Ep. 406 - When The Pro Abortion Movement Takes Off The Mask
A woman goes to abort her twins and brags about it in the most depraved way imaginable. In fact there is a whole online community dedicated to people who hate children and want to brag about killing them. What does that tell us about our culture at large, and the pro-abortion movement specifically? Also, Democrats very somberly celebrate as they sign articles of impeachment. And Stephen King bows before the PC altar in penance for speaking the truth.
If you like The Matt Walsh Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: WALSH and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at dailywire.com/Walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Another terribly sad and somber day when Nancy Pelosi signed the Articles of Impeachment and then posed for pictures and gave out commemorative pens because that's normal, right?
That's what you do on a sad and somber occasion.
You give out gift bags.
You go to a funeral, they hand out gift bags, they do a piñata.
Very normal stuff.
What's sad and somber is all about.
And then, very sadly and very somberly, the Democrats delivered the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.
They formed, the Democrats did, an actual procession.
Much like a procession you might see if you go to a Catholic Mass, and the priest processes in.
Much like that.
Two by two, they marched the folder.
Down to the Senate, down the corridors of the Capitol building.
It's pretty hilarious.
Now, I realize that House Democrats aren't necessarily in the best physical shape.
I don't mean to body shame.
And so I understand that.
But do they really need nine people to help carry a folder?
It can't be that heavy, can it?
And I wonder how much organization went into this.
That's all I can think when I'm watching this.
How much organization, how much planning and prep went into this ahead of time?
Did they rehearse it?
Did they time their march so they'd be in the same rhythm as they were marching?
How did they decide who to pair up with or who's in front?
I mean, you know that thought went into this.
Did you see the woman in the back?
Everybody's paired up two by two.
There's a woman straggling behind in the back by herself.
I'm guessing that she's sort of the nerd, the hanger-on of the crew, and they tried to leave without her, but then she ran.
I was like, wait, guys, are you bringing the article of impeachment to the Senate?
Yeah.
Oh, I want to come.
You could also tell that they really didn't know what to do with their faces or their bodies as they were walking.
That's what made it awkward.
It's hard when you're trying to strike a balance between sad, somber, and ecstatic with triumphant joy.
Facially, that's a really hard balance to strike.
Those are just tough ingredients to find a harmony with.
But they did their best with it, and hopefully the folder made it there okay.
I just wish that for the next impeachment, here's my thought, let's do a whole thing.
If we want to do this, let's really do it.
So the next impeachment, I think you should sign the articles down in Florida, and then walk them up 95 for a thousand miles.
It'll take nine months.
It'll be a journey, an adventure.
We'll learn a lot along the way.
Make some friends.
It'll be great.
Hey, let me tell you about Ring as we get things started here on the show.
You know, everyone has a right to feel safe in their homes and to be safe.
It's one of the most basic rights I think we have is to, you know, be safe with our property in our own homes.
And if you don't feel safe and secure in your home, then where will you get that feeling?
That's why you need Ring.
Ring's mission is to make neighborhoods safer.
You might already know about their smart video doorbells and cameras that protect millions of people everywhere.
Ring also helps you stay connected to your home anywhere in the world.
So if there's a package delivery, if there's a surprise visitor,
you'll get an alert and you'll be able to see, hear and speak to the person all from your phone.
So you could be 3,000 miles away, you'd still be able to do that.
That's thanks to the HD video and two-way audio features on Ring devices.
There's a lot that comes from this.
I think it's incredibly convenient.
It makes your life easier.
But for me, the main thing again, it's about the peace of mind that you get from it.
And you can't put a price tag on a peace of mind.
Although, fortunately, Ring has put a price tag on it, and the price tag is extremely affordable, as it turns out.
In fact, as a subscriber, you have a special offer on a Ring welcome kit available right now at ring.com slash Walsh.
You want to get that special offer, you got to go to ring.com slash Walsh.
The kit includes a video doorbell and a Chime Pro, which is just what you need to start building a ring of security around your house today.
Go to ring.com slash Walsh.
That's ring.com slash Walsh.
Okay, so get ready for the most disturbing thing you've probably heard in a while.
Somebody emailed this to me, brought it to my attention.
Jordan was his name.
He passed this along to me.
It's a post on the Reddit forum ChildFree.
