All Episodes
Previous Next
May 20, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
46:40
Ep. 263 - Democrats Pass Radical Anti-Science, Anti-Woman Bill

The democrats have once again proved that they are a radical anti-science cult with the passage of a bill that would, among other things, force women’s sports teams to allow men. Also, Mayor Pete is supposed to be a moderate Democrat, so why is he advocating for abortion in the third trimester? Date: 05-20-19 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Democrats have once again proven that they are a radical anti-science cult with the passage of something they call the Equality Act, which would, among other things, force women's sports teams to allow men.
So we'll talk about that.
Also, Mayor Pete is supposed to be this moderate, reasonable Democrat, so why is he advocating for abortion in the third trimester?
We'll discuss that as well, among other things today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Mine was pretty good.
It was a good weekend for the most part.
There was one disturbing aspect of it.
I took my kids out yesterday to the lake.
Beautiful day, hot day.
Went to the lake, did a little bit of fishing.
That's not the disturbing part.
The disturbing was on the way home when I got this idea.
I was really excited because it was such a hot day.
And I said, you know, I had this idea that I'm going to get them a nice treat.
Um, I'm going to get them slushies from the gas station.
My kids have never had slushies before.
They're five years old.
The twins are, they've gone through five years of life and never had a slushie.
So I was really excited as a kid.
Slushies were one of my favorite childhood treats, especially on a hot day, having a slushie.
I mean, nothing beats it.
Right?
So I take them into the gas station.
I'm, I'm, I'm hyping it up a lot and saying, Oh, this is this.
I love this.
When I was your age, you guys, I got to love this.
And I get them the slushies and they don't like.
Slushies.
My kids.
Five years old.
I would have killed a man for a slushie when I was their age.
Literally.
And they said it tastes like soda fizz.
Which, yeah, that's the point!
And they didn't like them.
So this is just, it was crushing for me.
And there's nothing more difficult than that as a parent, when there's something that you cherish from your childhood, and you're so excited to tell your kids about it and to introduce them to it, and they don't like it.
It's similar to the first time I showed my kids the movie Babe, which was one of my favorite movies growing up as a kid, and they didn't like that movie.
Now, the talking pig movie, they like Peppa the Pig, which is, that's the British pig, They like that.
They don't like the American pig.
So what I'm beginning... They don't like slushies.
They don't like American pigs.
American talking pigs, anyway.
So I'm getting this vibe that my kids are communists, basically.
And I didn't raise them that way.
That's not... It's not my fault.
The Russians got to them somehow.
And I'm just as horrified by it as you are.
All right.
Several big topics to get into today, but first I want to tell you about Helix Sleep.
You know, we got one of these mattresses ourselves, and I feel like I'm a good person to offer an endorsement of it because I'm usually not a great sleeper.
I have back issues, shoulder issues, mental issues.
I'm falling apart.
The mattress didn't do anything for the mental issues, I have to say.
You got to talk to a counselor for that.
But as for the back and shoulder problems, it's been great.
Gives me kind of the firm support that I need when I'm sleeping, but it's also a soft mattress at the same time.
Really the best of both worlds.
And I've been sleeping like a baby on it ever since.
Well, not like an infant because they don't sleep, but more like a one or two year old I've been sleeping.
Helix Sleep has a quiz that takes just two minutes to complete, matches your body type and sleep preferences
to the perfect mattress for you.
Very simple, I took the quiz myself, just takes a couple minutes.
It's, and it makes it a lot easier, the whole mattress shopping experience becomes easier.
Whether you're a side sleeper, hot sleeper, you like a plush or firm bed with Helix,
there's no confusion, no more compromising.
Helix Sleep is rated the number one mattress by GQ and Wired Magazine, and CNN calls it the most comfortable mattress they've ever slept on.
Just go to helixsleep.com slash Walsh, take their two-minute sleep quiz, and they'll match you to a customized mattress that will give you the best sleep of your life.
And for couples, Helix can even split the mattress down the middle, providing individual support needs and feel preferences for each side.
They have a 10-year warranty.
And 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 love it, so you don't have to worry about that.
Helix is offering up to $125 off all mattress orders for our listeners right now.
Get up to $125 off at helixsleep.com slash Walsh.
