Ep. 947 - Dems And Media Cheer While Pro-Abortion Terrorists Wreak Havoc
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, pro-abortion militants invaded churches, committed arson, harassed Supreme Court Justices at their homes, and did all of this with the implicit and sometimes explicit support of the most powerful Democrats in the country. We'll discuss. Also, we'll debunk some of the most outrageous anti-life propaganda we've heard from the media over the past week. Speaking of outrageous, a self-described "queer" teacher explains how she uses board games to sexually indoctrinate her kids. And Chet Hanks has an inspiring message for social justice warriors. Plus, we will fact check the fact checkers at NPR.
Become a Daily Wire member and don’t miss our latest original film “Shut In”: https://utm.io/ueyth.
I am a beloved LGBTQ+ and children’s author. Reserve your copy of Johnny The Walrus here: https://utm.io/uevUc.
—
Today’s Sponsors:
One More Wave uses Surf Therapy to help veterans stay active, engaged, and connected. Help fund 10 new surf therapy grants by going to 1MWAVE.COM/DailyWire and sign up to become a monthly sustaining donor.
Manage your family's financial future like a parenting pro. Try Fabric today, RISK-FREE 30-Day Money-Back Guarantee: MeetFabric.com/walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, pro-abortion militants invaded churches, committed arson, harassed Supreme Court justices at their homes, and did all of this with the implicit and sometimes explicit support of the most powerful Democrats and leftists in the country.
We'll discuss, also, we'll debunk some of the most outrageous anti-life propaganda we've heard from the media over the past week.
Speaking of outrageous, a self-described queer teacher explains how she uses board games to sexually indoctrinate her kids.
And Chet Hanks has an inspiring message for social justice warriors that you'll want to hear.
Plus, we'll fact-check the fact-checkers over at NPR.
All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
(upbeat music)
Well, I think it's finally time, parents, to cross off one of the most important things
on your to-do list, which is life insurance.
Fabric makes getting a great term life insurance policy for your family quick, easy, and surprisingly affordable.
Fabric was built specifically for parents to help you manage your family's financial futures.
Like a parenting pro, stress-free.
Fabric's new lower prices mean significant savings over other providers with a great policy like a million dollars in coverage for less than a dollar a day.
Everything is on your schedule with Fabric because it's all online.
Less than 10 minutes to apply and you could be offered coverage instantly and with no health exam requirement.
Then just personalize your quote to fit your family's needs with Fabric's online hub.
It's easy to track your family's finances all in one place.
Get affordable life insurance, set up your kid's college savings plan, and even establish a rainy day savings fund as well.
Planning for the future has never been easier.
There's no risk to apply today.
Fabric has a 30-day money-back guarantee and you can cancel at any time.
Protect your family with term life insurance now in just 10 minutes.
Apply today at meetfabric.com slash walsh.
That's meetfabric.com/walsh to start protecting your family today.
M-E-E-T fabric.com/walsh.
Fabric insurance agency policies issued by Vantas Life, not available in New York and Montana.
Price is subject to underwriting and health questions.
So I've been thinking a lot over the past few days of the story in the Gospels,
where Jesus comes across a demonically possessed man who lives among the tombs, we're told,
ranting and raving all day and night.
And Jesus asks the demon its name and he answers, My name is Legion, for we are many.
Then Christ casts the spirits out of the man and sends them into a bunch of pigs and the whole herd proceeds to throw itself off of a cliff and into a lake where they all drown.
Now, in response to the possible end of Roe, leftists in this country have been behaving much like demons, demonically possessed pigs, in fact, I think.
And the similarities are even more startling when you consider that so many of these people also identify as they.
You know, they identify as multiple people.
I imagine legion's pronouns would have been they, them, had Jesus thought to ask, which he never did, which was kind of rude, to be honest.
So it's no surprise, then, that pro-abortion leftists decided to focus their ire this weekend largely on churches.
At a Catholic church in Manhattan, for example, a mob of baby killers showed up to heckle and jeer at a group of pro-life Christians who were all standing there silently and praying.
Now, abortions will not stop in New York.
None of these people have to worry that their right to slaughter their own children will be somehow infringed.
The end of row would have literally no effect on them whatsoever.
But they showed up anyway, and at one point they began singing a kind of satanic hymn.
Listen to this.
Thank God for abortion.
Now, as if they had not already made it clear enough who the bad guys are,
one woman emerged from the crowd half naked with a bundle of baby dolls tied together
and put on a display that was supposed to prove something, but I can't be sure exactly what.
Watch this.
Not the f*** you're terrorizing!
My mother f***ing daughter is!
They're terrorizing my f***ing daughter!
Is none of your f***ing business!
Is none of your f***ing business!
I'm telling you!
[indistinct shouting]
[indistinct shouting]
What? What?
I'm killing the baby.
I'm killing the mother[bleep
I'm killing her.
I'm killing the baby.
[indistinct shouting]
What the [bleep
What the [bleep
[indistinct shouting]
It really reminds me of that meme, you know, where the one Nazi says to the other one,
"Are we the baddies?"
And...
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Yeah, you should have a moment like that, because here we have, you know, we've got on one side, you've got men standing there praying, and that's it.
And then on the other side, you have a woman, crazed woman, running back and forth with a bunch of baby dolls tied to a rope, saying, I'm killing the babies.
And then on the background, you've got her friends singing, thank God for abortion.
So who are the bad guys and good guys in this situation?
I mean, imagine watching that and then saying, oh yeah, I think the good guys, yeah, the woman with the saying she's killing the babies, she's the good, I'm on her side.
Yeah, I want her side to win.
Now, they of course did not relegate their demonstrations to the outside of churches.
At a cathedral in Los Angeles, more pro-abortion protesters, who also will not be remotely impacted by the overturning of Roe, at all, because they're in Los Angeles, Nonetheless, invaded a church during mass, decked out in the Handmaid's Tale costumes they got from Party City, and they tried to disrupt the service.
Fortunately, they were met by a few men in the parish and then ushered out of the building.
