Speaker 1: Hi, Just when you thought you were safe, We're back
Speaker 1: with another segment of the nonprofits, and right now we
Speaker 1: want to talk about a disturbing trend that used to
Speaker 1: be popular in America but is surprisingly coming back. And
Speaker 1: who's going to take us there none other than Infidel's
Speaker 1: sixty three point five himself.
Speaker 2: In the wake of Roe v. Wade reversal, there is
Speaker 2: a troubling trend, as you mentioned, Kelly, that's emerged with Catholic,
Speaker 2: primarily Catholic and Evangelical groups aggressively expanding maternity homes across
Speaker 2: the US. These institutions, under the guise of providing shelter
Speaker 2: and support, often service instruments of religious and doctrination, pressuring
Speaker 2: vulnerable pregnant women. Critics argue these groups active invasive pest
Speaker 2: imposing their strict doctrines and limiting women's choices during a
Speaker 2: very critical time in their lives. But as state level
Speaker 2: abortion restrictions intensify, these maternity homes are becoming more than
Speaker 2: just shelters that become battlegrounds where ideological warfare takes precedence
Speaker 2: over genuine care, further entrenching the divisive culture and political
Speaker 2: conflicts surrounding the topic reproductive rights.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: This story is from AP News by Tiffany Stanley on
Speaker 2: August second, twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: Well, that's kind of depressing, I think in some ways.
Speaker 1: I did anyone who was reading anyone who was reading
Speaker 1: this story, did y'all notice that every one of these
Speaker 1: maternity homes was a religious organization? I thought that kind
Speaker 1: of bothered me a little bit. But John, the one
Speaker 1: thing that stuck out to you was, Wilson thinks maternity
Speaker 1: homes are one answer to the to the criticism they
Speaker 1: and can you discuss that some more?
Speaker 3: Yeah, this whole, this whole thing, they're expanding these things.
Speaker 3: It really reminds me of the homes for wayward girls
Speaker 3: and a bunch of victim shamings, you know that. But
Speaker 3: this whole thing is a is a propaganda ploy by
Speaker 3: the right to right to death I call them, but
Speaker 3: right to life of movement in order to say, yeah,
Speaker 3: they keep complaining that we don't care about the baby
Speaker 3: after it's out of the womb, and we don't, but
Speaker 3: we don't care about the mother and her health. These
Speaker 3: are places where they can go and will take care
Speaker 3: of them, you know, sometimes for years afterwards, and make sure,
Speaker 3: they get up on their feet. Yeah, but this is
Speaker 3: what maybe right now a few thousand, maybe there's one
Speaker 3: hundred and five of these places, and probably so you
Speaker 3: might even get to one hundred thousand, two hundred thousand
Speaker 3: people are being taken. There are a lot more than
Speaker 3: that who can't get any services like this. And I
Speaker 3: would be surprised, absolutely surprised if the amount of marginalized
Speaker 3: groups of mothers are even really that well represented in
Speaker 3: these things. This is just a propaganda ploy. See, we're
Speaker 3: taking care of them. No, you're taking care of about
Speaker 3: one hundredth of a percent of them. You know, that's
Speaker 3: not taken care of them. So that was the thing
Speaker 3: I had that I really wanted to make the point that,
Speaker 3: you know, statistics can be very tricky, but this isn't
Speaker 3: even statistics. This is just math. This is just it's
Speaker 3: not even math, it's arithmetic. You know, any any third
Speaker 3: grader should be able to do this, you know. So
Speaker 3: that's what I had for it kill them.
Speaker 1: I agree, Eli. I know you looked into some of
Speaker 1: the past histories of these maternity new homes. Can you
Speaker 1: kind of give us an idea of how these things,
Speaker 1: you know, like, how what they were like back then
Speaker 1: is compared to maybe how they are today.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so even the article kind of makes the comparison that,
Speaker 4: you know, the early days of these menterinary homes, these
Speaker 4: were like young women that were sent away because they,
Speaker 4: you know, they told the parents they got pregnant, and
Speaker 4: the parents didn't want anybody in the family or the
Speaker 4: church or the neighborhood to find out, so they sent
Speaker 4: away secretly. They would wear like fake wedding rings. Sometimes
Speaker 4: after they would give birth, they would leave the baby
Speaker 4: there and they would go back home and pretend nothing happened.
