The Young Turks - Reproductive Fights

Episode Date: April 11, 2023

Episode summary: Access to abortion pill in limbo after competing rulings. "That is a stunning position!" CNN’s Dana Bash confronts AOC on telling Biden to "ignore" abortion pill ruling. Jon Stewart tangles with Biden official on bloated defense budget while soldiers are on food stamps. Five dead and at least six taken to the hospital in Louisville mass shooting, police say. The shooter is dead. HOSTS: Cenk Uygur (@CenkUygur) & Ana Kasparian (@AnaKasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Woo! It's up! All right, everybody, welcome to the young church, Jane Cougar, Anna Cusparin with you guys. Lots of news to get to.

Lots of news for me to catch up with since I've been away a week. So I come into every show saying I'm not going to rage and usually doesn't stick. Come on, come on. Usually doesn't stick. Let's see what happens. Well, there's a lot to rage about today. Indeed, indeed. Let's get started with reproductive fights that continue here in the US.

Get off the abortion, get off the abortion conversation. Women have a whole lot more other issues than just abortion. It's a little weird that Republican lawmakers end up succeeding in what they've been wanting for so long for literally decades, which is stripping women of their reproductive rights. But then they realize how unpopular that is and they don't want you to talk about it. That's exactly what happened during Republican Congressman Tony Gonzalez's interview on CNN over the weekend. Just get off it, get off it, get off it.

Lots of interesting moments during that interview. But I do want to talk a little bit about what recently happened in regard to two conflicting federal judge rulings on the abortion pill. Before I do so, Jank, go ahead. Yeah, look, a consultant told him that line. Some staffer told him get off the abortion conversation as soon as you can because they've seen the polling that is disastrous. He wasn't supposed to say that out loud during the interview, but he just went with whatever the last person told him. And you have to realize, well, the thing that, of course, you're never going to see in mainstream media is most of the politicians are unintelligent because that's how the donors want them. They don't want them to be independent thinking and brilliant and interesting and creative.

They say, here's the check. Now do as your goddamn told. So the dumber the politician is, the happier the donor is. That's why you get knuckleheads like Tony Gonzalez going on TV going, I was told to get off the abortion conversation. Wait, did I say that out loud? Yes, you did, Tony. Yes, you did. Now he went on Dana Bash's show over the weekend to talk about the fact that there was

a federal judge, a Trump appointed judge in Texas, who decided to vote against or rule against the FDA's approval of one of the abortion drugs. And so that would effectively reverse the approval for it if he has his way, and that would outlaw one of the abortion drugs throughout the entire country. I want to give you the details on that in just a moment. Now, for those of you who might wonder who is this judge, well, we've heard about him before. He has had some pretty terrible rulings against our freedoms before. His name is Judge Matthew Keksmarik.

He ruled to suspend the FDA's approval of Mipipristone, which again is one of two drugs used during the abortion process if a woman wants to go the route of taking medication as opposed to having the procedure done in a clinic. Now, U.S. District Judge Matthew Keksmarik, a Trump appointee, as I mentioned earlier, ordered a hold on federal approval of Mitha-Pristone in a decision that overruled decades, literally decades of scientific approval. The abortion drug has been widely used in the United States since securing FDA approval, and there is essentially no precedent for a lone judge overruling the medical decisions of the Food and Drug Administration. Now, there was a conflicting ruling that I want to get to because I think that conflicting ruling

by another federal judge really throws this issue in the air and which direction the Biden administration is willing to go in is really, really interesting. But for those who wonder, how did this even come about? Well, there was a lawsuit in the Texas case that was filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is a hilarious name and obviously not at all what this group wants. They don't want freedom. They want to strip women of their reproductive rights. They were also involved in the Mississippi case that led to the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

At the core of that lawsuit is the allegation that the FDA's initial approval of Miffipristone was flawed because it allegedly did not adequately review its safety risks. So the judge completely agreed with that, saying the court does not say, second guess FDA's decision making lightly, but here FDA acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns in violation of its statutory duty based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions. Now, if you're wondering, is this drug unsafe, while Mithipristone has been used by millions of women over the past 23 years and complications from it occur at a lower rate than that scene with wisdom teeth removal, colonoscopies, and other routine

medical procedures, medical groups have recently noted, Jank. Yeah, it's actually also safer than Tylenol and Viagra. So are we going to reverse the FDA ruling on Tylenol? On Viagra? God forbid, of course not, of course not. Don't be ridiculous, that affects men, not women, who cares about women? So, but look, guys, the ruling is preposterous. So one judge anywhere in the country, and by the way, it will not stand.

There's no way it stands and I'll tell you why. But so one judge in the country, liberal or conservative, extreme left, extreme right, it doesn't matter, can say, all right, the entire executive branch is wrong. But they did years of studies to see if they got it right. They've got teams of science, et cetera. I don't care. I'm a religious cellop pretending to be smart. By the way, bunch of word salad there that didn't actually make any sense. Right, exactly.

