Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 2, 2021 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:05:41

Is Roe About To Go? | Ep. 1387

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Roe versus Wade may be on the chopping block after oral arguments at the Supreme Court and Joe Biden's team prepares for more COVID authoritarianism.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	The show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
	It's time to stand up to big tech, protect your data at expressvpn.com slash Ben.
	Before we get to all the news, a reminder, you're spending way too much on your cell phone bill if you are using anything other than Pure Talk, because Pure Talk has great deals on cell phone coverage.
	Do you think you need one of the big networks in order to make sure that your coverage is good?
	Well, what if you could use the same towers as one of the big networks, but pay like half the price?
	And right now?
	Do you want to be a hero for the holidays?
	How about getting your loved one a brand new iPhone?
	That's right.
	Pure Talk has iPhone 12s starting at just $479 through the end of the year.
	And yes, they have the 13s as well.
	I switched to Pure Talk.
	I'm getting the same great nationwide 5G coverage as the big guys.
	And here's the thing.
	You can do that.
	And the average family will save over $800 a year just by switching, which is a smart move.
	I would not tell you to use service that I'm not happy with.
	Make the switch yourself with Pure Talk's 30-day risk-free guarantee.
	You have nothing to lose.
	Unlimited talk tech, six gigs of data, just 30 bucks a month.
	And like I said, you get that iPhone 12 for just 479 bucks.
	Makes a great Christmas gift.
	Go to puretalk.com, shop for the plan and phone that's right for you.
	Enter promo code Shapiro.
	Save an additional 50% off your very first month and save on a new phone.
	That is puretalk.com.
	Okay, so yesterday was oral argument time at the Supreme Court over a brand new abortion law in Mississippi that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
	Which, by the way, is still a more lenient law than the laws of places like France.
	The United States has some of the most liberal abortion laws on planet Earth.
	So, lest anybody tell you that we are puritanical about abortion, precisely the opposite.
	Thanks to Supreme Court precedent, we are one of the most liberal countries on planet Earth as far as when a woman is allowed to kill the baby within her womb, along with her doctors.
	The Mississippi case would go further.
	Mississippi has sort of a backup law.
	They say, well, if you uphold this 15-week ban, then we'd like to go to six weeks.
	There are a bunch of issues at play in the Mississippi case.
	In order to understand them, we have to go through the legal precedent.
	But to understand why this is such a controversy in the United States, of course, you have to understand the role that abortion plays in the left's pantheon of almost idolatrous worship of particular political viewpoints.
	So the idea of the left is that in order to achieve complete equality, you have to get rid of the material conditions that could lead to inequality.
	Well, that means getting rid of certain baseline biological realities.
	This is why the left objects to things like the notion that, for example, men are on average taller than women.
	Heather Hying, who is the professor of biology over at Evergreen State College, remember she lost her job for making that controversial contention.
	If you point out that men and women are different in any way, biologically speaking, this is a problem because it leads to unequal outcomes.
	If you point out that women are biologically different, in that they have periods and then they have children, and that this may constrain some of the choices that they make, particularly having children in the workforce, this is very bad.
	And so in order to achieve complete equality of outcome, we must get rid of kids.
	We have to make sure that women have the opportunity to be just like men, biologically speaking.
	So theoretically, they could do that with birth control.
	But what if they don't want to do that with birth control?
	What if they get pregnant?
	Well, now we might have to force them to have a baby.
	And this is the language that the left likes to use about the perfectly natural process of getting pregnant and having a kid.
	Forced birth.
	Now, in no circumstance in life do you think of a normal biological process coming to its fruition as the use of force.
	It doesn't occur in any other biological process that you can name.
	When it comes to eating and then digesting your food, if you say that somebody is digesting their food, you don't say that they are engaged in forced digestion.
	If you said, you know, it's probably not a great idea for you just to vomit up all your food every day.
	If you said that to somebody, they wouldn't say, well, you're anti-choice.
	You'd say, well, no, the normal process by which you eat food and digest it is that.
	And this is true for every biological process.
	It is a normal biological process for when a woman getting pregnant, for when a woman gets pregnant, for her to bring that child to term.
	That is the normal biological process.
	It's not just for women.
	It is true for every female creature in the mammalian species.
	Pregnancy generally leads to childbirth.
	But only according to the left, because the left is anti-biology, because biology stands in way as an obstacle to equality of outcome.
	For the left, abortion has become a sacrament.
	It moved from safe, legal, and rare, a tragic situation that requires a tragic decision sometimes, which was the language of Democrats in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, to abortion is the greatest good.
	It is the highest good, because it is only things like abortion that allow women to make the same life decisions as men.
	Well, uh, we are speaking out against any efforts to roll back Roe v. Wade.
	Court yesterday and she says we're not even a democracy if women can't have abortions.
	Well, we are speaking out against any efforts to robobobby Wade. I feel that we're not even in a democracy if women can't make decisions about their own bodies.
	We're not even a democracy if a woman can't choose to abort her child.
	Now, whenever people say this is a pro-choice position, the question becomes, for the vast majority of women who get pregnant, they do not get pregnant through rape or incest.
	That is a vast, vast, vast minority of cases.
	According to the Guttmacher Institute, which is a very left-leaning social science and sexual practices institute that studies the data on this stuff, they say that well under 1% of all abortions are because of things like rape and incest.
	But that's always used as sort of the leading edge because it relieves the obligation from women who get pregnant, not through rape or incest, through irresponsibility or through choice or in some sort of circumstance that they don't particularly want, but was foreseeable and was not through the use of force.
	Those are the cases that the left wishes to protect because, again, they wish to protect abortion Full stop.
	Abortion is a sacrament.
	Abortion must be treasured.
	It must be prized.
	And it must be celebrated.
	In fact, you're not fully a woman unless you have had an abortion.
	Lena Dunham famously said this a few years ago, and the left kind of got embarrassed by it because it was so bizarre and strange, but it was true.
	She said, I feel guilty I haven't had an abortion.
	I feel like I haven't had the full experience of womanhood in the United States if I have not had an abortion.
	And according to the left, this seems to be sort of the way that they think about this, the hard left.
	They don't think of abortion as a tragic choice made by some in order to even further their own life ambitions, which would be bad enough because you're not allowed to kill people to further your life ambitions as a general rule.
	They don't even think of it that way.
	They've tended to think of it now as almost a rite of passage.
	It's taking control of your own biology to achieve equal outcome with men by making the same life decisions that men never have to make because men don't get pregnant.
	Unless you are a real leftist, in which case sometimes men do get pregnant, and also sometimes women are men and have balls.
	So, it's all self-defeating for the left, but again, the end goal is the same, which is men and women exactly the same, all of us interchangeable widgets, and if biology stands in the way of that, then biology is the enemy.
	This is why abortion is such a closely fought battle.
	In the United States at a time when, again, birth control is widely available.
	In fact, universally available.
	It is not difficult to obtain condoms.
	It is not difficult to obtain birth control pills.
	All of these are widely available over the counter.
	And yet we are still having the same sort of fraught and hotly fought arguments about abortion that we were 40 or 50 years ago.
	We'll get to what actually went down at the Supreme Court in just one moment.
	First, let's talk about an amazing gift you can do for your family.
	Okay, so Christmas is coming up.
	It's still Hanukkah right now.
	Let me tell you about an amazing gift.
	So, I did this for my parents.
	I went out into their garage when they were about to move to Florida with us.
	Went out into their garage, and they had just boxes and boxes of old stuff.
	I'm talking about, like, old pictures of the family.
	I'm talking about VHS tapes that they used to take with the handheld camcorder.
	I'm talking about old film reels of my parents' parents.
