Speaker 1: As we're voting this week and as the election is tomorrow,
Speaker 1: I want to talk about this overstated trope on the left,
Speaker 1: and it has a lot to do with the election
Speaker 1: lawsuits that we have already started to see and that
Speaker 1: we're likely to start to see more of tomorrow. And
Speaker 1: by the way, credit for all of this segment goes
Speaker 1: to any McCarthy from National Review, who's talked about this
Speaker 1: at length, and reading and listening to his stuff has
Speaker 1: sort of illuminated me on this and caused me just
Speaker 1: to realize, even just looking at the Constitution itself and
Speaker 1: realizing that the right to vote is rarely talked about
Speaker 1: in the Constitution. It's rarely delineated, it's rarely expounded upon,
Speaker 1: its rare it's not really anywhere clearly declared that the
Speaker 1: ability to cast your vote is a sacred and fundamental right.
Speaker 1: There is stuff guaranteeing the right to vote in certain
Speaker 1: respects within the Constitution, so basically you're guaranteed that it's
Speaker 1: guaranteed that the people will vote for members of Congress.
Speaker 1: In the original draft of the Constitution, it was really
Speaker 1: only guarantee that you would vote for your member of
Speaker 1: the House of Representatives. And it wasn't until the twentieth
Speaker 1: century that the Constitution was amended to allow the people
Speaker 1: directly to elect their senators. Provisions were also put into
Speaker 1: the Constitution over time, saying well, if you're gonna let
Speaker 1: people vote, you can't deny people the right to vote
Speaker 1: on the basis of a poll tax or failure to
Speaker 1: pay a poll tax. The Constitution got amended to say
Speaker 1: every adult eighteen and over can vote, that you can't
Speaker 1: be denied the right to vote on the basis of
Speaker 1: your race. But that's about it. There's not really anywhere
Speaker 1: in the Constitution a florid, elaborate declaration of the importance
Speaker 1: of voting or the sacred right to vote and how
Speaker 1: it's secured, if anything, that the right to vote certainly
Speaker 1: as the Constitution was originally framed, also of course expanding
Speaker 1: the right to vote to women with the nineteenth Amendment.
Speaker 1: The right to vote as it was conceived in the
Speaker 1: original Constitution was fairly limited because the framers of the
Speaker 1: Constitution had a certain vision of what they wanted the
Speaker 1: country to be, and it wasn't a democratic vision. They
Speaker 1: didn't like the concept of democracy. Now why is this relevant, Well,
Speaker 1: here's what's happening with all these election lawsuits. So you
Speaker 1: have your state its ordinary means as established by statute,
Speaker 1: federal statute, and individual state statutes pretty much all fifty states.
Speaker 1: The ordinary way to vote is you show up on
Speaker 1: election day, you go to a voting center at your precinct,
Speaker 1: You fill out a ballot in a secret ballot booth,
Speaker 1: You hand in your ballot. That's the way that voting
Speaker 1: is supposed to happen, as kind of established mostly by statutes,
Speaker 1: not really in the constitution, but mostly established by statutes.
Speaker 1: That is the normative way to vote. States set up
Speaker 1: rules to facilitate voting in any fashion outside of that.
Speaker 1: You're allowed to vote in any fashion outside of that
Speaker 1: that the state establishes. But the idea is, hey, if
Speaker 1: you're voting outside of this context, we've determined that this context,
Speaker 1: the secret ballot is the safest, most secure, most surefire
Speaker 1: way of ensuring the integrity of your vote, that your
Speaker 1: vote's not influenced by outside actors, that your vote is counted,
Speaker 1: et cetera. This is the best way to do it.
Speaker 1: This is the way we want, This is the ideal
Speaker 1: way to do it. So if you're going to vote
Speaker 1: in some other fashion. You can do it, but you
Speaker 1: gotta follow the rules. You have to postmark your mail
Speaker 1: in or absentee by a certain day. You gotta do this.
Speaker 1: You gotta fill in your name here. You have to
Speaker 1: have a witness by signed two witnesses, or a blah
Speaker 1: blah blah, whatever the rules are for your individual state.