Okay, he used the words wrong. So he's like, oh, I am a sophisticated job. No, you're not. You're just a religious zealot who wants to ban abortion and we'll do these absurd precedents. So hey, right wingers, you want any left wing judge in the country to be able to overturn any Republican executive branch actions? Okay, no, this is going to devolve really quickly. So it's absurd what he's done here. And the reason that it won't stand, because then leftist judge is.

right wing judges on vaccines, et cetera, can start banning all sorts of drugs, all on their own. Okay, I don't need scientists, I don't need anything. I don't like it. I don't like it, okay? I'm going to ban it. Well, guess what's going to happen then? The drug companies are going to descend on Washington and go, you better remove those judges because this is now interfering with corporate rule and corporate rules this country.

That's actually the only argument that gives me a little bit of relief. No way the drug companies allow this to stand. That's exactly right. That's exactly right. Because look, it's not about what's right or wrong. I don't think our politicians give a damn about that. No way, yeah. But they do give a damn about their donors.

And pharmaceutical companies, big pharma, happens to be one of the top donors for both Democrats and Republicans. There's no way in hell they're going to allow this to stand. No, nationwide, it's pharma's number one donor in Washington. Okay, so you think they're going to let the politicians let this stand? there's no way, they're telling all their dogs as we speak now, get that guy under control. That's why you're seeing Republicans like Nancy Mace going on TV going, maybe we shouldn't listen to this ruling. Oh, really? Huh, interesting. Yeah, no way. Big business is going to kill this.

And I don't agree with big business running our country. I hate it, but it'll be a slight silver lining in this case. And we'll get to Nancy Mace a little later. But I wanted to give you some more information about this, including Republicans, on one hand, pretending that the reproductive fights have everything to do with states' rights, and then turning around and pushing for exactly what would essentially ban certain forms of abortion nationally. So let's go back to Representative Tony Gonzalez because Dana Bash asked him about the whole state's rights argument. And he really had difficulty answering any of her questions. Let's watch. I believe in state rights here in Texas. You know, we have a heart bill, a heartbeat bill that was passed.

And I think it's important that states dictate their, futures and we have to have the courts uphold these. You said that you want this to be states rights, but isn't a federal judge saying that on a national level that a pill cannot be administered the opposite of states rights? Well, the state started this. The states had their ruling and now the federal government is coming in and dictating theirs. I think it's important that we have to get back and allow our institutions to lead. We can't undermine them when we don't agree with things that are there, whether it's on the state level. Look, I'm from Texas. We don't, we don't have marijuana here. You know, marijuana is in California

in other places. If those are the kind of things that your community wants, then work it through your state, work it through the federal level. But we have to uphold our institutions. It's dangerous when we erode them. Yeah, except he didn't answer the question at all and pretended, I mean, like moving over to the pot argument, yeah, some some states have legal. legalized it, whether it's for medicinal use or recreational use, this decision by a federal judge in Texas would outlaw the use of Miffipristone nationwide. So it's not a state's rights issue for the right wing. They've been working real hard to ban abortion throughout the country, period.

And this is a good example of that. It wasn't just a non-answer, it was the exact wrong answer. Yeah, I know, it's amazing. So when the federal judge in this case says, I'm gonna ban this drug not. not just in states that have passed laws against abortion, but also in places like California that have different laws that allow for abortion. He's saying, I don't give a goddamn about your state's rights. I'm banning it nationwide.

And blue states are not allowed to have states rights anymore. This knucklehead comes on here and goes, well, look, if California wants to do something, let them do it, right, marijuana, but we're not doing it here in Texas. You're making the opposite argument, idiot. I know, he's just not very bright. No, I'm telling you, man. It's pretty incredible. Now, I want to also note this incredibly important statistics, so you really comprehend how much of an impact this is going to have on women all across the country if this federal judge's ruling remains in place.

So the Kaiser Health Foundation found that 54% more than half of abortions in this country are in fact conducted through medication abortion, right? So 54% more than half of the women who rely on the medication in order to abort their pregnancies will no longer have that ability. That option will not be available. And the so-called, I don't even want to call them pro-life because they're clearly not pro-life. And a lot of what they push for actually causes harm both to women and children. But aside from that, let me just note, they want to do away with both drugs. So right now, they succeeded with Miffa Pristone with this one federal judge's decision. They're going after the second drug as well.

So they're going full steam ahead. They're not pausing at all. This is something that they've been fired up about. And I'm curious to see how it plays out because there is a conflicting ruling by another federal judge. And I want to go to this next video that gives you more details on that. Here's Sarah Varney, who's the senior correspondent for Kaiser Health News. The other decision came from Washington State, and this was actually a challenge brought by Democratic Attorneys General, essentially saying that Mitha Pristone was in fact over-regulated. And the judge there in Washington State, a federal judge, said that he didn't necessarily agree with the attorneys generals that it was over-restrictive, but he did say the FDA had to continue to provide Mitha-Pristone at the status quo in those states in which the attorneys general represented.

