if one wants to then withdraw one's consent because one doesn't want to be uncomfortable for some matter of months, You're saying that the better alternative is to just kill the baby, whom you have acknowledged is alive?

First of all, calling pregnancy simply discomfort is belittling the experience. But you can also think it like this. It's beautiful and miraculous, too, but it's also uncomfortable. Says the white man who will never experience it. But you can think of it? No. I thought that can men become pregnant or no? If you have a uterus.

A man with a uterus. Do you have a uterus, Michael? Because if you don't have a uterus, then you're not the men that were talking about. Well, look, I'm not a biologist, so I'm not sure if I'll become pregnant. I do have a little emoji that tells me that these days men can become pregnant. Regardless, regardless of that, if you're talking about non-consensual sex, what percentage of pregnancies arise from rape, incest, or involve a threat to the life of the mother? Well, it's hard to say because about three quarters of sexual assault go unreported, so any statistic that I would give to you is going

to be inherently inaccurate. I'll give you a statistic. A statistic from the most left-wing source I can give the Gutmacher Institute. It's the think tank for Planned Parenthood. Less than 1% of abortions take place because of rape, incestor pose a threat to the life of the mother. So we're talking about an extraordinarily small... According to the ones that have been reported, according to the ones that have been reported, you have to understand they go. Don't you think if there were a scarier statistic that the most pro-abortion organization in the country might use those statistics? Choice hotels get you more of what you value. Here's a little tune to help you remember. Same drive, different day. Don't you wish you were getting away?

Pack your bags and come on through Texas, Ohio, Alaska, we're up there too. Comfort in, it's calling your name. Save on the stay. Oh, and free waffles are yours to claim. Well, I hope you like my little song, book direct at sourcehiltails.com. But these statistics are very difficult to collect because, again, sexual assault is a difficult issue when people don't often report them because you see how our political system doesn't often support victims of sexual assault. And so our system doesn't support people reporting sexual

assault. Therefore, it is underreported. So this seems difficult for me, Bronte, well, one, it seems that in the years after the Me Too movement, there is quite a great political impulse to report sexual assault and all sorts of sexual issues. But furthermore, you're telling me that we need to rely on these statistics, trust the science, trust the public health organizations, when it's convenient for your argument and convenient for abortion. But we shouldn't trust this statistics when it's inconvenient for your argument argument and supports the pro-life argument? That is incorrect. You simply don't understand how these statistics work and how they are collected. When you understand when you analyze statistics, you have to understand the bias and the flaws that

they have. And what you are specifically citing statistics that have inherent flaws. That doesn't mean that all of the statistics that we cite are inherently flawed. You have to understand the issue at hand and how those statistics are collected. Okay, fair enough. So you're saying you don't believe these statistics that are inconvenient, but you say you have perfectly good reason not to believe the statistics. I suppose the question, though, is really beyond the statistics, isn't it? If you are acknowledging, Rante, that the baby is alive, if you are acknowledging that the baby could be given up for adoption, if you are acknowledging that instances of rape are, I think we can acknowledge they're quite rare, at least

when we're talking about. Even if you dispute some of the statistics, there are the exception, not the rule. If you are acknowledging all sorts of, if you are acknowledging the relatively low maternal mortality rate, if you are acknowledging the advancements in science, if you are acknowledging that very, very few women die every year from illegal abortions and all sorts of the other scarce statistics that come at, if you're acknowledging all of those numbers, even beyond that, don't we still have the fact of the baby. Don't we still have the non-utilitarian, non-statistical simple fact that you're talking about a living human being? No. So first off, you said that we have a low mortality rate, which actually

we have one of the highest maternal mortality rates amongst all of the developed countries. But it's still quite a lot. What is the maternal mortality, right? According to the CBCC... I don't know it off the top of my head. 20 out of 100,000. And that includes communities that do not have very good public health outcomes because of various behaviors and pathologies in the community. So it's relatively quite low. How many women died from illegal abortion the year before Roe versus Wade? I'm not sure, but that's besides the point. 39 women. How many women died from legal abortion the year before Roe versus Wade? I think what you're misunderstanding is that death is not the only negative outcome of pregnancy.