Speaker 1: These are the rules, and if you don't follow them,
Speaker 1: your vote doesn't get counted. That's it. We're giving you
Speaker 1: some grace, extending you an opportunity to vote outside of
Speaker 1: the normative, most secure way of doing it. So if
Speaker 1: you don't follow this, whatever safety precautions, ensuring reliability, anti
Speaker 1: fraud protection schemes that we have, if you don't follow them,
Speaker 1: tough luck, you're out. And so what happens in state
Speaker 1: after state after state seems to be this, a group
Speaker 1: of Democrat voters wants to be able to vote without
Speaker 1: having followed the rules in some way, shape or form.
Speaker 1: Not following the rules, and that rule in isolation seems
Speaker 1: pickyun or kind of picky or sort of like a
Speaker 1: ticki tacky technicality. Well, he had it postmarked by election day,
Speaker 1: you know, So why should it matter that the ballot
Speaker 1: arrived two days later, or you know, whatever it is.
Speaker 1: You know, we should be counting all the but even
Speaker 1: if they're not postmark, we should be counting all the
Speaker 1: ballots that arrive even within three days after the election.
Speaker 1: Or you know, or this or that, or well, why
Speaker 1: are you saying that someone's vote can't be counted just
Speaker 1: because the two signatures on the outside weren't obtained because
Speaker 1: they misread the instructions. That that's not fair. And the
Speaker 1: appeal is always made in these lawsuits to the sacred
Speaker 1: American right true vote. You're going to deny someone the
Speaker 1: ability to have their vote be counted, to deny them
Speaker 1: the sacred, god given cornerstone of our republic. You're going
Speaker 1: to deny someone the sacred right to vote on the
Speaker 1: basis of this little technicality. How could you? And often
Speaker 1: those kinds of court cases win. Often judges will allow
Speaker 1: a party who has not followed the rules to get
Speaker 1: their vote counted on the basis of some kind of
Speaker 1: grandiose idea that, well, you know, the right to vote
Speaker 1: is a more important value and we need to respect that,
Speaker 1: and this is a small rule technicality and blah, And
Speaker 1: in isolation, probably one of these individual cases seems like
Speaker 1: not a big deal, Like, come on, you're really gonna
Speaker 1: say someone's vote can't count because they just didn't, you know,
Speaker 1: fill out this signature line or something like that, they
Speaker 1: were one day late, and you're gonna make their ballot
Speaker 1: not count and the response should be yes, their vote
Speaker 1: shouldn't count. These rules are in place to ensure the
Speaker 1: integrity of the election. These rules are in place to
Speaker 1: ensure that fraud doesn't occur, that bad actors don't abuse
Speaker 1: the system to try to game it. You can vote
Speaker 1: outside of voting at your precinct in person on election
Speaker 1: day if you want, but if you do, you gotta
Speaker 1: follow the rules, because we have rules to ensure that
Speaker 1: the election is authentic and has integrity, that the result
Speaker 1: is actually reflective of what the country wants, or what
Speaker 1: the your state wants, or your congressional district wants, your
Speaker 1: county wants, your city won whatever. But it's all premised
Speaker 1: around that. The court challenge is premise the sacred right
Speaker 1: to vote. Now, what it's really premised around, I think
Speaker 1: is Democrats like to cheat, or maybe there are Republicans
Speaker 1: who like to cheat too. But it seems like the
Speaker 1: vast majority of these lawsuits are framed as Democrat voters
Speaker 1: didn't follow a rule in some way, shape or form,
Speaker 1: their lawyers file this lawsuit, and they and that's and
Speaker 1: it's Republicans opposing the lawsuit. That's what seems to be
Speaker 1: the consistent scenario in state after state after state. And
Speaker 1: I'm here to tell you I don't know how much
Speaker 1: the framers of the Constitution really viewed the right to
Speaker 1: vote as the most important thing. Allow me to explain
Speaker 1: first is the kind of vision before I go to
Speaker 1: the break. I'll explain this first, is the vision of
Speaker 1: what the framers of the Constitution thought this country was
Speaker 1: going to be. We talk a lot about democracy, but
Speaker 1: what the framers of the Constitution liked was republicanism, not democracy.