So since there are two conflict, very conflicting rulings, it's really up in the air what happens in the coming weeks. And more importantly, what the Democratic Party is planning to do to fight back. Okay, and there's some interesting proposals that we'll get to. But, Jank, thoughts on that. So first of all, the reason that Tony Gonzalez put in the state's rights argument is because they do MADLIB with these things. They're consultants to teach these idiot politicians. Hey, when abortion comes up, either try to change the conversation, but don't say it out loud, dumbass. Number two is claim state's rights.

But in this case, state's rights is in the opposite direction, but he can't tell because he's not that bright, right? So he just does the madlib argument of state's rights and gets busted on it. So, but it's like, but it's kind of true for all of their arguments. So when you say, like in this case, you don't remember what the right wing was saying. Freedom when he came to vaccines. Oh, my body, my choice. want that inside of me, you could have government can't make me do it, right? Now they're saying, oh, you want to take a pill? No, not your body, not your choice. The government should

decide what goes in your body and what doesn't, not you personally. The fact that they can't see that that's hypocritical is amazing to me. Yeah, but let's go even further, Shank, because the vaccine, I mean, I agree with that argument that you just made. But I mean, something that's even less invasive, and I don't think the vaccine was, but even less, meaning that you don't put anything in your body, was the mask, right? Wearing a mask was, oh my God, the biggest violation of personal autonomy, an agency over your own body. People were freaking out about it.

But a lot of those same politicians now turn around and say, no, we don't really care about women having any agency over their own bodies, any autonomy. We're going to go ahead and make decisions on their behalf, which of course has a major lasting impact on these women's lives. 100%. And so that's why you can't really take anything these guys say seriously. Because they don't really mean it. They don't have any principles or ideology.

Their ideology is, and look here, they even betrayed their core, core principle of states' rights. That's the thing they said, that's the one, they even want to war, civil war over states' rights. It was never about states' rights. Back then, it was about oppressing black people. That's about oppressing women. That's the defining ideology of a right winger is, I'm above you. Anything that says I'm above you, I love it. It's all about power.

It's not about principles or ideology. Yeah, if a Republican politician is speaking, it's probably a good idea to assume they're lying. And the state's rights issue is a perfect example of how they lie. Yeah. Now, I want to go to what happens next, right? Because the Department of Justice is planning to appeal this ruling, meaning the federal judge in Texas. not the Washington judge or the judge based in Washington. And so this could potentially end in a tragic way if it works its way through the courts.

Let's watch how. The Texas case now goes to the conservative fifth circuit, but in the short term, the drug is still available. It's unclear whether the Washington state ruling, which asks for the medication to be kept on the market, will also be appealed. If both are heard at the circuit level, it's unlikely this will be resolved in the courts any time. soon. I would not expect there to be much change in the actual law for at least several months, perhaps upwards of a year. With the Supreme Court, which currently has a conservative majority, watching to see how that plays out. What is most likely to happen is that there will be a split in the circuits. So the Fifth Circuit will rule one way. The Ninth Circuit will rule a different

way. And the Supreme Court will say, now there is a conflict between two circuits. And that means we should probably hear this case and decide the issue on the merits. I mean, we'd like to think that the Supreme, if it makes its way to the Supreme Court, we'd like to think that the Supreme Court would rule based on its merits. I don't believe that the Supreme Court, as it stands today, really there are several members that I don't believe rule on merits of cases. But the pro-corporate flavor that you have in the Supreme Court with these right-wing justices might end up saving us at the end of the day, but that's really the only thing I see happening.

Yeah, look, I'm going to do a fun prediction here. I predicted Alito and Thomas say, when it eventually makes it to the Supreme Court, that the drug should be banned, okay, because Clarence Thomas is going to hilariously claim that he knows better than all the scientists in the country, okay, and which by the way is a very right-wing thing to do, don't believe any of the scientists, any of the doctors, don't believe any goddamn thing other than randos like Clarence Thomas on his yacht or wherever he is. Okay, so they're going to rule that way. But I think Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will rule against the Texas judge and will say that the drug

should not be banned. And the reason for that is because Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are deeply pro-corporate. And so when the drug companies say, hey, these stupid-ass judges can interfere with our profits, you better get them in check. I think Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will get them in check because they they're corporate servants. So now it's a fun prediction, right? Those are all four of those are very, very right wing. Like every other reporter in the country, even the ones that cover the Supreme Court,

say, I can't tell, okay? Let's see if I'm right or wrong about it. It'll be interesting to watch. But I think the Supreme Court is not going to side with the right wing judge in Texas because they were pre-selected by the federalist society to yes, be religious zealots. and that's why you have the leaders and Thomas's. But much more importantly, to be in favor of big business. And this touches big business because it means any judge can overrule any drug in the country,

and they're not going to let it stand. Now, when we come back from the break, we have a different potential solution that's been proposed by the likes of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And yes, even a Republican, Nancy Mace, will tell you what their proposal is to fight back against this federal judge's ruling in Texas when we return. they all just became members and American heroes. You help us do this strong show together. We love it.

