Speaker 1: I want to bring all of your attention to a
Speaker 1: local matter that touches on the abortion debate. We're going
Speaker 1: to talk about it a little bit tomorrow on Right
Speaker 1: to Life Radio, but I want to dig into it
Speaker 1: a little bit here on this show because it has
Speaker 1: to do with sort of conflicting worldviews about what healthcare
Speaker 1: provision is and a lot and a lot of my
Speaker 1: advocacy against abortion. One of the things I've seen is
Speaker 1: kind of the cheap charity of abortion provision, the way
Speaker 1: that people say, well, communities of color really need abortion care.
Speaker 1: That's how they always phrase it. That these communities, these
Speaker 1: lowering communities, they really need abortion services, and we're denying
Speaker 1: them abortion services. And these communities really need abortion services.
Speaker 1: And what I see so often is actually no, The
Speaker 1: overwhelming majority of women who have abortions would rather keep
Speaker 1: their babies their turnaway. Studies showing it's somewhere from anywhere
Speaker 1: between sixty and seventy percent of women who have abortions
Speaker 1: say that the abortion is against their preference, that they
Speaker 1: felt pressured or constrained into having the abortion, whether by
Speaker 1: their financial situation, pressure from partner, family, other reasons, or
Speaker 1: in some cases outright coercion, And what I find so
Speaker 1: often is that it's disproportionately happening, for example, in California,
Speaker 1: it's happening in these communities where there aren't enough obgyns
Speaker 1: willing to care for lower income people. You have a
Speaker 1: ton of medical patients, and you have fewer and fewer
Speaker 1: obgyns willing to take lower income patients. So well, that's
Speaker 1: part of why I started our Obria Clinic in Fresno,
Speaker 1: the Obria Medical Clinics of Central California. It's designed to
Speaker 1: be a nonprofit obgyn clinic that takes lower income patients
Speaker 1: who are on medical or on actually on a managed
Speaker 1: medical plans what we have right now. So so it's
Speaker 1: two different mindsets. The mindset of the left is like,
Speaker 1: we can band aid over the far more serious problems
Speaker 1: of lack of healthcare provision for lower income people with abortion,
Speaker 1: rather than you know, ensure that women have a doctor
Speaker 1: that they can see, let's just yeah, let's funnel them
Speaker 1: into abortion. And I do think that's really what's happening.
Speaker 1: Abortion is so facilitated, so subsidized, so much easier than
Speaker 1: actually having a baby as far as insurance wise, healthcare
Speaker 1: provision wise, You know, very often these women in South Fresno,
Speaker 1: especially if they're on a medical plan, you know, they'll
Speaker 1: call one of the few clinics that is willing to
Speaker 1: take them and they'll get the answer, well, we're booked
Speaker 1: solid for four straight months, So your first appointment for
Speaker 1: this pregnancy that maybe you are already three or four
Speaker 1: months into your pregnancy, is four months down the road.
Speaker 1: Or I can go to Planned Parenthood next week, get
Speaker 1: a prescription for the abortion pill. Boom, easy peasy. It's
Speaker 1: enormously easier with by the way, with no copey, no deductible,
Speaker 1: no out of pucket costs for my abortion. Because of
Speaker 1: the state of California, which has eliminated all copes and
Speaker 1: deductibles for abortions, they've given extra medical reimbursement funding for abortions.
Speaker 1: That blah blah blah blah blah. It is clearly the
Speaker 1: state of California facilitates people having abortions far more so
Speaker 1: than having kids. Now, because the Left has this sort
Speaker 1: of false sense of charity that they view abortion as
Speaker 1: care rather than hey, why are you choosing abortion? Maybe
Speaker 1: it's because you're in a bad financial state. Well, maybe
Speaker 1: let's help you. You know, what do you need help with?