That's helixsleep.com slash Walsh for up to $125 off your mattress.
HelixSleep.com slash Walsh for up to $125 off your mattress.
HelixSleep.com slash Walsh.
Okay, so the Democrats in the House on Friday voted unanimously to pass something
that they are in true Orwellian fashion calling the Equality Act.
And in so doing, they have proven yet again, as if we needed more proof, that the Democrat Party is a radical anti-science cult.
The legislation is absurd and horrifying.
Of course, it's not going to become law because it's not going to make it through the Senate and there's no way Trump would sign it, but it does show what will certainly happen if the Democrats ever control the entire government again.
Because this thing passed unanimously.
It would not have done that a few years ago.
It would have been seen as too radical.
But now, the whole Democrat Party is radical extreme.
Even the ones who get credit for being moderate are really just as crazy as the rest of them.
And a good example of that is good old Mayor Pete, who we'll talk about in a minute.
But, let's talk about what this law does.
The law would expand the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to ban discrimination, quote-unquote, based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Not gender.
That's already illegal, but on gender identity.
But what is discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity?
Well, there's plenty that is left vague in the bill, and intentionally so.
It doesn't specifically say, for instance, that a Christian baker would have to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but that is the implication, because this would codify into law the idea that any form of discrimination against someone based on sexual orientation is an infringement on their fundamental human rights.
And if that's an infringement on their fundamental human rights, then is it an infringement of their rights to refuse to bake a cake?
Well, obviously it isn't, not based on any coherent or rational definition of human rights, but the Democrats are not working from a coherent and rational definition of human rights.
So from their perspective, yes, it is.
And so I think that's part of the implication of this law.
Let me read a little bit from the bill itself.
It says, discrimination can occur on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition of an individual, as well as because of sex-based stereotypes.
Each of these factors alone can serve as the basis for discrimination, and each is a form of sex discrimination.
So they're establishing gender identity in that realm of sex discrimination.
It goes on, a single instance of discrimination may have more than one basis, blah blah blah.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer, referred to as LGBTQ people, commonly experience discrimination in securing access to public accommodations, including restaurants, senior centers, stores, places of or establishments that provide entertainment, Health care facilities, shelters, government offices, youth service providers, including adoption and foster care providers, and transportation.
Forms of discrimination include the exclusion and denial of entry, unequal or unfair treatment, harassment, and violence.
This discrimination prevents the full partici- Now here's the important part.
This discrimination prevents the full participation of LGBTQ people in society and disrupts the free flow of commerce.
Now, if a Christian business owner says, I don't want to partake in the gay wedding, does that mean that prevents the participation of the LGBTQ person in society and disrupts commerce?
Again, obviously not, but from the perspective of these crazy Democrats, yeah.
And then it goes on, I'm not going to read this whole thing, but it just establishes This idea that, okay, these are fundamental human rights and you can't be discriminated.
And it becomes clear that, yes, cake bakers would be in trouble with a law like this.
Any Christian business owner would be in trouble.
Over at the Daily Signal, Ryan T. Anderson, one of my favorite writers, summarizes some of the objectives of the law.
I'll read his bullet points for you.
He says, number one, the Equality Act would force employers to cover abortion and medical professionals to perform or assist in performing abortions.
Number two, the Equality Act would force employers to pay for sex reassignment procedures in their health insurance plans and require medical professionals to perform them.
Number three, the Equality Act would force all schools and businesses to open their women's bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and sports teams to boys who identify as girls and to men who identify as women.
Four, the Equality Act could be used to force the military to pay for reassignment procedures and force the military to accept recruits suffering from gender dysphoria who are not combat ready.
Five, the Equality Act would force faith-based adoption agencies to either violate their conviction that every child deserves both a mother and father or to stop serving children in need altogether.
Six, the Equality Act would force a variety of small business owners to violate their beliefs about marriage, sexuality, and gender.
Seven, the Equality Act in general threatens the freedom of speech, freedom of association, and free exercise of religion of countless people.
Okay, so let's go through a couple of things here.
The main and most immediate and explicit thing this bill does, it seems, is force everyone in society, all institutions, schools, businesses, etc.
to pretend that a biological male who claims to be a girl really is a girl.