	And I took all that stuff, I loaded it up into a legacy box, I sent it to my good friends over at Legacy Box, and they digitized all of that, sent all of the originals back, and sent my parents a digitized version.
	My parents were able to give these CDs, DVDs, you know, digitized versions to me, to my sisters.
	So we all have the family memories preserved forever.
	So make that happen for your own parents.
	Make it happen for yourself as well.
	Their service could not be easier.
	Send in your legacy box filled with old home movies and photos.
	They'll get to work creating a digital collection stored on thumb drive, DVD or the cloud.
	Plus with their cyber week sale, you can have everything preserved at a fraction of the regular price.
	Why use legacy box?
	Well, each item is hand digitized by a team of over 200 trained technicians right here in the United States.
	They've been trusted by over a million people, my family among them.
	Legacy Box's Cyber Week sale is here.
	They are giving our listeners the best deal of the year.
	Visit LegacyBox.com slash Shapiro for an incredible 65% off any sized Legacy Box.
	That's LegacyBox.com slash Shapiro for 65% off.
	Do not wait.
	The deal is not going to last long.
	LegacyBox.com slash Shapiro.
	As I say, abortion has now become a sacrament.
	On the left, it is no longer a case of a tragic choice.
	It's a sacrament.
	And so you have to wonder why it became a sacrament, and the answer is because it is a sacrifice to propitiate the gods of equal outcome.
	And this is why you see abortion activists literally taking abortion pills outside the Supreme Court building, as though this is an act of heroism.
	Okay, these are women who are standing outside the Supreme Court.
	I say women because I assume they're gender.
	Again, according to the left, maybe these are men.
	Says, we are taking abortion pills forever.
	Celebrating!
	Look at the heroism.
	Abortion forever!
	Yay!
	Getting pregnant irresponsibly and then killing the growing life within me.
	Yay!
	By the way, here I would like to make a linguistic, linguistic and semantic point that actually has some relevance.
	It's a point made by Robert George, the philosopher over at Princeton.
	A lot of people talk about potential human life when it comes to the fertilization of an egg.
	He says, no, that's a human life with potential.
	That is a distinction with a difference.
	You are talking about human lives with potential.
	The minute that the egg is fertilized, you have a separate DNA profile, you have a separate human being, and the question of when life begins is very simple.
	It begins at conception.
	Period.
	End of story.
	There really is no scientific argument about this.
	There is no other metric for when life begins that has any sort of consistent application to the real world or even to adults.
	Okay, so, all this comes to the Supreme Court yesterday, and there are oral arguments over what the standard should be.
	So, to understand what the standard should be, you sort of have to understand the timeline of Supreme Court cases here.
	So, leading up to Roe vs. Wade, which of course happens in 1973, there's a whole line of Supreme Court cases that are created from whole cloth by the Warren Court, designating a generalized right to privacy.
	Now, if you look in the Constitution of the United States, of course, there is no right to privacy.
	There are certain rights against things like unreasonable search and seizure.
	There's a specific liberty against unreasonable search and seizure.
	And we understand that there is such a thing as private religious practice, that a generalized notion that privacy is a good thing is embedded in certain parts of the Constitution.
	But there is no wide-scale right to privacy that can be used to overcome the presumptions of state authority in a wide variety of matters.
	It just doesn't exist, which is why whenever the left talks about, you know, the Second Amendment, it doesn't mean what you think it says.
	It certainly means a lot more what I think it says than there is a right to privacy in the Constitution, which there absolutely is not.
	So in 1965, there's a very famous case called Griswold v. Connecticut.
	Griswold v. Connecticut is about a Connecticut state law that says that you should not be able to be prescribed contraceptives.
	And the idea was that they wanted to keep up the birth rate, that it was a sin to use contraceptives from a certain religious perspective.
	And in Griswold versus Connecticut, the state runs up directly against the fact that such prohibitions have been in place in the United States for a very long time.
	Now, this has nothing to do, and this is a key distinction we should make.
	When it comes to the law, there's the question of what you think a good law is, and there's a question of what does the state have authority to regulate.
	These are two separate questions.
	So for example, I'm not in favor of state vaccine mandates with regard to COVID-19.
	Does the state have the ability under traditional law to regulate vaccine mandates?
	The answer is yes.
	Okay, so I don't have to greenlight what the state does in order to understand that the state has the power to do it in much the same way.
	I don't have to agree with your use of free speech to believe in a generalized right to free speech.
	So what the left likes to do when it comes to legal discussions is they'll take a case like Griswold versus Connecticut and they'll say, what do you want to do?
	Get rid of contraceptives for married people?
	Say, no, I actually think contraceptives for married people are fine.
	I have no generalized problem with that.
	But that does not go to the question as to whether the Supreme Court, whose job it is to determine whether a state has acted within its regulatory authority, can go above and beyond that to simply act as sort of a legislature determining what's a good law and what's a bad law.
	That's not the job of the Supreme Court.
	The job of the Supreme Court is not to determine whether a law is a good idea or a bad idea.
	The job of the Supreme Court is to determine whether a state law is in conflict with the Constitution or whether it is not in conflict with the Constitution.
	The reason I bring this up is because in 2012, this was literally what the Democrats claimed about Mitt Romney.
	Mitt Romney had said, there is no right to privacy in the Constitution.
	They said, oh, so you must be against contraceptives for married people.
	No, that's not what he means.
	What he means is that there is no inherent right to privacy, generally speaking, that has now been applied, by the way, to a variety of very public activities like same-sex marriage as well as abortion.
	Those have nothing to do with privacy per se.
	They said, well, you must be in favor of the Connecticut law if you think there's no right to privacy in the Constitution.
	No, I can be against the Connecticut law and also think there is no right to privacy in the Constitution.
	Okay, so Griswold versus Connecticut happens in 1965, and under a doctrine called substantive due process, which I'll explain in just one minute, they say there's a right to privacy.
	So, here's the thing.
	The Constitution of the United States, again, has very specific provisions that you have to conflict with in order for a law to be overruled.
	There is no rights to privacy in the Constitution.
	So the court had to create out of whole cloth a doctrine by which they can simply strike down laws they don't like.
	And so they pick up this bizarre thread.
	An American constitutional history that has a really dark and terrible history going all the way back to the Dred Scott decision.
	The Dred Scott decision, which happens in 1856.
	The Dred Scott decision was a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States, led by Judge Roger Taney, decides that black people who have escaped to the North do not have any sort of citizenship rights under the Constitution of the United States because black people are not, in fact, people under the Constitution of the United States.
	This is the Dred Scott decision, the worst decision in Supreme Court history, bar none.
	And the doctrine that they use to strike down federal law on this question, right, and state law on this question, the doctrine they use is something they call substantive due process.
	The Constitution guarantees that every person shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
	What it means is that the authorities can't simply come to your house and take your stuff.
	You need to go through some sort of process.
	You need to go through some sort of judicial process.
	Now, there's only one problem.
	In the Dred Scott case, there was a process, okay, and the process was fulfilled, meaning Dred Scott was living in a free state.
	There was no process for slaveholders to regain Dred Scott as a piece of property.
	And thus, it was not that they were deprived of due process.
	They had due process.
	They just lose, right?
	But what the Supreme Court says in Dred Scott is there's something called substantive due process.
	And what we mean is there has to be a substantially fair process, not the process itself.
	Something substantially fair has to happen in order for the law to be legal.
	Now you may notice this has nothing to do with process.
	And so substantive due process becomes the hook the Supreme Court hangs its hat on for basically the rest of time in determining that it can strike things down.
	Whenever the Supreme Court has no good excuse for striking down a law, they simply declare, thanks to substantive due process, your rights have been violated, and therefore we're going to strike down a law.
	Just use substantive due process as basically a catch-all phrase, meaning we just want to strike a thing down.