But let's watch some of that.
Hey, you get off again.
You are not attacking anybody.
You're attacking me right now.
You started attacking me.
No, you're going towards our future.
All of these people watching are the people who are going towards our future.
You're not supposed to be a sidekick.
Get out of here.
No, I'm not.
You turned it into something else.
You started going at me.
No, you're not.
You started attacking me.
Now, a quick legal note here.
Pro-abortion groups are actively encouraging and trying to organize more of this sort of thing, what you just saw
there.
just saw there.
Interruptions and disruptions during Catholic Church services.
And they have not been able to mobilize the sort of mass movement they hope for.
In fact, they were originally, there was one group in particular, calling for that to happen all across the country.
And they still want that, but they haven't gotten it yet.
Still, I imagine we'll see more of this sort of thing around the country for the next several weeks at least.
Ironically, it'll probably only happen in states where abortion will remain legal anyway, and only at churches where a large number of the congregants aren't even pro-life.
In fact, you heard one of the men, I don't know if you heard in that clip, but at some point he says, he says, we're with you.
Talking to the pro-abortion, like, I'm with you, I agree with you, I just don't think you should be doing this here.
Now, be that as it may, if pro-abortion invaders come to your church service, you should know about something called the FACE Act.
Now, this was a federal law passed in the 90s, which was meant to prevent pro-lifers from protesting outside of abortion clinics.
And it's because of this law that abortion clinics have a legal force field around their butcher shops that extends beyond their own property line.
I mean, they are the only ones, it's the only institution that now has the legal right to keep you off of property that they don't even own.
Okay, so they've got a radius around the clinics that goes beyond their property.
That you still can't stand there.
That's the privilege that the FACE Act granted them.
However, and you might be asking, what does this have to do with the churches?
Well, the people who wrote this bill included one little tidbit, which was meant to be purely symbolic, and nobody was actually supposed to use this part of the law or even know that it's in there.
But they put it in there as a way to try to make the legislation seem nonpartisan, which of course it isn't.
But the law also makes it a federal crime to interrupt a church service.
According to the law, anyone who, quote, intimidates or interferes with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship is in violation of this law and can be sued.
So, if anybody shows up to your church, please, well, here's the first thing you should do is get them on film, okay?
You want video evidence of it and you want their faces on camera if you can get it.
And then you're going to kick their asses out to the curb And then you're going to sue them.
And every person in your congregation has a right to sue under this law, and each person should.
So if there's 300 people who are at that mass, or at that church service, if they extend this beyond Catholic churches, if there's 300 people in that building, all 300 should sue whoever it was.
Even if it's just one crazy woman in a handmaid's outfit coming in, she should be getting 300 lawsuits under the FACE Act.
Flutter with lawsuits.
Make her life a living hell.
Now, I realize this kind of language is uncomfortable to many Christians, and many pro-lifers, and many conservatives generally.
And there are a lot of Christians who, when I've been talking about this, they've said, oh, no, no, no.
If they show up at my church, we should invite them in, and sit them down, and tell them about Jesus.
But that's not why they're there.
They're not there to hear about Jesus.
They're there to stop you from hearing about Jesus.
And to stop your kids.
And to stop everybody else.
So, you may not be comfortable when you hear language like, kick their asses out and make their lives a living hell.
Make them pay for it.
But you need to get comfortable with it.
Because the left is continuing to escalate its war against us.
And the escalations will continue.
Their tactics will only get more brutal if we don't respond forcefully.
Now, leftist militants, of course, also showed up outside the homes of some Supreme Court justices over the weekend.
They heckled John Roberts at his house in spite of the fact that Roberts is almost certainly on their side.
And again, this is in Chevy Chase, Maryland, where abortion isn't going anywhere.
So they're in a state where they won't be affected.
And at Roberts' house, they're protesting a guy who's on their side.
But they also showed up at Kavanaugh's house, and according to the reports of this opinion, he's not on their side, and they already hate him anyway, so here's what that sounded like.
We will not go back!
I see you, buddy!
We will not go back!
Now that protest, quote-unquote, which is not a protest, but actually an illegal act of politically motivated intimidation against a sitting Supreme Court justice, was organized by a woman named Lacey Wooten-Hallway.
She is Kavanaugh's neighbor.
Okay, this woman sicked an angry mob on her own neighbor.
This is somebody she sees every day.
Maybe they say hi when they're going out to get the mail.
And she did this to him.
That's how far these people are willing to go.
And farther.
As the Daily Wire reports this morning, the headquarters of a pro-life organization in Wisconsin was set on fire on Sunday morning in what appears to be a politically motivated attack.
The attack on Wisconsin Family Action, located in Madison, came a week after an early draft of a United States Supreme Court majority opinion leaked last week that indicated that the controversial Roe v. Wade decision would likely be struck down.
No one from the organization was in the building at the time of the attack, which included a Molotov cocktail that was thrown through a window and failed to ignite.
Whoever was behind the attack set another fire nearby that burned part of the wall.
Local media reported that graffiti was left outside the building that stated, quote, if abortions aren't safe, then you aren't either.
Now, these acts of terrorism will be bad enough, but the most significant point here is that prominent leftists are openly justifying these tactics.
A reporter named Caroline Riley tweeted in response to the news of the pro-life organization getting attacked.
She said, more of this.
May these people never know a moment of peace or safety until they rot in the ground.
So, I mean, she wants you dead.
They want you dead.
This is not hyperbole.
The left has been even more explicit in justifying the mob harassment of justices at their private residences.
On CNN, anchor Laura Jarrett says that worrying about the privacy and safety of Supreme Court justices, quote, misses the mark.
Listen.
And this is a question about civility, the frustration people feel is personal.
But where's the line?
Obviously, what we see, the apparent arson at an anti-abortion non-profit in Wisconsin is over the line.
Violence is always over the line.
But there are real questions and conversations today about protests outside Supreme Court justices' houses, particularly Justice Kavanaugh.
Where do you think that line is?