Speaker 1: And I'm not talking about the modern Republican party or
Speaker 1: the modern Democrat part. I'm not making some statement that,
Speaker 1: you know, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been
Speaker 1: Republicans rather democrats. What I'm talking about is those forms
Speaker 1: of government, republicanism, a mixed republic, versus direct democracy. The
Speaker 1: framers of the Constitution accepted the conservative worldview of most
Speaker 1: authors in the ancient world. Most of the authors of
Speaker 1: classical antiquity that democracy was a terrible idea. Most of
Speaker 1: most classical Greek authors writing about the democracy of Athens
Speaker 1: in the four hundred s BC looked at it with disgust.
Speaker 1: They didn't like it. Even a lot of Athenian authors
Speaker 1: didn't like direct democracy. And they basically thought that direct
Speaker 1: democracy where law where your populace is governed by the
Speaker 1: will of the majority. They thought it could quickly turn
Speaker 1: into just a tyranny of the majority, that the majority
Speaker 1: could just vote away the basic protections for the minority.
Speaker 1: If you had a true straat majority, if you had
Speaker 1: a true straight up majority rule. You know, first of all,
Speaker 1: you could just have one House of Congress. Let's say
Speaker 1: we just had the House of Representatives. And Mike Johnson said,
Speaker 1: all right, well, we're going to pass a law here
Speaker 1: saying that no democrat has the right to speak, no
Speaker 1: democrat has a right to freedom of speech. He could
Speaker 1: just pass that he has a simple majority. And the
Speaker 1: framers of the Constitution thought that was a terrible idea,
Speaker 1: that once you had just simple majority rule, the party
Speaker 1: in power could oppress the party out of power. The
Speaker 1: party in power could vote themselves bred and circuses. They
Speaker 1: didn't like direct democracy, explicitly did not like it. What
Speaker 1: they liked was republicanism. The Founding Fathers thought of themselves
Speaker 1: as re creating, in some way in the new world,
Speaker 1: a vision of the Roman republic. That's what they liked.
Speaker 1: They liked Rome, not Athens. They liked the Roman republican system,
Speaker 1: and that's how they envisioned themselves. They envisioned themselves a
Speaker 1: lot of the Founding Fathers themselves Thomas Jefferson, et cetera.
Speaker 1: They thought of themselves as if they were recreating the
Speaker 1: life and lifestyle of a patrician, noble Roman, a wealthy
Speaker 1: Roman who made his money off of his land holdings,
Speaker 1: a gentleman farmer slash scholar slash statesman slash general. That
Speaker 1: was their kind of vision of what was best to
Speaker 1: say life. George Washington sort of embodied this, and the
Speaker 1: constant comparisons between George Washington and Cincinnatus. Cincinnatus was a
Speaker 1: famous Roman sort of sort of a legendary Roman senator
Speaker 1: who was called upon to be the dictator of the
Speaker 1: city of Rome. The dictator was a temporary office in Rome,
Speaker 1: where instead of having two guys, the two consuls be
Speaker 1: the chief generals in charge of Roman military affairs. They
Speaker 1: would say, all right, well, we can't have these two
Speaker 1: generals fighting with each other. We have a really serious threat,
Speaker 1: the Republicans in danger. We need a dictator, one guy
Speaker 1: who talks. So they pick a guy. There's a famous
Speaker 1: story about Cincinnatus who was picked. He was working on
Speaker 1: his farm. He said, hey, Cincinnatus, we need you to
Speaker 1: be the dictator. The enemy's coming. Help save Rome. He
Speaker 1: sets down his plow, he goes, He leads the Roman army,
Speaker 1: he defeats, the enemy, comes back several months later, picks
Speaker 1: up his plow, keeps plowing. That was the Comparson made
Speaker 1: to George Washington constantly, constantly, constantly. That's who we named
Speaker 1: the city of Cincinnati after. Okay, and the idea of
Speaker 1: Washington being the American version of that. They thought of
Speaker 1: themselves as the Roman elites, and they viewed the right
Speaker 1: to vote in this very sort of attenuated way. When
Speaker 1: we returned the ways in which the founding fathers didn't
Speaker 1: actually think voting was that important, and by the not
Speaker 1: for me to suppress your votes. Go vote if you
Speaker 1: want to, but I don't think just voting in general
Speaker 1: is necessarily a grand virtue. Next on The John Girardi Show.