	Okay, so the Supreme Court in 1965 says under substantive due process, we are going to strike down this Connecticut law on contraceptives, and we are going to say that there is a generalized right to privacy in the Constitution that emerges from emanations and penumbras.
	Okay, now, That's ridiculous.
	There is no generalized rights to privacy that emerges from quote-unquote emanations and penumbras.
	All they mean by that is that in the Constitution, as I've said, you can see certain rights to privacy like against unreasonable search and seizure, for example, but that doesn't like emerge into some full-blown fantasy about a right to privacy that you can then apply to completely independent circumstances that are not unreasonable search and seizure.
	The Supreme Court simply declares itself basically the arbiter of all that is good and just.
	and creates a right to privacy out of whole cloth.
	Okay, so that is a 1965 case.
	And it's about whether married couples are allowed to get contraceptives.
	And they said, yes, married couples can get contraceptives.
	Then in 1972, the Supreme Court goes further in a case called Eisenstadt v. Baird.
	Okay, and in this particular case, the question is whether unmarried couples, whether everyone has a right to contraceptives.
	Now, again, you can say that a state has a very strong state interest in unmarried couples not getting contraceptives.
	The idea being that you want to incentivize people to get married, right?
	If you want to have sex, you should get married.
	And that way, if you get pregnant, you're going to do so within the context of marriage.
	The Supreme Court says there is no rational basis for you to ban contraceptives from unmarried people.
	Now, again, This is not a question as to whether you agree with the law or disagree with the law.
	This is a question as to whether the founders of the Constitution of the United States were very much in favor of 17-year-olds screwing without contraceptives.
	Right?
	That's really what it's about.
	Whether they meant to protect that right against the predations of state and local governments.
	The answer is clearly not.
	But the Supreme Court has now extended the right to privacy to you going down to the pharmacy as a single person and picking up contraceptives.
	So you can see how it's growing.
	And then, they extend it in 1973 to Roe vs. Wade.
	We'll get to the case law of Roe versus Wade in one second, which is just crappy case law.
	It makes no sense whatsoever.
	It is just creation out of whole cloth.
	Now we've extended from contraceptives, which again might be a certain privacy issue.
	Maybe you can kind of see it through a glass, right?
	Because obviously you're going to use contraceptives under private circumstances to now an act of abortion, which is very not private because it involves another human being.
	Namely, the child in the womb.
	We'll get to that in one second.
	First, let's talk about your sleep quality.
	So, the holiday season is exhausting.
	We all need our sleep, but some of us are just tossing and turning a lot at night.
	I know why you're tossing and turning.
	It's because you didn't listen to me.
	You didn't get your Helix Sleep mattress yet.
	You should!
	By the way, it makes a fantastic present.
	Helix Sleep has a quiz.
	It takes just two minutes to complete.
	It matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you.
	Why would you buy a mattress made for someone else?
	With Helix, you're getting a mattress you know will be perfect for the way you sleep.
	Everybody is unique.
	Helix knows that, so they have several different mattress models to choose from.
	They have soft, medium, and firm mattresses.
	Mattress is great for cooling you down if you sleep hot.
	Mattress is great for spinal alignment to prevent morning aches and pains.
	Even a Helix plus size mattress for plus size sleepers.
	So if you're looking for a mattress, you take the quiz, you order the mattress you're matched to, the mattress comes directly to your doorstep for free.
	You don't ever need to go to a mattress store again.
	They have a 10-year warranty.
	You get to try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
	They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will.
	Helix has financing options as well.
	Flexible payment plans.
	A great night's sleep is never far away.
	I took the Helix Sleep Quiz.
	My wife and I got a firm mattress that is very breathable.
	Let me tell you, we need it because our kids wake us up at all hours.
	So we need our sleep.
	Helix Sleep makes it happen for us.
	They can do the same for you.
	Go to helixsleep.com slash Ben.
	Take their two-minute sleep quiz.
	They will match you to a customized mattress that will give you the best sleep of your life.
	Helix is offering up to $200 off all mattress orders and two free pillows for our listeners at helixsleep.com.
	Okay, so we are now up to Roe vs. Wade, 1973.
	So in this case, the Supreme Court invalidates a law from Texas that prohibits all but life-saving abortions.
	Now, let's be clear about this.
	Before Roe vs. Wade, abortion was not illegal across the country.
	States like California had very liberal abortion laws before Roe vs. Wade.
	States like New York, and more liberal abortion laws before Roe vs. Wade.
	Before Roe vs. Wade, there was a state standard, because again, regulatory standards, states have a lot of power to legislate.
	They have a lot of power to regulate in these particular areas.
	So Texas law did not look like New York law.
	The question of Roe v. Wade is whether Texas had the ability to regulate abortion.
	And Roe v. Wade, the court under Harry Blackmun, high on his own fumes, says, no, there is no ability for states to regulate abortion because under a vague right to privacy, you now have the ability to kill your own child.
	With the help of a doctor.
	This is a right under the Constitution of the United States.
	They say that the constitutional right to privacy, which again started with the emanations and penumbras of Griswold versus Connecticut, nowhere to be found in the constitutional text, encompasses a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.
	The court then characterized this right as fundamental.
	Okay, so there are certain rights that are weighed and balanced against state interests.
	But they characterize this as a fundamental right, meaning that the state better have an extraordinary interest in order to regulate abortion in any way.
	They said the state could not interfere with abortion unless they had a compelling reason for regulation.
	And you could only assert a compelling interest in protecting a fetus once it became viable.
	Namely in the last trimester.
	Now, I challenge you to find anywhere in the structure or text of the Constitution a notion that abortion is per se allowed.
	In fact, it is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States written in 1789.
	It is mandatory that states allow you to abort your fetus Up until the last trimester, which by the way is like super well-developed.
	You're talking about at that point the seventh month of pregnancy, essentially.
	And so there is no basis for this whatsoever.
	And by the way, the court doesn't even pretend that there's a basis for this.
	That's the part that's truly amazing.
	When you actually read the court opinion, again written by Harry Blackmun in this case, he doesn't even bother to pretend that he knows what the hell he is talking about.
	The court says itself in Roe v. Wade, quote, The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right to privacy.
	In a line of decisions, however, going back to perhaps as far as Union Pacific Railroad v. Botsford in 1891, the court has recognized a right of personal privacy or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy does exist under the Constitution.
	In varying contexts, the court or individual justices or individual justice in dissent, who cares, have indeed found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, In the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, that's Griswold.
	Or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the 14th Amendment.
	These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed fundamental or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.
	And they say, this right of privacy, whether it be founded in the 14th Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or as the district court determined in the 9th Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
	The detriment the state would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent.
	Okay, so, again, they basically say, they throw up their hands, like, we have no clue where this is coming from in the Constitution, but whether we find it here, or whether we find it here, whether we pull this rabbit out of this hat here, or whether we make the coin appear behind your ear, you have a right to an abortion under the Constitution of the United States.
	Roe vs. Wade is a joke of a decision.
	Everyone, even pro-abortion people who are legally knowledgeable, understand Roe vs. Wade is legal garbage.
	They just like the outcome.
	Okay, so that is the governing standard all the way up until Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.
	We'll get to that standard, which is the current governing standard in abortion law, in just one second.
	Did you know that garages are the most frequently accessed entry to the home?
	It's often overlooked that garages are where people most important to you come and go.
	I know that in our house, we tend to use the garage as our thoroughfare, so it makes a lot of sense to know what is going on there.
	Introducing the MyQ Smart Camera by Chamberlain.
	It's the only smart camera optimized for the garage, brought to you by the leaders in garage door opener technology.
	They got features like live video streaming, recording events, motion detection, two-way communication right from your phone.
	You can make sure your garage is secure 24-7.