Now, if you're not familiar with the Child Free Movement, that's a group of people who advocate not just that people should have no children, but that they should kill the children they've already conceived.
So they're very pro-abortion, very anti-child, and very open about that.
They really do hate children.
Really, really hate them.
This is not a small group either.
There's a lot of these folks out there, and they're not just on Reddit.
There are other forums on the internet.
Facebook has child-free groups.
Where these people come together and they just talk about how much they absolutely despise children.
So I want to read this one post to you that Jordan passed along and there are a few points I want to make about it.
This is what it says from a user on Reddit.
I'm on my way to Planned Parenthood to purge the two parasites that somehow implanted into my uterus despite me being on the pill.
I can't effing wait to stop being nauseous and throwing up and being unable to keep water down.
I can't wait to be rid of this hypermesis gravidarum that destroyed my Christmas and ruined my New Year's Eve and is ruining my life.
I can't effing wait to be done with the anxiety of knowing these things are in my uterus and knowing that I will not have to birth dribbling horror goblins, will not have disgusting leaking Blanks.
Censored.
I will not go home from the hospital in a nappy and with a stitched up vagina.
I will not have postpartum depression or be left disfigured with stretch marks.
My relationship with my significant other will not be ruined.
I am dedicating this double fetus purge to the anti-choice movement, because no matter how hard you try, you will not force us to be your handmaids.
Happy 2020.
And then there are a whole bunch of comments, hundreds and hundreds of comments, that are even worse than this, if you can believe it.
But they're all encouraging her, cheering her on.
I'm not going to read them.
Suffice it to say that the term she called babies dribbling horror goblins, but the term crotch goblin appears to be the generally accepted term among these people for babies.
That's a term that pops up again and again.
So, a couple of things here.
A few things.
First of all, I absolutely reject the rationale that you hear from a lot of people about this kind of stuff.
I posted this on Twitter, and this was the response from some people where they said, oh, that's just Reddit.
Can't get worked up about it.
It's not real life.
No.
It is real life.
What do you think this is?
This is real life.
It's not a dream.
Okay?
We're not in the Matrix.
This is real life.
What does that even mean?
Just Reddit?
Like, all of a sudden, something barbaric and horrifying isn't barbaric and horrifying anymore if it's at a certain URL?
Why?
These are human beings.
Even if they're not acting like it, these are people.
Actual people writing this stuff.
And writing it because that's how they feel and that's how they think.
So these are real people who really feel this way and are expressing it.
The fact that it's just Reddit or just Twitter or just YouTube or whatever is by no means an excuse for them, nor is it an excuse for us to not take it seriously.
You know, we've decided that the internet, especially places like Reddit, are morality-free zones where atrocious garbage doesn't matter because it's just what people do there.
Oh, you know, it's just what people do there.
Not a big deal.
Kids will be kids.
Think about, I just want you to think about, and we're so used to seeing things this way.
We've come to normalize and see it's not that big of a deal if it happens on the internet.
But think about how arbitrary and stupid that is.
Why?
Who cares if it's the internet?
Think about how it would sound if you told me that you heard people saying this sort of stuff to each other in person at, let's say, Starbucks.
What if you were at a Starbucks and there was a whole bunch of people sitting around a table talking about crotch goblins and bragging about killing babies, okay?
And then you told me about it and said how horrified you were.
And then I said, oh, that's not real life, it's just Starbucks.
You would look at me like I'm crazy.
What do you mean it's not real life, it's Starbucks?
Did I walk into virtual reality?
What are you talking about?
The distinction between a Starbucks cafe and real life would seem rather arbitrary and unintelligible.
Well, it's the same for this.
This is real life.
This is completely real, I'm afraid to say.
I hear this a lot as someone who spends a lot of time on the internet, unfortunately.
And there have been, as it won't surprise you to learn, I have received more than, I think, my fair share of vile comments and emails and things from people.
And I'm so used to it.
I think that's part of it.
We get so used to it, we get numb to it.
Which is a problem.
But I get numb to it and I get used to it.
But every once in a while, somebody will send something to me and they'll say something that even as jaded as I am, it makes me go, wow, that's especially horrible.
And then I'll tell somebody about it and they'll say, oh yeah, it's just, you know, just the internet.
Just what people say.
Yeah, but it shouldn't be, though.