Just because you don't die does not mean that your life and your body is not impacted for the rest of your life. Because a lot of people are left with chronic pain and your body is functionally and structurally altered. And so, death, Death is not the most accurate statistic to determine whether or not pregnancy is a negative experience. There we go. So we move past the question of death and we say, well, really, forget about death for a second. It's just that it's very uncomfortable. And not only uncomfortable for nine months, it might be uncomfortable for the rest of your life, or it might change your body chemistry. It might change the way you look or it might change. Is any of that, Brantt, I'll leave you with this because I know we're way over the time. Is any of that an argument? Now that we've kind of chipped away, I think at least, it's.

it's up for the viewers to decide, chipped away at the constitutional argument or the legal argument or the statistical argument or the argument for mortality. Now we get down to, well, it's just, I just don't like what it does to my body. Is that an argument, Bronte, for killing a human being who you admit is alive? Absolutely. Everyone has the right to determine the status of their body. They have the right to decide when and how their body is used. And if you would like to go back to, I know that you've had a lot to say about vaccines and masks. So I don't think it's very confusing for you to understand when you are concerned about certain effects that certain things might have on your body. Someone has every right to decide whether or not they consent to that.

Well, my only issue with the masks and all the COVID stuff is that it's very silly and disordered. But I'm not even making some sort of maximal bodily autonomy argument. Regardless, though, I think they're a little different because we're acknowledging the baby. So I guess I would leave you with this thought from Naomi Wolf, well-known feminist, made this point in the 1990s. She said that what the pro-abortion movement needs to be able to do is defend abortion. And she was, and I think still may be a defender of abortion. She said, we need to defend abortion by acknowledging the baby, the unborn baby. We need to say that the unborn baby is a baby, stop pretending he's not a human, stop pretending he's not alive,

acknowledge that he's a baby and say that for women to be equal, they must be able to. to kill the baby in all of his humanity. Would you agree with that statement? What I agree with is that in order to protect and value an unborn, non-viable, non-sent life, you have to actively devalue and dehumanize the pregnant person. You cannot pretend to protect unborn life without actively dehumanizing and devaluing the pregnant person and removing their bodily autonomy. And that is the issue at hand. to me when we treat women as mothers, we are valuing them. I think it's devaluing women to use them for sex and try to avoid the consequences of sex by killing the baby and then pretending it's somehow

legitimate because the baby is not sentient. So as though we could kill someone in a coma or as though someone who were asleep, the baby were not particularly conscious, as though we could kill people who had mental disabilities. I don't think any of those arguments really work. And I think, I think the issue that's at heart here is that you are suggesting that women being, you're used as vessels for sexual pleasure without dealing with the consequences of sex, namely the creation of human beings, that that is somehow more liberating and more empowering than women coming together in love and giving that love with a man to a human being. I think that's what really comes down. I find it interesting that whenever you talk about women having sex,

you say that we are used, and that proves the fact that men... No, not whenever, not whenever, only in your version of it. Not, not in, I don't think women should be used for sexual pleasure. It seems like men still believe that sex is something that they do to women and not. No, no, no, you must have misheard me, Bronte. I said that men and women, no, and I don't think I did, but that's up for the listeners to decide. I said that the more valuing, liberating, flourishing view of sex is that men and women come together because they are complimentary. They love one another. They join together in marriage and they create new human life. And that's a beautiful, miraculous, wonderful thing. And I think that the view of the pro-abortion movement is that women, ought to be used as merely vessels for sexual pleasure with an out of accountability such that

if there is a product of love or maybe not so much love, namely a child that comes out of that sexual union, that that baby ought to be killed. I think that's a devaluing of women rather than a valuing or a liberation. Minimizing women's value to the role of motherhood is simply misogynistic. Minimizing. I think that's maximizing, frankly. I think that's maximizing, frankly. I think According to your worldview, which is obviously flawed. Well, I don't know. We were both born of mothers, and I'm quite happy for that value that was added to my life. And I'm very happy that my mother consented to the pregnancy that brought me forth,

but I would never want my mother to bring me into the world against her will. All right. I mean, yeah, I don't think that, I don't think our discussion of will or value or any of those things. I think it has boiled down to this particular point of what the body is for, right? I mean, isn't that kind of what we're talking about here? Is our body for, is sex for the maximal individual pursuit of pleasure? Or is it for something else? Is it for a baby?