	You know how many times before we had MyQ smart camera, we would leave that garage open?
	Yeah, unfortunately, too much.
	Parrot, with the MyQ smart garage control, you'll never have to worry if you left the garage door open.
	You can check it, see it, close it, all from the MyQ app from anywhere, which means you can open and close your garage from your phone.
	There's nothing worse, by the way, than getting a call from a friend saying you left your garage open.
	What do you want me to do?
	It's pretty great to be able to just do it yourself remotely.
	The myQ camera is easy to install.
	You can quickly connect it to your phone via Bluetooth in the myQ app.
	So what are you waiting for?
	Give the gift of a myQ smart garage camera to your favorite tech lovers this holiday season.
	If you act right now, you can save 46% for a limited time by entering Ben at checkout on myq.com slash Ben.
	That was Ben at checkout on myq.com slash Ben to save 46%.
	Keep an eye on what's happening in and around your home's busiest entryway with the myQ smart garage camera.
	It's the only smart camera Okay, so, now we get, finally, to the governing law, as of now, Planned Parenthood versus Casey.
	Okay, so in Planned Parenthood versus Casey, you have to fast forward all the way to 1992.
	Okay, this case is a disaster of a case.
	When I say it's a disaster of a case, I mean it makes no sense.
	I mean that the case itself is split 1,000 different ways.
	There were three justices who voted for Parts 1, 2, 3, 5A, 5C, and 6.
	3, 5A, 5C, and 6.
	Okay, there's another justice who joined with respect to Parts 5E and an opinion with respect to Parts 4, 5B, and 5D.
	And then they opened their decision with this line, liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence OK, there's only one problem.
	You split the decision 1000 different ways in Planned Parenthood versus Casey.
	The actual emerging governing law is actually quite unclear.
	Under Casey, it makes no sense at all.
	So the case.
	was expected to go the wrong way.
	It was a case where conservatives widely expected that it was going to be overturned because there had been some new justices who had been appointed by Republicans who had joined the court.
	Justice O'Connor, Justice Kennedy, who turned out to be, both of whom turned out to be half-assed, kind of garbage justices.
	Neither of them were very good.
	They voted for, and Kennedy largely wrote, the decision in Planned Parenthood versus Casey.
	The governing standard moves from essentially no regulation of abortion in the last trimester to the undue burden test, under which state regulations could survive constitutional review, so long as they don't place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a non-viable fetus. Okay, so now the line is no longer last trimester, now the line is viability.
	Okay, so you're allowed to regulate the abortion of viable fetuses, but you still have to show a compelling state interest.
	You can sort of carve back a road just a little bit.
	So Planned Parenthood carves back a road just a little bit.
	Now, the Planned Parenthood versus Casey decision also ends up being the source of an entire line of cases that move toward the legalization of same-sex, not legalization, forced legalization at the federal level of same-sex marriage.
	That used to be a state issue also, right?
	You'd have states like California that would legalize same-sex marriage or Massachusetts.
	And then you'd have states like Alabama or Florida that didn't.
	And then the court just decided to take that up to the federal level because this is what they do in usurping power, becoming a group of powerful people in robes, simply making law out of their heads, as opposed to interpreting the Constitution of the United States.
	Planned Parenthood v. Casey sets very bizarre legal standards that are not legal standards at all.
	In fact, Planned Parenthood v. Casey contains literally my least favorite constitutional line of all time, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
	It makes no sense at all.
	Here's what they say.
	Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.
	Our cases recognize the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.
	That was in Eisenstadt v. Baird.
	That was a predecessor case, as we mentioned, to Roe v. Wade.
	They'd already made way for Roe v. Wade in 1972.
	Now, again, there is no history to suggest that this liberty is as broad-based as it is being made here.
	Once they say you have the liberty as to how you marry, you're basically making the case for Obergefell, right, all the way up to same-sex marriage.
	Once you say you have the liberty as to whether or not to have a child, even post getting pregnant, now you're talking about the case for abortion.
	All of this created by whole cloth out of a Supreme Court that has no relationship to the constitutional text.
	In fact, by the way, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, we'll get to this, what the actual legal arguments look like in court yesterday, because the Supreme Court justices did their questioning.
	Justice Sotomayor openly said, she was asked, like, there's no right to privacy in the Constitution.
	She goes, there's lots of stuff that isn't in the Constitution that we pretend is there.
	She basically just said it straight out.
	Which, by the way, is why the Supreme Court has been kind of a garbage institution for quite a while.
	In any case, The finding in Planned Parenthood versus Casey, the worst constitutional line, I think, in modern American history.
	Quote, and led by Justice Kennedy, whose entire theory of constitutional jurisprudence is that there is a right to autonomy created by Anthony Kennedy out of whole cloth and then placed into the Constitution.
	Now, again, there are spheres of autonomy under the Constitution of the United States because the powers of the federal government are restricted under the Constitution to make room for your personal autonomy.
	And state constitutions do the same thing.
	But there is no broad-based right to do whatever you want under the Constitution of the United States.
	That doesn't exist.
	It has never existed in any land at any time with any government ever.
	The complete right to personal autonomy to do whatever you want just does not exist.
	That's not a real thing.
	Again, there are spheres of autonomy.
	There are spheres of choice.
	There are rights.
	But those rights are somewhat circumscribed in the face of, for example, moral needs or communal needs.
	It sort of depends on which level of government you're talking about, which is why local governments have a lot of power.
	State governments have fewer powers.
	Federal government is supposed to have the fewest powers of all.
	So using the federal government to trump local governments in the name of rights that are never established in the federal constitution is a complete Here's the line that I'm talking about.
	I keep pitching it because it's so bad.
	to the constitutional structure and the philosophy of the Constitution. Here's the line that I'm talking about. I keep pitching it because it's so bad. Here's what Anthony Kennedy wrote.
	These matters involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, of the mystery of human life.
	Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the state.
	Okay, well, so basically, either you're advocating for anarchy, which is not what Anthony Kennedy is doing, or you're using vague mumbo-jumbo philosophical crap in order to trump basic questions about the rights that, for example, unborn human beings hold.
	And whether you have the ability to kill an unborn child in the womb.
	The idea that at the heart of liberty is the right to define your own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, of the mystery of human life.
	You're going to need some sort of limiting principle there.
	Because it turns out that if you're just saying that in your head you can define all those things, of course that's true.
	If you're saying that that now manifests in action that affects the rest of the world, nope.
	Then some limits are going to have to be drawn, particularly when you're waving your fist around and it hits a baby and kills the baby.
	At that point, you're going to have to start drawing some limits.
	Okay, so Planned Parenthood versus Casey sets the modern standard for undue burden.
	And the idea is under the undue burden standard, the only way that you can survive a constitutional review is if you don't place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a non-viable fetus.
	So, in other words, the state has a little bit more authority to regulate abortion post-viability.
	Again, post-viability is defined in law under Planned Parenthood v. Casey at, like, 21-22 weeks.
	That is super-duper late.
	And why it's placed at viability is beyond reason.
	Like, there's no reason why, for example, a 19-week-old fetus does not have any protections, but a 21-week-old fetus has many, many more protections.
	Viability is a very bad place to draw the line, particularly because medical viability keeps getting earlier and earlier and earlier.
	Alrighty, so.
	Yesterday, in the Supreme Court, this Mississippi law comes up.
	And the question is whether the Mississippi law, which bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, is unconstitutional.
	So there are a few things the court can do here.
	The best thing the court could do is just overturn Roe.
	There's no constitutional right to an abortion.
	Have at it.
	The states get to decide what they think the regulations ought to be.
	That doesn't mean abortion disappears.
	In California, you'll still be able to abort probably up until the time the child is four or five.