And Chris Birch, thank you again, brother, gifted another five Young Turks memberships on YouTube. You guys are awesome. Casper. Well, there is a fascinating solution or strategy floating around in regard to how to respond to a Texas judge reversing the FDA's approval of the abortion pill. Let's see what it is.

That's a pretty stunning position, if you think about it in the abstract, about the notion of just ignoring a judge's position. So my question is, when this case is resolved by the Supreme Court, should the administration follow that decision if that decision ends up banning this abortion drug? There's a fascinating coalition of legal experts and D.C. politicians who are arguing that the Biden administration, along with the Food and Drug Administration, should just completely ignore a federal judge's ruling that would reverse the approval of Mithapristone, which is, of course, one of the abortion drugs. Now, reversing the FDA's approval would mean that the

abortion drug would be outlawed all throughout the country, not just in Texas. And AOC argued, argues that that decision should be completely ignored. Now, is there precedent for this? On July 18th, get excited. This is big. For the summer's biggest adventure. I think I just smurf my pants. That's a little too excited. Sorry. Smurfs. Only did it's July 18th. The real argument here. I want to go to a few videos. Here's AOC saying that there is, in fact, some precedent for ignoring the federal judges decision here. There is an extraordinary amount of precedent for this. There is a term known as agency non acquiescence. And this was been used and for folks saying this is a first, that this is

a precedent setting. It is not. The Trump administration also did this very thing, but also it has happened before. The idea of consistency and governance until there is a higher court rule, ruling is not an unprecedented thing to happen. In fact, when the Trump administration did it, it was arguably through a much, you know, a very grave issue when it came to DACA. The Trump administration was ordered to fully reinstate DACA, the DACA program. And they, in a complete defiance, did not do that. So this is a fascinating proposal and she says there's precedent for it. I did a little digging and look, I don't know if it's as clear as she's stating it is,

but I do like that she wants the Biden administration to play hardball, but there are limitations, even if the Biden administration decides, we're just going to ignore this federal judge's decision. The downsides are once a Republican administration, comes into power, then they can unilaterally decide to uphold this federal judge's ruling that reverses the FDA's approval of the abortion pill, right? So there's that. But you know, it's interesting because there are other people who are arguing that the Biden administration should do this, including Senator Ron Wyden, who is a Democrat, of course. He says, I believe the Food and Drug Administration has the authority to ignore this ruling, which is why I'm again calling

on President Biden and the FDA to do just that. The FDA, doctors and pharmacies can and must go about their jobs like nothing has changed and keep MIFApristone accessible to women across America. If they don't, the consequences of banning the most common method of abortion in every single state will be devastating. And I definitely agree with him on how devastating it would be. And then you have Nancy Mace, which will get to in just a moment, a Republican who agrees with AOC and Wyden. Before we get to that, Jank, what are your thoughts? There are two different scenarios here, and they're very different.

One is where we are today with two different conflicting federal judge orders. Now, if the Biden administration says, listen, I don't know which one to follow. I want to follow the orders, but I don't know which one to follow. So that's why the Texas judge can't trump the Washington state judge. I'm going to have to let this go to appeals courts and then maybe even the Supreme Court. if the appeals courts disagree before I implement the judge's decision, okay? So I think that is very understandable, and there's a really good argument to be made there. When it gets to the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court says, no, that's it, you can't sell this drug anymore.

And it makes no sense, but a lot of things the Supreme Court says makes no sense. Supreme Court declared corporations human beings. Okay, that makes no sense. And they have the freedom of speech given to them by their creator as an inalienable right. Okay, that makes no sense at all, but yet we all have to live with it. And so overturning a Supreme Court, not listening to a Supreme Court decision is very dangerous. So the Supreme Court is horrific. I can't stand the Supreme Court. But if we have a Democratic administration not listen to a Supreme Court decision, man, that's going to open the flood.

Republicans aren't going to listen to any court decision that they don't agree with. They're going to do it instantly, and they're going to do it 200 times more than Democrats are. So I would be super worried about that precedent. So I hear you on that. Look, I'm less definitive than you are because while I hear you, right, like having every institution in America break down and just refusing to go along with our system of checks and balances could be dangerous. But what's so frustrating is our institutions have become increasingly illegitimate

thanks to the corruption, right? So we did a lengthy piece last week on Clarence Thomas and his corruption, how he's going on half a million dollar trips every year paid for by a billionaire real estate mogul, okay? And you think that doesn't have an impact on the decisions that he makes in the Supreme Court? So like I bring that up as just one example of the corruption that has completely taken hold. We've got activist judges, we've got corrupt politicians, don't have any faith or trust in our institutions, it's just really hard to want to uphold a decision by a corrupt Supreme Court. But I hear what you're saying. Yeah, no, we can't do it, guys. We can't do it because we're going to have anarchy. I'm serious. So look, you want to

talk about corruption. Congress is the most corrupt body that I've ever seen in my lifetime that anybody's ever seen. Almost all of them are bought by donors. They all get millions of dollars by donors. The only jackasses in the country who don't think that they're all completely bribed are mainstream media reporters who are like, oh, billions of dollars in bribes. I can't see it, right? So the president is almost always corrupt. They're bought by even bigger bribes. So if we say, well, I'm not listening to them because they're corrupt, we're going to have an anarchy. So we have to do things the right way. We have to do them politically, rhetorically, ideologically. We have to win on those fronts. And by the way,