Is it for unitive love? Is it for something beyond just our own desires? Your body is whatever you want it to be used for. That is the basis of consent and bodily autonomy. You cannot decide what the use and value of someone's body is for them. And that is the root of the pro-choice stance. What about the body of the baby in the abortion? Can you decide that?

When the baby lacks autonomy and it requires the body of an autonomous person in order to live, that autonomous person must exercise their bodily autonomy. And at any point, they must consent to supporting that possible life. Must exercise. All right. I'm way over, as usual, Bronte. But listen, I really appreciate your coming on. It takes a lot of Hutzpah. I know there's a lot of sexual confusion these days, but it takes Cajonese to come on a conservative show and discuss the

issue. I hope that as you think about this issue and stew on it some more, that your eyes are opened to the reality of the situation. But I appreciate your coming on. In any case, Bronte Remzik, where can people find you? Absolutely. They can find me on TikTok at Bronte Remzic. I also have my website is be kind and curious.com. All right. Thank you, Bronte. it. Now that we have solved the issues of the world and resolved the most pressing political problem in the entire country, when we're talking about proper uses of autonomy, we ought to do things ourselves on our own automobiles, which is why you've got to check out rocka auto.com. Right now, head on over to rock auto.com. Enter Knowles in their had a gerberus box so they

know that we sent you. The value of the minivan, pickup, sedan, or whatever you drive, probably appreciated significantly this year. So take care of your automobess. motive investment, keep more of your money by buying the auto parts you need to maintain and repair your vehicle at rock auto.com. Okay, rock auto.com, it's going to save you the time of driving to the brick and mortar auto parts store, then standing in line, then waiting to see if they have the part, then they don't have the part, then you drive back, then you got to go back a week later, then they have, why would you do any of that? You can save 20%, 30%, 50% for the very same parts online, same prices for pros and do it yourselfers. No gimmicks, no nothing like that. You just go to rock

Auto.com right now for your auto parts. These guys have been supporters of the show from the very beginning. We love them. Most importantly, make sure you write Knowles, KNOWLES, and their had it you hear about his box so they know that we sent you. That is rock auto.com. You can thank me later. I'm really glad Bronte came on the show that she didn't quite go all the way to the Naomi Wolf's statement, but I think she expressed that view, which is, yeah. I, I, I, I, I, was afraid that Bronte was going to say, no, it's not a baby. No, he's not alive. No, it doesn't really matter. But Bronte said, no, the baby is alive. It's just that for women to be equal, we need to, we need to be able to kill the baby. It's a ghastly argument, but I am glad that she took it

beyond, beyond the issue of even consent, right? She took it beyond, she just said, no, this is an act of the will that I am going to force onto my baby and I'm willing to stand by it. It's ghastly, but it's a little more honest than a lot of the pro-abortion arguments that one typically hears. It seems to me the weakest part of her argument was on the Constitution because she said, well, there's some general right to privacy. We have no idea where it is, but don't worry, it's somewhere. We'll find it somewhere. And so that's why you have the right to an abortion. That doesn't really hold water. Roe versus Wade held that you could kill a baby based on a trimester system. This was partially overruled in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, and it replaced the trimester system with a viability system. So once the baby is viable, then you can have restrictions on abortion. But even viability is very difficult because modern medical technology has moved that scale so far back that viability is always going to be a moving target. Now, the Dobbs case is deciding whether or not there's a right to an abortion. at all. I don't think there is, but there are two arguments that the conservatives can make and the

pro-lifers can make here. One is that, it's the sort of Scalia argument that abortion is simply not mentioned in the Constitution. This is an issue for the legislatures, and this is an issue for the states. There is a stronger argument, I think, which was recently pushed by the legal scholars John Finnis and Robbie George, who argued in a brief on the Dobbs case that actually the Supreme Court does have a right to determine abortion policy because the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits abortion. And the reason for that is that people have equal protection under the laws. And they make a really strong argument that even the phrase born persons refer to babies who have not yet been born. And the argument for this goes back to Blackstone's commentaries, probably the