	In New York, same deal.
	And then they'll light up the Empire State Building pink in celebration of infanticide.
	If Governor Ralph Northam has his way in Virginia before he leaves office, then you'll still be able to keep the baby comfortable while they decide what to do.
	Okay, so it's going to vary state by state if Roe v. Wade is gotten rid of.
	And this is why it's always been a ridiculous contention by the left that if you get rid of Roe v. Wade, abortion completely disappears.
	If only.
	Your mouth to God's ears.
	But no, that's not the way that this works.
	Okay, so.
	That would be choice number one, door number one.
	Then you have door number two.
	Door number two is the overruling of Planned Parenthood versus Casey, which would get rid of the viability standard.
	So the idea would be, because the Mississippi law goes to 15 weeks, the Mississippi law would now say, OK, it's not about the viability standard.
	It would have to be some other standard.
	You'd say that there's still a right to an abortion, but viability is not the point at which the debate begins.
	And that opens up a whole can of worms, because then the question becomes, okay, so what standard do you draw for when you're not allowed to abort anymore?
	Is it heartbeat?
	Is it conception?
	How far back in the timeline can you push this thing?
	And then you have the final possibility here, which is that the Supreme Court just strikes down the Mississippi law.
	Now, it's pretty clear at this point that they're not going to strike down the Mississippi law.
	From the oral arguments, it's clear.
	The only people who are arguing at this point not to strike down, that the Mississippi law should be completely struck down, are the three justices on the left.
	The justices on the Supreme Court right now, they break down essentially into three groups of three.
	This is the way that people tend to think of the Supreme Court right now.
	So you've got the sort of hardcore constitutionalists.
	That'd be Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
	And to a certain extent, Justice Gorsuch, although obviously his decision in the extension of the Civil Rights Act to transgenderism is insane and unjustifiable and crazy on every level.
	But those are the three most conservative members of the court, would be Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas.
	And then you have the sort of center of the court, and that right now is perceived as Justice Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
	We have no idea really where Amy Coney Barrett is, but she was specifically appointed on this point, right?
	The reason that Trump picked her is because of Roe v. Wade.
	It's because she's written critically of Roe v. Wade in the past.
	Clearly.
	Okay, so that's sort of the center of the court.
	And then you have the far left of the court, from sort of center to left, it goes Elena Kagan, Steven Breyer, and then finally Sonia Sotomayor, who is just a judicial activist of the highest degree.
	She's an abortion activist.
	And she made that perfectly clear yesterday.
	She was like, in oral arguments, she's like, yep, it's made up out of whole cloth.
	We get to make it up as much as we want to.
	And do you really want to harm women this way?
	Is this really?
	Don't don't you see women need abortions?
	And so she's not a lawyer at all.
	She's like a Justice Ginsburg type who's an activist who's been put on the court to pretend that she gives a crap about the law, but actually doesn't.
	I mean, make no mistake, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a disaster of justice.
	She was a terrible justice.
	There are a few administrative law issues where she was actually not bad, and then on social issues, just... She never broke with now, basically, where she used to be a lawyer.
	So that is not a shock.
	Sonia Sotomayor is much the same way.
	So that's the way that the Supreme Court divides, right?
	Three, three, and three, typically.
	In this particular case, it's a little bit mixed up.
	So you have some people who clearly want to overrule Roe.
	Alito and Thomas clearly want to overrule Roe.
	Gorsuch seems to want to overrule Roe as well.
	And then you have Kavanaugh and Barrett and Roberts.
	Roberts' entire shtick is that he doesn't want to quote-unquote undermine the institutional legitimacy of the court.
	I don't know what the hell that means.
	The institutional legitimacy of the court to me rests on the same institutional legitimacy as every area of government.
	Are you acting within your purview?
	Are you doing what your job is designated to do?
	If you on the Supreme Court strike down a law that is in conflict with the Constitution, you have done your job.
	If you do not strike down a law that is in conflict with the Constitution, you have not done your job.
	If you uphold a law that is in conflict with the Constitution, you've done something wrong.
	Right?
	You have a job.
	To me, every area of legitimacy in life, period, is about you doing your job.
	If you call a plumber and your plumber comes over and bashes a hole in your wall and doesn't fix your plumbing, He has lost his institutional legitimacy.
	But Justice Roberts seems to think that the institutional legitimacy of the court rests on public polling.
	And this is why he upheld Obamacare.
	The idea was, well, if we do something too offensive, if we move too fast, we'll lose our institutional legitimacy.
	Nope, you lose your institutional legitimacy every time you uphold a Plessy v. Ferguson or a Roe v. Wade.
	So there was a there's a question as far as the really only a couple of arguments that the left is attempting to use with regard to Roe.
	One is just an openly political argument.
	We love abortion.
	Please don't get rid of abortion in Texas.
	And then there's argument number two, which is stare decisis.
	Stare decisis is the basic meaning is the case has been decided.
	The idea being that if there was a case, the same fact pattern, and in that case you held one way, you shouldn't hold differently now because it upsets the apple cart.
	Because too many people have reliance interests.
	People are reliant on that case, and they retain a certain reliance culturally on that case, and so you can't overturn it.
	That's a horrible argument.
	If that argument had been applied to Plessy v. Ferguson, we'd still have segregated buses in the United States.
	Or at least, it wouldn't have been ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board.
	Brown v. Board overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.
	And if it had not been for getting rid of stare decisis, the court is very unclear about when they are going to abide by stare decisis.
	Obergefell is a complete overruling of stare decisis.
	That was already decided in a case called Bowers v. Hardwick in 1988.
	And the Supreme Court took the exact same fact pattern and found the exact reverse.
	So stare decisis is basically a way for justices to pick and choose what they think is worth upholding without actually having to justify why they uphold it.
	So you had Sonia Sotomayor, who does not give any crap about stare decisis when it comes to gay marriage, for example, saying, oh, stare decisis really matters here.
	It really matters an awful lot.
	And Justice Thomas, who's perfectly consistent about this, is like, stare decisis is garbage and we shouldn't pay attention to bad cases.
	So Justice Roberts kind of seems to want to chart a middle path here.
	The middle path being not overruling either Casey or Roe.
	Instead, basically arguing that we will continue to hold the undue burden standard, but we will move it back to 15 weeks, for example, or 14 weeks.
	We won't make it fetal viability, per se.
	We'll just say that something quasi-like fetal viability moves a little bit earlier.
	So we'll retain Planned Parenthood versus Casey, and we'll just say that it's not about viability anymore, viability keeps getting earlier, we'll set the standard a little bit earlier.
	There doesn't seem to be the taste for that from anyone else on the court.
	We'll get to more of its analysis in just one second.
	First, obviously, inflation continues to dominate the country, and we are at a level we have not seen in decades.
	The cost of everything is going up.
	You need to be pragmatic, protective, and prepared.
	If you're a homeowner, you should be considering a mortgage refinance right now before those historically low mortgage rates are gone.
	The impact they can make on your budget is substantial.
	And the people to help are the folks over at American Financing.
	You'll get a free, no-pressure mortgage review.
	You can learn about custom loans that fit your life better.
	From lower rates to shorter terms, even high-interest debt consolidation, they can do it all.
	They are currently saving customers up to $1,000 a month, helping many skip two mortgage payments.
	Why not see what they can do for you?
	It's 866-721-3300.
	That is 866-721-3300 or visit AmericanFinancing.net.
	You may have noticed the Fed is already talking about tapering and now accelerating the tapering.
	What that means is that mortgage rates are likely to go up in the near to mid future.
	And that means that now is like the best time ever to refi because once those mortgage rates go up, who wants to refi?
	What's the point?
	Head on over to AmericanFinancing.net, dial 866-721-3300 to get started.