Speaker 1: In the first segment, I was trying to explain people
Speaker 1: have this sense that the right to vote is like
Speaker 1: one of the most sacred and fundamental of all American
Speaker 1: rights and kind of but not really. It's actually much
Speaker 1: more attenuated than you'd think, and was given a lot
Speaker 1: less emphasis by the founding fathers than you would have imagined.
Speaker 1: It was not something that was in the Bill of Rights.
Speaker 1: Bill of Rights has a right to fredium of speech
Speaker 1: for exercise of religion, right to keep a bear arms,
Speaker 1: not to have a soldier quartered in your house against
Speaker 1: unreasonable searches and seizures. You know, go through the first
Speaker 1: ten amendments to the Constitution. The right to vote isn't
Speaker 1: in there. And in fact, when you read the Constitution,
Speaker 1: especially looking at like the Constitution as originally adopted, the
Speaker 1: only thing, the only federal office that the Constitution actually
Speaker 1: directs people to vote for is your member of the
Speaker 1: House of Representatives. You didn't get to vote for your
Speaker 1: US senator. The state legislators voted for the senators who
Speaker 1: represented each state, and even the presidency. States could determine
Speaker 1: however they wanted how they would pick their electors for
Speaker 1: the electoral College. Now, over time, the way that all
Speaker 1: states wound up determining that is by a democratic vote
Speaker 1: of the people of those states. But it didn't necessarily
Speaker 1: have to be that way. It could have been through
Speaker 1: an election by the state legislator. By the state legislature.
Speaker 1: It wasn't even necessarily envisioned that the average Joe American
Speaker 1: citizen would have the right to vote for president. Not necessarily.
Speaker 1: The only thing he was really allowed to vote for
Speaker 1: that was guaranteed by the Constitution was his member of
Speaker 1: the House of Representatives. Now this got amended over time.
Speaker 1: In the twentieth century, it was mended to say that
Speaker 1: the average Joe citizen could also vote for his US sender,
Speaker 1: But that was not in the Constitution at the time
Speaker 1: of its adoption. Why the framers of the Constitution thought
Speaker 1: of themselves as recreating in a certain fashion, the Roman Republic.
Speaker 1: They didn't like direct Greek democracy. They actually thought that voters,
Speaker 1: for the most part, were pretty dumb, and that they're
Speaker 1: exercising the right to vote could be destructive for stuff
Speaker 1: that was beyond their capacity to understand and beyond their
Speaker 1: capacity to really engage with it. So let's look at again.