It shouldn't be what people say.
And these are still people saying it.
I do not see the distinction between saying something through this forum and saying it any other way, whether it's verbally, whether it's written on a loose-leaf piece of paper and left at your doorstep.
What difference does it make?
It's still a person saying it, right?
The other rationale or excuse you often hear is That, well, people have always been like this.
It's nothing new.
The only difference is that now we know about it because of the Internet.
And that's true, I think.
But that's part of the problem.
The Internet has provided a forum for people to, in the safety of anonymity, to air their most depraved and disgusting thoughts.
And pretty soon these communities start to crop up.
Communities of people who have bonded together just by the fact that they all share the same depraved and disgusting thoughts.
That's the only bond.
That is the defining thing about their community.
They have formed a community around it.
That they all think this horrible thing or they have this horrible interest or proclivity or whatever it is.
And they form a club around it.
And the effect is that they encourage each other in it, and they dive deeper into their own depravity together, and other people who've maybe had similar thoughts...
Or close to similar thoughts see this and it's normalized for them and they think, oh, it's okay.
Because we are inclined as people to think, and I think this is part of the issue here, is that as people we are inclined to think that things are okay if other people are doing them or saying them.
As much as we were told as kids by our parents, you know, just because your friends are jumping off a bridge doesn't mean you should too.
The fact is, if you see a bunch of people jumping off a bridge, you're probably going to think, well, I guess it's okay to jump off that bridge.
That's how we are.
And even with our most shameful thoughts, if we see, we go online and we see other people saying the same thing, we think, oh, it must not be that bad then.
Now, in past times, a person would have a depraved and disgusting thought, would tell nobody, because there'd be no safe place to divulge it, There'd be no way for them to say it anonymously, and so they don't say it at all, and they feel shame for their thoughts, which they should feel, and they suppress it, which they should suppress it, and maybe eventually they succeed in moving on from it, or maybe not, but maybe they do.
So, there have always been parents who've felt horrible things about their kids.
It's just that, in the past, there was nowhere for them to go and brag about it.
There was nowhere for them to go and be made to feel comfortable with these thoughts.
Now there is.
And if you go to this Child Free Forum, it's one of the other, I mean, if you, you can't spend a lot of time there, you just wouldn't be able to stomach it, but I was looking at a few other posts, and there's a lot of, also, parents who've actually had their kids, and hate their kids, babies.
I mean, I saw one post from a woman with a baby, and talking about how much she hates her baby.
And wishes the baby was dead and she never had the baby.
Now again, have there always been parents who felt this way about their kids?
Sure.
But the only difference is they couldn't go to a community and have these thoughts normalized and be celebrated and encouraged in it.
Whereas in the past, they might have had to think to themselves, wow, this is really terrible that I feel this way.
This is wrong.
I should not feel this way about my kids.
There is something wrong with me.
I am ashamed.
I should be ashamed.
It is shameful.
I feel this way because I am a selfish, disgusting person.
And I shouldn't be that way.
I need to change myself.
That's how it used to be.
Not now, though.
And the third thing, to anyone tempted to think that what I just read is not representative of the pro-abortion movement, you are absolutely wrong.
And as pro-lifers, I think pro-lifers can tend to be timid about a lot of things, unfortunately.
Not all pro-lifers, but this is a problem among some pro-lifers, is timidity.
And I think it's been a fatal problem for the pro-life movement for a long time.
And some pro-lefters get timid about this, too.
They don't want to use examples like this.
Because they say, yeah, but that's not... No, I don't want to paint with a broad brush.
That's not... I mean, of course that... Yes, this is representative of the pro-abortion movement, what I just read to you.
And that's the real value of a forum, for us anyway, the value of a forum or a community like this, is that you see the pro-abortion movement without the mask, without the makeup.
Without the euphemisms and the sanitary language.
60 million babies have been killed in this country.
Okay?
Do you really think the abortion movement can administer a slaughter of that degree and can rack up that kind of body count without a lot of people in the movement feeling exactly this way about babies?
Of course many of them feel this way about babies.
They're killing them!
That's often how you feel about things that you kill.
So I don't want to hear any nonsense about this.
This is extreme cases.
Extreme cases?
60 million!
Think of those CMP undercover tapes of Planned Parenthood officials.
The Center for Medical Progress, David Lydon.