That doesn't mean that you go quietly into that good night. No, hell no. By the way, one of the things I think we should do, especially the Supreme Court rules the way that, you know, with the right-wing judge is massive civil disobedience. Massive. That's on us as citizens to do civil disobedience. But if the government stops listening to one another,

either the different branches or federal and state, soon we will have people at the government level drawing guns on each other. And that's a disastrous idea. So Nancy Mays, who is a Republican lawmaker, conservative lawmaker, happens to agree with Wyden and AOCA. I wanna go to her video and discuss. This is an FDA approved drug. I support the usage of FDA approved drugs,

even if we might disagree. It's not up to us to decide as legislators or even as the court system that whether or not this is the right drugs use or not number one. So I agree with ignoring it at this point, but there are other lawsuits that are happening. right now in other states as well over this issue. But to look at the case itself, when you look at the law that the judge used, an old law that the Supreme Court said was

unconstitutional, this thing should just be thrown out, quite frankly. So you think the FDA should ignore this? I would. So that's interesting. And she, even though she's conservative, she has come out multiple times against some of the more extreme measures taken by Republican lawmakers to outlaw abortions. I have a feeling because of what she went through in her life, you know, she was a victim of sexual misconduct. She, it sucks that politicians need to experience things firsthand to understand how much of an impact their legislation has on people's lives. But I think that's what

happened with her, right? She understands what it means to potentially get pregnant as with a rapist baby. Yeah, I, you know, look, I'm sorry, but I'm going to be the jaded one here. I don't think that's it. I think she's just a politician. And so, but she's a relatively intelligent politician, which is very rare. And she realizes this is going to slaughter Republicans across the country. Yeah, you're probably right about that. I mean, look, guys, about 70% of the country believes in pro-choice, significantly pro-choice, okay? And you saw pro-choice ballot measures win in Kentucky, Montana, Kansas. And Kansas, it won by about 20 points.

And it was mainly Republicans voting, Republicans and independents voting in a primary situation. So they see the handwriting on the wall. They're trying to backpedal the hell out of the room. Nancy Mace happens to be one of the ones that are like barely conscious as opposed to other Republicans who are like, and they're waiting for memos and talking points and stuff. Here, in fact, I'll make another fun prediction. I think that the Republicans are going to turn around because of the drug companies, which I talked about earlier in the show, the drug companies own the Republican Party.

They're never going to allow this ruling to stand because it can affect all drugs eventually. So I think the Republicans will turn around and claim, no, states' rights. We've got to let California and New York make their own decisions. So that's why we're against this. Tony Gonzalez screwed it up by saying states' rights in the wrong direction in a different interview on CNN, right? But my guess is the consultants will figure it out and go, oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. We meant states where the blue states can still have abortion and can still have this pill. And they're going to get the hell out of the room because that's what their donors are going to demand from them, a big form of number one donor in the country.

Okay, now I'm going to argue with you because, you know, it's interesting because you say you're against this. Like, let's say the case works its way all through the courts, makes it to the Supreme Court. And let's say the Supreme Court rules in favor of upholding the federal judge's decision in reversing the FDA's approval for this drug. It's interesting because the courts wouldn't be respecting the system of checks and balances. Because back in 19, like what, 1938, yes, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, that was when Congress gave the FDA overarching authority to determine whether drugs are safe and effective, okay? And the judge, in this case, the Texas judge is like, no, I don't know, I don't like that they don't. decided to approve this drug. I don't think that they took the appropriate safety protocols,

even though I have no evidence of that whatsoever. So why is it that the courts in this case can go ahead and give Congress the middle finger when it comes to the power that they decided to give the FDA? So this is decided a long time ago in Marbury v. Manison. There's the seminal court case where the Supreme Court basically took a right that is not actually in the Constitution, by the way, where they say we get to decide what constitutional and not constitutional, and we can overrule bills that Congress and the executive

branch passed, okay? So if we undo that, then the courts are going to have almost no leverage at all. No, and so that's a very dangerous place. It basically gets you to where Netanyahu's trying to bring Israel, where the courts don't have enough say, okay? So now the courts often make preposterous decisions, right? So look, if you're a right winger, you say Roe v. Wade, where the What the hell was that in the Constitution? Okay? And I actually think you're right. I think it was activist judges who said, I want abortion to be legal.

So I'm just gonna pretend it's in the Constitution, it wasn't, okay? Same thing with Citizens United. The Supreme Court 100% made up that bribery is constitutional. Constitution doesn't say that at all. The Constitution doesn't say corporations have human rights. Our founding fathers despise corporations, despise them. It's an absurd argument to make. They're dead wrong, okay?