Speaker 1: In the original structure of the constitution, individual states could
Speaker 1: pick their own electors for president, sort of in whatever
Speaker 1: system the state developed. And there's a decent amount of
Speaker 1: evidence apparently that the state a lot of these states
Speaker 1: envisioned that the state legislatures would just pick the electors
Speaker 1: who would cast their votes for president in the electoral College,
Speaker 1: and the idea being that maybe some of these electors
Speaker 1: would themselves be state representatives or statesmen who would be
Speaker 1: able to bring the important interests of their state to
Speaker 1: the electoral College for the proceedings of voting for a
Speaker 1: new president. Now that's not really how the system wound
Speaker 1: up going. Basically, what happened is all these individual states
Speaker 1: decided via statute to say, well, no, the electoral college
Speaker 1: will be basically determined, the electors for the electoral College
Speaker 1: will be determined by a vote of our citizenry. So
Speaker 1: you citizens vote for electors who are going to vote
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump or electors who are going to vote
Speaker 1: for Kamala Harris. That's it. And pretty much every state
Speaker 1: has adopted that via statute. Yes, literally every state has
Speaker 1: adopted that via statute. Although with some slight differences, notably
Speaker 1: Maine and Nebraska. Most of the states have it set
Speaker 1: up so that if a majority if fifty percent plus one,
Speaker 1: if Kamala Harris gets fifty percent of the vote plus
Speaker 1: one in California, all of California's fifty or whatever it is,
Speaker 1: electoral College members vote for Kamala Harris. Not so in
Speaker 1: Nebraska and Maine. Nebraska and Maine, the individual congressional districts
Speaker 1: that compose the electoral College votes within Nebraska and within
Speaker 1: Maine can go to one candidate or another. So you
Speaker 1: can see a split where Maine goes three electoral College
Speaker 1: votes for Kamala Harris and one for Donald Trump. Nebraska
Speaker 1: could go I think it's five in Nebraska four or
Speaker 1: five Nebraska three for one, one for the other. And
Speaker 1: basically the idea that the Founding fathers had was that
Speaker 1: we don't actually trust the entire citizenry to vote on
Speaker 1: questions of the utmost critical importance. They honestly had a
Speaker 1: very non egalitarian attitude in all of this. They thought, yes,
Speaker 1: we the founding fathers here, who are gentlemen, farmers, educated philosophers, statesmen,
Speaker 1: military officers, we should be able to decide who our
Speaker 1: senators will be. And by the way, the Senate is
Speaker 1: very much copying a Roman institution, the Senate. It's perfect,
Speaker 1: you know, copy the idea of the Senate in Rome
Speaker 1: was the most dominant, most powerful, most important sort of
Speaker 1: governing body within the Roman Republic, governing, if you will
Speaker 1: advise body. And it was a body of not people
Speaker 1: who were elected to represent anybody. The Senators did not
Speaker 1: represent the people of Rome at all. It was just
Speaker 1: the council of the elders, the wisest. It was an
Speaker 1: aristocratic council. It was just all the people with the
Speaker 1: most money who came from the older established families, and
Speaker 1: their decisions on things were what would ultimately become law.
Speaker 1: Us senators. It's a direct attempt to copy that, the
Speaker 1: idea of being, No, this is not pure egalitarian democracy
Speaker 1: that we wanted to establish. They let the people vote
Speaker 1: for the thing that was most localized and closest to them.
Speaker 1: They're member of the House of Representatives, and that was it.
Speaker 1: And the idea being if you really don't understand an issue,
Speaker 1: why is your vote, why should your vote matter? If
Speaker 1: you are really not wise enough, experienced enough, old, whatever,
Speaker 1: why should your vote matter. And this is why I've
Speaker 1: always had this bugaboot. There's always these sort of value
Speaker 1: neutral ways that people push, well, everyone should vote, everyone
Speaker 1: should register to vote, get out there and vote, registered
Speaker 1: to vote. I don't know that that's necessarily a good idea.
Speaker 1: How many people out there, total rumdums that you know
Speaker 1: who you know, are out there voting for Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: There's this meme going around the internet, me and the
Speaker 1: Boys fighting in World War three because Taylor Swift told
Speaker 1: her stupid girlfriends to go vote for Kamala Harris. Like, yeah,
Speaker 1: that could be. So what I'm saying is, look, if
Speaker 1: you understand politics at a pretty high level and you
Speaker 1: want to go vote, be my guest. But I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna necessarily sit here and pontificate that it's absolutely everyone's
Speaker 1: sacred duty. I don't know that that's true, and I
Speaker 1: don't think that's how the Framers would have thought of it.