I think for a lot of people, a conversation about civility feels like it misses the mark when constitutional rights that you believe that you had for over 50 years are about to be overturned.
The justices have security.
So far, all of the protests have seemed overwhelmingly non-violent.
There are plenty of protests that happen every single day in this country, around the country, at abortion clinics, blocking women from getting into clinics.
And we don't cover those as if there's four alarm fires.
And so, yes, there are going to be protests in front of Kavanaugh's house because people are angry.
And as long as they stay non-violent, I think for most of the people who are watching it, you can understand where they're coming from.
Even if you may think politically it's not the right thing, you can understand sort of where that animated feeling is coming from.
Errol, what about trying to apply equal standards?
You know, if there were Republicans protesting outside liberal justices and the tenor got hot, do you think it would be the same?
Operative term there, um, thought.
She said, uh, constitutional rights that you thought you had.
Right.
You thought you had them, but you don't.
Because the right to abortion was never in the constitution.
Just like slave owners at one time thought they had the constitutional right to own other human beings.
Turns out they don't.
And those, of course, were also Democrats, as it happens.
But move over, mostly peaceful.
The new term of Art is overwhelmingly non-violent.
She also lies and says there are protests every day blocking access to abortion clinics, as already established.
The clinics are safeguarded by federal laws preventing pro-lifers from even coming near the buildings, much less blocking access.
But more to the point, she is openly in favor of harassment and intimidation if it gets the results that she wants.
The White House feels the same way, which is why they refuse to condemn these, quote, protests ahead of time.
In fact, there have been no high-profile Democrats or leftists in media or anywhere else explicitly calling for an end to these kinds of tactics.
Instead, they've gone the other way, openly justifying them and offering whatever weak rationalization they can think of for it.
They do all of this, of course, while still insisting that they cherish democratic norms.
They do this while claiming that words are violence.
They say that January 6th was history's greatest tragedy while cheering as a Supreme Court decision is leaked and then enraged mobs sent to the homes of justices to intimidate them into changing their minds.
They demand, as always, one set of rules for themselves while trying to impose a different set on us.
What we have to decide is whether we're going to continue to operate According to that arrangement, or not.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Well, I'm very excited to talk about a company that's really making a difference for our nation's veterans, One More Wave.
One More Wave uses surf therapy to help veterans stay active, engaged, and connected.
The founder of One More Wave, Alex West, is a retired Navy SEAL who noticed that for many veterans, especially those with adaptive needs, standard off-the-shelf surfboards and equipment, We're off the table.
So what did he do?
He created a team of surfboard artists and surf instructors to work with grant recipients to design the custom equipment for their experience, level, and physical needs.
Since 2015, One More Wave has empowered over 500 veterans to find healing and community through surf therapy by providing customized surfing equipment and community But to keep on going, we need your support.
Help fund 10 new surf therapy grants by going to 1mwave.com dailywire and sign up to become a monthly sustaining donor as well.
It's a great cause.
The average veteran grant costs $2,500 and every tax deductible donation counts.
Help us continue to support these brave men and women who have given so much for this nation.
Visit 1mwave.com dailywire and become a sustaining member today.
One More Wave is a 501c3 and your donation is tax deductible.
Visit 1mwave.com for more information.
Quick thing I want to mention from the Washington Free Beacon, because this is just great stuff.
It says, apparently the American people are decidedly disinclined to pay $26 for a book about the life of President Joe Biden's primary caretaker.
Politico reports that a recently published biography of Dr. Jill Biden sold just 250 copies in its first week of circulation.
So this book, now it's not by Jill Biden, but it's about her, a biography of her, sold 300 copies in a week.
Now, to put that in perspective, my book, Johnny the Walrus, which is still on sale and you can get at johnnythewalrus.com, my book sold 300 times as many copies as Jill Biden's book did.
So go ahead and do the math on that.
300 times.
In fact, more than 300 times because we actually sold out of our first run of like 10,000 copies in a day.
And then we sold a bunch more.
And yet, in spite of that, the biggest question for me is still, who bought the 250 copies?
Like, is there actually 250 people in America who want to sit down in their free time and read a biography of Jill Biden?
It just shows, among other things, the arrogance of the ruling class.
You know, the fact that they put this book out there in the first place.
And they put it out there expecting it to do well, of course, and they're shocked that it's not.
Why would you ever think that anybody would want to read a book about Jill Biden?
Well, it's because, you know, she's in the ruling class, and she's the first lady, and so she's automatically interesting.
Her life is interesting.
You should want to read about it.
No, apparently the life of Johnny the Walrus, told on a board book with like 300 words, is far more interesting.
Alright, so the corporate media, you know, always presents an upside-down version of reality, but I'm not sure we've ever seen it quite as bad as it's been this past week.
And you have to keep in mind, one of the motivating factors here for the media is that the media is full of people who have themselves had multiple abortions.
Lots of these women, especially that you see on left-wing cable news, have killed their children.
They've sacrificed their children on the altar of professional success.
And so they take this all very personally, which has led to some of the most blatant propaganda we've seen on the air, perhaps ever.
So I want to go through this one segment on MSNBC on Saturday, and multiple clips here that I want to go through.
And the first thing that we hear From this roster, this panel of feminists, is that the pro-life movement is rooted in racism.
Despite the fact that if you get rid of abortion, that means that many more black children are going to live, and that the black population is going to grow.
And yet, if you're trying to bring that about, then you're racist, MSNBC says.
Let's listen to this.
In 2017, a survey found only 39% of black women could even afford birth control, and that was just at a cost of $10 or less.
So I'm curious to hear from you how this loss of a constitutional right will impact the black women in your state, Mississippi.
Well, abortion restrictions are medically unnecessary and based on false assumptions, and they are part of a broader political agenda that is racist, based in racism, xenophobia, and designed to exert power and control over pregnant people's bodies.
And so protecting abortion access is essential in reproductive justice, and it's even more urgent in states with limited access to abortion, like Mississippi and Texas.