But it doesn't matter. If you say, hey, the courts, when I think the courts are wrong, I'm not going to listen to them, we're going to have chaos. Okay, so a few other things I wanted to bring up. So some experts in reproductive health law and drug policy say that while the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade allowed each state to decide whether to ban or permit abortion, it did not allow states to take actions to bar the medications used in abortion because those are regulated by the FDA. So let me give you a few excerpts from the New York Times on this. States are allowed to adopt some laws and regulations that supplement federal rules on drugs and to regulate the practice of medicine within their jurisdiction. But states cannot impose policies that interfere with or contradict FDA standards or requirements so they cannot ban or drastically restrict a medication the federal government has

approved, these experts say. Now, I've got more on this, but what do you think about that? Yeah, look, I want to get to solutions. And so a short-term solution we talked about a little bit earlier in the show, civil disobedience, right? And so, and it goes towards partly addressing what you said earlier, too, Anna, which is that Martin Luther King would point out from time to time. Hey, when we do civil disobedience in the South, we're not actually breaking the law. It's actually the local sheriff that's breaking the law. The federal law supersedes state's law and Martin Luther King and all the civil rights activists were always doing the legal thing, not the illegal thing, but they had to do with disobedience at the local level to have that work.

Okay, so you could definitely do that. And if the Supreme Court rules in the direction of banning this pill, we should definitely do that all across the country, okay? And in the long term, the political solution to this is stop electing Republicans. Now, I'm not a guy who I hate both parties. I think corruption is rampant in both parties. So I'm not doing it like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi in like some sort of like totally disingenuous way. I'm just saying if you believe women should have the right to choose, Republicans don't

believe that. They just don't. 98% of them say, no, I'm going to take away your rights. And I'm going to appoint judges and justices that take away women's rights. God, we're so doing. So then vote against Republicans. Seven out of 10 of us want women to have. this right. So it's not that complicated. The only problem is we get to the voting booth

and we have... One of the hardest parts of getting older is feeling like something's off in your body, but not knowing exactly what. It's not just aging. It's often your hormones, too. When they fall out of balance, everything feels off. But here's the good news. This doesn't have to be the story of your next chapter. Hormone Harmony by Happy Mammoth is an herbal formula made with science-backed ingredients designed to fine-tune your hormones by balancing estrogen, testosterone, progesterone, and even stress hormones like cortisol. It helps with common issues such as hot flashes, poor sleep, low energy, bloating, and more. With over 40,000 reviews and a bottle sold every 24 seconds, the results speak for themselves. A survey found 86% of women lost weight,

77% saw an improved mood, and 100% felt like themselves again. Start your next chapter feeling balanced and in control. For a limited time, get 15% off your entire first order at happy mammoth.com with code next chapter at checkout. Visit happy mammoth.com today and get your old self back naturally. People go, well, I know, but the M&Ms are the wrong gender or something. So I'm going to vote for Republicans. Well, okay, then they're going to take away your rights.

They tell you a thousand times over they're going to do it. And they did do it. They did do it. So wakey, wakey, wake up. These guys are, they just don't believe in the same things we do. That's why we have a democracy where you both their asses out. You know, Chuck Schumer, he's using this pretty tragic federal judge's ruling to argue the same thing. Like we need to, we need to get more Democrats elected.

We need to take charge of the House again so we can protect women's reproductive rights. Except like we know that they're not going to do that. No, you're right, Anna. So that's why you should do civil disobedience against democratic leadership too. because those sons of bitches never represent you. They're always lying. That's why when we tell you to go vote to get your rights back, people rightfully say, really?

The Democrats never deliver. Never. We said they were going to get us our voting rights. We gave him the House, the Senate, and we gave him the presidency. We did that in 2020. And then they didn't do it. They didn't do it. They didn't do the bare minimum.

So Democratic leadership is 100% full of crap. I don't trust Chuck Schumer. 1%. I think he's totally lying. And I think if you gave them a super majority, they probably still wouldn't do it. Then you know what you should do? You should do massive civil loose of medias against democratic leadership and say, God damn it, either represent us or we're going to vote you out.

It's called primaries, guys. And the mainstream media despises primaries because they don't want you to find out. You could vote out Democrats too. We have the vote. We barely have it. But by all means, go use it. And don't just use it in general elections. Primaries are even more important because these Chuck Schumer guys are frauds.

They never deliver on anything they say. So throw the bums out in the Democratic Party and throw the bums out in the Republican Party. And by the way, good news, young voters are now starting to control elections. What happened in Wisconsin with the Supreme Court was amazing. And even Scott Walker was like, oh, young voters are killing us. Yes, yes. Go take out all these corrupt incumbents. Go protect your rights.