	NMLS 182334, NMLSConsumerAccess.org.
	Alright, we'll get to more analysis of what's going to happen at the Supreme Court.
	That case is likely to be decided by June.
	First, The Daily Wire, we've been hard at work keeping our promise.
	We promised you.
	We're going to bring you tons of new content you won't get anywhere else and that you're going to be excited about.
	We said we're getting into the movie business.
	We are.
	We brought out a movie last year.
	Now we have a brand new movie that is ready.
	It's ready to go.
	Our first original DailyWare production, Shudden.
	It's a seat-gripping thriller that will be available to stream early 2022.
	The film is super intense.
	Here is what that trailer sounds like.
	Lady?
	Where have you been?
	you I'm gonna take off tonight so the kids can sleep most of the way.
	Well, I'm mostly done.
	I just need to finish cleaning out the pantry.
	Oh, I love you so.
	It's all around.
	You turn me on.
	So I'm even.
	Oh, even.
	Thinking through the night.
	Mission, take flight.
	Bye.
	No, stop!
	Please let me out.
	Please!
	Ahh!
	Ah!
	Lady!
	Ahh!
	Your daughter, she's very pretty.
	Don't you touch my kids!
	Rob!
	Rob owes me money.
	There's money, there's a lot of money.
	There's thousands of dollars in the pantry.
	Have it all.
	Please come out, I'm scared.
	Please come out, I'm scared.
	Please come out.
	you you It's a really, really intense film.
	Man, it's a real movie.
	And that's what we do here at Daily Wire.
	It has some values that you're going to love.
	It is a terrifying thriller.
	So if you're planning on adding that terrifying thriller to your queue in 2022, and you want us to keep making content to combat the over-politicized mainstream entertaining streaming on major platforms, go like and share the trailer on YouTube.
	Really, your support makes a huge difference.
	Also, We're getting involved in culture in pretty much every conceivable way.
	We all knew that Matt Walsh had more talent than he was letting on because he had to, right?
	But none of us knew just how much talent he actually had.
	He's basically the new Mr. Rogers.
	He just sold out of his new book, Johnny the Walrus, immediately after its release.
	Like it sold out, went all the way to the top of the Amazon charts, and then it was gone.
	But don't worry, you can reserve your copy.
	at johnnythewalrus.com.
	Get your hands on the next batch, shipping out soon.
	Johnny the Walrus.
	It's an inspiring tale of a young boy who pretends he's a walrus, and it's all pretend, until the internet tells Johnny's mommy that Johnny is actually a walrus, and she must uphold, and she must forward, his trans walrus identity.
	If you know Matt's brain, his twisted brain, you will laugh your butt off reading this to your kids, or mostly to yourself and to your liberal family members.
	Head on over to johnnythewalrus.com, reserve your copy of Matt's timely masterpiece, Johnny the Walrus, today.
	You're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	All righty, so you've got the court and it's split 3-3-3 usually.
	In this case, not so much.
	You have three justices who clearly want to overrule Roe.
	From the oral arguments, it seems, that'd be Gorsuch.
	And you know Alito and Thomas won an overall row.
	Thomas, by the way, continues to be the most underrated justice in American history.
	Thomas is a wonderful, wonderful justice.
	His decisions are really well-written, and he's more ideologically consistent than the far more admired Antonin Scalia.
	I'm a huge Thomas fan.
	Okay, so, you got the brief?
	And now you need to get five if you want to overrule Roe.
	You're not going to get to five with Roberts.
	Roberts ain't overruling Roe.
	Roberts basically wants to keep the undue burden standard, which is a vague, unworkable standard.
	It makes no sense.
	The Planned Parenthood versus Casey standard, but get rid of viability and just move it back to 15 weeks.
	So he kept saying over and over the thing that is at issue before us today is 15 weeks.
	I think he wants to maintain the quote-unquote institutional credibility.
	Now, there is no justice in my lifetime who has undermined the institutional credibility of the Supreme Court quite like Justice Roberts, who has now presided over Obergefell.
	He voted the other way, but he presided, his court did, over Obergefell, presided over the Obamacare cases, and has presided over a wide variety of cases that should He's presided over a bunch of cases that are just ruled either the wrong way or that he overtly attempted to twist constitutional law in order to prevent the Supreme Court from being embroiled in controversy and in the process made the Supreme Court more embroiled in controversy.
	So Justice Roberts wants to not get rid of Roe, not get rid of Planned Parenthood versus Casey, just sort of get rid of the viability standard and move it back.
	There doesn't seem to be a case for this.
	The plaintiffs in this case, the pro-abortion side, They said, in order for you to uphold the Mississippi law, you have to get rid of Planned Parenthood versus Casey.
	They said, there is no way that you uphold the undue burden standard.
	Just move it back to 15 weeks.
	Because once you get rid of viability, then the question becomes, what is your standard of when an abortion is allowed and when it is not?
	There is no clear line anymore, right?
	Roe Is a deeply wrong and I think evil decision, but Roe does draw a pretty clear line on a legal level, which is the last trimester and then Planned Parenthood versus Casey is a deeply wrong and stupid decision, but it draws some line and viability.
	If you get rid of the viability line, what's the standard?
	So even the plaintiffs are like you have to overrule Planned Parenthood versus Casey.
	They're trying to leverage.
	The the the court into upholding Planned Parenthood versus Casey and retaining the viability standard, which is not going to happen here.
	So the real question here is Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett.
	Those are the two questions here.
	Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett is which they choose to do.
	Do they go along with these sort of narrow decision of Justice Roberts?
	Or do they say, okay, we're getting rid of the viability standard completely and the underburden standard, and we will go back to the idea that there is a baseline right to abortion in Roe, and we will just draw a different standard as to how to balance those interests.
	Or do they just overrule Roe entirely?
	Justice Roberts, again, trying to draw that narrow line.
	There was not a lot of support for it.
	Julie Reichelman, who's a lawyer for the abortion clinic, she disputed that.
	She said there are limits in many other countries that are subject to significant exceptions.
	Other conservative justices, this is according to the New York Times, indicated they were not interested in Roberts's intermediate approach.
	Samuel Alito said the only real options we have are to reaffirm Roe or to overrule it, which, of course, I agree with it.
	So, Roberts would need to get two votes for a narrower opinion.
	Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett were pretty silent on all of this.
	They kind of kept their cards close to their chest on where they are on this particular decision.
	I think the most likely scenario here is that He does craft some sort of majority decision with six votes to pare back Planned Parenthood versus Casey beyond the quote-unquote viability standard.
	I think that probably Roberts gets his way here.
	And the reason I say that is because I just don't think that Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett have the stones to actually overturn Roe.
	That's the real question.
	Because it is clear on a legal level that they should.
	We've described the entire line of cases.
	If Roe were overturned, 20 states would seek to probably make abortion illegal, which leaves, last I checked, another 30 states that will not.
	Chief Justice Roberts expressed frustration with Mississippi's litigation strategy.
	In the state's petition seeking Supreme Court review, officials told the justices the questions presented do not require the court to overturn Roe or Casey.
	Once the court agreed to hear the case, the state shifted its emphasis and began a sustained assault on these precedents, says the New York Times.
	That's not really true.
	What actually happened is that Mississippi said, you don't have to change Planned Parenthood versus Casey.
	Just say that viability begins earlier.
	Right?
	Uphold Planned Parenthood versus Casey.
	It was the plaintiffs who said, you have to overrule Planned Parenthood.
	You have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
	It's either all or nothing.
	And at that point, the defense, the state of Mississippi, they're like, OK, you want to do all or nothing?
	Let's do all or nothing.
	Let's play this game.
	Meanwhile, he had Justice Breyer quoting from Planned Parenthood versus Casey.