Think about what we saw in those videos.
Remember how the Planned Parenthood officials talked about the babies they were killing.
They were laughing about it and joking about it.
This is normal for them.
It's not normal in the sense of good, like we tried to distinguish yesterday on the show with the different definitions of normal, but normal in the sense of common in the pro-abortion movement, yes, this is common.
The abortion movement encourages, explicitly, women to see their babies as parasites.
Now, I'm not saying that every woman who gets an abortion feels this way or talks this way about The child that they're going to kill.
I'm saying that this is the attitude towards unborn children that the abortion movement purposefully inculcates.
Um, that's this is the if If we're killing 60 million babies, it means that we're
treating those babies like parasites And this is how people feel about parasites, and this is how you talk about them.
And by the way, As pro-lifers have been pointing out for a long time, if this is the attitude that we're encouraging people to have about unborn children, inevitably, they're also going to have that attitude about born children.
There's no difference at all between an infant... The post that I saw was a woman talking about her infant, I think, of eight or nine months, talking about how much she hates the baby.
There's no difference between an infant of eight or nine months and an infant in the womb.
There's no difference.
It's the same thing.
It's literally the same person.
Right?
So if we are encouraging women to see, and mothers, to see their own children as parasites and cancers in the womb, it's not that hard to see how that feeling for some women might carry over into After the birth.
It's not going to suddenly just go away.
In fact, it probably will probably be exacerbated by, you know, the fact that infants are really difficult to take care of.
I mean, we've had four of them.
We had two at the same time.
So, you know, we know what it's like.
It's not easy to have an infant.
Takes a lot of hard work and a lot of sacrifice.
And in this self-centered culture, this self-obsessed culture, where on top of it, babies are literally treated like parasites and murdered to the tune of 60 million in the span of just a few decades, with all of those factors coming together, it's not hard to see how eventually that's going to bleed over into a hatred of And resentment towards children, born children as well.
And I think we're seeing that.
And I am not, I am worried about where this heads.
You go to that, these child-free people, how do you think, you think they would have any problem with infanticide?
We have to stop treating this like some crazy, dystopian, you know, hypothetical.
There are many cultures in the world that have had legalized infanticide, and all of the arguments for abortion would apply just as much to infanticide.
And if you have that kind of hatred for unborn children, then again, you're going to have that kind of hatred for infants too.
There's no reason not to.
It's the same person.
And these child-free people, I mean, if you were to ask them, you think they'd have any problem with the way they talk about... They call them goblins, not just unborn children, but born children they refer to as goblins.
You think they would have any problem if it was legal to just kill a nine-month-old?
You think they'd have any problem with that?
No, they wouldn't.
So that's where we're, um...
I do believe that's where the left will take this, if we don't stop them.
We've already heard it from Ralph Northam.
We've heard it, you know, increasingly.
All right.
Let's move on because it's hard to dwell on this for too long.
By the way, if you're not already a subscriber to The Daily Wire, you're really missing out.
And right now, using promo code WALSH, you'll get 10% off any plan that you choose.
Head over to dailywire.com slash subscribe and pick the plans that are right for you.
Head over for as little as $10 a month.
Members get our articles ad-free.
You get access to all of our live broadcasts.
You get the entire show library.
You get three hours of Ben Shapiro every day.
And you get select bonus content, you get access to the mailbag, and you get just a ton of stuff.
Plus, our new all-access tier gets you live online Q&A discussions with me, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Klaven, Michael Knowles, plus our Daily Wire writers.
We let them up from the cave to come up into the sunlight to answer some questions every once in a while.
And don't forget, you also get the greatest of all beverage vessels, the Leftist Tiers Tumblr.
That's dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Okay, I wanted to mention this.
If you remember, we talked about a few days ago, Stephen King was on the verge of cancellation for having the gall to suggest that maybe awards like, you know, Oscars should be given out based on merits and based on the quality of the work and not based on diversity quotas.
Here's what he said, actually, a few days ago.
He said, As a writer, I am allowed to nominate in just three categories.
Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Original Screenplay.
For me, the diversity issue, as it applies to the individual actors and directors anyway, did not come up.
That said, I would never consider diversity in matters of art.
Only quality.
It seems to me that to do otherwise would be wrong.
Okay, and you just knew what was going to happen next.