You have to keep in mind, remember what I said before about With what you find so often, especially with pro-abortion feminists, is that the hideousness internal, internally, like the spiritual hideousness of their position, it kind of manifests itself physically so often.
And it is a really striking thing.
I don't know, there's never been an official study on this.
There probably never will be.
But I'd be very interested.
That's a book I would read.
In all seriousness, why are pro-abortion feminists almost always hideously ugly?
Like, physically?
It's a kind of scientific phenomenon, a social phenomenon, that I'd like to read more about.
But anyway, neither here nor there.
She says, you notice, this is what you get from the pro-abortion, they just toss off these kind of statements, and she says that abortion restrictions are medically unnecessary.
What?
What exactly does that even mean?
Well, yes.
I suppose if you are, as you are of course as a pro-abortion person, just disregarding the existence of the child, then it still doesn't really make sense, but it might begin to make sense, I don't know.
But when you remember that there's a child here, I would say not being aborted, not being ripped limb from limb, not having your brain sucked out of your skulls, like that's a pretty, that's pretty, that's a medical requirement.
That's a medical necessity, I would say.
And then she goes on to talk about, we'll play a little bit more of this clip, because she talks more about how getting rid of abortion is somehow racist.
Let's keep listening.
Michelle, I want to stick with you on this because this whole notion that, you know, women should have children and just, you know, let the kids get adopted.
Well, that's not always a safe route, particularly for black and brown kids.
Black kids do not get adopted often.
There are, we have stats on it, there are often kids who stay in the system for a long time.
When you look at the stats of who gets adopted, it is disproportionately white children.
There are currently tens of thousands of children, hundreds of thousands of children in the foster care system who are just being shuttled through.
So when people say that's a better path for women, what would be your response?
I'm all for adoption, don't get me wrong, but just like your stats are right there, the proof is in the pudding.
There is no rush to adopt black babies or brown babies, let's be clear about that.
Just like there is no rush by the Republicans and the anti-abortion terrorists and lawmakers in protecting and safeguarding the life of black and brown children and black and brown people in this country.
Okay, so let's talk about this for a second.
First of all, They're saying that, well, people aren't adopting black babies, black children, and so we should just kill them?
That's what they're saying.
One of your justifications for abortion is that the babies won't be adopted, and so let's just kill them.
That's the less racist approach here?
If there's a certain race of child that allegedly, according to you, is less likely to be adopted, we should just kill them?
Like, is it better to be... The idea of a child being in the foster care system or the adoption system and not being adopted is terribly tragic and very, very sad.
Is it better to just be dead then?
Should they at least have some kind of life, some kind of chance?
Now, I fully believe that if you're stuck in the system, you don't have a loving family that's taking care of you, then your chances of success and happiness in life are less than if you did have a loving family.
But if you're killed, then your chances are zero.
So whatever the chances are, they're better than zero.
Also note something else.
When she put that stat up there about the kids who are waiting for adoption, what they don't specify, of course, is the age of the child.
Because what they don't want you to realize is that babies, like infants, which is, if you have a so-called unwanted pregnancy, and a woman is going to choose abortion but then doesn't, Well, she's probably not going to wait until the child is five to put the child up for adoption.
The child would be put up for adoption right away, and so that's a baby, right?
So you get rid of abortion.
Let's say we get rid of abortion across the entire country, which is not going to happen, unfortunately, but even if it does, are we then going to see an influx of children in the adoption system?
Almost certainly, but those are going to be babies.
And what they don't want you to know is that there is a waiting list Like, if you want to adopt a baby, you're going to be on a wait list for years waiting.
There's a wait list that can probably stretch up to the moon and back for families that want babies.
It's children when they're older, you know, six, seven, eight-year-old children, where finding an adoptive home is a lot harder.
Again, it's tragic.
It's very sad.
But the reason is that most families that are looking to adopt, they want to adopt a baby.
And so they leave all that out completely.
And then we get to the fact, as we play one more clip here, that we get to this claim that pro-lifers are terrorists.
Now, we've already seen how pro-aborts are attacking pro-life facilities, burning them, showing up in churches, showing up at Supreme Court justices' homes.
But no, it's the pro-lifers who are terrorists.
Let's listen to that.
Amy, you just heard Michelle refer to the anti-abortionists as terrorists, and she has a point, because the quote-unquote people who call themselves pro-life, they achieve this through violence.
When you look through the... I remember, I'm old enough to remember that in the 80s, anti-abortion protesters began bombing clinics, threatening doctors.
By 1990, a thousand abortion doctors had quit.
84% of counties nationwide had no abortion clinic.
You are an abortion provider.
What does this ruling mean for you?
So Michelle is right.
And I'm thankful to be here to me this morning with both Michelle and Nancy.
There is violence and it is terrorism.
And I think it's very important for us to recognize that it is Christian extremism that is at the root of the shame and the stigma that allows laws like this to pass, that allows justices like this to be confirmed.
And this does not represent the majority of feelings and beliefs of people in this country.
Everybody knows and loves somebody who's needed an abortion in their lifetime.
This is not how any of us want people who need our compassion and our dignified care to be treated at any point in time.
There's no way that half of the country should lose access to safe abortion care because of a law like this.
It's time for people to speak up and it's been time for people to speak up and our clinics and all the independent clinics I know across the country are trying to do as much as we can to stay open as long as possible and welcome as many people for compassionate care as we can.
So I want to stick with you for a second, Amy, because once this ruling becomes public and becomes, essentially, they kick it back to states, some people think, you know, this ruling will happen and you won't be able to get an abortion tomorrow.
That's not necessarily true.
They're saying this is a state's right issue.
One of the great things about that segment you can't see if you don't see the visuals but they're talking about pro-life extreme alleged pro-life extremism and terrorism and You know, they obviously knew that they were going to do this segment.
So they had some stock footage ready to go and the best they could do In terms of images to support the claims they're making are just images of pro-lifers, many of them young women, standing with signs.
That's the terrorism.
And by the way, they don't show the context of those pro-lifers or where they are, but it looks like they're at marches, maybe the March for Life, you know, at pro-life demonstrations.