	And he said, to overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to re-examine a watershed decision would subvert the court's legitimacy beyond any serious question.
	I'm sorry, Roe versus Wade already subverted the court's legitimacy.
	Justice Sotomayor, who is the most political justice of my lifetime, asked whether the court would, quote, survive the stench of being considered a political institution.
	The stench of being... Sorry, guys, a little late for that one, considering that you declared that same-sex marriage was the entire law of the United States by yourselves, without any constitutional precedent.
	Again, we have now declared, in the past 10 years, that there is a fundamental right for men to marry each other under the Constitution of the United States, penned in 1789, and there's a constitutional right under the Civil Rights Act, as extended by the Civil Rights Act, for men who believe they are women to be treated like women in public settings.
	This is what we have determined.
	And you think that your constitutional legitimacy is in question right now?
	I'm sorry to break it to you.
	Your constitutional legitimacy as an institution has been well in question since Dred Scott.
	It's been about 160 years since you weren't in question.
	How about do the right thing, constitutionally speaking?
	Okay, meanwhile, in other news, Omicron has now hit the United States.
	There's been one case detected in California, which means, I guess, we have to have a travel ban from California.
	Sorry, guys.
	In a White House news briefing, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the greatest of all doctors except for the much-ballyhooed Joe Biden, he announced that it was one person who traveled from South Africa on November 22nd and tested positive for COVID-19 on November 29th.
	That person is self-quarantining.
	Close contacts have tested negative.
	The person was fully vaxxed and is experiencing mild symptoms, which are improving at this point.
	Again, I remind you, there is no evidence that Omicron is more deadly than Delta.
	In fact, there's some evidence that Omicron is less deadly than Delta.
	But, according to Anthony Fauci, even if you believe that Omicron is less deadly than Delta, you shouldn't be sanguine.
	So he was asked a simple question, was Dr. Anthony Fauci.
	And the question was, asked by a reporter, let's say that Omicron is more transmissible but less deadly than Delta.
	Wouldn't it be good for people to get Omicron as opposed to Delta?
	Wouldn't that be better?
	Because then, like, you assume that everybody's gonna get Delta.
	As I've said before, there is no world in which people just live completely virus-free for the rest of time.
	It's like the flu, it's like the common cold, you're gonna get it.
	You're either gonna get immunity through natural processes, or you're gonna get immunity through the vax.
	So, if you now have to choose between getting one of these two variants, Delta, Or Omicron.
	If it turns out that Omicron is less deadly than Delta, wouldn't you rather have Omicron?
	So the reporter asked Fauci that.
	He's like, no, never.
	No one must ever get this disease.
	No one.
	So they just keep baiting and switching.
	They're like, yes, it's endemic.
	Yes, we're going to have to learn to live with the virus, but no one should ever get it.
	Good luck with that, dude.
	Would there be any public health benefit to furthering its spread by lifting travel restrictions, for example, so it out-competes the Delta variant?
	You're talking about something really dangerous.
	You're talking about let a lot of people get infected to see if, in fact, you could protect them.
	That's something that I think almost all infectious disease people with any knowledge about infectious disease would not say.
	That's a good idea.
	So, I'm just wondering why he says that.
	Is he challenging the idea of natural immunity?
	Is that what he's doing right there?
	Because natural immunity is a well-established epidemiological fact.
	In fact, the data on Delta suggests that a natural immunity to Delta is probably more durable than vaccine immunity.
	Despite the CDC's protestations to the contrary, there are Israeli studies demonstrating that that's probably not true.
	The CDC's protestations, that is.
	So Anthony Fauci says, are you suggesting that we let people get sick to get natural immunity?
	No, I'm suggesting you have no ability to stop the spread of disease.
	That everything you have attempted to do has been a giant failure, including the mask mandates and the lockdowns.
	And so you're going to have to choose how you wish to live with this.
	But Fauci is just a bag of mixed messages.
	Why the White House continues to trot out this person who has lost all public trust is beyond me.
	At what point does the booster become part of the mandate?
	Yeah, I can't answer that right now, but I know that for the time being, the official definition of fully vaccinated is two.
	Do you see that changing?
	We keep having these hearings.
	We're concerned about them.
	It could change.
	It could change.
	It could change, yes.
	Do you recommend a change?
	Well, I don't know.
	Let's see what rolls out now.
	I mean, I know if I say it's going to change, it's going to get spread out that that's it.
	We don't know right now whether it should change, but it might.
	It might change, it might not.
	But it might change, but it also might not.
	But it might change.
	Again, they have no approach here.
	They're just pretending they have an approach.
	And by the way, again, there's no evidence that the vaccines are not standing up to this thing.
	At least in terms of hospitalization and death, which is the only thing I care about!
	I'm not gonna- I'm gonna keep repeating this until people get it through their thick skulls.
	It does not matter if you get Omicron if you don't get that sick.
	I don't understand why this is remotely controversial.
	All three of my kids had colds this week.
	They're all fine because this is called living as a human being on planet Earth.
	People get sick as long as they're not threatened with serious conditions or death.
	Who gives a crap?
	Even the Biden administration used to say this.
	Now, apparently, they just can't make up their minds.
	And again, the fact that they can't make up their minds underscores what I have been saying now for months, for more than a year at this point.
	People who refuse to acknowledge that government cannot solve all of their problems are the same people who believe that we have to keep locking down, we have to keep being scared, because after all, if they ever admit that government can't solve all of our problems, we might actually start taking our lives into our own hands.
	And wouldn't that be a disaster?
	Wouldn't that be a disaster?
	Here's a top research scientist on CNBC saying, yeah, by the way, it looks kind of like the vaccines are durable against Omicron and you're all panicking because you're stupid.
	T-cells are what's really protecting us from severe disease, from COVID pneumonia.
	And our T-cells are very intensive, not affected by variants to any significant degree.
	So there's lots of reasons for optimism that this is not some horrible situation that we're in.
	The vaccine should hold up against severe disease, especially with people who are boosted.
	Hey, so what are we panicking over exactly?
	Well, what exactly are we panicking over?
	OK, so the answer is, again, it goes to the root baseline belief of Democrats, of many people on the left, that they are capable of fixing your life if you give them control.
	This is true in economics.
	It's true in social life.
	It is true when it comes to disease.
	Ron Klain put out the most insane tweet of the day yesterday.
	So this is the actual chief of staff of the White House.
	Ron Klain is the shadow president because Joe Biden is no longer with us.
	He sadly departed this earth, at least on a mental level.
	I mean, if we're talking about Viability.
	I'm not sure that Joe Biden is viable at this point as a human.
	Joe Biden left us many, many months ago.
	Ronald Klain is the guy who's actually making policy at the White House.
	So there's a columnist named Greg Ip who writes for the Wall Street Journal.
	And he says, COVID carved a partisan divide through the United States.
	Democrats have been much more cautious and protective, which manifests itself as generally lower infections and deaths, but also much weaker economic outcomes.
	Omicron could perpetuate that.
	Okay, so here's the thing.
	It sort of depends on the state as far as death per million ratio, because New York did worse than Florida, and New York is about the same size as Florida.
	Florida was much more open, but focus in on the economic statement right there, right?
	He's correct about this, that they are killing their own economies.
	Ron Klain tweets out, quote, nope, stronger COVID measures produce stronger economic outcomes.
	That's why jobs, growth, and economic activity are up this year significantly over last year.
	It's so insane that he says this, it's almost difficult to know where exactly to begin.
	It's like, really?
	Strong COVID measures produce stronger economic outcomes, which is why we're up this year?
	No, we're up this year because people got vaccinated and they went back to work.
	That's why we're up this year.
	Your own president says this, but he's saying that it's stronger COVID measures like lockdowns, presumably, and mask mandates that generate stronger economic out... If that's the case, why wasn't strong economic growth the thing last year?