This is a law that says if a dude says he's a girl, then he's a girl.
Which logically is no different from a law that says if someone says the moon is made of marshmallows, then it is.
If they say it, that it's true, and you have to acknowledge and affirm that truth, or you are infringing on their rights.
Which is madness.
It is trying to impose a biological unreality onto society.
In the process, it would of course destroy women's sports because it would mean that any dude who wants to join a girl's sports team can just walk in, no questions asked.
It's not even like they have to be on hormones or they have to have already done the sex change or whatever.
Sex change, of course, is Euphemistically, namely, there's no such thing as a sex change operation or sex reassignment.
Just think about that phrase for a minute.
Sex reassignment.
Like you can just reassign your sex.
I'm gonna reassign it.
You can't.
Sex is not assigned in the first place.
It's just who you are.
It's what you are.
There's no assigning that goes on.
It's just what you are.
You might as well say, I'm going to do a height reassignment.
I've been assigned to be 6'1", but I want to be 8'3".
And so I'm going to reassign my height.
It makes no sense.
So they're saying this is a fundamental human right.
And, um, and a man who says he's a girl has a fundamental human right to force everyone to pretend that he's something he isn't.
Now, even worse is the danger that it puts, um, women and girls in, because under this law, it is now a fundamental human right of a man to walk into any girl's bathroom.
No questions asked.
If you try to prevent him, you're infringing on his rights as a human being.
I mean, liberals have been shrieking about how a woman's autonomy and her right to her body and her right to privacy are being stolen by laws that simply prevent her from killing her children.
But now these very same charlatans in the Democrat Party are going to really infringe on a woman's right to privacy by allowing men into her bathrooms and her locker rooms.
Remember, abortion, the so-called supposed right to abortion that was located in 1973 by an all-male Supreme Court, they found the right to abortion in the right to privacy, which also is not actually in the Constitution.
But if the right to privacy means anything, I mean, if we have a right to privacy, then wouldn't you have that right in a bathroom, in a locker room?
Isn't that one of the main areas in life where you, if there is such a thing as a right to privacy, you would want to be able to call upon it and say, I am claiming my right to privacy.
But no, they're saying, no, you don't have any right to privacy there.
If a dude wants to come in and he says he's a girl, then that's it.
He's a girl.
And what do they do?
I was just thinking about this, but because we're told that there are Countless genders.
An unlimited number of genders.
So, what if somebody just makes up a new gender and says, I'm going to walk into the women's... What do you do with that?
What do you do with someone who says, well, he's not a woman or a man, he's a flop-a-doodle.
My gender is flop-a-doodle.
And he says, I want to go into the...
Do you have to make a new locker room for flop-a-doodles?
Or can the flop-a-doodle go wherever he wants?
How does that work?
I mean, I'm saying that's my gender.
You can't tell me it's not.
Oh, you're telling me I'm not a flop-a-doodle?
Well, how dare you?
That's what I identify as.
I feel it deep in my heart and soul that I'm a floppa doodle and you can't tell me otherwise.
Another thing about this is you see how Democrats are constantly trying to hijack
the civil rights struggle in such a demeaning, insulting, borderline racist way where
the Civil Rights Act initially was about actually giving equal rights to black Americans who
who, uh...
You know, up until the middle of the 19th century, were enslaved, okay, were treated as property.
And then for another 100 years thereafter, they were really legally prevented from participating in society.
Not because they weren't allowed to go into a women's bathroom if they were a man.
But no, they couldn't go into any public restroom, unless there was one specifically for their race.
They were prevented from taking, they really were prevented legally from being recognized as full American citizens, as full human beings, and from enjoying those rights and privileges.
And that obviously was a terrible evil injustice.
So part of the Civil Rights Act was about addressing that.
Okay.
Now, Democrats and the radical left, and those of course are the same groups, are trying to hijack that struggle by equating, you know, think about the situation that a black man or woman would have been in, in, you know, say the 1950s before the Civil Rights Act.
And they're trying to say that, what, transgenders are in the same spot?
No, a so-called transgender person can do all of the things that the rest of us can do.
There's nothing that you can't do.
You can go do whatever you want, you can say whatever you want, you can go anywhere, you can take part in any activity, you can go in any store, you can participate fully in society.