Speaker 4: And one of the women interviewed for the article who
Speaker 4: had experienced one of those homes, had made the statement,
Speaker 4: our babies were stolen from us, and that was an
Speaker 4: experience that a lot of those women had. But to
Speaker 4: on that note, Valerie Harkins, who is mentioned in the article,
Speaker 4: she's the director of the Maternity Housing Coalition, which is
Speaker 4: a nonprofit anti abortion network. She says that she wants
Speaker 4: to make sure that the you know, that that ugly
Speaker 4: history doesn't come back. And I honestly think that perhaps
Speaker 4: we're being a little bit too harsh because we always say,
Speaker 4: and John, you kind of pointed it out. We always
Speaker 4: say that people who claim to be who call themselves
Speaker 4: pro life are really just anti choice and they don't
Speaker 4: actually care about the life, because if they did, they
Speaker 4: would be doing this. It may be the yeah, exactly,
Speaker 4: and it may be the case that perhaps, you know,
Speaker 4: their assistance has religious connotations, but we also have to
Speaker 4: recognize that that's what they think is in somebody's best interest.
Speaker 4: They are like, they think they're trying to do the
Speaker 4: right thing. It may not actually be, but it seems
Speaker 4: like they have good intentions. And I think the fact
Speaker 4: that they are limited in how many people they are
Speaker 4: able to help, because if they're doing things correctly, if
Speaker 4: it's religious, it's a nonprofit organization. So if they're limited
Speaker 4: in their resources, I don't think that should be held
Speaker 4: against them by virtue by way of like how many
Speaker 4: people they have helped, just because they're doing the thing
Speaker 4: that we always say, if you actually were pro life,
Speaker 4: that's what you'd be doing. And I think I give
Speaker 4: them credit for it.
Speaker 1: I hate to use this expression because it has religious overtones,
Speaker 1: but something my mother used to say all the time,
Speaker 1: the road to hell is paid with good intentions. You know.
Speaker 3: I was just thinking the same thing, Kelly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, And I'm thinking that those people who were
Speaker 1: stealing babies back in the nineteen twenties and the thirties
Speaker 1: were thinking the same thing we're doing the LIFs there,
Speaker 1: you know, yeah, up into the fifties, right, yeah. And
Speaker 1: I'm not that I'm saying you're wrong, Ela, I'm just
Speaker 1: looking at the big picture of it all. And I
Speaker 1: really think that Valerie Harkins is I think she really
Speaker 1: yet does have a good intentions for what she's doing.
Speaker 1: But I have to question what some of these other
Speaker 1: organizations are doing that are in the same field, Like
Speaker 1: I know, the article mentions one that is literally right
Speaker 1: next door to an adoption agency, and I'm afraid that
Speaker 1: we're still seeing these women having their baby stolen from
Speaker 1: them still today, So infinite, would you like to expand
Speaker 1: on that at all?
Speaker 2: You know, absolutely I'm with you on this, And let
Speaker 2: me just interject real quick that I agree. I think
Speaker 2: that most of these people who are down here in
Speaker 2: the trenches doing this, their intentions are good. However dangerous
Speaker 2: I think they are because they're teaching an education of
Speaker 2: shame and guilt to avoid this happening in the future.
Speaker 2: I don't think this is a healthy way to deal
Speaker 2: with things. But I do think their intentions are the
Speaker 2: best intentions that they know of in the situation. And agreed,
Speaker 2: they can't help everybody, So the fact that they're helping
Speaker 2: who they can in the way that they think they
Speaker 2: are is finding good except the fact that, as you mentioned,
Speaker 2: this does put back into that point of shame and
Speaker 2: humiliation and isolation of these young girls. And what it's
Speaker 2: going to do is it's going to create situations where
Speaker 2: people who want to say, I just want my life back,
Speaker 2: And in those situations, I think that it's going to
Speaker 2: be far too easy for them to say, you know what,
Speaker 2: we can help you make sure that this baby makes
Speaker 2: it into a good Christian home. And I think that
Speaker 2: that's just far too easy of a segue for them
Speaker 2: to take these women who are in vulnerable situations obviously
Speaker 2: or they wouldn't be there in the first place, and
Speaker 2: then say, you know, we've got a solution for you.