They're not in anybody's private residence.
They're not even showing up to the private residences of abortion doctors.
No, the fact of the matter is that just like that quote-unquote abortion provider that we just saw there in MSNBC, there are people who their entire job, I mean they go to work and they punch in and then they just kill babies all day and they punch out and they go home.
And they do all this in spite of what we're told about the threat of violent extremism.
They do all this without really any fear at all.
I mean, they'll go on MSNBC and announce themselves, hey, I'm a abortion provider.
They go to their homes, they don't worry about anything.
They don't worry about people showing up to their homes because, no, it's really not the right that does that, it's the left that does that, and they know that.
I also thought it was interesting they put this graphic up on the screen of, and I have it here, just to freeze frame, anti-abortion violence from 1977 to 2019.
And here's what they claim in this graphic.
And where do they get this information from?
They get it from the National Abortion Federation.
So, not exactly going to an objective news source.
They're going to an advocate group for abortion.
They could not find a more biased source, but according to this information from this biased source, what they tell us is that there have been 12 bi-pro-lifers, allegedly.
There have been 12 murders, 26 attempted murders, 756 threats of harm, 620 stalking incidents, whatever that means, 4 kidnappings, and then 42 bombings, 189 arsons, 100 attempted bombings or arsons, and 662 bomb threats.
Now, even if all of that is 100% true, which I guarantee, and I can tell you right now, it is not, okay, but for the sake of argument, even if that was true, That is what the so-called pro-life extremist terrorists have done in 40 years.
Over four decades, you've got 12 murders, 189 arsons.
For comparison's sake, BLM did worse than that in a summer.
Okay, so you've got BLM over the course of three months, dozens killed, and two billion dollars of damage.
As opposed to alleged pro-life extremists over the course of 40 years.
The other thing is that almost all this stuff that they list there, you know, this is all stuff from 30 years ago.
In fact, she even says, I remember back in the 80s this was much more common.
Oh, you mean back 30 years ago it was?
And even then it was vanishingly rare?
And now it pretty much never happens at all?
The last abortionist to be killed was, I think, was it George Tiller?
13, 14 years ago?
So, take that and compare it to BLM.
Compare it to Antifa.
Oh, but right, right-wing extremists.
They're the ones we have to worry about.
Okay, one other thing.
Staying on the theme of the upside-down world, ABC is still pushing the theory that it's a conservative, either conservative justice or conservative clerk, who leaked this decision in the first place.
And let's listen.
In covering the court since the early days of Roe, how much has this leak rattled the institution and the way it's viewed?
Well, the way it's viewed, it's an earthquake.
And I think within the court itself, it's an earthquake.
There has never been a leak like this.
There have been minor little springs that have emerged from the court.
Reports of a tentative vote or misbehavior by one justice back in the 50s, 60s, 70s.
There were leaks, those kinds of leaks.
But never an entire draft of a majority opinion.
That has never, ever occurred before.
And it can only, in all likelihood, have come from a justice.
That, I think, is less likely.
Perhaps one of the clerks and the leading theory is a conservative clerk who was afraid that one of the conservatives might be persuaded by Chief Justice Roberts And to join a much more moderate opinion.
And then there's another theory that it was an outraged liberal clerk.
But I think the only one that makes sense is that it came from somebody who was afraid that this majority might not hold, that Chief Justice Roberts might persuade one of the conservatives to come over to him in a much more moderate opinion.
They only, it's not even, she's not even floating the theory that maybe it was conservative who leaked the opinion.
That's the only theory that makes sense according to her.
No, actually that theory makes no sense at all and she doesn't believe that and nobody really believes that.
Nobody believes.
Nobody could be watching the news and watching the footage and seeing enraged mobs showing up at Justice Kavanaugh's house and saying, oh yeah, it must have been a conservative who set this in motion.
No, for the reasons we've covered, we can't say anything's impossible, given that we don't know for sure.
So maybe there's like a 1% chance, a 0.5% chance that it was a conservative.
A conservative, by the way, would have to be half crazy to have done this.
But we know that's almost certainly not the case, because just, first of all, to begin with, a conservative is just not going to do this to somebody on their own side.
But even more so, from a strategic standpoint, you know what a contentious issue this obviously is.
The decision has not been officially made yet or officially announced.
It's not official until it's announced.
And so you're going to put this information out there so that the people on your own side experience this kind of pressure in the opposite direction, potentially for weeks or months?
So you as a conservative are trying to scare the people on your own side?
That makes zero sense at all.
And she does not believe that, but she's saying it anyway.
So this is kind of what they're going with, is that on one hand the leak is a good thing and it's fine and everything else, but also it was probably a conservative who did it.
So they're playing both right now, obviously.
On one hand, justifying it, on the other hand, saying, oh, it's probably a conservative, and then, if it turns out that it was really a liberal, which it almost certainly will turn out that it was really a liberal, not that we'll necessarily ever find out for sure who it was, but if that does turn out to be the case, then they can say, oh, yeah, well, you know, I said it was fine.
And then if it turns out to be a conservative, on the extreme off chance, then they can just switch courses and say, oh, this is a terrible, it's another attack, this is just like January 6th, You see, the conservatives are at it again.
All right.
A couple of things I wanted to play for.
I don't know if we have time for it, but... Okay, we'll go here.
Libs of TikTok has another one for us.
This is a teacher explaining how she teaches gender ideology in the classroom.
My kids from last year are now in fifth grade, and they come visit me almost every day after school.
And a lot of them are queer, because I am queer, and so, and they figured it out, and so I've become their safe space.
Today, they found my Guess Who?, and they started playing Guess Who?, but they didn't play it the normal way.
How did they play it?
They used things like, this person looks like a lesbian baddie who's gonna come over and make you dinner.
Well, which one of these characters is a lesbian baddie that's gonna come over and make you dinner?
Oh, Olivia is?
Oh, great!
Um, which character just looks gay?
Well, meet Mike!
Um, these kids, I'm so happy that they are figuring out who they are and that they're happy with who they are and that they found a safe place, but man!