Speaker 1: Maybe let's look at social agencies, you know, whether it's
Speaker 1: county agencies, city agencies, whether it's charitable agencies. What do
Speaker 1: you need help with? Do you need food? You need sheltered,
Speaker 1: do you need help with rent? Do you need help
Speaker 1: with your PG? Need bill? Do you know, do you
Speaker 1: need somebody to talk to? Like, that's a lot of
Speaker 1: what we do it right to life. When we encounter
Speaker 1: someone who's considering abortion, is just help them with that
Speaker 1: kind of thing, give them some kind of game plan,
Speaker 1: and this gives the person the confidence say yes, I
Speaker 1: can't have this baby and let's let's go for which
Speaker 1: is what Again, sixty to seventy percent of these women
Speaker 1: who have abortions would rather do so it's it's a
Speaker 1: false charity to say, oh, all these women are seeking abortions,
Speaker 1: so we need to be sure to provide them with
Speaker 1: more and more and more abortion. Now, with that mindset,
Speaker 1: abortion providers have been hungrily eyeballing to Larry County. So
Speaker 1: for the longest time, there was no abortion clinic in
Speaker 1: between Fresno and Bakersfield. There's no abortion clinic in Visalia,
Speaker 1: no abortion clinic into Larry County. To Larry County up
Speaker 1: until recently, has been the most populous county in California
Speaker 1: without an abortion clinic, and this has been the subject
Speaker 1: of great frustration and angst for liberals in California. The
Speaker 1: San Francisco Chronicle did a whole peace on it, and
Speaker 1: it's an abortion desert, an abortion care desert, because we
Speaker 1: have to call it care. And there have been numerous
Speaker 1: efforts over the last three years because I think Planned
Speaker 1: Parenthood sees a market opportunity, other abortion providers see market
Speaker 1: opportunity to open an abortion clinic in to Larry County.
Speaker 1: A couple of attempts were made in the city of
Speaker 1: Visalia itself. All of those were beaten back, largely through
Speaker 1: private efforts. So I Direct Right to Life of Central California,
Speaker 1: our sister organization is TOI Larry King's Right to Life,
Speaker 1: and they've been very successful in mobilizing public opposition to
Speaker 1: the establishment of local abortion clinics in the city of
Speaker 1: Icealia and in Tillarry County more broadly, whether that's going
Speaker 1: to a council meeting or a planning committee meeting to
Speaker 1: voice their opposition in the zoning process, whether it's going
Speaker 1: to the private landowner to say, hey, please don't sell
Speaker 1: the Planned Parenthood, Please don't lease to this abortion provider
Speaker 1: that abortion provider. They've done a good job with about
Speaker 1: two or three different attempts to open Planned Parenthood clinics
Speaker 1: or abortion clinics to stop it. Well. Another effort has
Speaker 1: been made in an office complex in the city of
Speaker 1: Tularry where a Family Planning Associates clinic has now opened up.
Speaker 1: Family Planning Associates is you know, if Planned Parenthood is
Speaker 1: Coca Cola, Family Planning Associates is basically our c Cola.
Speaker 1: It's a similar chain of abortion providers. Family Planning Associates is.
Speaker 1: All of their clinics are located in California, and it's
Speaker 1: much the same kinds of services. There's a Family Planning
Speaker 1: Associates has a clinic in Fresno, kind of downtown near
Speaker 1: Community Hospital, so they've opened up a location into Larry.
Speaker 1: Now the other doctors in this medical office complex, it's
Speaker 1: sort of an office complex with a bunch of different
Speaker 1: private doctor's offices, and they are not happy about an
Speaker 1: abortion clinic opening up, and they are now engaged in
Speaker 1: a lawsuit with Family Planning Associates and this is going
Speaker 1: to be kind of a significant thing for the state
Speaker 1: of California. So let me kind of lay out some
Speaker 1: of the issues that are going on here. One of
Speaker 1: the big so the central contention of the other doctors
Speaker 1: from this office complex into Larry, is that they have
Speaker 1: for their office complex a covenant that sort of governs
Speaker 1: the kinds of businesses that are allowed to be opened
Speaker 1: within their office complex. Lots of office complexes have a
Speaker 1: similar sort of thing. You know, if you've got a professional,
Speaker 1: you know, set of office suites that have you know,
Speaker 1: lawyers and doctors and CPAs. You know, they maybe they
Speaker 1: don't want a tattoo parlor opening up within their office complex. Okay,
Speaker 1: maybe they don't want a burger king in their office complex.