Speaker 2: Do I think that that's going to be what's an
Speaker 2: evil intent necessarily for these people. No, but I personally
Speaker 2: know a couple that has a several children and they
Speaker 2: may or may not be better off than what they've
Speaker 2: been otherwise, but that they're in a good Christian home.
Speaker 2: Now that's part of the cell. And when you get
Speaker 2: these people under control, I'm afraid we're going to see
Speaker 2: women taking advantage of and we're going to see more
Speaker 2: and more children who feed this, especially if we see
Speaker 2: what we're seeing potentially with IVF restrictions, that's just going
Speaker 2: to increase the demand more for children, and that this
Speaker 2: could be the next this could be the next opening.
Speaker 2: You know, twenty twenty four was opening up schools on
Speaker 2: the on the dime. Let's open up a maternity homes
Speaker 2: on the federal dime and yes, and so we can
Speaker 2: start getting babies out there. And that's a very concerning situation.
Speaker 1: You know, whenever I hear the phrase good Christian home,
Speaker 1: I've made it no secret that I was physically abused
Speaker 1: as a child, and I used to go to a
Speaker 1: group therapy session and one of the guys that I
Speaker 1: met there he was orphaned at a very young age
Speaker 1: and bounced around from foster home to foster home and
Speaker 1: told me about some of the horrors that he had
Speaker 1: experienced in these foster homes. And when he was about
Speaker 1: eight years old, he got adopted by a good Christian family,
Speaker 1: and they were worse than any of the foster homes
Speaker 1: that he ever was in, and he was stuck there
Speaker 1: until he was eighteen years old. So I just hate
Speaker 1: to hear that expression is and I know you weren't
Speaker 1: using it in the way, but like, oh, it's better,
Speaker 1: it's a good Christian home. Everything's going to be great.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: So, yeah, his own adopted parents made him live underneath
Speaker 1: the kitchen table.
Speaker 3: Too much harm is done, you know, It's just it
Speaker 3: goes that far. If these mothers give up their kids,
Speaker 3: those kids are not going to be in a better situation.
Speaker 3: I just don't think that that's possible, because they're going
Speaker 3: to be indoctrinated and that causes more harm. And anybody
Speaker 3: who's we know who's been through that situation, we know
Speaker 3: how much harm that causes. And though they don't want
Speaker 3: to be aware of the fact that they're teaching them
Speaker 3: things that well, they'll have to go to therapy for many,
Speaker 3: many years to get rid of once they're adults. I
Speaker 3: just don't think that anybody in that situation should be
Speaker 3: put through that. The indoctrination is too intense. The religious
Speaker 3: side of things is just hogswallop. So it's like, no,
Speaker 3: don't send your kids, don't let your kids be adopted
Speaker 3: by a good Christian family, because a good Christian family
Speaker 3: is not good parenting. And that's I won't go any
Speaker 3: further than that.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry I lost it a little bit. I started
Speaker 1: thinking about what I just was talking about. I do
Speaker 1: one of the things that I noticed in this article
Speaker 1: is one of the things they talked about is how
Speaker 1: the reasons for these homes have changed over the years.
Speaker 1: Before they were there for moral reasons and now they're
Speaker 1: they're more more. They are there more so for financial
Speaker 1: reasons to help women who can't afford to have a baby.
Speaker 1: I don't know which is better. I honestly don't you
Speaker 1: know economics that the reason that what is a better
Speaker 1: reason to have to have these homes, you know, economic
Speaker 1: reasons or moral reasons. I think it's both sad that
Speaker 1: we had that that's the reason these homes have to exist.
Speaker 1: But I can see the necessity and Eli, you were
Speaker 1: talking about them caring for the child more. But I wonder,
Speaker 1: and i'd like to hear from you what you think
Speaker 1: about this, And I don't have an answer. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure you do. But do you think these places are
Speaker 1: still sticking with these mothers, like three years down the road,
Speaker 1: five years down like when this mom has to put
Speaker 1: her child in school and needs the money to buy
Speaker 1: school supplies, are they going to be there for or then?