I could never imagine being in fifth grade saying these things out loud, even though I know they're all okay.
I grew up super religious where nothing was okay.
And so seeing this happen, I'm like, ah!
But I was like, yay!
But I... So this is some sort of... She sounds like a cartoon character, like a Muppet or something like that, on crack.
And she's... But she teaches in a classroom.
So let's just... Like, that...
This person walked into an interview at an elementary school and they said, oh yeah, for sure, you should teach kindergarten.
It's not even funny because she's in charge of kids, but she's a complete psycho.
But that's not even the most relevant part here.
I mean, it's pretty relevant that she's psychotic, but the second part of this is she says, they are queer because I am queer.
That's what she said.
Well, yes, exactly.
So while they deny all the grooming charges and everything, they're queer because I am queer, she says.
Yeah, it turns out that when you are somehow in a position of authority and trust, and you promote a certain lifestyle, present yourself a certain way, then you're going to find that the kids in your care begin to reflect that.
Who would have thought?
It's almost like it's entirely intentional.
Okay, that was insanity.
Before we get to the comment section, let's check in for a little bit of sanity.
And as always, for sanity, we go to none other than Chet Hanks, who is the founder of White Boy Summer.
A less interesting aspect of him in his resume is that he's also the son of Tom Hanks.
And he was on some kind of talk show, I guess, and he was given the opportunity to apologize to the marginalized communities that he's offended, and he's offended many of them.
And here's how he responded to that.
Watch.
Are there any marginalized communities you want to apologize to?
I don't know.
Maybe the Patois community?
Nah.
I don't feel like I've truly done anything offensive, so... You don't see it as cultural appropriation.
You see it as like a celebration of culture.
And then it's like social justice warriors can like go kick rocks.
Yeah.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
No comment.
Got it.
No, I mean, I 100% agree.
Social justice warriors can kick rocks.
I mean... This guy, he's one of the great...
Thinkers of our age, I believe.
Because he's just basically sane, so that already puts you in a category above at least like 99% of the people on TV anyway and who have a platform.
Chet Hanks, I really appreciate it.
I appreciate that response.
Actually, that was a really good response.
That was probably better than the response that I would have given because if I was put in that position and for some reason I was sitting down on that show, And I was given an opportunity to give my apology to a marginalized community.
I would probably go into, like, a 15-minute rant about why I'm not going to do that.
And there's a place for the 15-minute rant, obviously.
One of the places is this show.
But I actually think his response is better, which is just total dismissiveness.
I have no time for that at all.
I'm not even going to talk about it.
That's how stupid that is.
Great response from Chet Hanks as we prepare for White Boy Summer 2, which is coming, which is here, in fact.
That's it.
It just started right there with that.
All right, let's get now to the comment section.
All right, we're just going to do a couple of these, and we'll start with This, Colin says, my son, seven years old, absolutely loves Johnny the Walrus.
He insists on reading it back to me after I read it to him.
He almost never does that.
Then yesterday I put on Matt's book signing and Brandon lost his mind going on about how cool and funny Matt is.
This is a little far as I am both funnier and better looking than Matt.
Go ahead and ban me.
You can take the man out of the SBG, but you can't take the SBG out of the man.
SBG for life.
Well, you are indoctrinating your child with Johnny the Walrus, so I will allow you to stay, even though you have insulted me gravely, I'll allow you to stay in the cult and watching the show.
And thanks for buying the book as well.
And if I haven't mentioned it yet, Johnny the Walrus is for sale at johnnythewalrus.com.
Buy your copy now.
We're still, I think, in the top 20, 25 on Amazon.
Jill Biden, I gotta look it up.
I think she was, yeah, she was like a number 35,000 or something.
Oh, it's just great.
It's just great.
I'm the doctor now, Jill.
Okay, Patriot says, just about two years ago I was pro-choice, then I found your show, watched a few episodes, and immediately saw that pro-choice is evil.
Thank you for helping drag me off of one of the many degenerate paths of thought that the left pumps out.
Yeah, well, I would love to take credit for that, and sure, I will take credit for it, but...
And I'm sure you'd probably agree with this.
This only reveals, again, it doesn't reveal how brilliant I am or that I'm making great arguments.
It just shows how most of the people, as I've been saying, you know, I've said several times over the last few days, most of the people who identify themselves as pro-choice, a great number of them anyway, it's just because they haven't thought much about it.
You know, they just kind of, they're aware of the issue.
It's kind of something out there.
It's more abstract.
And if you ask them about it, if you back them into a corner, they're going to say, yeah, I'm pro-choice.
But when they allow themselves to be exposed, first of all, to what the issue really is.
For a lot of them, if they can just encounter the issue itself, if you can confront them with what abortion really is, you don't even need to make any arguments.
That's going to be enough for a lot of people.
That's going to be the red pill moment for a lot of people.
And then for everybody else, you just make a few basic arguments and that's enough.
And then their own brain starts working and they realize, oh, you know, I never had any real reason to be so-called pro-choice.
So, and this is why the left, in fact, does not want to talk about this.
They want to shut down conversations about it.
And because they know that their entire, you know, them winning this issue means simply that most Americans don't think about it.
That's how they win.
Which is very different from the pro-life side, which is that we want you to think about it, we want to talk about it.
Let's see, Brenda says, the only reason I want Johnny Depp to win is because she literally took away his livelihood.
He was immediately fired from Disney and his reputation was completely ruined when all the time it was her.
There should be some justice for him and other men in these situations when crazy women ruin them.
Yeah, I mean, I agree with that.
Anyone who's falsely accused, the truth should come out.
If he was defamed, and it looks like he was, then I hope he wins and bankrupts her and everything else.
My only point about all this is that I think we're going too far and we're sort of missing the point when we make him into nothing but a helpless victim.
Because the fact is, as I've reviewed, you know, he divorced his first wife, he bounced around between a bunch of different women, then he was with another woman, he had kids, he left her, ends up with Amber Heard.