Of course, the mob descends.
How dare you?
How dare you suggest that we award people based on the quality of their work and not based on their skin color or their genitalia?
How dare you?
How offensive!
And it only took, what?
It took, um... Well, it took less than a day for Stephen King to come back.
So there's no apology, it's just more he's pretending.
Only, you know, hours later he said, the most important thing we can do as artists and creative
people is make sure everyone has the same fair shot, regardless of
sex, color, orientation.
Right now such people are badly underrepresented, and not only in the arts.
You can't win awards if you're shut out of the game.
So there's no apology, it's just more he's pretending, he's just gonna pretend that never happened.
And he's back, he's back on the script.
groveling, bowing before the PC altar.
Now, first of all, of course, this is totally nonsense.
The idea that women, gay people, black people are underrepresented on TV or in movies, Come on.
That's... I don't see that as a... You're going to have to actually, rather than just asserting that, you're going to have to actually prove that.
Somebody wants to take the time to tabulate this, then go ahead and do it.
But I think if you do that, what you're going to find is that actually it's probably about where it should be in terms of representation.
And it seems like, especially on TV, on network TV these days, I mean, pretty much every show has at least one gay character, so probably there's over-representation.
When you consider how many gay people there actually are in America, in terms of percentages, and then how often you have such characters on TV, it's at least going to be proportional, but probably, I would think, over.
There might even be some over-representation.
But in the end, it doesn't matter, of course.
The point of an award is to give an award based on merit, based on quality, as Stephen King originally pointed out.
And also, you know, you've got storytellers who are telling the stories that they want to tell.
If you think that there should be more stories that feature women or gay people or whatever, then you tell that story.
I mean, what is the implication here?
There was someone, someone in media I think, not just this one person, but there was a tweet that went semi-viral from a woman complaining about 1917.
And saying that, saying that, you know, I don't, I don't have a problem.
Uh, you know, I, I understand that, that World War I, we're talking about trench warfare.
There weren't a lot of women down in the trenches.
And so this is going to be a movie about, about men.
But she said, I don't understand why we have to keep telling these stories.
Well, maybe we're telling these stories.
If by these stories, she means like war movies, because of these are some of the most consequential moments in history.
And these are moments full of drama and heroism.
And so these are stories that speak to people and always have for thousands of years.
We've been telling stories about battles and battles that have been fought and wars that have been waged for that reason.
But besides which, what are you, what are you saying exactly?
Are you saying that, you know, Sam Mendes made that movie, which again is a great movie, if you haven't seen it.
Are you saying that he really wants to tell this story, and it's an important story, but he shouldn't tell it in order to be fair to women?
Is that what you're implying?
Extrapolate on those thoughts a little bit.
What's your point?
He's a storyteller.
This is a story that he thought was meaningful, and he was right.
I think it's meaningful, too.
I think most people do.
And so he told it.
Is that really the calculation that you want artists to make?
Should artists be making that calculation?
Is that good for art?
To have an artist who says to himself or herself, this story is meaningful to me, I really want to tell it.
Eh, but I'm not going to because, I don't know, there might be too many straight men in it.
You think that's good for art?
For artists to self-censor in that way?
Based on some notion of, some vague, arbitrary notion of fairness and demographic proportionality.
Alright, let's go to emails.
mattwalshow at gmail.com, mattwalshow at gmail.com's email address.
This is from Josh, says, Hi Matt, I realize a lot of people get their news from social media.
Snapchat's prevailing news outlet is Daily Mail.
This was one of their big headlines on their Snap.
He gives a link.
What do you think?
Is the study credible?
The study Josh links to has the blaring headline, Nearly 100% of U.S.
women who got abortions say it was the right decision five years after undergoing the procedure.
Study finds.
Now, before we... So, 100% of women.
Nearly 100% of women do not regret their abortion after five years, according to this study.
Before we even read anything about this study, or consider it in any depth at all, we already know this can't be true.
It cannot be true.
You cannot possibly find 100% agreement among people on anything.
Even less can you find 100% of people who agree that they have no regrets about a particular thing.
Even less if it's something like abortion that we're talking about.
Now, even if I believed that abortion is good, I still wouldn't expect anything close to 100% of women to not regret doing it.
I wouldn't expect 100% of people who, I don't know, had omelets for breakfast this morning to not regret having the omelet.