Speaker 4: Do you think, Well, it's difficult to say, but I mean, yeah,
Speaker 4: I don't have an answer directly to that. I would
Speaker 4: think probably not. But I don't think we can expect
Speaker 4: any one organization to be there every step of the
Speaker 4: way for every single person that they help, You know
Speaker 4: what I mean. I think at a certain point there
Speaker 4: are other programs, other organizations that can step into help
Speaker 4: when it is time to enroll that kid in school,
Speaker 4: when that kid does get into third grade and needs
Speaker 4: like subsidized lunches or things like that. I think that
Speaker 4: the I want to go back to something that John said,
Speaker 4: because I've said plenty of times that you know, anything
Speaker 4: we can get from religion, we can get from a
Speaker 4: non religious organization that does just as well or better
Speaker 4: without any of the harm. And while I do agree that,
Speaker 4: I don't let me start that over. I well, I
Speaker 4: don't agree with indoctrinating children into any ideology at all.
Speaker 4: Let alone a religious one. I think there are worse
Speaker 4: fates than you know living in it with Christian parents.
Speaker 4: I mean, you know, I think that to say that,
Speaker 4: you know, going to these religious maternity homes because they
Speaker 4: are religious is inherently automatically going to make that child
Speaker 4: worse off. I think it's probably not quite a fair
Speaker 4: thing to say, because I think, again, I don't think
Speaker 4: we should lose that these people are at least trying
Speaker 4: to do the thing that they think is the better
Speaker 4: alternative to abortion. And even if you know their religious
Speaker 4: aspect of their help, isn't that good? This can now
Speaker 4: inspire perhaps some secular organizations to do the same thing.
Speaker 4: You don't have to be you know, anti choice to
Speaker 4: help new mothers or pregnant people. So I think that's
Speaker 4: a pretty important distinction to make.
Speaker 3: Several several What it is is this baby steps right.
Speaker 3: You can't get rid of the religious part of it
Speaker 3: if that's what's motivating them to do the work when
Speaker 3: the work still needs to be done. And I agree
Speaker 3: with that, but I think there has to be a
Speaker 3: program or other programs that the follow on is that
Speaker 3: they started the ball rolling. Now let's see if we
Speaker 3: can get secular community together to do that as well,
Speaker 3: or you know, in some way have a plan for
Speaker 3: these people that they know there's options other than you know,
Speaker 3: going to church on Sundays and you know, or in
Speaker 3: the case of some people, you know, going to Mass
Speaker 3: three or four times a week. You know, it's like, yeah,
Speaker 3: you don't need to be on your knees for anybody,
Speaker 3: you know.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, one thing I wanted to say is
Speaker 2: is that when we started by getting the ball rolling,
Speaker 2: let's not forget that. However well intentioned these people are.
Speaker 2: These are the same people that but oh thank you
Speaker 2: Jesus when Roe versus Way got overturned, they created this problem.
Speaker 2: They're part of the people that created the problem that
Speaker 2: we need these homes for right now. And they're also
Speaker 2: the ones that consistently vote against things like women with
Speaker 2: infants into wick and snap and other food insecurity and
Speaker 2: all types of things like rental assistance. These are the
Speaker 2: people that want to say, pull them up, pull it
Speaker 2: up by the back bootstraps, and they want to go
Speaker 2: with all this, and they're the ones who're taken away
Speaker 2: these people's right in the first place to do what
Speaker 2: they want need to do with their own body.
Speaker 1: You know, this is a real problem for me, and
Speaker 1: you brought this up, and it's not with you, it's
Speaker 1: with the instance that you're talking about. Because if I
Speaker 1: see polls of Americans about issues, do you agree with
Speaker 1: this you know, yes or no? Do you agree with
Speaker 1: this yes or no? Do you agree with this yes
Speaker 1: or no? It turns out like eighty percent of Americans
Speaker 1: are liberal when they're think when you just keep politics
Speaker 1: out of it and ask them about the issues, they
Speaker 1: are on the side of liberals for most issues. But
Speaker 1: they keep voting. So when you say these are the
Speaker 1: same people, a lot of them aren't. A lot of
Speaker 1: them aren't the same people. They've been hoodwinked by the
Speaker 1: people that are voting for this crap. And I think
Speaker 1: that's one of the problems, is this hoodwinking.