As far as bathrooms and locker rooms go, you have the right to go into the locker room or bathroom that aligns with your biological sex, which is the same right that the rest of us have.
And it's the same limitation that the rest of us have that we're not allowed to go into the locker room or bathroom that doesn't align with our biological sex.
Neither can you.
So what's happening here is the LGBT people, again, they're not looking for equal rights, they're looking for special rights.
They want something that the rest of us don't have.
That is, I don't have the ability to go into any bathroom I want.
But what the LGBT people are saying, they're saying, I want that right for myself.
I want to be able to go into any bathroom, man or woman, either one.
And if you won't let me, then you've basically enslaved me.
I am like a slave now.
Such a cynical exploitation of the very real struggles Uh, of, of black Americans in this country.
It's disgusting.
It's gross.
It's disgusting.
To try to exploit it in that way.
Um, what other point here?
You know, the full LGBT acronym, uh, is right now it keeps expanding, but right now I just looked it up.
The full acronym right now is LGBTQQIAAP.
And that stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, pansexual.
Okay, so, and when we talk about you're not allowed to discriminate, and they say LGBT, that's really shorthand for the whole acronym, right?
So, what does that mean?
You can't discriminate against what?
So you can't discriminate against questioning people?
What does it mean to discriminate against the questioning?
Are the questioning being discriminated?
Is there anywhere you can go in society where there's a sign up on a window?
No questioning people allowed here!
Questioning people may not apply.
I mean, is that happening anywhere?
Has anyone in this country ever been discriminated against for questioning?
What does that even mean?
Or ally.
You can't be, no allies allowed.
Allies get out!
It's just, it's completely ridiculous.
Most of the people in this acronym, you wouldn't even know if you met a person like that.
I don't even know what discriminating against them would even mean.
Pansexual.
So, pansexuals are being discriminated against?
How so?
And once again, I mean, if you don't go, as long as you don't go around announcing to everyone, hey, I'm a pansexual.
Now, if you say that to most people, they'll say, okay, whatever.
I don't even know what that means.
Good for you.
Pansexual.
Are you attracted to pancakes?
I honestly, I don't know what it means.
Um, but you can be that it's no one cares really just, you don't, but you don't have to go around announcing it.
Any more than I go around announcing my own sexual orientation.
I don't walk up to someone and say, hey, my name's Matt, heterosexual, how are you?
I don't do that.
Because it's none of their business, it's inappropriate, it's weird.
If you're a pansexual, whatever that means, you don't need to necessarily announce that.
And if you don't, then there wouldn't even be any opportunity for discrimination.
So the whole thing is just...
Ridiculous.
All right.
Mayor Pete was on Fox News last night.
He did a Fox News town hall.
Wait, now I really want to know what pansexual is.
Hold on.
Now I'm just crying.
I don't think it's attraction to pancakes.
Okay, so not limited in sexual choice with regard to biological sex, gender, or gender identity.
So, pansexual is you're just attracted to everybody.
So, no discrimination there.
Okay, so that's what pansexual is.
Pansexuals can't be discriminated against either.
Not that that's happening, anyway.
That's not actually happening, but now it definitely can happen, so that's great.
Mayor Pete was on Fox News last night, did a Fox News town hall, and remember this is supposed to be the moderate, reasonable, Democrat character, but watch this.
There's been a lot of focus this week about the states that have voted to restrict women's rights, but there's also been a movement in the other direction.
New York State also this year passed a new law which Significantly increases a woman's right to an abortion.
It used to be the exception was after, I think it's 24 weeks, to protect the life of a woman.
Now the new law is to protect the health of a woman, which is a much more lenient standard.
I guess the question is, do you believe at any point in pregnancy, whether it's six weeks or eight weeks or 24 weeks or whenever, that there should be any limit on a woman's right to have an abortion?
You know, I think the dialogue has got so caught up on where you draw the line that we've gotten away from the fundamental question of who gets to draw the line.
and I trust women to draw the line when it's their own.
So just to be clear...
Very clear.
Just to be clear, you're saying that you would be okay with a woman, well into the third trimester, deciding to abort her pregnancy?