People have regrets.
It's a normal human thing.
There's no way you're going to find nearly 100% agreement.
Or 100% of people who are confident and have no regrets about a particular choice.
No matter what the choice is.
But we understand that something like abortion, even if, again, even if you think it's fine, you're wrong, but even if you think it's fine, you must at least understand that it's a consequential, very emotional decision, so there are going to be regrets.
This would be like if I claimed, if I pulled up a study saying that nearly 100% of couples that get divorced don't regret it.
Even if you think that most divorces are justified and you don't see any problem with divorce, you must also realize that it is the kind of thing that a large percentage of people tend to regret.
It's that kind of thing.
So, the same would be for abortion.
And then when you have, on top of that of course, as I have, I've talked to, personally talked to, or heard from, a great, great, great many women who deeply and profoundly regret their abortions.
So we know those women exist.
You can easily talk to them.
Talk to anyone who works at a crisis pregnancy center, or pregnancy resource center, and most of these places have post-abortive counseling.
And ask them.
Their post-abortive counseling sessions are not empty.
These women come in.
I don't think they're all lying.
By the way, if you showed me a study saying that 100% of parents who have children don't regret it, I would say BS to that too. 100%?
No.
But I'm supposed to believe that 100% of women who kill their children don't regret it?
That's obviously absurd.
So, I'm going into this with extreme skepticism.
But let's take a look at it.
Reading from the article, it says, Deciding to terminate a pregnancy is certainly a difficult decision for most, but the majority of women also report they believe they made the right decision immediately after aborting.
New University of California San Francisco research found that they almost universally feel the same way five years down the line, further debunking notions that abortion harms women.
Which, by the way, that doesn't even follow.
Even if this was true, it would not at all prove that abortion doesn't harm women.
It's possible for a person to be harmed by something that they don't regret.
I think we could all come up with examples of stuff.
So already this article is a silly propaganda piece, but we'll continue.
Having negative emotions after what for some is a difficult decision, a big deal in their lives, experience some guilt and negative emotions.
I would be shocked if we didn't find that.
UCSF study co-author Dr. Corinne Rocca told Daily Mail.
Negative emotions are not something to legislate.
It's natural.
And her study published in Social Science and Medicine found that these emotions fade over time.
Added Dr. Rocca, I think it's really encouraging to find that negative emotions go down over time.
She and her team conducted a total of 11 interviews with nearly 1,000 American women who underwent abortions over the course of five years following their procedures.
At first, more than half of the women interviewed as part of the TurnAway study, a data collection project designed to track the short- and long-term effects of abortion on a woman's well-being, had positive emotions a week after their procedures.
20% said they didn't feel much about the procedure, while 17% said they had negative emotions about their abortions.
As their lives moved on post-abortion, the number of women who had little or no feelings about their abortions increased significantly.
By the time it was five years out, just 6% had any vestigial negative feelings.
At the five-year mark, 99% of those women said that having the abortion had been the right decision for them.
Dr. Raka also notes that there's a small proportion of people who regret any decision they make.
There's no part of me that wants to reduce the struggle of people who come to a place where they wish they had made a different decision, and I hope they get the counseling they need.
But it's misguided to then let that guide the overwhelming majority of people who seek this care.
Okay, so, big problems as expected.
First is that the author of the study, Dr. Raka, is clearly biased.
It's obvious that she's pro-abortion.
That she wants women to not regret the abortion.
She has opinions about public policy.
She's commenting on legislation.
So this is not science.
This is advocacy.
Science cannot be partisan.
If you're doing real research, you can't go into it with your pom-poms out rooting for one side.
If you do that, it negates the conclusions completely.
This kind of thing is an embarrassment.
Every study you see with these, I've talked about it plenty of times in the past, these kinds of studies that get the blaring headlines, and that are used by one side or the other to prove one point or the other, when you actually read the studies you find so often, it seems like in the majority of cases, to begin with, these studies are conducted by partisans who are looking to prove a point.
And if that is how a study is conducted, it is useless.
You can learn nothing from it, other than the fact that a lot of people don't know how to conduct actual scientific studies.
And then we get to the real kicker, which the Daily Mail article buries several paragraphs into the article.
Writing in the Catholic Medical Association's journal, anti-abortionist, anti-abortionist.