Speaker 1: Of maybe they don't want a pizza parlor. Nothing wrong
Speaker 1: with a pizza parlor, but they're sort of like, well, no,
Speaker 1: we want this office complex to be reserved for these
Speaker 1: kinds of businesses, and that's legitimate to do. So they
Speaker 1: have a covenant governing that that lists the kinds of
Speaker 1: businesses that will and will not be allowed to open
Speaker 1: up in that complex. And I think it's just restricted
Speaker 1: to like private doctor's offices. Within that particular complex. Now,
Speaker 1: it specifically lists in that covenant. It's pretty old document.
Speaker 1: I think it was from I forget if I think
Speaker 1: it was from the late eighties early nineties. It specifically
Speaker 1: lists abortion clinics as a kind of business that they
Speaker 1: will not allow to have within their complex. They say, no,
Speaker 1: we're not gonna we're not gonna allow abortion clinics within
Speaker 1: our complex. We don't want to have that as one
Speaker 1: of the tenants within this and the lawsuit centers around that. Now,
Speaker 1: a little bit of it is kind of a what
Speaker 1: it depends on what the meaning of is is situation.
Speaker 1: Family Planning Associates tried to put forward this argument that no, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: we're not an abortion clinic because we're not doing surgical abortions.
Speaker 1: This very deceptively left out the fact that they are
Speaker 1: prescribing and dispensing the abortion pill. That's an abortion clinic.
Speaker 1: If you're a clinic where people can go to get abortions,
Speaker 1: you're an abortion clinic. And they're their argument as well.
Speaker 1: This covenant was written in you know, late eighties, early
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety one, before the abortion pill was a thing,
Speaker 1: so there was no way it could have been foreseen. Well, no,
Speaker 1: the abortion pill was a thing in Europe at the time,
Speaker 1: and a lot of people were you could see the
Speaker 1: possibility that it could come to the United States. The
Speaker 1: idea that it was an unknown thing seems completely silly.
Speaker 1: So the argument is stemming. The lawsuit is steming around
Speaker 1: a couple of different things. And I think what I'm
Speaker 1: going to do is I'm going to take a break
Speaker 1: here and then in the next segment I'm going to
Speaker 1: talk about this. Basically, it's going to center around this.
Speaker 1: Do we treat abortion provision like do we treat discrimination
Speaker 1: against abortion providers as being the same thing effectively as
Speaker 1: discriminating against someone on the basis of race. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about that in the next segment. This is the John
Speaker 1: Girardi Show on Power Talk. There's a lawsuit happening in
Speaker 1: to Larry County. An abortion clinic is trying to open
Speaker 1: in a private doctor's sort of a office complex. The
Speaker 1: other doctors within the office complex are suing to stop
Speaker 1: the abortion provider from opening. The doctors say, hey, we
Speaker 1: have a covenant governing this office complex. It says no
Speaker 1: abortion clinics are allowed to open up. The response from
Speaker 1: the abortion clinics is something that could be really significant
Speaker 1: for California law, and it's a strain of stuff that
Speaker 1: liberals are trying to incorporate and have succeeded in incorporating
Speaker 1: in many aspects of California law. Which is this trying
Speaker 1: to treat decisions around abortion as if it's a protected
Speaker 1: category on the level of race and sex. So let
Speaker 1: me explain. Let's take the example of this. You know,
Speaker 1: this office complex. This is an office complex, intularry. It's
Speaker 1: all different private doctors, offices, doctors, dentists, et cetera. They
Speaker 1: have a covenant that says, you know, there are various
Speaker 1: kinds of businesses that we don't want to have within
Speaker 1: our office complex. We just want to restrict it to
Speaker 1: private doctor's offices. We also, we don't want an abortion
Speaker 1: clinic in this complex. That was in there the covenant
Speaker 1: sort of governing what businesses can be in this office complex.