Speaker 2: Right, I would say that the people that are putting
Speaker 2: their money where their mouth is and actually trying to
Speaker 2: help these women would very much so be opposed to abortion,
Speaker 2: would very much so be those people who rejoice when
Speaker 2: Roe versus Wade Rod return. I agree to that, that's
Speaker 2: why they're involved.
Speaker 1: And I agree, O yeah, but I bet you're those
Speaker 1: thing people would still support Wick and snap for these women, you.
Speaker 2: Know, and and on that you're probably right, but they're
Speaker 2: right now, they're giving cover and so yes, I may
Speaker 2: be lumping them all together in one unit here, but
Speaker 2: you know, they they got they came to the dance
Speaker 2: with this group. They're the ones who are and they're
Speaker 2: feeding this. And yeah, so the other ones may be
Speaker 2: doing something, they may be trying to do something about it,
Speaker 2: but they need to turn around and take a hard
Speaker 2: look at the people that they're having as allies. It's
Speaker 2: kind of like one time. I remember an election where
Speaker 2: I went to my in law's houses and I knew
Speaker 2: who they're voting for, and I was like, staying with
Speaker 2: the Klan, vote for whatever, and because that was who
Speaker 2: they were going to support, was a person who are
Speaker 2: a clan member supported, and I just wanted to make
Speaker 2: them uncomfortable with that awareness. And I think that sometimes
Speaker 2: these people need to be reminded of who their bedfellows are.
Speaker 1: You know, you look like you wanted to say something
Speaker 1: over there. No, I think that we just move on.
Speaker 4: I think Thatdel made a good point that I was missing,
Speaker 4: although I am, you know, I'll say impressed by their
Speaker 4: effort to at least do what they think is best
Speaker 4: to help. These are the same people that are voting
Speaker 4: to create the circumstances where people don't have a choice,
Speaker 4: and having the choice is what is important. We can
Speaker 4: have homes for people who don't want to have abortions
Speaker 4: but don't have any other choice other than a maternity home.
Speaker 4: We can have those, and it doesn't have to require
Speaker 4: religious messages and't have to acquire like I think John
Speaker 4: might have said, going to church on Sunday, you can
Speaker 4: you know, you cannot want an abortion for non religious
Speaker 4: reasons and still have no other option. So I think
Speaker 4: having options like this available, like we said, getting the
Speaker 4: ball rolling and taking these baby steps, the journey of
Speaker 4: a thousand miles, of course, starts with a single step,
Speaker 4: and I think this is one of them. And I'm
Speaker 4: honestly surprised that it was a religious organization that did
Speaker 4: something like that. You know that at least we're talking
Speaker 4: about Maybe they didn't do it first, but I heard
Speaker 4: about it first, rather than a secular one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's a place where the secular, where
Speaker 1: secular nonprofits need maybe to pick up the ball that
Speaker 1: we need. We have an opening here that needs to
Speaker 1: be filled by secular organizations to step into this place
Speaker 1: and help with this right here hopefull I mean, let's hope,
Speaker 1: let's hopefully and when you know, when you mentioned like
Speaker 1: programs up the road that they might be able to
Speaker 1: get into, I started thinking about those prog wicks, snap,
Speaker 1: all those our liberal programs. You've got these conservative religious
Speaker 1: people and they're going to and five years up the road.
Speaker 1: We don't care about your kid because there's all these
Speaker 1: liberals it all help they carry you in. It seems really, uh,
Speaker 1: I don't know, silly to.
Speaker 3: Me that was true. You know, we still have the
Speaker 3: terror of the foster care system and the fact that
Speaker 3: a lot of the foster kids end up in being
Speaker 3: you know, warehoused someplace. You know.