Speaker 1: When we return the sheer insanity of voting for your
Speaker 1: daughter to have the right to kill your grandkid. Next,
Speaker 1: on the John Girardi Show, there's another one of these
Speaker 1: weird Democrat ads out, these weird Kamala Harris ads. Following
Speaker 1: up on the strange ad where you have a group
Speaker 1: of women going into vote and they're in what it
Speaker 1: seems to be very much coded that they are in
Speaker 1: Republican territories. Everyone's wearing like patriotic stuff because Democrats aren't
Speaker 1: very patriotic. I guess, all right, I guess that's the
Speaker 1: assumption here. And these women look across from each other
Speaker 1: and they nod knowingly, and then they decide to vote
Speaker 1: for Harris, and the ideas, oh, vote for Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: It'll be our little secret. You don't have to you know,
Speaker 1: you don't have to vote for Donald Trump. You could
Speaker 1: just vote for Kamala Harris because you believe, you understand,
Speaker 1: she's what's right women. And it's very women themed. And
Speaker 1: they've now produced another one with a bunch of dude,
Speaker 1: big dudes. One dude with a big old beard walking
Speaker 1: in to vote and his daughter is standing there saying hi, daddy,
Speaker 1: and he's looking over at her, looking protectively at his daughter,
Speaker 1: and decides to vote for Kamala Harris. And I'm apparently
Speaker 1: not seeing this as much, but in Florida, the non
Speaker 1: stop constant messaging for their Amendment four is basically voting
Speaker 1: to protect my daughter's rights. That's the message that's being
Speaker 1: pumped out. Protect your daughter's rights, protect your daughter's rights
Speaker 1: to do what. Protecting my daughter's rights to abort my grandchildren.
Speaker 1: It's the unspoken premise, but that's the unspoken right being protected.
Speaker 1: But that's what we're talking about, protecting your daughter's right
Speaker 1: to abort your grandchild. It blows my mind the idea
Speaker 1: of running on abortion as a right. And I know
Speaker 1: what the response will be, the responsiblity. These Republican abortion
Speaker 1: bands are killing women. Let me just speak to that
Speaker 1: because I've actually dealt with this time and time again.
Speaker 1: Essentially all of well not essentially, because it's very much quantifiable.
Speaker 1: There are fourteen states right now that have laws on
Speaker 1: the books restricting abortion with some kind of gestational age limit.
Speaker 1: In all fourteen of them, all fourteen of them, there
Speaker 1: is language in the bill, language in the law very
Speaker 1: clearly allowing for treatment of life threatening conditions, whether that
Speaker 1: is pregnancy treatment, whether that is a post miscarriage i e.
Speaker 1: Post spontaneous abortion, which, by the way, all these laws
Speaker 1: that are restricting abortion are defining what abortion is to
Speaker 1: not mean miscarriage. So I don't care what you know
Speaker 1: that there's different medical terminology of what the word abortion.
Speaker 1: This is one of the huge problems that's happening right now.
Speaker 1: In certain kinds of medical parlance, the word abortion means
Speaker 1: any ending of pregnancy, whether spontaneous or induced. It can
Speaker 1: mean a spontaneous abortion is what you and I would
Speaker 1: commonly call, in common parlance, a miscarriage. So liberals will
Speaker 1: say Republicans are banning abortion access to treatment for an abortion,
Speaker 1: when what they're meaning is a miscarriage or an ectopic pregnancy,
Speaker 1: a situation where no one is intentionally trying to kill
Speaker 1: the child, or where the child has already died in
Speaker 1: the womb. We just need to end the pregnancy by
Speaker 1: removing the body of the child from the woman. In
Speaker 1: all these states, they define abortion as killing of a
Speaker 1: living embry or fetus, and they have exceptions for life
Speaker 1: threatening or and I don't even know that it's an exception,
Speaker 1: as much as it's a clarification that this is a
Speaker 1: different kind of situation for say, an ectopic pregnancy, treatment
Speaker 1: removing the body of a child who has already expired,