Speaker 1: We don't want a burger king. We don't want a
Speaker 1: pizza parlor. You know, we don't want you know, I
Speaker 1: don't know. We don't want a skateboard shop. We don't
Speaker 1: want a marijuana dispensary. These are the kinds of things
Speaker 1: we want within this office complex. We don't want a
Speaker 1: liquor store. We only want private doctor's offices, and we
Speaker 1: also don't want abortion clinics. Plenty of office complexes all
Speaker 1: around the state and the country have that. Now, let's
Speaker 1: suppose that those doctors with their office complex had a
Speaker 1: provision in that covenant that governs the kinds of businesses
Speaker 1: that can be there. Let's suppose they had a provision
Speaker 1: in that covenant that said, we are not going to
Speaker 1: allow in our office complex any African American owned businesses.
Speaker 1: If they said that that provision in their covenant that's
Speaker 1: governing their office complex, that would be illegal, unenforceable. Okay,
Speaker 1: Why well, it's discriminating on the basis of race. If
Speaker 1: an African American doctor, who otherwise totally was in compliance
Speaker 1: with the terms of the covenant, an African American, you know,
Speaker 1: let's say an African American dentist wanted to set up
Speaker 1: shop within the office complex and a prior owner wanted
Speaker 1: to sell his spot to this guy, and they had
Speaker 1: a dispute over it. The African American doctor would win.
Speaker 1: Why well, provisions in a contract like that are just
Speaker 1: not enforceable. They violate the rights that they basically violate
Speaker 1: many provisions of the Civil Rights Acts, and probably there's
Speaker 1: a California version of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits
Speaker 1: business discrimination on the basis of race. We've determined in
Speaker 1: this country that many kinds of discrimination are fine. Many
Speaker 1: kinds of reasonable discrimination are totally fine. Discrimination that has
Speaker 1: as a valid end purpose to it. One of the
Speaker 1: great examples of business discrimination that you're one hundred percent
Speaker 1: for you to engage in is no shoes, no shirt,
Speaker 1: no service. That is a form of business discrimination. That
Speaker 1: is a form of discrimination that is legally permitted in
Speaker 1: this country. Not all discrimination is bad, but in America,
Speaker 1: through the Civil Rights Acts, through our application of the
Speaker 1: Equal Protection Clause, and various of the fourteen Amendment, in
Speaker 1: various different ways, we have come to determine that certain
Speaker 1: forms of discrimination are wrong, and we have legally prohibited them.
Speaker 1: A supermarket saying we're not going to serve black patrons
Speaker 1: is wrong. There's nothing different about a black patron versus
Speaker 1: a white patron other than the pigments of their skin.
Speaker 1: There's nothing inherent about them that is different. And to
Speaker 1: cut off access to a basic service like groceries to
Speaker 1: a whole segment of the population purely on the basis
Speaker 1: of the pigment of their skin is irrational, and we've
Speaker 1: made it illegal. What this abortion clinic that's trying to
Speaker 1: open up into Larry is basically trying to argue is
Speaker 1: that their status as an abortion provider is as important
Speaker 1: a category as being black. It's something that is as
Speaker 1: deserving of legal protection as being black. Now, I think
Speaker 1: this is deeply offensive to the entire history and legacy
Speaker 1: of the civil rights movement in this country, many of
Speaker 1: whose leaders were at the time. Pro life reads old
Speaker 1: quotes from Jesse Jackson back before he was trying to become,
Speaker 1: you know, a Democratic Party powerbroker. He has some of
Speaker 1: the most compelling pro life speeches you've ever read in
Speaker 1: your life. Yeah, that Jesse Jackson, the lover Jackson has
Speaker 1: Rush used to call him all the time. Yeah, he
Speaker 1: was super pro life early in his career, before he
Speaker 1: wanted to be running for president as a Democrat and
Speaker 1: had to embrace sort of the panoply of liberal beliefs.