most famous treatise on the English common law published before the American. American Revolution, which says explicitly that babies in the mother's womb are, for all intents and purposes of the law, already born. And we know that this was in the minds of the people who were writing the 14th Amendment because the 14th Amendment is based on the Civil Rights Act of 1866. And you see, in the debates regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1866, you see direct references to this sort of thing in Blackstone and elsewhere. So we don't need a crystal ball. You don't need to take out your Noel Stradamus hat to think, well, what did the framers really mean? What do these words really mean? We actually know there's a lot of writing and a lot of debate on the

issue. That would be a stronger argument. Regardless, though, the argument that seems to have won the day if the Alito case is, or if the Alito opinion in the court is legitimate, which it would appear to be, is that the issue is going to go back to the states and the issue is going to go back to the legislatures. And so it's not the end of the pro-life movement. Really, it's only the very beginning. This is going to get much more heated, much more hot. We can go back to Anna Casperian on the young Turks who made another, not legal, not scientific, not medical argument, but another emotional plea as to why we should have legal abortion. We don't even have paid family leave. We don't even have affordable child care in this freaking country. Okay. And the people

who fight against those kinds of laws are Republicans. And yet, What do you want the question? Answer the question. Just ask them. Ask them. Isn't it amazing? Ask them.

The goddamn question. God. Okay, I'll answer. Anna, I'll answer the question. It's okay. What do you want mothers to do with their kids? Raise them. That would be one idea.

What do you want mothers to do with their kids? Yeah, they could raise their kids would be one option. But what about when they go to work? Well, ideally, they could stay home and their husbands could go to work. And I know that that's difficult these days because the way the economy has been restructured, well, ideally, hopefully we can rework the American economy such that you can support a family on one income. That would be my ideal solution. And Blake Masters running in Arizona is calling for that sort of thing. J.D. Vance, the Senate candidate who just won the Ohio GOP primary, he's calling for that sort of thing. We had that for a long time in this country. That would be a solution to that

question. Well, what are we, what about single mothers? Well, we could discourage divorce and we could encourage marriage. What are we going to do? What if you just, what if you just can't raise the kid, you don't feel you're capable? Well, you could give the kid up for adoption. You could do literally anything else other than kill the kid, right? How about we try that? There's simple answers to this. You don't need to get all heated and angry and emotional. Very often when people get heated and angry and emotional, it shows that they don't have a very solid grasp on the situation. But the libs are so furious about this that they're going to upend all sorts of norms and traditions. You know, right now our economy is very upended, which is why

you've got to check out. Alto IRA. Right now, go to alto IRA.com slash Michael. Do you have an account with Coinbase? Are you thinking of opening one with an Alto crypto IRA, you can trade crypto like Bitcoin and avoid or defer taxes. Very important. Get into investing in crypto and do it in a tax advantage retirement account. Trade all you want without the tax headache. Create an account in just a few minutes and invest with as little as 10 bucks. No setup charges. There are 150 plus coins available, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Cardano. You want some sushi swap with your Bitcoin? No problem. Alto has you covered. They have industry leading security, the advanced encryption standard for wallets and private keys. Plus, there are multiple

ways to fund your account. Make a cash contribution, transfer cash from an existing IRA or roll over an old 401k. Open that Alto Crypto IRA account today with as little as $10 bucks. Go to alto IRA.com slash Michael. A.L.T.OI.R.com slash Michael. Start investing in cryptocurrency today. That is altoir.com slash Michael. Jen Saki, speaking on behalf of the president, she was asked, Will Joe Biden accept a Supreme Court opinion that overrules Roe versus Wade and overrules Planned Parenthood v. Casey? And Jen Saki didn't quite answer. If the Supreme Court does move to strike down Roe, should Americans be prepared to accept that decision as legitimate? And would President Biden accept that decision as legitimate?