Look, these hypotheticals are usually set up in order to provoke a strong emotional... No, but in fairness, sir, it's not hypothetical.
There's 6,000 women a year who get abortions in the third trimester.
That's right, representing less than 1% of cases.
I know, but 6,000 pregnancies.
Let's take ourselves in... Yeah.
So let's put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation.
If it's that late in your pregnancy, that means almost by definition, you've been expecting to carry it to term.
We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name, women who have purchased a crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something About the health or the life of the mother that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice.
And the bottom line is, as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance, they may seek medical guidance, but that decision's not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made.
Okay, so first of all, here are all those trained SEALs in the audience applauding while this person advocates killing babies at 38 weeks.
And this is the answer that every Democrat has to give now.
They have to endorse killing babies all throughout pregnancy, through every stage, for any reason.
Which is, again, the continued radicalization of the Democrat Party.
I do want to note that everything he said at the end there was totally bogus and wrong.
Where he's talking about, well, what are the situations where somebody would, very late in pregnancy, when they've already got the crib and they've named the child, what are the situations where they would get an abortion?
And Mayor Pete pretends, and he knows what he's saying isn't true, that while there's no way anybody would make that choice, Uh, a choice that only encompasses 1% of all abortions.
Yeah, but rape and incest only accounts for 1%, and Democrats talk about that all the time.
So the fact that it's only 1%, according to you, doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it.
And 1%, considering how many abortions happen in this country, hundreds of thousands every year, 1% accounts for thousands and thousands of abortions.
So, thousands of times women are getting abortions very late in pregnancy.
He says it's only if the mother's life is in jeopardy.
That is just not true.
That is a lie.
It's a total lie.
I've addressed it plenty of times in the past, and I will once again address it, because it's simply not true.
If a woman at, say, you know, what, 32 weeks, for instance, has a cataclysmic medical complication and she can't continue the pregnancy, that does happen.
But the thing is, at 32 weeks, In the third trimester, they can deliver the child and there's a very good chance the child will survive.
At 32 weeks, there's a very good chance the child will survive.
With modern technology?
So there's no reason to kill the child.
The point is, in the third trimester, late in pregnancy, if there is some sort of complication, You've got to deliver the baby no matter what.
Even if you're getting the abortion, there is still going to be a delivery.
The only difference is, in the abortion, you kill the child first, and then, by stabbing it with a poison needle, and then you deliver it.
But that extra step of killing the child first, there is no medical reason for that at all.
That doesn't help the woman.
It doesn't preserve the woman's life.
That is just an extra medical step, which carries with it medical... Huge quotes around medical, by the way.
Huge scare quotes around it.
It's not medical at all.
This is just murder.
But that is an extra step that carries with it extra risks to the mother, and obviously a huge risk to the baby, who is going to be killed, more than likely, by the procedure, unless the abortion fails, which does happen also.
And then in some cases, the baby will just be killed afterwards if it is a failed abortion, which is what Ralph Northam in Virginia advocated for.
There's no reason for that.
You just deliver the baby, send it to the NICU for medical treatment, and then if the woman doesn't want the child, you put the child up for adoption.
And there will be a very long line of people waiting to adopt that child.
There'll be no problem finding a home for that child.
No problem at all.
So this is just untrue.
Democrats want to pretend that a late-term abortion is the least egregious kind of abortion because, well, it only happens for medical reasons, but it is definitely the most egregious kind.
Not only because it's so late in the pregnancy and what you have now is a fully formed baby who visibly looks like a baby.
Not just because of that.
But because you're delivering the baby anyway.
So just deliver him.
Do a c-section.
You don't need to kill him first.
Now, there's no reason to kill a baby at any stage, but at that stage, you're going through the process of delivery anyway.
So let him be born alive and give him a chance.
Staying on this topic for a moment, Tommy Lahren sent out a tweet over the weekend.
And, uh, here's the tweet.
I'll put it up on the screen.
It says to those arguing with me over the Alabama law, I am not saying life doesn't matter.
I am asking you if you honestly think an all out ban is going to stop abortion, do you think government is the answer?
Do you think it's effective or does this just, or does this ban just make you feel better now?
You know, Tommy, uh, I have no issue with Tommy.
I worked with her briefly when I was over at the blaze.