Speaker 1: And it also sort of goes to this, like the
Speaker 1: idea that this is a constant thing with abortion, that
Speaker 1: some people refer to this as the abortion distortion. So,
Speaker 1: on the one hand, we are led to believe that
Speaker 1: abortion is it's just a medical procedure. It's just a
Speaker 1: medical procedure like any other, and that there are no
Speaker 1: moral stakes attached to it anymore so than getting your
Speaker 1: appendix removed. Okay, it's just a question of a woman
Speaker 1: being able to exercise autonomy over her body by having
Speaker 1: this legitimate medical procedure to deal with a problem she's having.
Speaker 1: Let's note that ninety nine percent of the time it's
Speaker 1: not a medical problem she's having, it's a social problem.
Speaker 1: But anyway, regardless, if it's just a healthcare procedure, why
Speaker 1: does it require this level of civil rights esque protection,
Speaker 1: Because this is in the only arena where liberals are
Speaker 1: trying to make this argument. They're in this specific case
Speaker 1: into Larry County. They're trying to argue this office complex
Speaker 1: into Larry that doesn't want a family planning associate's abortion
Speaker 1: clinic to open up within its office complex. The provision
Speaker 1: in their covenant that says no abortion clinics allowed is
Speaker 1: as unreasonable and should be as unenforceable as a provision
Speaker 1: saying no black owned business is allowed. That's what they're
Speaker 1: trying to argue. But what if a complex like that said,
Speaker 1: you know, we don't want a dialysis center, or you know,
Speaker 1: we don't want a quest like a lab center within
Speaker 1: our office complex. You know, we just want to restrict
Speaker 1: or even just something like, hey, no dentists, just MD's offices.
Speaker 1: No dentists, just mds and d o's. If they had
Speaker 1: a provision that said no dental offices, it would be
Speaker 1: a little weird, but no one would be saying this
Speaker 1: is violating the civil liberties rights of the dentist community.
Speaker 1: These men, like the Seinfeld episode, these men are raging
Speaker 1: anti dentites. Oh it starts with a little joke here
Speaker 1: and there. Anyway, No, no one would care if an
Speaker 1: office complex said no, we're not going to have a
Speaker 1: dentist on the premises. Everyone be like, all right, well
Speaker 1: that's weird, I guess, but whatever, and move on. It
Speaker 1: wouldn't be some illegal form of discrimination and just say, hey, dentists,
Speaker 1: go find some other office to set up shopping. Sorry,
Speaker 1: but for some reason. With abortion providers, no no, no,
Speaker 1: no no, then we have to move heaven and earth.
Speaker 1: With abortion providers, it's like if you don't host an
Speaker 1: abortion clinic on your premises. It's a civil rights violation.
Speaker 1: In fact, one of the arguments it seems to be
Speaker 1: made is if you don't host an abortion clinic on
Speaker 1: your premises, that is a form of just flat out
Speaker 1: discriminating against women. It would be like having a covenant
Speaker 1: within your office complex that says we're not going to
Speaker 1: allow any female owned offices within our complex. No female
Speaker 1: doctors are allowed to set up shop here, you know,
Speaker 1: put up their shingle. So this lawsuit could have a
Speaker 1: fairly significant impact on California law. It could have a
Speaker 1: significant impact on the ability of private business owners who
Speaker 1: have office complexes, you know, the collections of doctors who
Speaker 1: run an office complex, of businesses that run an office complex,
Speaker 1: landowners who own say a strip mall or something. This
Speaker 1: case could have a significant impact on their ability just
Speaker 1: to say, hey, I don't want an abortion clinic here.