	After all, we actually locked in our houses for months at a time last year.
	We mask mandated.
	I was living in California last year, and let me tell you, that place was locked down tighter than a tick.
	And economic growth was completely stagnant.
	It destroyed the economy of the state.
	So Ronald Klain is just crazy.
	Stronger COVID measures produce stronger economic outcomes.
	Again, just get rid of COVID there, and the word stronger economic.
	And bottom line is, That sentence without any of those signifiers would read, stronger measures produce stronger outcomes.
	That is the Democratic Party platform in a nutshell.
	Stronger measures produce stronger outcomes.
	More regulation, more top-down control produces stronger outcomes.
	Now, it's a lie.
	It's been a lie.
	It was a lie in the Soviet Union with regards to the economy, and it's a lie with regards to COVID and the economy.
	And by the way, when I say it's a lie, I don't mean that he's just getting it wrong.
	I mean he is a liar because this is perfectly available data.
	Patrick Ruffini, who is a Republican pollster, he put out a chart showing the percent of jobs recovered since the beginning of the pandemic by state.
	Okay, here are the top states in terms of percentage of jobs that have returned since the beginning of the pandemic.
	Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Texas, Montana, South Dakota, Georgia, Nebraska, Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina.
	Not a blue state among them.
	The only state that I just listed that has a blue governor is North Carolina, which again is a state that tends to go red in presidential elections.
	So every single state I just mentioned in terms of jobs recovered, percentage of jobs recovered, is a red state.
	Every single one.
	But you have Ronald Klain saying that no, lockdown measures are actually helpful to the economy.
	Okay fine, so if you believe that, why not just lock it all back down?
	The answer is the markets think that's what these guys believe.
	This is why the Dow is just getting destroyed.
	So the Dow finished 460 points lower on Tuesday.
	According to the CNBC, the major averages fell sharply, giving up solid gains on Wednesday after the CDC and Prevention confirmed the first case of Omicron in the U.S.
	Markets are not afraid of Omicron.
	Markets are afraid of these insane, idiotic public health officials locking down you again.
	That is what markets are afraid of.
	And they should be afraid of that.
	Because these morons have run the economy into the ground in what should be the middle of the easiest recovery in American history.
	Because the economy was put into an artificial coma last year.
	And then vaccines came.
	And we were all supposed to be like ready to go.
	And now they're talking about how stronger COVID measures produce stronger economic outcomes.
	It's no wonder that Joe Biden is down in the high 30s, low 40s in terms of public approval rating.
	Meanwhile, he's just out there babbling nonsensically to himself about economic matters.
	He said yesterday that he built the economic recovery.
	No, you have stagnated an economic recovery that was perfectly natural.
	And this guy is the biggest placebo effect when it comes to the economy in American history, except it turns out that the placebo wasn't a placebo.
	He may be killing the patient.
	Here is Joe Biden.
	We're seeing more new small businesses, higher wages, And more disposable income.
	Fewer children in poverty.
	Fewer people getting unemployment checks.
	None of this was inevitable.
	It was because of the American Rescue Plan, which virtually every Democrat in Congress voted for and every Republican voted against.
	It was because of the hard work my administration has done to try to solve the challenges in our economy, instead of just pointing fingers and complaining.
	Nope, you did not build the economic recovery.
	Your economic recovery has been rife with inflation, which was completely unnecessary because you decided to pay people to stay home.
	So you've been under supply of labor, we have supply chain shortages, and you blew money into the economy.
	We didn't need to do that.
	We didn't need to do it.
	You did that.
	What you built here is the failure of the economy.
	Meanwhile, Joe Biden is still babbling to himself about how his plan to battle inflation is working.
	Really?
	Is it?
	Is it really working so well?
	Here is Joe Biden saying something completely nonsensical, as is his wont.
	Prices are still out of sync as the world comes back.
	But as we continue to overcome these obstacles, the more price pressures will ease.
	But I have not been content to sit back and wait.
	I've used every tool available to address the price increases.
	And it's working.
	Really?
	Is it working now?
	Because actually, Jerome Powell came out yesterday and he said that inflation is no longer transitory.
	So is it working particularly well, Joe?
	Is it?
	Meanwhile, Joe Biden is still promoting more spending, more spending.
	Build Back Better is going to fix everything.
	Now, my Republican friends are talking a lot about prices, but they're lined up against my Build Back Better plan, which would go right at the problem for rising costs for families.
	Why is that?
	I don't want to speculate on anyone's motive, but it's always easier to complain about a problem than to try to fix it.
	Oh, really?
	I noticed that that's all you do, is complain about problems that you yourself created and that you do nothing about while your Secretary of Transportation is on a two-month paternity leave in the middle of a supply chain crisis.
	Meanwhile, Janet Yellen's saying the same thing.
	She's just lying also.
	So Janet Yellen, again, these are all political hacks.
	The notion that there is a nonpartisan branch of the government that is filled with political appointees.
	Just remember, Secretary Yellen was the head of the Federal Reserve until five minutes ago.
	A nonpartisan political figure.
	And here she is now just openly lying about Build Back Better not adding to deficits.
	It's not true, according to the CBO.
	These investments we expect will lead to a GDP increase over the long term without increasing the national debt or deficit by a dollar.
	In fact, the offsets in these bills mean they actually reduce annual deficits over time.
	Okay, so yeah, sure.
	We believe you.
	We believe you, this Biden administration.
	By the way, finally, at root, the Biden administration, they're just control freaks and angry old people shouting at clouds.
	So here's an angry old man shouting at a cloud.
	He's very angry that people are noticing that they're not able to gain products during the Christmas season.
	Here's Joe Biden shouting at people for noticing that their milk is more expensive.
	If you watched the news recently, you might think the shelves in all our stores are empty across the country.
	That parents won't be able to get presents for their children this holiday season.
	But here's the deal.
	For the vast majority of the country, that's not what's happening.
	Because of the actions the administration has taken, in partnership with business and labor, retailers and grocery stores, freight movers and railroads, those shelves are going to be stocked.
	Oh, are they?
	Because that's not what I'm hearing from all of the people who are in industry right now.
	But it's you, the people, who are at fault.
	These, your great rulers, will be the ones who eventually decide whether you are allowed to have liberty or not.
	So I guess the leftist notion of governance can be summed up in the following logic.
	You have the right to decide your meaning of the universe, of life, of human existence when it comes to killing babies in your womb, but when it comes to your ability to actually live your life freely, We will tell you when you're allowed to live your life freely.
	At least when you're not killing babies.
	You can kill babies.
	That's the deal.
	You can kill as many babies as you want, but can you go to work today without a mask?
	Well, no.
	That we will control.
	If this is the kind of governance you look forward to, keep voting blue.
	Seriously.
	And stay the hell out of my state, please.
	All right, we'll be back here later today with an additional hour of content.
	In the meantime, go check out our newest podcast, Morning Wire.
	On today's episode, they discuss Joe Biden's VAX mandates having setbacks in court.
	That episode is available right now on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
	Make sure to tune in.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Elliott Feld.
	Executive Producer Jeremy Boring.
	Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.
	Production Manager Pavel Lydowsky.
	Associate Producer Bradford Carrington.
	Post Producer Justin Barber.
	The show is edited by Adam Sajovic.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
	Hair and Makeup is by Fabiola Christina.
	Production Assistant Jessica Kranz.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2021.
	— John Bickley here, Daily Wire editor-in-chief.
	Wake up every morning with our new show, Morning Wire.
	On today's episode, President Biden's vaccine mandates suffer several court setbacks, the Supreme Court hears arguments on a landmark abortion case, and CNN suspends host Chris Cuomo.

▲