And, um, I think she's a, you know, we didn't, I, we lived, I didn't, I didn't live down in Dallas where the studios are down there, but, um, I, you know, my experience with her a little bit of experience, she, I think she's a nice person.
She's perfectly fine.
I have no problem with her, but this kind of thing, uh, And it's been known now for a while, when Tommy Lahren came out against the Alabama law a few days ago, it was treated as this headline story.
Now we've known for a couple of years now that Tommy is pro-abortion, which is very unfortunate.
And I just don't think... Conservatism is supposed to be about advocating liberty, basic human rights.
That's what conservatism is supposed to be.
And if you don't have the right to life, then you can't have any other right.
And so your ability to be an effective advocate for the conservative position is severely hindered if you're not advocating for the right to life, which is the foundational right upon which all the rest lay.
But we've known that about her.
The argument that she puts forward here is Just bad.
It is a straw man.
It makes no sense.
We're pro-life because of what makes us feel better?
What?
Do you think that government is the answer?
Is an all-out ban on abortion going to stop abortion?
Okay, well the answer is no.
Nobody thinks that when you ban abortion, there's not going to be any abortions anymore, and abortion is done, and it's a utopia.
No one thinks that.
But I would ask you this, Tommy.
Do you think that an all-out ban on rape has stopped rape from happening?
Has an all-out ban on carjacking, or armed robbery, or Homicide, which abortion is homicide, but other forms of homicide.
Has an all-out ban on any of those things stopped those things from happening?
No.
In fact, I would even argue, it seems to me quite likely, that the ban on rape, which we have in every state in the Union, I think it's probably likely that it has never actually prevented a single rape from happening.
In that, if someone decides that they want to rape another human being, they have the desire to do it, and they find the opportunity to do it, I doubt they're going to stop because it's illegal.
I don't know if there's ever been a person who says, you know, I really want to rape someone, and I have the opportunity to do it, but it's against the law, so I'm not going to do it.
No, because if someone is a total dirtbag, and they're an evil person, and so they have this desire in the first place, which means you have to be so deep into the depths of evil and darkness to even have that desire, and if they have it, then they're not going to be prevented by the law.
The reason why most of us have never raped anyone or never killed anyone is just because we have absolutely no desire to do that.
We're not that kind of person.
But if someone is that kind of person, then I think it's probably likely that the law will not stop them.
But the reason why we have laws against it is because it is an evil violent act, which harms another person.
And in a civilized society, acts like that behavior like that is illegal.
Whether how effective the law is and actually stopping a thing ahead of time.
Who knows?
But it's against the law because we are a civilized human society.
And there is a lot of value In simply making that statement as a society and saying, we do not approve of that.
That is not tolerated.
We will not accept that.
And then on the other end of it, you can try to enact some kind of justice, although you can never undo this terrible thing that happened.
You can enact some kind of justice by punishing the person who did it.
And that also has value.
And so when I say that, so maybe I should correct myself a little bit.
I say that the laws against rape have never prevented a rape.
I think laws against rape probably haven't stopped a rapist from initially committing that act against another person.
But if, when, after it happens, you put that person in jail, you probably have prevented additional rapes from that person by putting them in jail.
So there is, so there is some preventative value in that case.
And so that's it.
Are you going to say that because we have laws against rape, we have laws against murder, that we're pretending that government is the answer?
No.
But government has a role, has a function in society, and to prohibit and punish violent acts against other people.
I mean, if the government doesn't have that function or that role, then what the hell is the point of government?
That's one of the most basic roles of government.
If it's not supposed to do that, then I don't even know why we have a government.
We may as well have no government then.
So it's the same thing with abortion.
So when someone says, well, you have a law against abortion, it's not going to prevent any abortions.
Even if that's true, I still say it should be against the law.
But I don't even think that is true.
Because, uh, You know, there's been 60 million abortions since Roe v. Wade.
That's an average of 1.3 million a year.
Are you going to tell me that even if abortion was illegal, we would still have that number of abortions?
So you're telling me nobody would have been dissuaded from getting an abortion if it was illegal?
I don't believe that.
Because something like rape or homicide of a born person, the thing about that is most of the time, it's one person doing it to another person.
Most of the time, there is no third party involved.