Speaker 1: I just don't. Is that going to be viewed by
Speaker 1: the state as something that's equivalent to I don't want
Speaker 1: a black owned business. I think that's totally legitimate for
Speaker 1: the for state law to regulate the ability of a
Speaker 1: business to just engage in flat out racial discrimination. I
Speaker 1: think that's wrong I think that's an unreasonable form of
Speaker 1: discrimination that has massive harmful impacts on a segment of
Speaker 1: the population for no good reason. But for this elective
Speaker 1: procedure percent of the time, that's what abortion is. For
Speaker 1: this elective procedure. The idea of saying no, no, no,
Speaker 1: the decision of a doctor to be an abortion provider
Speaker 1: or in California, a nurse practitioner or a PA, because
Speaker 1: PAS and nurse practitioners can do abortions in California can
Speaker 1: do surgical abortions in California. That that is as something
Speaker 1: that deserves as much protection under law as the color
Speaker 1: of your skin should not be a basis on which
Speaker 1: someone can engage in discrimination against you. That is the
Speaker 1: level that they're trying to take it. So will you'll
Speaker 1: have the full report on this topic next week. We'll
Speaker 1: be covering it on John Girardi Show. We'll be covering
Speaker 1: it on Right to Life Radio when we return. When
Speaker 1: we return, a very sad story about a pornographic actress
Speaker 1: and what it means for the ethics of consent in
Speaker 1: sexuality next on the John Girardi Show. All Right, this
Speaker 1: next topic is a adult topic. If you have kids
Speaker 1: in the car. Let's do some earmuffs here, you know,
Speaker 1: change the channel to you know, change it over to
Speaker 1: another iHeart station. Let's go to go to the soft
Speaker 1: rock station, to go to Fox Sports thirteen forty, you know,
Speaker 1: change it over all, right, let's keep listening to iHeart.
Speaker 1: There you go. But this is sort of a serious topic,
Speaker 1: kind of an adult topic, and it has to do
Speaker 1: with a lot of thoughts I've had about broader cultural
Speaker 1: ideas about sex and marriage. There's a YouTube film that's
Speaker 1: been released entitled I Slept With one Hundred Men in
Speaker 1: One Day. It is not, unfortunately, a drama. It is
Speaker 1: shot as a documentary, so that thing that is in
Speaker 1: the title actually happened. Lily Phillips a woman who had
Speaker 1: sex with one hundred and one men in a single
Speaker 1: day in October. This YouTube documentary has gained some notoriety,
Speaker 1: and this woman genuinely had sexual had sexual relations with
Speaker 1: one hundred people in the course of a single day.
Speaker 1: Some of the video clips of this that not of
Speaker 1: actual basically of her being interviewed after the fact, are
Speaker 1: terrifying to me. Just her appearance, how she's talking about it,
Speaker 1: sort of the obvious instability, just the kind of crazy.
Speaker 1: Just look in her eyes and my heart just breaks
Speaker 1: seeing this, how this young woman, this is just clearly
Speaker 1: something that is deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply disturbing. And it's
Speaker 1: kind of the logical end game of the bizarre way
Speaker 1: in which sexual ethics have been warped since the time
Speaker 1: of the sexual Revolution, and sort of the lowest common
Speaker 1: denominator ethics that we have in the West, in this
Speaker 1: sort of post Christian West. So what what is the
Speaker 1: lowest common denominator ethics that we have left in the West.
Speaker 1: What is the kind of sexual ethic that is dominant?
Speaker 1: Basically the dominant sexual ethic in the West, the liberalizing
Speaker 1: sexual ethic that we have now just inherited from the
Speaker 1: sexual Revolution is that any condemnation of a sex act
Speaker 1: is wrong outside of non consensual sex. As long as
Speaker 1: sex is consensual, have at it. Consent is the only
Speaker 1: ethical touchstone, the only ethical guideline governing sex. Nothing about commitment,
Speaker 1: nothing about marriage, nothing about children. The only thing of
Speaker 1: concern is consent. Nothing about having sex with someone of
Speaker 1: the same sex, opposite sex, multiple partners, whatever. As long
Speaker 1: as people are free and willing consensual partners, sex is
Speaker 1: fine and I think it seems like it takes a
Speaker 1: stunt like this to make people start to question their assumptions.