Well, I can't speak for what actions could be possible on the legal front. I would point you to the Department of Justice on that. What I can tell you will happen is, and this is what we are preparing for the possibility of, that if Roe were to fall, abortion would probably be illegal in about half the states in the country, up to 26 states, particularly in the south, the Midwest, and West. It sounds like you're saying then that's a yes. He would consider this a legitimate decision. Well, there is not even a decision yet.

We don't know the validity of the – we know that this is a leaked document. It is not the final opinion, so I just can't speak to that hypothetically at this point in time. Of course you can speak to that. What are you talking about? It's a leaked opinion. It's an opinion that everyone has been expecting for a long time, which is that the Supreme Court has overruled Roe versus Wade. Will the president accept that? Well, I just, I don't know. I can't even imagine it. What are you talking about? You Democrats have been fundraising on this for 50 years on the threat of overruling Roe versus Wade. You certainly can imagine that. It's a very simple answer. Yes, the president respects the Supreme Court. Yes, the president respects the separation of powers and our

constitutional structure and our democracy. Oh, wait a second. No, you don't respect any of that stuff when it's not convenient for you. I never want to hear it again. I never want to hear about January 6th and our sacred democracy when you walk into the capital, the sacred temple of democracy. You don't believe any of that crap. You don't believe that for one second because the moment that the Supreme Court rightly upholds and interprets the Constitution, you suggest, you suggest that, Yes, we're not going to do that. It reminds me of the Democrats who made such a big fuss about getting Donald Trump to say that he would accept the results of the 2016 presidential election. And then he won, and the Democrats didn't accept the results of the 2016 election. That's what we're talking about.

So transparent. By the way, we're getting more wins from the Supreme Court. This is a big win just came out totally separate from the abortion issue. This was on the First Amendment. There was a case in Boston over at the Boston City Hall. There are most. multiple flag poles that are standing there, and one of the flagpoles is open to fly various flags that the community wants to put up. And so they put all sorts of flags up there. And a Christian group wanted to fly a flag, and Boston City Hall said, absolutely not. You can't do that. The Supreme Court just ruled that that was a violation of the Christian group's First Amendment rights. The city had already approved more than 280 flag raisings over a dozen years. They only

rejected one, and that was Camp Constitution's Christian flag. So this was a unanimous Supreme Court decision, even the Libs went on with this and said, no, you can't just single out the Christians and say that you don't get speech, but every other group in the country does get speech. This was a really good opinion. And actually, Justice Stephen Breyer, who is a liberal justice on the court, he even got a snarky little comment in there about how ugly Boston City Hall is. So he said that the flagpole at issue stands at the entrance of Boston City Hall built in the late 1960s. Boston City Hall is a raw concrete structure, an example of the brutalist style. Critics of the day heralded it as a public building that articulates its functions with strength, dignity, grace, and even glamour.

The design has since proved somewhat more controversial. See Boston City Hall named World's Ugliest Building, which is true. It is one of the ugliest buildings in the world. So this was generally speaking a wonderful decision for conservatives, for Christians, and yet I knew. I know even as I read this, I knew putting my little Nolstrudamus hat on, taking on my crystal ball, I knew this is going to be used by the Satanists. And not two days later, the Satanists come out and they say that they want to raise their flag at City Hall. And the leader, the co-founder of the satanic temple says religious liberty is a bedrock principle and a democracy and religious liberty is dependent upon government viewpoint neutrality. Therefore, we want to raise the satanic

flag over City Hall. This is going to split people, even on the right. The hardcore libertarian types are probably going to say, yeah, let the Satanists raise their flag. Viewpoint neutrality, man, and the conservative people are going to say, no, no, we're not going to tolerate Satanist flags flying above City Hall. So who's right? Well, according to the principle that the Satanist articulated, any flag should fly, right? He said that we need view. viewpoint neutrality. The government cannot have any views on any matter whatsoever. It's the same thing that Anna Casperian was articulating at the top of the show. I don't, I hate Christianity and I'm not a Christian, but you can have your Christianity. Just don't impose it on me. She says as she's imposing