And they don't let the mainstream media lie to you. The most important thing in the world is the primaries where you could vote out corrupt incumbents. They don't want you to use that power. Don't listen to them. When we come back, we'll get a little bit of relief from this terrible news cycle full of terrible people. Because John Stewart spoke some truth when it came to a great top level official over at the Pentagon. That and more coming up. Yeah, you're pointing a lot today.

I am. She's right. There's a lot of hand gesturing going on. For sure. So let's go to the next story. Let's do it. If I give you a billion dollars and you can't tell me what happened to it, that to me is wasteful. That means you are not responsible.

But if you can't tell me where it went, then what am I supposed to think? But I'm a human being who lives on the earth and can't figure out how $850 billion, to a department means that the rank and file still have to be on food stamps. Like, to me, that's corruption. Looks like Kathleen Hicks, who serves as the Deputy Secretary for Defense, got a little testy with John Stewart as he was spitting some truth about government waste over at the State Department. Now, he has reason to be concerned.

Of course, he calls out the low pay for service members, the fact that they do. to rely on social services like food stamps just to make ends meet. In the meantime, the Pentagon has failed not one, not two, not three, not four, but five audits in a row. I want to give you the numbers to that. And then we'll watch some more video of John Stewart, honestly killing it in that conversation. So after 1,600 auditors combed through the Department of Defense's 3.5 trillion in assets and 3.7 trillion in liabilities, officials found that the department couldn't account for

about 61% of its assets. Federal law since the early 1990s requires mandatory audits for all government agencies, and since fiscal year 2013, all but the DOD have been able to satisfy that requirement. So it really wasn't until 2017 when the audits into the Pentagon started, and They have failed every single one since. Yeah, look, man, I love John Stewart. So every once in a while, somebody on the left says that they don't like John Stewart. I don't know why, they never explain why, right? But every time I've seen him, he's been awesome.

He's like the only truth speaker in all the politics and all of media. Like in the public life in America, the one person I've seen say things that are true consistently is John Stewart. And so look, in the old days, people you say, oh yeah, the only thing. the court jester can say things that are true, et cetera, and he's a con, no, no, no, forget that. No, none of the, like, no, no, just painting him as a court jesterer is, doesn't do him justice at all. No, he's a brave guy who's willing to sit there with the number two person in the Defense Department under Joe Biden, by the way. Like John Stewart spoke, like everybody thinks he's a Democrat, right? And he probably is. But there he is challenging a Democrat, a very powerful

Democrat. What the hell's you do with the money? There you go. I love that. Just because you're on the left or you're a Democrat, doesn't mean you're supposed to kiss the ass of the powerful on the left or the Democratic Party. You're supposed to challenge them to actually do the right thing. Yeah, look, to answer your question, I'm sure that there are some views that John Stewart has that are a little different from mine or from yours. But it's okay to have like minor disagreements or disagreements on the edges. I think for the most part, he's right on the issues. And when it comes to anything pertaining to first responders, to military ways, to the treatment of service workers, he's just on point.

So this is where he really shines and you're about to see more of it. So this conversation was taking place at some event called the War Horse Symposium. It took place in Chicago. Let's watch more videos. Audits and waste fraud and abuse are not the same thing. So let's decompose these days for a moment. And then please educate me on what the difference. So an audit is exactly what you just described, which is, do I know what was delivered to which place?

Right. The ability to pass an audit or the fact that the DOD has not passed an audit is not suggestive of waste fraud and abuse. That is completely false right there. So now is it suggested of it. It's suggestive that we can't, we don't have an accurate inventory that we can pull up of what we have where. That is not the same as saying we can't do that because waste, fraud, and abuse has occurred. So in my world, that's waste. No, I love that.

And I chose that time code in the video to show you how defensive she is. Because home girl, 61% of the military's assets can't be accounted for. Oh, come on. Come on, are you really trying to defend this disaster? I'll go 10,000 times farther than John Stewart. No, I think you guys are robbing us blind, okay? I think you can't account for 61% of it because you're giving it to defense contractors in a completely unaccountable way.

They're stuffing it into their pockets, and then later you will get hired by those same defense contractors. I think you're corrupt. I think this is the defense secretary is corrupt. I think the defense secretaries and all the generals that it means, immediately join these defense contractors, whether they're Democrats, Republicans, right wing, or left wing. I think they're all corrupt. And I think that they're stealing and stealing and stealing billions of dollars.

And by the way, Johnster is absolutely right. The facts, too, like in any business, if you said in a business setting, oh, you gave me a billion dollars, well, I don't know where it is. Right. And then the investor or shareholders or whoever, do you think they'd be like, oh, no, that's not waste fraud or abuse. That's totally fine. No, of course not. Where's the goddamn money?