Speaker 1: providing after care for someone who maybe has already had
Speaker 1: an abortion. None of that is prohibited. This woman needed
Speaker 1: a DNC and that was prohibited by the state law. No,
Speaker 1: the procedures are not prohibited, So this is another aspect
Speaker 1: of this, all right. There are two kinds of surgical
Speaker 1: abortion procedures, a dn E and a DNC. DNE means
Speaker 1: dilation and curreitage. DNE means dilation and extraction. These are
Speaker 1: the two methods for performing abortions in first and second trimesters. However,
Speaker 1: when a woman has suffered a miscarriage such that the
Speaker 1: child has died in her womb already, and we just
Speaker 1: need to remove the body of the child from the
Speaker 1: woman's uterus, because if the child is if the child's
Speaker 1: deceased body is left there, it can cause very serious
Speaker 1: health problems. It can cause sepsis, infection, et cetera. Okay,
Speaker 1: so the procedure to remove the body of a child
Speaker 1: who has expired is actually the same exact procedure as
Speaker 1: to perform an abortion on a living organism. But obviously
Speaker 1: the two things are wildly different as far as the
Speaker 1: ethics involved. Performing one of those procedures on a child
Speaker 1: who is alive intentionally is an act of killing a
Speaker 1: living member of the human species, a living innocent member
Speaker 1: of the human species, i e. Murder to remove the
Speaker 1: body of a child who has deceased is actually medical care. Okay,
Speaker 1: because if that doesn't happen, the woman could get very,
Speaker 1: very sick. This is a medical treatment. It is treating
Speaker 1: something that is wrong with the human body. Abortion doesn't
Speaker 1: do that. That's another thing to think about when people
Speaker 1: say abortion is healthcare. No, healthcare means doing something to
Speaker 1: fix something that's wrong with the human body or to
Speaker 1: maintain it in a state of health. Abortion is ending
Speaker 1: a natural, healthy bodily process called pregnancy. It's not treating anything.
Speaker 1: It's an attempt to address a woman's financial insecurity or
Speaker 1: not being ready to have a baby or something like that.
Speaker 1: But it's not a medical reason. It's not a medical intervention.
Speaker 1: It's not a healthcare intervention. It's a kind of social intervention.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like the difference between you're a hockey
Speaker 1: player who got his nose broken and you need a
Speaker 1: rhinoplasty versus Michael Jackson getting a rhinoplasty. Right, if you're
Speaker 1: a hot key player and you got a broken nose,
Speaker 1: you need your nose reconstruct us so you can breathe
Speaker 1: and stuff. Michael Jackson just wanted a new nose because
Speaker 1: he was a crazy person and thought his nose didn't
Speaker 1: look good. The rhinoplasty for Michael Jackson was not really
Speaker 1: a healthcare intervention. There was nothing health about it. It
Speaker 1: was just him wanting to look different. I won't say better.
Speaker 1: They certainly didn't look better after those after all, those
Speaker 1: surgeries just looked weirder. But there wasn't. That wasn't a
Speaker 1: medical intervention. And in fact, that distinction is reflective in
Speaker 1: all kinds of things like public policy and insurance policies
Speaker 1: and stuff like that. Okay, if you break your nose,
Speaker 1: you know, a hockey player breaks his nose and wants
Speaker 1: to get a rhino, insurance might cover that. That's actual
Speaker 1: medical care. You have something really wrong with your nose,
Speaker 1: you need to get it fixed. Insurance is not going
Speaker 1: to cover the Michael Jackson rhinoplasty, right, And that's why
Speaker 1: when people make an argument abortion is healthcare, they're really
Speaker 1: making a very distinct kind of argument. It's not them
Speaker 1: just saying abortion is good. They're saying no abortion should
Speaker 1: be covered by insurance. Abortion should be funded through public
Speaker 1: insurance plans. Abortion should have this kind of status rather
Speaker 1: than that kind of status. Those of us who say
Speaker 1: it's not healthcare, it's not just us saying it's bad
Speaker 1: in a different way. It's making a very distinct argument.