her views on us. That's the, that's the Satanist position, viewpoint neutrality. Conservatives know there's no such thing as neutrality. First of all, here's a little history check. Here's a good rule of thumb. What would Washington do? What would the founding fathers do? What would the men who built our country do? Do you think they would they would exalt the raising of a satanic flag as the high point of the blessing of liberty? No, I don't think so. I think they would run the Satanists out of town on a rail and they would probably deport them from the country. So no. So what happened? How did we end up in this spot? Well, the view that this guy articulated, viewpoint neutrality, comes in recent years from a 1995 Supreme Court case, Rosenberg v. Rectors and Visitors of the University

of Virginia. This case is really the beginning of our national obsession with viewpoint neutrality. And conservatives and Christians have really embraced this idea of viewpoint neutrality because at the moment it's protecting religious people or it seems to be protecting religious people from the predations of an atheist culture. But it's a silly idea. There is, of course, there's no neutrality. Of course there is no, of course a political community has the right and the obligation to say that some things are good and some things are bad. Every political community in the history of the world has held something sacred and held other things taboo. There's no avoiding that. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend otherwise, but that's not the case. We have sacred

images today. Unfortunately, the sacred images in our country are the pride flag. The sacred images are the face of George Floyd, the sacred images. But we have them, and we have a whole liturgical calendar. We have a culture and we have ultimately religious views that must be held because all politics ultimately comes down to religion, whether Anna Kasparian or the head of the satanic temple want to admit it or not. Okay. We're talking about important things here, folks, life and death. You are going to die, which is why you need a will, which is why you need to go check out Epicwill. Right now, go to Epicwill.com. promo code Knowles. Do you know what I did yesterday? I made my will. That's actually what I did just

yesterday. If something should happen to you or your spouse, who do you trust to raise your kids the way that you want them to be raised? Who do you trust to take care of your business, to take care of the things you're leaving behind? Okay. If you do not have a will in place, you have no say in the future of your children. That's a crazy thought. If you're single and don't think you need a will, you could not be more wrong. A will allows you to establish advanced directive medical power of attorney. You really want to leave the burden of deciding life support or not to your family members or close friends? No, a will will allow you to clearly communicate to your loved ones what your wishes are regarding your health. If you haven't made one yet, you're not alone. We're going to make it easy for you at epicwill.com. When you use promo code, Knowles. We are so excited that they are partnering with us at the Daily Wire. They're protecting our staff and our families. Let them protect yours. Epicwill. Will.com, promo code Knowles. That's how easy it is. Secure your future in as little as five minutes.

Complete package starts at just $119.19. Promocode knows, you'll save 10%. Epicwill.com, the most important five minutes you will spend today. When you look at our culture all around us, you'll notice that it is reflecting everything except for what we believe. So it's time to build our own culture. That's what we're doing here at the Daily Wire. We're taking on Hollywood. We're taking on razor companies that cave to the woke. We're taking on the publishing industry. We're taking on Disney. Stop giving. your money to organizations that don't respect you or your values, help us build alternatives where the left is tearing down foundations. Start today. Head over to dailywired.com slash

subscribe. Use code Knowles for 20% off your new membership. Join us in our fight to preserve real American values today. We'll be right back with a lot more. Speaking of demonic activity, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Bacera, is now publicly defending irreversible sex mutilation for children. you explain what irreversible top and bottom sex change surgeries are and why that is on the portal as well? Senator, as you've just indicated, there are many different types of procedures that can be deployed.

What I will say to you is, again, in any case, no individual, no patient will proceed forward unless his or her doctor has advised of the procedure. And it is considered by the FDA and others who have to go ahead and certify a medicine or a procedure to be safe and effective. So I'll try to distill it into a more simple farm. In what case would it be appropriate to perform irreversible sex change surgery on kids? those decisions are made by that individual in consultation with physician and caregivers, and no decision would be made without having consulted appropriately. The decision will be made by the kids.