And I think we can assume that he didn't end up with Amber Heard because he felt any deep connection with her.
It's just that she was a young, attractive woman.
And he ends up with her.
And that's like, that's a course there.
That's a life course.
That whether you're a man or a woman, never leads to anything but despair.
And the destruction of your life.
So I think that is probably the lesson we should take from this.
Well, unless you've been locked in a pantry for the last two months, by now you've heard of Shut In, Daily Wire's latest original film.
But if you haven't seen Shut In, you really should.
One of the things that surprised us after releasing the movie is we found there were certain themes that really resonated strong with our audience, particularly the drive of the main character, a mother who would do anything she needed to do to protect her children.
So we cut a new trailer that really captured that and released it yesterday for Mother's Day.
Take a look.
Mama?
Why are you in there?
I messed up real bad.
A, B, C, D, E, F, G. I'm a bad mom.
It's I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P. It's L, M, N, O, P. Nana said Daddy's bad.
Daddy's not bad, okay?
He's just sick.
Just like Mama was sick.
But I got better.
Jessica!
I can spell the weakness from here.
Did they teach you hope and rehab?
I'll come back when you're back to your old self.
Rob!
Rob owes me money.
Don't you touch my kid!
Mommy, please come out.
I'm scared.
You can't get out, you just need to try harder.
You go back to the same miserable life.
He makes drugs to get away from.
Please let me out!
What good is this to me now?
Lena!
I'm a bad mom.
(dramatic music)
But I'm trying.
Let's practice my ABCs, okay?
A B C D E F G Shut In has an audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes of 96%.
It's that good.
And here's the deal.
When you sign up for a membership of The Daily Wire to watch films like Shut In, you help us stick it to woke Hollywood by helping us build entertainment alternatives.
In fact, we just committed $100 million to creating DW Kids because Disney has lost its mind and wants to indoctrinate your children.
So head to dailywire.com slash subscribe and sign up for our membership.
And don't miss Shut In.
It's dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Together, let's build a future we can believe in.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
You know, there's nothing the corporate media loves more than fact-checking.
And the great thing about doing a fact-check is, as they've discovered, is that there's no law of man or law of physics which ensures that a fact-check actually contains, you know, facts.
You can simply declare yourself to be a fact-checker and then proceed to say whatever you want, tell whatever lies you want, and none of this counts as propaganda so long as you simply label it a fact-check.
So, for example, NPR has just published a fact-check of what they say are seven persistent claims about abortion.
Now, it's a fact-check that itself needs a fact-check, which I will now provide, and if we're lucky, they'll fact-check my fact-check of their fact-check, and soon we'll be lost in an inception-like, self-perpetuating cycle of fact-checking.
Let's begin with what they claim is the first popular yet false claim often made about abortion.
They write, claim, there is big support for ending Roe in America.
But they say this is false because, quote, 6 in 10 U.S.
adults say that abortion should be legal in most or all cases, according to the Pew Research Center's polls.
37% of Americans want abortion illegal in all or most cases, but an even bigger fraction, around 6 in 10 Americans, think abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
Okay.
Just taking this at face value, 37% of American adults, that works out to about 95 million people, According to NPR's own numbers, 95 million Americans want Roe overturned.
Does that not count as big support?
95 million?
It might not be a majority, but it's 95 million people.
Let's go deeper into the numbers.
Yes, polls show that around 60% of Americans say that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
Around the same percent say that Roe should not be overturned.
These results are pretty consistent across nearly all surveys on the subject, yet Another consistent result is that, as an Associated Press poll recently found, 65% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in the second trimester, and 80% think it should be illegal in the third trimester.
Now, this means that leftist pro-abortion activists are at odds with a vast majority of the country when it comes to abortion, when it comes to nearly every other topic as well, because they want abortion through every trimester, Including the third trimester, which means that 80% of Americans disagree with them, when it comes down to it.
It also means that a good portion of the Americans who say they support Roe actually don't know what Roe entails, or that Roe seeks to forbid restrictions on exactly the kinds of abortions that these same Americans think should be restricted.
So, on the surface, nearly 100 million Americans want Roe overturned.
which already counts as big support by any reasonable metric.
But on top of that, a sizable portion of the Americans who do not want Roe overturned would want it overturned if they actually understood what the decision means or what it's led to, which means that the false claim fact-checked by NPR is actually a true claim with additional caveats that make it even truer.
Now, moving on to the next fact-check, NPR says that this is a popular false claim.
Quote, After Roe, abortion skyrocketed.
And then they provide this correction, along with a chart showing the rates of abortion over the years.
They say, while the rate of abortions increased significantly in the decade after Roe v. Wade, it has since decreased to below the 1973 levels.
In other words, the claim is that abortions skyrocketed after Roe, and the reality, as NPR itself shows, is that abortions skyrocketed after Roe.
They started to decline over the preceding decades, but they did skyrocket after Roe.
So this is another false claim that's actually completely 100% true.
And this is what they can do with fact checks.
You know, they say, false claim, abortions skyrocketed after Roe.
Here's the truth.
Abortions skyrocketed after Roe.
Moving on, the next allegedly false claim that NPR seeks to debunk is this.
Abortion is dangerous.
And for their fact check, they tell us, pregnancy and childbirth are far more dangerous than getting an abortion, according to data from the CDC.
Then there's a bar graph there showing that 0.4 abortion-related deaths happen per 100,000 abortions, as opposed to 17.4 pregnancy-related deaths per 100,000 live births.
Well, okay.
I mean, this one seems pretty cut and dry.
I guess it really is more dangerous to give birth to children than to kill them.
Except there are a few problems here.
The first and most obvious problem is that every single abortion performed in history has had the intention, and almost always the result, of destroying at least one human life, which gives abortion a fatality rate of about 100,000 per 100,000.
100,000 per 100,000.
Quite a bit higher than 17.4 per 100,000.
That's enough to debunk NPR's debunking already, but why quit when we're ahead?
There's a note on NPR's graph which says, So they're obviously already casting a kind of wide net to pump up these pregnancy death statistics.