But with the nature of abortion, cloaking itself as it does as a medical procedure, usually there's going to be a third person.
There's a third party involved.
There is the quote-unquote doctor.
If you're not going to get that third party involved, then that means you're left using a coat hanger or some gruesome thing like that.
So are you going to tell me that every single woman Who has gone to a so-called doctor for an abortion.
If she had not been able to go to the doctor, she would have used a coat hanger or something like that.
She would have gone to the supposed back alley for the abortion.
You know, I don't think so.
I think actually that laws against abortion would dissuade a fair number of women from getting an abortion.
I think there are a fair number of women who would say it's illegal.
I don't want to go do the back alley thing.
So maybe I'll just have the kid and put them up for adoption instead.
I think that that is a thought process that would probably go through a lot of women's minds.
If abortions were not completely legal and easy to get just by going to a Planned Parenthood down the street.
So I do think it will dissuade and prevent a fair number of abortions.
How many?
I don't know.
But also, that part of it is not the point.
The point is, it is an evil, violent act against another human being, and that's why it should be illegal, for that reason, period.
All right, let's go to emails.
matwalshowatgmail.com, matwalshowatgmail.com.
This is from Ashley, says, let's see here.
Yeah.
Ashley says, I really enjoy your show and I've been watching since the beginning CarCast days.
As a pro-lifer, I have to say I was a bit stumped when someone said, if abortion is murder, then miscarriage is manslaughter in a spirited debate.
I honestly didn't have a great response and would like to hear your take.
I personally don't believe miscarriages are manslaughter, but if I believe abortion is murder, which I do, then wouldn't it be honest to say miscarriages are in fact manslaughter?
Anyway, I appreciate your time and all you do for the pro-life movement.
Sincerely, Ashley.
Hi, Ashley.
Yeah, this is a common argument from pro-aborts, and I'm not sure why, because it's very weak.
There is a clear difference between a miscarriage and an abortion.
A miscarriage, by definition, is something that happens accidentally, naturally, because of sickness or injury or some other problem out of anyone's control.
Now, if it's an intentional miscarriage, then it's not a miscarriage, it's an abortion.
So we're not talking about a miscarriage anymore.
The idea that you can't criminalize abortion without criminalizing miscarriages is exactly the same as saying you can't criminalize infanticide without criminalizing SIDS, which is Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.
There are tragic cases that I'm sure you've heard about where an infant dies suddenly, often in their crib, and not because anyone did anything to cause it.
Obviously, that's different from someone intentionally smothering their infant or killing them via shaken baby syndrome or in some other way.
Obviously, the intentional harm to an infant is evil and therefore should be punished.
But an accidental uncaused death of an infant is tragic and not criminal.
So you're not going to punish the parent.
We all understand that.
There's no problem in understanding that concept.
And so the same and the same would go for the distinction between someone dying of brain cancer and someone dying from being shot in the head.
Obviously, someone dies of brain cancer.
No one is going to jail for that.
That's a tragic illness.
And that's all.
We mourn it.
Someone gets shot in the head.
We want to find out who pulled the trigger and put them in jail.
So same thing, miscarriage versus abortion.
Both are tragedies because someone, a human being is dying and a miscarriage, it's not anyone's fault.
And so the only thing that we should do in response to that is have sympathy for the mother and the father.
Uh, but an abortion is an intentional killing.
So I, I just, honestly, I don't see the, I just don't see how so many people are confused by this.
I don't think there's any force or power to that argument at all.
Let's see.
This is... Let's see, there's one other.
I'm going to save that one for tomorrow.
This is from LockLug.
Matt says, love the show.
Your show is my favorite on the Daily Wire.
I came for Ben, stayed for Matt.
The Magnificent.
Matt the Magnificent.
Well, that's a good one.
Before I ask my question, please bear in mind I am pro-life, on your side as a Christian, though not Catholic.
I'm Calvinist.
You stated recently on your show that an unborn child is human life and has intrinsic worth, that all human life has worth.
I agree.
An unborn child is the closest to sinless you can get, though we are all born in sin.
No one is good, not one.
Shortly thereafter, you advocated for the death penalty for rapists.
I'm not necessarily against capital punishment, but the rapist is human and alive, is he not?