How do you like that?
Dr. David Reardon noted that less than a third of the 3,000 women who were offered the chance to make $50 by participating in the study actually stuck with it, with more dropping out with each round of interviews.
As studies go, 1,000 participants isn't a huge number, even when it's controlled to be representative of the country, as the turnaway study is.
So, there you go.
When you hear that, oh, by five years out, all the women say they don't regret the abortions, that's because most of them have dropped out of the study.
So they don't tell you that, right?
Daily Mail knows that they have to include that information somewhere.
If this is going to be some semblance of an actual news article, you can't leave that out completely.
But what they do is, they give you the headline, they give you everything about the study, And at the very bottom, they include a little tidbit that negates everything you just read.
But they know that most people aren't going to get down to that tidbit and aren't going to read it.
Most people will just see the headline and take that at face value.
And of the people who click it, most will probably read about one paragraph at most.
I mean, the average, you know, article online is read for about 20 seconds or something like that.
And so the Daily Mail knows that.
And so at the very bottom, it's kind of like there's an asterisk at the very bottom that says, by the way, nothing that you just read means anything.
Yeah.
The people who stick with it feel that way.
That's why they stuck with it.
But the majority have dropped out of the study.
Why did they drop out?
So you have 1,000 people to only 1,000 people to begin with.
So this cannot be a representative sample.
It's way too small, way too small to be a representative sample of the country or of post-abortive women at large.
So this blaring headline makes a statement about what 100% of post-abortive women think, and then you find out that, oh, they only talked to 1,000 of them.
And of that 1,000, most of them didn't finish the study.
Now, why might someone refuse to be a part of this study in the first place?
Why might they drop out in the middle?
Well, I can think of one big reason.
It might be because this was a traumatic experience and they don't want to talk about it.
So, of that chunk of people, the majority, who either didn't want to take the study or didn't finish it, it's safe to speculate that a large number of them I probably do regret their abortions and that's why they didn't want to take the study.
Or at least one of the reasons why.
So, this study is just completely bogus and pointless and useless.
But I went and checked on Google and of course the media's picked this up and they're spreading it all around.
Oh, look at that!
No women regret their abortions!
What do you know?
I mean, we've been hearing from women for years who say they regret their abortions.
Turns out, according to this study, those women don't exist.
They're figments of our imagination.
This is from Jeremiah, says, Matt, deadass love the show, bruh.
In all seriousness, I wanted to get your thoughts on this story.
Assuming she was really kicked out for the reason her family says, what do you think about it?
And then Jeremiah links to a story in the USA Today about a girl who was supposedly kicked out of her Christian school for having a rainbow cake on her birthday.
Again, now we're back to the theme of skepticism.
You know, we go into this with skepticism.
That's the claim, anyway.
And I've seen this story on social media.
Maybe you've seen it.
The claim is she—well, I'll just read from USA Today.
I'll read a little bit of this.
It says, a Christian school in Louisville expelled a student last week after her family said school officials discovered the girl had celebrated her birthday with a rainbow-themed cake.
Kimberly Alford told the Courier-Journal that until January 6th, her 15-year-old daughter had been a freshman at Whitefield Academy, a private school that serves students in preschool through 12th grade.
That's when Alford said she received an email from Whitefield Academy's head of school, Bruce Jacobson, explaining how her daughter was being expelled immediately due to a post on social media.
Alford had recently posted a photo on her Facebook page showing her daughter celebrating her birthday in late December at a Texas Roadhouse restaurant.
In the photo, the girl is wearing a sweater featuring a rainbow design and sitting by a colorful rainbow-themed cake.
I wish people at some point would learn the lesson about not jumping to conclusions with things like this.
Obviously, if this girl was actually expelled for having a multi-colored birthday cake in her own house or at a restaurant in her own time with pictures posted to social media, then that's totally insane, of course.
That's absolutely asinine and crazy and unjust, if that's what happened.
I don't think anyone would defend it.
But that's part of the reason I'm skeptical about it.
You know, when there's a dispute between two people, or two groups of people, in this case, the daughter and the mom versus the school, and the version of the story you get makes one side seem unquestionably in the right and the other side seem absolutely crazy, like nobody could be on their side, well, that's already a red flag that you're probably not getting the whole story.
Maybe you are.