But what about abortion deaths?
or within one year of the end of pregnancy from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy.
So they're obviously already casting a kind of wide net to pump up these pregnancy death statistics.
But what about abortion deaths? How are those defined? And where is the data coming from?
NPR doesn't bother to provide this information, so I had to go to the CDC's website to find it, and here's what I discovered.
First, as to how abortion-related death is defined, the CDC says that, quote, an abortion-related death is defined as a death resulting from a direct complication of an abortion, an indirect complication caused by a chain of events initiated by an abortion, or an aggravation of a pre-existing condition by the physiologic or psychological effects of abortion.
Now, that sounds not quite the same as the way they define pregnancy deaths, but, you know, maybe close enough.
Yet it does raise the question of how they could possibly know that the rate is only 0.4 per 100,000.
For instance, if a woman is racked by guilt because of her abortion and tragically takes her own life, that would certainly qualify as an abortion-related death according to the CDC's metric, but would it be tabulated?
Would it count towards the tally?
Would we know about it?
Would they tell us about it?
Here's what the CDC says.
Sources of data to identify abortion-related deaths have included state vital records,
media reports, and individual case reports by public health agencies including maternal mortality review committees,
health care providers, and provider organizations, private citizens, and citizen groups.
For each death that is possibly related to abortion, the CDC requests clinical records and autopsy reports.
Two medical epidemiologists independently review these reports to determine the cause of death and whether the death was abortion-related.
Discrepancies are discussed and resolved by consensus.
Now, this is, in summary, an intensely subjective process that includes relying on media reports and politicized health agencies.
And it gets worse.
The CDC admits that states, Many states don't even report their abortion fatality data consistently.
Some will go years at a time without reporting at all, sometimes up to a decade.
Which means that, quote from the CDC, "...denominator data for calculation of national legal-induced abortion case fatality rates were obtained from a published report by the Guttmacher Institute."
Now, the Guttmacher Institute is a pro-abortion advocacy group.
So that 0.4 per 100,000 abortion-related death number is based largely on data from pro-abortion activists, as well as a ragtag collection of media reports and citizen groups.
Another debunking falls apart upon closer inspection.
Let's see if the situation improves as we round out the list.
Next, NPR gives us this supposedly false claim.
Quote, people are getting abortions late in pregnancy.
And they clarify with this.
Over 90% of abortions happen in the first trimester by 13 weeks.
So here's another case where they debunk their own debunking in the process of debunking.
The claim they're trying to delegitimize is that people are getting abortions late in pregnancy.
And then they provide information which shows that 1% of abortions happen after 21 weeks when babies can survive outside the womb.
This 1% figure is from the CDC.
We've already seen how much we can trust the CDC here, but even if the 1% is accurate, Those 1% of people are people, and so the claim that people are getting abortions late in pregnancy still holds.
Also, there were 800,000 abortions last year.
1% of 800,000 is 8,000.
So by their own figures, that means 8,000 viable babies who could survive outside the womb were killed in one single year.
And if 10% of abortions happen after the first trimester, that leaves 80,000 abortions that happen outside of the first trimester.
These are huge numbers.
But, you know, it's all relative, I suppose.
The left pretends that 1% of even, you know, or even 10% is insignificant and irrelevant when discussing late-term abortions, and yet less than 1% of abortions are due to rape, and they certainly think 1% is a hugely significant portion in that case.
Moving to the next, NPR gives us this claim.
The only people getting abortions are straight cisgender women.
Now, we can gloss right over this one because literally nobody has ever made that claim.
Cisgender is a made-up category anyway, and no pro-lifer cares about or ever makes any claims about the sexual orientation of people who get abortions.
Now, it stands to reason that most of them are probably heterosexual, but nobody cares or makes any claims at all about that aspect of the discussion.
This is similar to another claim they debunk, which is that, quote, people who are religious don't get abortions.
Again, nobody makes this claim.
Pro-lifers are fully aware that people who claim to be Christians still get abortions.
We have never claimed otherwise.
NPR is just torching straw men here.
And that brings us to the final claim.
Fetuses feel pain early in pregnancy.
This is a false claim, supposedly.
And they try to disprove this by arguing, quote, "Medical researchers agree a fetus is not capable
of experiencing pain until the third trimester, somewhere between 29 or 30 weeks.
Despite this, 16 states have passed abortion bans based on the notion that fetuses experience pain
at or around 22 weeks."
Now note that even if it's true that babies don't feel pain until 30 weeks,
that means that babies killed in late-term abortions, where the method often involves
ripping the child apart limb from limb, do feel excruciating physical pain every step of the way
while they're being executed.
Only a barbaric, satanic savage could support something like that, such as the barbaric, satanic savages at NPR.
But do babies feel pain before 30 weeks?
Probably, yeah.
The nervous system begins to develop at 6 weeks, By 22 weeks, 23 weeks, all of the neural pathways and connections are forming, which should allow for the experience of pain.
But what is the experience of pain?
Well, that's the conscious awareness that you are in pain.
When we ask whether babies feel pain, we're asking about their conscious experience.
Unfortunately, we can't actually know anything for certain about their conscious experience, just as we can't actually know anything for certain about anybody's conscious experience, but our own.
We can only make educated guesses.
And we're certainly now in a realm that does not lend itself to pithy little two-sentence fact-check debunkings.
Now, I don't know if a child at, say, 18 weeks can experience pain the way that I do.
But I do know that he's a human being.
And that's all I need to know.
Because I'm not looking for an excuse to kill him, like pro-aborts are.
On a similar note, there's plenty of reason to think that the person who wrote this fact-check has the brain of a termite.
But I'm going to assume that they're also human beings.
Just a very, very stupid human being.
And dishonest.
And also, finally, of course, cancelled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, production manager Pavel Vodovsky, Our associate producer is McKenna Waters.
The show is edited by Robbie Dantzler.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina, and hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2022.
Today on The Ben Shapiro Show, hoping to inflate their 2022 hopes, Democrats bet big on talking about abortion.