Speaker 1: So let me talk about this for a bit. Obviously,
Speaker 1: consent is an essential, it's a necessary part of the
Speaker 1: calculations of sex. My contention is that it is not
Speaker 1: sufficient necessary, not sufficient. Okay. This is not me saying, oh, well,
Speaker 1: I think, you know, husbands should be allowed to rape
Speaker 1: their Why this is not some backwards caricature of Christianity, Like, no, no,
Speaker 1: anyone who's trying to, you know, pigeonhole me as like, oh,
Speaker 1: it's a right radical, right wing nutjob thinks it's okay
Speaker 1: for husbands to rape their wife. No, absolutely not. Okay,
Speaker 1: consent is a necessary condition of an ethical sexual life,
Speaker 1: but I just don't think it is sufficient. And I
Speaker 1: think a lot of the problems with viewing sex as
Speaker 1: just it's just purely about whether the participants are good
Speaker 1: with it. It's a denial of, I think, the reality
Speaker 1: of sex. I think we've had a lot of cultural
Speaker 1: developments since the nineteen fifties that have resulted in people
Speaker 1: being able to have a completely warped and untrue concept
Speaker 1: of what sex is. What is sex in its if
Speaker 1: I will it's natural state. Maybe I'll say it in
Speaker 1: its pre contraceptive state. Take someone back to I don't know,
Speaker 1: eighteen hundred. Let's go back to eighteen hundred. If you
Speaker 1: were trying to live like you know, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Take your playboy who sleeps with a lot of women,
Speaker 1: James Bond or whatever. If you were a guy who
Speaker 1: is trying to, you know, have sex with one woman
Speaker 1: a week, you would be driven out of town. You
Speaker 1: would be tarred and feathered and driven out of town
Speaker 1: on a rail because you but not only would you,
Speaker 1: not only because you're probably violating that you know. I
Speaker 1: guess maybe we're thinking too much of the eighteen hundreds
Speaker 1: and sort of the Christian sexual ethic that was dominant
Speaker 1: at the time. But why was that sexual ethic there?
Speaker 1: Because you were a public health menace. That's why you
Speaker 1: would be spreading diseases. You would be impregnating women that
Speaker 1: you have no way of supporting their kids. Because that's
Speaker 1: what sex is. Sex is an expression of love and
Speaker 1: affection that has consequence to it. It has real weight
Speaker 1: and consequence to it. By its nature, it is ordered
Speaker 1: towards something. Yes, not every single person who has sex
Speaker 1: every single time is going to conceive a child. But
Speaker 1: that is the purpose, That is that the tellos. The
Speaker 1: goal towards which sexual activity is ordered is procreation, and
Speaker 1: you can plaster over that fact all you want, but
Speaker 1: that's what it's ordered towards. Why why do you think,
Speaker 1: by the way, the Planned PARENTI is so big on
Speaker 1: pushing contraception on its patients, it's because it's a lost
Speaker 1: leader for them. They know if they push enough contraception
Speaker 1: on people, they will use it. Human nature being what
Speaker 1: it is. They know that people will not use it
Speaker 1: perfectly with perfect regularity. They won't always put the condom
Speaker 1: on right, they won't always remember to take their birth control,
Speaker 1: and even if they do, there is a certain built
Speaker 1: in failure rate to condoms or birth control. Pregnancies will
Speaker 1: result that people don't want and people will turn to abortion.
Speaker 1: Abortion and contraception have exploded in popularity hand in hand
Speaker 1: in the West. Why because this contraception gives people this
Speaker 1: false sense of security that sex is about something else,
Speaker 1: that sex is actually ordered towards something other than children.
Speaker 1: If sex is ordered just towards unity with another person
Speaker 1: or pleasure, if that's the only thing towards which it's ordered.
Speaker 1: Then that's radically going to change the way you relate
Speaker 1: to sex. It has nothing to do with commitment. If
Speaker 1: no children could ever result, because you're actively stopping that
Speaker 1: from happening, then commitment kind of becomes out the window.