Speaker 1: So yeah, we have a foster care warehouse up here
Speaker 1: by me and like a little it's like a little
Speaker 1: wilderness camp, you know. But they've got like four trailer homes.
Speaker 1: I don't know how many kids they got living there,
Speaker 1: and got to have at least a dozen. You know,
Speaker 1: it just seems it does.
Speaker 3: It seems like it's a horrible upbringing. You know, it's
Speaker 3: terrible for these kids. I wasn't one of them, but
Speaker 3: you know, Uh, I'm a very privileged individual as far
Speaker 3: as my upbringing. But so what happened to you? I
Speaker 3: don't know. You know, I woke up one morning and said,
Speaker 3: screw this, I'm just going to go jump off a bridge,
Speaker 3: you know. And so I did, and I fell into
Speaker 3: water and the Navy saved me.
Speaker 1: Welcome my money, he said, I'm going to be an atheist.
Speaker 2: Yeah to you know. One thing we have to remember
Speaker 2: is that ultimately there are going to be children adopted
Speaker 2: out of these homes. That's an inevitability. And the question
Speaker 2: that I kept asking myself is how open would they,
Speaker 2: most of these organizations be to an LGBTQ couple trying
Speaker 2: to adopt a family. I think I know that answer,
Speaker 2: And that's another one of the things that makes me think,
Speaker 2: you know, what are you doing and what is in
Speaker 2: the best interest?
Speaker 3: Yeah, they have taken account what's in the best interest
Speaker 3: of the child, not in the best interest of well,
Speaker 3: G I have to spread my faith, or G I
Speaker 3: have to unspread my faith, or G he needs to
Speaker 3: be a doctor, or they need to program their lives
Speaker 3: for them. No, let the kid be who he's going
Speaker 3: to be. Give him some good ideas about what he
Speaker 3: might want to do and ask him questions. That'd be fine.
Speaker 1: I was wondering, if you know how churches don't have
Speaker 1: to open up their books to the irs. I was
Speaker 1: wondering if, because these were a religiously run organization, if
Speaker 1: they were exempt from that too. And it's neither here
Speaker 1: or near here, neither here nor there. For this story,
Speaker 1: I can't talk again. But I just thought it was
Speaker 1: an interesting concept. And I think I'm going to look
Speaker 1: into that and see what that's all about, because I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that they should be getting tax breaks or
Speaker 1: at least be given the shelter that churches get with
Speaker 1: their nonprofit status. And I hear a lot of atheists
Speaker 1: all the time saying we need to text the churches.
Speaker 1: I don't want to text the churches. If we tax them,
Speaker 1: we have to tax all nonprofits. That's taking money out
Speaker 1: of their budget that goes to help people. So let's
Speaker 1: let them keep that money. But let's make churches open
Speaker 1: up their books so everybody can look at them and
Speaker 1: see where the money is going, because they don't have
Speaker 1: to do that, and every other nonprofit does, and that's wrong.
Speaker 1: So I think it's that these houses are helping people.
Speaker 1: I go ahead, and you you're going to say something.
Speaker 4: I had a thought that you know, when you said
Speaker 4: infidel that you know kids are going to be adopted
Speaker 4: out of these homes. Right. There's no law that says
Speaker 4: you can't pretend you're a Christian. If you're a secular humanist,
Speaker 4: you can just go, yeah, I'm a Christian. Yeah, go
Speaker 4: adapt some of these kids, give them someone actually safe
Speaker 4: to live. There's no law. True, I don't know if
Speaker 4: that's true.
Speaker 1: Does the ends justify the means? Sure it can, as
Speaker 1: long as nobody's getting hurt.
Speaker 4: Right, I don't have like a dogma that says I
Speaker 4: can't like I have to say I'm an atheist.
Speaker 3: Like so it's the paragraph three of the fourth page
Speaker 3: of the oath you signed. Okay, page.
Speaker 1: Did you all know we had a nonprofits Patreon? We do,
Speaker 1: and everybody out there should know it too. And you
Speaker 1: could be one of the few the enlightened NP viewers
Speaker 1: to join our Patreon account. So you can do that
Speaker 1: at tiny dot cc slash NP Patreon