Speaker 1: So all of these state laws allow for people to
Speaker 1: receive treatment after a miscarriage, They allow people to receive
Speaker 1: treatment for an ectopic pregnancy. They allow premature deliveries for
Speaker 1: a pregnancy where something is seriously threatening a woman's life
Speaker 1: or health. I know of tons of pro life obgyns
Speaker 1: who live in these states who have felt no restriction
Speaker 1: on how they practice based on those state laws. It's
Speaker 1: not rocket science but a cog. The American College of
Speaker 1: Obstetricians and Gynecologists hates these pro life laws so much
Speaker 1: that they refuse to provide guidance to physicians about here's
Speaker 1: what you can do, here's what you can't do. Here's
Speaker 1: what these state laws say, this is what you do.
Speaker 1: They've had to rely on the attorney attorneys general of
Speaker 1: these states to write to these hospital systems to tell
Speaker 1: them to spell out, this is what you can do,
Speaker 1: this is what you cannot do. I am loath to
Speaker 1: come to this conclusion, but I start to genuinely believe,
Speaker 1: and other people smarter than I am, who know this
Speaker 1: stuff even more in depth than I do, agree with
Speaker 1: this assessment. I think a COG and groups of pro
Speaker 1: abortion physicians, pro abortion public policy people, they almost want
Speaker 1: these women to die. They would rather almost maybe I'm
Speaker 1: overstating it, but they would rather not provide guidance, let
Speaker 1: there be chaos so that these pro life laws get discredited.
Speaker 1: I'm here to tell you none of these cases where
Speaker 1: women have died because they got a delay in receiving
Speaker 1: care after an abortion in a state where abortion was
Speaker 1: restricted in none of those states would they have been
Speaker 1: would state law have prohibited them from getting care. It's
Speaker 1: very clear in the Georgia law with those two women
Speaker 1: who died in Georgia. It's very clear in the Texas
Speaker 1: law with this one case from Texas. Oh, by the way,
Speaker 1: this one case in Texas that just got reported on
Speaker 1: the last two weeks. It was a hospital that had
Speaker 1: had other women die there from delays in care from
Speaker 1: way before abortion was outlawed in Texas. Maybe it's just
Speaker 1: a medical malpractice problem at these hospitals. Maybe it's just
Speaker 1: hospitals that are not taking their patients seriously enough. When
Speaker 1: they're presenting signs, you know, initial signs of going into sepsis,
Speaker 1: that could also be it, but that's not dealt with.
Speaker 1: And it could also just be that the abortion pill
Speaker 1: is pretty dangerous. There's a five percent chance you're gonna
Speaker 1: have an incomplete abortion. Women aren't really given enough information
Speaker 1: about that. They're not really told what to do, They're
Speaker 1: not given follow up appointments of these abortion providers. The
Speaker 1: abortion pill itself is dangerous. That's why these women are dying.
Speaker 1: That's why they're going into sepsis. Because the abortion pill
Speaker 1: allows for an incomplete abortion, meaning that there's a risk
Speaker 1: of you getting infection, you getting sepsis, you dying. So
Speaker 1: preserving the right of your daughters to do that, preserving
Speaker 1: your right of daughter or your daughters to kill your grandchildren.
Speaker 1: It's an insane way of pushing this. It is built
Speaker 1: on so many lies. When we return, My final prediction
Speaker 1: for election night next on The John's Roady Show, my
Speaker 1: final prediction for the twenty twenty four election, I think
Speaker 1: Kamala's gonna win. I don't know. I just have this
Speaker 1: sinking feeling. I feel like Trump's winning, but not by enough.
Speaker 1: I feel like I'm gonna look like a total putts
Speaker 1: if I say Trump's gonna win and he doesn't. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I don't think he's gonna win. I think
Speaker 1: it's too close, and I know that whether under I
Speaker 1: think undercover of law, Democrats do enough shenanigans. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't think he's gonna win. But what I do
Speaker 1: do know is that the best election night coverage will
Speaker 1: be tomorrow six to eight pm John Girardi Show, and
Speaker 1: then eight pm onward Me and Trevor breaking all the
Speaker 1: election stuff down throughout the state, throughout the country. Don't
Speaker 1: miss it tomorrow night on Power Talk. This is John
Speaker 1: Girardi for the John Girardi Show.