I thought the whole point of kids is that they can't make decisions. They can't give consent. That's why we have consent laws. That's why we say that a 16-year-old can't consent to have a one-night stand because that kind of a sexual decision is, is too great, and we as a society have decided that we should not allow 16-year-olds to make that kind of decision. And yet we're going to make, if we're not going to allow a 16-year-old to make a fleeting sexual decision, why would we allow a six-year-old to make a permanent, irreversible

sexual decision? It doesn't make a lot of sense. But it's actually the same issue that Bronte was talking about at the top of the show. I was so happy that Bronte didn't just focus on consent or straw-man arguments because she got down to the heart of it, which is autonomy. So it's what I want to do. It's my will. We've focused our entire politics on will. I want. You're even seeing this in some of the reaction to the Supreme Court right now. Why are we listening to the Supreme Court? We have the power. We have the, let's just just knock down the Supreme Court. Let's burn this thing to the ground. That's what people are saying because they're pursuing a politics of pure will, divorced from logic and divorced from reality. And that's not good. So when we do that, I want to be as charitable as I can to do. Xavier Bouser. Maybe he's a groomer, maybe he's a crepe, maybe he's a weirdo, but probably he's not. He's probably just diluted. And he's probably just in the thrall of this ideology that says that all that matters is our own exercise of the will. And little kids and little babies

create a problem for this because they do not have fully developed wills. They do not, they cannot really exercise their autonomy whatsoever. And we have a responsibility to restrain our autonomy and our desires so that we can take care of those children. That's, that's, that's the difference between a politics that's entirely about rights and entitlement and a politics that recognizes that, no, we're not born free-floating atoms, that actually were born with responsibilities and duty and were born into a family and into a legal community and into a political community. We have responsibilities, especially to kids, which brings up the most important national saga, of course, Kim Kardashian and Kanye West and Ray J. and the sex tape. This story has been

floating around, really for 15 years now, but it's come back up in the news, because Kim Kardashian is plugging a new show. And what Kim Kardashian said was that her son was looking on the computer and saw an ad pop up for new scenes from Kim Kardashian's sex tape. And she came out and made a big news story out of this and said, I'm being victimized again. And I was already victimized when the tape was leaked so many years ago. And I'm the victim of revenge porn or something like that. And now there's new stuff. And there was this whole long saga. And Kim Kardashian's co-star in the sex tape just came out and said, that is not what really went down. I did not. I'm not the bad guy here. I did not secretly leak this tape. Actually, Kim, you and I agreed to release this tape and your mother brokered the deal.

And we've all been business partners on this tape for 15 years and we're still making money on it. That was his argument. Again, I don't know exactly who's telling the truth here. But there have been rumors for a long time that Kim Kardashian was in on them. because she saw that Paris Hilton's sex tape made her a big star, and so there was a planned release of this sex tape before Kim Kardashian's TV show. You're great at protecting your data, but lots of places could still expose you to identity theft. I thought it was safe. If that happens, LifeLock gives you a U.S.-based restoration agent who will stick by your side from start to finish.

Phone calls, filing documentation, preparing insurance claims, your agent handles it all. In fact, we're so confident restoration is guaranteed. or your money back. Isn't it nice to have someone like that on your side? Save up to 40% your first year at lifelock.com slash Spotify. Terms apply. Regardless of what really happened here, this is awful for the kids. This is awful. It's awful to put kids in this situation. It's awful to put your whole personal life on television all the time for years and years for everyone to see. It's awful if the story is true that Mrs. Kardashian, what's her, Chris Jenner, pimped out her daughter to make some money. That that would be very sad if that is true. And it would be much better if we just didn't allow this stuff.

Okay, what then? What the overruling, the potential overruling of Roe versus Wade is showing us, is that we actually have a lot of rights in the political community. When a bunch of robed lawyers on the Supreme Court don't take our rights away, when a bunch of robed technocrats in the CDC and the NIH like Dr. Fauci don't take all of our rights away, we the people have a lot of rights. There are boundaries set by the Constitution, but they're relatively limited, and then we the people can kind of decide how we want to live. What if we passed a law that said, hey, no porn. Porn is illegal. We've had laws like that in this country before. If we passed a law that said, hey, no more porn, Kim Kardashian wouldn't have to worry about her kid finding her sex tape ads on the internet.