What is the difference exactly?
Is it that he has forfeited his worth by the commission of a heinous crime?
So certain lives do cease to have worth and therefore must end?
Is it that simple?
Am I missing something?
No, you don't forfeit your worth, but you can forfeit your rights.
So a person who commits a violent crime, we all agree, has forfeited his right to almost everything.
He's going to be locked in a cage now and everything he does will be controlled and monitored.
So a person in jail Has almost no rights.
Their first amendment rights are severely limited.
They have no second amendment rights.
Most of their rights are gone.
Not all, but most.
His liberty in general is gone because he is put in this building.
He's not allowed to leave.
That's one of the most fundamental freedoms we have is freedom to move around and go where we want.
To be put in a cage and said, you can't go anywhere.
Well, that is a severe restriction on our liberties, but we all agree, unless we're anarchists, that, yeah, we've got to be able to do that if someone is a violent, dangerous person.
Yet someone, even in that case, they're still a human being.
They still have worth, so we believe that there's a standard of humane treatment, that's why we call it humane treatment, to treat someone like a human, that even someone in jail is entitled to, but that doesn't change the fact that he's lost almost all of his rights because of his actions.
So if we believe that a person can lose almost all of their rights, then the only remaining question is whether they can lose their right to life.
And it's a little bit Of a less difficult leap to make once we've established that, yeah, you can lose your rights.
And then the only question is, well, which rights can be lost?
Um, and I think that, yeah, a person can, can lose that, that right.
Um, just, just as you could only lose your other liberties through deliberate action on your part.
Or I suppose through violent and dangerous action that is, uh, you know, you can lose it through violent and dangerous action on your part.
Um, you can lose your, your, your freedom to walk around and many of your freedoms, even, I guess, if it's not deliberate, if you're, you know, if you're a dangerous psychotic, you could still be locked somewhere for the sake of society.
Um, but either way, it's about your actions.
It's about demonstrating that you are not the kind of person who can be trusted to live in human society.
An unborn child cannot possibly have demonstrated that.
An unborn child cannot possibly have committed any crime, cannot possibly have victimized anyone, cannot possibly have demonstrated that they are dangerous.
Now, you could say all you want that, oh, this is an unwanted child born into a poor family.
The chances of them becoming a criminal are very great.
Well, that might be true statistically, but you can't start executing people based on the statistical likelihood that they're going to commit a crime in the future.
This is not the minority report, obviously.
No, this is about what have they done.
And a person who commits the most heinous of crimes against another person There is a very real, very credible argument you could make that they have lost their right to continue existing in human society.
That's all by committing that act.
They're still a human being, but we as a society can just no longer tolerate their continued presence.
Their actions are too evil.
They're too dangerous.
They have made it clear.
They have told us through their actions, I don't want to live in human society anymore.
I don't want to be a part of it.
And so is there a point where we say, okay, I mean, have it your way as you wish.
This is what you wanted.
As I said, I'm conflicted on the capital punishment, so I kind of waver back and forth, but there definitely is an argument there, and there is no con- You can be pro-life and for the death penalty, because they're two completely different things.
Being pro-life does not mean that you oppose killing people under any circumstance.
There are clearly circumstances, even if you're against capital punishment, you would still say, I assume, that there are other circumstances, self-defense, just war, you know.
I assume most people think that we were justified in killing the Nazis in World War II.
I rarely meet anyone who would say otherwise, even someone who's against the death penalty.
So there are circumstances.
But if we're going to talk about circumstances where killing someone is morally acceptable, I just don't see how killing an innocent baby could possibly fit into that acceptable genre.
All right, there's a lot here that I'm leaving on the table that I guess we'll get to tomorrow because we're just running out of time.
So we'll save the rest for tomorrow.
And remember, mattwalshow at gmail.com if you have any emails, questions, comments yourself.
And I'll talk to you tomorrow.
Godspeed.
Hey, everybody.
It's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
Conservatives, stop complaining about the end of Game of Thrones.
It is one of the great cultural wins for our side, an eight-season-long lesson on how a queen let grievance politics transform her into a tyrant.
It is a mini-history of the Democrat Party.
We'll talk about it on The Andrew Klavan Show.
▲
Export Selection