Where's the goddamn money? Did you put it in the Bahamas? Where the hell is it? Right? No, of course that's waste, fraud, and abuse. It's not even close. No, she's a total joke. Let's go to the next video because this is where Stewart brings up the pay and the financial conditions of service members

relative to what we, you know, pump out financially for the military, for the defense department every single year. Let's watch. I'm not saying this is on you and that you cause this, but I think it's a tough argument to make that an $850 billion budget to an organization that can't pass an audit and tell you where that money went, like I think most people would consider that somewhere in the realm of waste, fraud, or abuse, because they would wonder why that money isn't well accounted for. And especially when they see food insecurity on military bases and they see- You want to talk about that because that's a good, we should be talking. I mean, I'm trying to

understand where you're trying to go other than the dollars, which really bother you. I think it doesn't really bother me. I think it's all connected. And I think he's right about that clearly. You know, there was a story that broke today, I believe it was. We're probably going to cover it tomorrow, but it's a leak. of government documents pertaining to the war in Ukraine and just how much the U.S. is pressuring other countries to supply weapons to Ukraine, lethal weapons to Ukraine. Anyway, I mention all of that because one of the hangups that Jank and I have talked about in regard to the military aid that's being funneled to Ukraine, it's not that we don't want to help Ukrainians. But at the same

time, there is some concern that some of this military weaponry might end up in the wrong hands. If our defense department can't even account for 61% of their assets, how do we know that they are able to account for the military weaponry that we're sending to Ukraine? We lost tens of billions, maybe more in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the Pentagon just came out and said, yeah, we don't know where the money went. Billions, billions. Imagine if Medicaid had done that. Oh, like, oh, yeah, tens of billions went to poor people, but we don't know where it went. I mean, I think we went to poor people, but who cares, right? The right wing would destroy medically. They would dismantle it within the week, right? The Defense Department steals, steals

billions of dollars, where they go and give it to their friends, well, then they hire them later. And no, Kathleen Hicks, I don't trust you at all. See, this is what's wrong with American politics. Almost everyone on the left will go, oh, you can't say that about her. And I don't mean on the left, really, Democrats, lips, right? It will be like, oh my God, she's part of the Biden administration. And did you know she worked for Barack Obama? And he's an angel. No, no.

She's another one of these bureaucrats. Look at her flipping attitude. You guys seem so concerned about the money. Yeah, goddamn right we are. God damn right. We're concerned about $850 billion. And you can't tell me where 61% of it went because it went to your corrupt friends? No, no, no, I'm calling you what John Stewart's too polite to call you.

You are corrupt. You are part of the corruption. And the Democratic and Republican administrations, they all gorge on this. And by the way, the media is enormously complicit. They never challenged the defense budget. Anytime we say, oh, Medicare for all, health care for everybody, just like in other developed countries. They're like, how are you going to pay for that? Defense budget?

Nope. Yeah, just steal our money. Steal it, steal it, steal it. We don't mind. One more video. When I see a state department get a certain amount of money and a military budget be 10 times that, and I see a struggle within government to get people like more basic services. And then that department that got that, I mean, we got out of 20 years of war and the Pentagon

got a $50 billion raise. Like, that's shocking to me. Now, I may not understand exactly the ins and outs. and the incredible magic of an audit, but I'm a human being who lives on the earth and can't figure out how $850 billion to a department means that the rank and file still have to be on food stamps. Like, to me, that's corruption.

The message that he sends there is such an incredibly important one. And when I just think it resonates with everyone. You know, because it is true that members of the military get paid, especially when they're first starting out. It's abysmal. What was the exact number you talk about? So I looked at it up a couple of years ago, it was around $19,000. So she was bragging later about, oh, we did a 4% increase at some point. No, let me actually tell you what she said. She's like, actually, we have increased the pay for our service members two years in a row, except they didn't do that.

So last year, they raised it to the tune of 4.6%, which, you know, might sound okay, but then just juxtapose that to how much money gets appropriated every single year for the Defense Department, right? And there's inflation. And there's inflation, exactly, right? And that 4.6% did not keep up with inflation. And then the other thing is, it wasn't two years in a row, because then she says, and we have proposed another 5.2% pay raise this year.

They've proposed it, meaning they haven't accomplished it. Yeah, guys, you're, look, John Stewart, run for president. Please, run for president. We're desperate. We need someone, anyone who's willing to say anything that's true, okay? Because we don't have anything like that in the rest of powerful people, right? So look, in that case, you're telling me that $850 billion and you're bragging about a 4% increase in one year. And you're saying we might, might, might, might in the midst of massive inflation, do another 5% increase.

This year, aren't we merciful or maybe they're up to $20,000 or $21,000 a year, a year that they get paid while we took the other $849 billion and gave it to the richest people in the country and pretended, oh, gee, I don't know where the money is. Oh, it didn't make it to the troops. Oh, well, we support the troops so much. No, they're all liars. The Democrats are liars, the Republicans are liars. So guys, if you're veterans, you're active service members now, you should be the most pissed, right? They always lie to you about supporting you. They never support you.

The whole point of that budget is to rob you blind and leave you with the crumbs. And then they go and ask you to die for their profits. All right, we got to take a break. That does it for our first hour. When we come back, unfortunately, we have another mass shooting to talk about this time in Louisville, Kentucky. We'll be right back. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more

by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon. Thank you.