Almost certainly wouldn't have to. It would be much, much harder to distribute that sort of thing. Furthermore, we wouldn't have the Kardashians. Can you imagine how great that would be? That's what I'm going to run on when I try to pass this bill. Okay, no more weird internet sex tape porn stuff. I'm going to get out there and I'm going to say my strongest argument is, had we had this law in place in 2007, we wouldn't be subjected to the plague of the Kardashians in all of their TV shows and all of their tawdry culture. What if we just did that? We can do that. We have the right. And Anna Kasparian can cry about it. And lots of Libs can cry about how we have the right to set our own community standards here. But we do. Okay. And we have to do it. Someone's going to set it. Either it's going to be the radicals or it's going to be us. What if we say no more, no more chopping off the genitals of the little kids,

no more cross-sex hormones for seven-year-olds? We can do that. What if we said no more transgender surgery for anyone? Because it's wrong and it harms everybody and it helps nobody. We can do that. We have political power if we are willing to exercise it. Okay, we got to talk about really tangible things here. When you talk about the digital world, whether you're talking about digital sex tapes or anything else. There was a video that went viral about a week ago that I loved so much. Everyone was making fun of the girls in this video. I thought they made a great point. The question was, if I offered you right now one Bitcoin or $100 bill, which would you take? $100 cash or a Bitcoin.

Okay. What would you rather take? A hundred dollars cash or a Bitcoin? I got to say $100 cash. A hundred dollars cash every single time. Why? Why? Why? Bitcoin is a little fake to me. Not going to lie. I, first of all, don't know what Bitcoin is. Second of all, it seems like a scam. But it's at $40,000. No, straight. I don't give a shit. Hey, $40,000. What is that? Dollars. What are we getting? We're getting straight dollars. Like, $100 cash in my hand feels way more tangible and way more real than, like, Bitcoin.

Like, I don't, I don't even know what Bitcoin is. Now, I know these girls are totally wrong and misguided, except they're obviously right. Yes, it's true. Today, a Bitcoin is worth whatever, 40 grand or something, and the $100 is $100. But the point they're making, which is that Bitcoin seems kind of scammy and fake and weird and not very tangible. That's obviously true. I say this as someone, I've lost money on cryptocurrencies, because I thought, oh, this will be a fun kind of currency. It goes up and down and up and down. It's really just a speculative asset at this point. Unfortunately, because of Joe Biden's inflation, the $100 bill isn't worth very much anymore either, does seem more tangible and and beyond this sort of silly viral video where the girls were supposed

to pick the Bitcoin, but they said, no, I actually want something tangible. This gives us an important lesson about politics. Offer voters something tangible. The American people are rebelling against the virtual reality that the libs are trying to stuff on us. The telecommuting and the stay in your pod and don't own anything and you'll be happy and the transgenderism and the transhumanism. People are rebelling against that. You're seeing it Virginia. You're seeing it in Florida. You're seeing it all around the country. The arguments that are going to win the day on abortion are just looking at the baby. Hey, look, it's a baby. You shouldn't kill babies. That's a bad idea. Don't get in your own head. Don't clench defeat from the jaws of victory. Don't get lost pie in the

sky. Offer people tangible stuff. When we're looking ahead to the midterms, when we're looking ahead to 2024, hey, we need cheaper gas. Hey, we need cheaper food. Hey, we need to protect your kids from weirdos in schools. Leave the crazy, bizarre, virtual reality, metaverse theories to the libs. That is not popular. People want cold, hard cash and cold hard reality. I'm Michael Noles. It's the Michael Nulls show. See tomorrow. If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe. We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts. Also, Be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, the Andrew Claven show, and the Matt Walls show.

The Michael Nulls Show is produced by Ben Davies, executive producer Jeremy Boring, supervising producer Mathis Glover, production, editor and associate producer, Jesse D'Neely, audio mixer, Mike Coramina, and hair and makeup by Cherokee Hart. Michael Null's show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2022. On the Ben Shapiro show, not a single major Democrat will condemn the leak of a Supreme Court opinion overturning row. Joe Biden says the Trump base is the most extreme political organization in American history. And the Federal Reserve boosts interest rates, a full half point. That's today on the Ben Shapiro show. Give it a listen.