Speaker 1: Without commitment, where does love fit in the giving of
Speaker 1: oneself freely to another person? An exclusive gift of the
Speaker 1: self of your life That yeah, includes maybe your finances
Speaker 1: and your property and your work, your life. That's what
Speaker 1: love is. Sex and its natural state as something that
Speaker 1: could result in a life long consequence, Namely, a child
Speaker 1: begs for love. Sex begs for love. It begs for
Speaker 1: a man to give his whole life to the woman
Speaker 1: that he could be impregnating. Thus, marriage is not some
Speaker 1: artificial construct of oppressive Western Christian patriarchal society. It's something
Speaker 1: that is natural. It's a natural outgrowth of the nature
Speaker 1: of what sex is. It's not something Christianity cooked up. So,
Speaker 1: because we have this warped vision of sex, we say, well,
Speaker 1: what makes sex ethical? Then well, it's not commitment, it's
Speaker 1: not necessarily it's just about if it's just about pleasure,
Speaker 1: and that's all it is. And we're going to in
Speaker 1: our seeking of pleasure, we're going to deny other things like, hey,
Speaker 1: you know that the kinds of hormones that get released
Speaker 1: when someone has sex allow them to emotionally bond with
Speaker 1: the person with whom they've had sex, and that the
Speaker 1: more people, the more different people you have sex with,
Speaker 1: the less those hormonal reactions come about. Sex is designed
Speaker 1: to emotionally bond you with someone. But we reject but
Speaker 1: we basically say no, we're going to get rid of
Speaker 1: that biological reality. Shove that biological reality to the side,
Speaker 1: and we'll just say no, it's only consent. Consense the
Speaker 1: only thing, which, ironically enough, as much as liberals, you know,
Speaker 1: we're try to position themselves as the chief proponents of
Speaker 1: the me too movement, having consent be the only determiner
Speaker 1: of sex leads to situations of very questionably consensual sex.
Speaker 1: You know, all the liberals who promote, oh, sex work
Speaker 1: is real work, and we shouldn't be shaming prostitutes. That's terrible.
Speaker 1: What percentage of people involved in prostitution are in it
Speaker 1: against their will? A huge percentage, A huge percentage of
Speaker 1: them are being trafficked. What percentage of prostitutes are would
Speaker 1: you say mentally well, not on drugs, not with drug
Speaker 1: habits or alcoholism habits. A very small percentage is sex
Speaker 1: with a prostitute who is desperately engaged in prostitutions so
Speaker 1: that she can get drugs? Is that a free and
Speaker 1: willing exchange of consensual sex between two persons? Maybe in
Speaker 1: the most bare bones fashion that yes, she said yes
Speaker 1: to do this. This documentary takes it to its logical extreme.
Speaker 1: The mere fact that she had sex with one hundred
Speaker 1: people is itself the evidence that this person is deeply
Speaker 1: mentally unwell. And how therefore, how willing was this whole
Speaker 1: one hundred sexual encounters in one day. When we return,
Speaker 1: we'll go to something a little lighter. Thank god, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden pardons a bunch of people who richly don't deserve
Speaker 1: pardons next on the John Girardi Show. So President Biden
Speaker 1: issued this big, sweeping commutation of the prison sentences of
Speaker 1: about fifteen hundred different quote nonviolent offenders, and a lot
Speaker 1: of them make no sense. One of them was this
Speaker 1: judge who was who pled guilty to sending juvenile defendants
Speaker 1: to two different private for profit prisons in exchange for
Speaker 1: two million dollars in kickbacks. The other is this lady
Speaker 1: who is a compatroller for a small town in Illinois
Speaker 1: who pulled off the greatest act of municipal fraud in
Speaker 1: American history, stole like fifty million bucks from a town.
Speaker 1: Why are we commuting their so because they were non violent?
Speaker 1: These are bad people, and that won't be the worst
Speaker 1: pardon Biden's given. That'll do it. John Garlady shows you
Speaker 1: next time on Power Talk.