Sometimes, you know, sometimes disputes between people are that simple.
There's a simple good guy and a simple bad guy.
Sometimes.
Most of the time though, that's not the case.
Because people have a need to feel like they're in the right.
And so, at least the people in the school that made this decision, They probably feel like they have to have some reason other than a rainbow cake.
I'm thinking if you talk to them, they probably would have more to say than just that.
Probably.
Stands to reason.
So, there should be a red flag and there's some skepticism.
We should think, well, you know, is that really the whole story?
If it is, crazy.
But is it?
Now, as it turns out, the school has indicated that there have been a series of what they call lifestyle violations.
From what I saw, the school won't confirm that this rainbow cake was the last lifestyle straw that broke the camel's back, as it were.
So we don't know.
We have to remember that schools are often at a disadvantage in cases like this because they can't talk openly about disciplinary issues involving students, whereas the student and the family can say whatever they want.
But legally, and for liability issues, the school is not as free to talk about it and justify the decision they made.
And that's, so that's, that's, you know, they've got a hand tied behind the back in that case.
So I, you know, I don't know, is the answer.
I have no idea.
I just think there's probably more to the story than this.
If there's not, okay, well, then this school should be totally ashamed of itself.
If there is, then we would have to know what the rest of the story is.
I do believe, as a general principle, Private schools have a right to admit whoever they want and kick out whoever they want, and especially if they have rules and they lay it out in the handbook, and they say, these are our rules, if you sign on to those rules, no matter what the rules are, if you sign on to them, then you sign on to them, and it's up to you to follow them.
You can't sign on to the rules and then decide a few years later, oh, you know what, actually those rules are stupid, I don't want to listen to them.
Well, you can decide that, but then it's up to you to just leave the school and go somewhere else.
So that's a general feeling I have about controversies like this, especially when it comes to Christian schools.
Every once in a while we get these stories about, usually though, it's a Christian school fires a teacher or something because they find out they're in a gay relationship or whatever it is.
But again, if that's part of the rule, if they're trying to maintain this certain identity and they believe it's important for everybody involved in the school to Live according to and believe biblical teachings, which I think is reasonable for a Christian school to want that.
Just like I think it'd be reasonable for a Jewish school to want everyone there to be devout Jews, and for a Muslim school to want a similar thing in respect to Islam.
I mean, that's reasonable to me.
Now, kicking someone out over a cake would not be reasonable.
If there's something in the handbook that says, you know, thou shalt not eat from a rainbow cake, I mean, that'd be a silly rule, but if you signed on to it, I guess it's up to you to follow it.
But I kind of doubt that that's the case.
And you know what?
We'll probably never know.
You and I, as outsiders, who are not involved in this, who probably live states away from where it happened, don't know anybody involved, don't know the family, don't know the girl, don't know the school, For you and I, we'll probably never know who was in the right and who was in the wrong, or what really happened, or what the whole story is.
And that's okay, because we don't need to know.
And another of the problems with the internet is that there's no such thing as a local story anymore.
Everything is national news.
If it goes viral, if a small local little incident goes viral, now it's national news, and everybody's talking about it, and everybody's concerned with it.
And that's an issue because there are a lot of things that happen that are not really suited for national consumption.
They don't involve anybody else.
It's not relevant to us.
There's no way that we could, you know, our contributions or our opinions cannot have any value whatsoever because we have no idea what's going on.
The issue is too remote and it involves people and things that we don't know anything about.
But, you know, because we're all on social media, we think that we have to have an opinion about everything.
When sometimes maybe we should just say, yeah, I don't know.
I think that's an okay responsibility.
I don't know.
I hope the people involved work it out.
I hope that the best result, you know, the best possible result is what happens.
That's what I hope.
I have nothing else to say.
All right, thanks for the email.
Again, the email address is mattwalshow at gmail.com.
And we'll wrap it up there.
Thanks, everybody, for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knoll Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, Senior Producer Jonathan Hay, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Supervising Producer Robert Sterling, Technical Producer Austin Stevens, Editor Donovan Fowler, Audio Mixer Robin Fenderson.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.
A giddy Nancy Pelosi pretends to be somber while signing the official impeachment resolution
against President Trump, and simultaneously doling out souvenir pens to her jackal colleagues.
Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin moves to consolidate power in yet another blow to representative
