Speaker 1: There was a school shooting at a Christian school in Madison,
Speaker 1: Wisconsin the other day in which a fifteen year old
Speaker 1: girl killed a fellow teacher, excuse me, killed a fellow
Speaker 1: student and a teacher, and killed herself, and the White
Speaker 1: House immediately issues a statement. I won't say Joe Biden
Speaker 1: issued a statement because I'm fairly certain he had nothing
Speaker 1: to do with it, or if he did, it's pretty remarkable.
Speaker 1: This seems just to be the reflexive Democrat instinct after
Speaker 1: any kind of shooting. This is obviously very sad that
Speaker 1: this shooting happened. I don't know though, that it's that
Speaker 1: much different from shootings that happen every month, every weekend
Speaker 1: in cities like Chicago and others where people die. I
Speaker 1: guess the idea because it happened, you know, obviously, there's
Speaker 1: a certain greater sort of shock value to it that
Speaker 1: it happened at a Christian school and involved a child,
Speaker 1: although children are killed in street related shootings in urban
Speaker 1: centers throughout this country all the time. Nonetheless, it prompts
Speaker 1: a statement from the White House. Here's the press release.
Speaker 1: Here's the release from the White House.
Speaker 2: Today.
Speaker 1: Families in Madison, Wisconsin are grieving the loss of those
Speaker 1: who are killed and wounded at Abundant Life Christian School.
Speaker 1: It's shocking and unconscious, unconscionable. We need Congress to act
Speaker 1: period now, period. Why this unnecessary drama of this statement.
Speaker 1: From Newton to Uvaldi, Parkland and Madison to so many
Speaker 1: other shootings that don't receive attention. It is unacceptable that
Speaker 1: we are unable to protect our children from the scourge
Speaker 1: of gun violence. We cannot continue to accept it as normal.
Speaker 1: Every child deserves to feel safe in their classroom, room
Speaker 1: to words not well edited. Students across our country should
Speaker 1: be learning how to read and write, not having to
Speaker 1: learn how to duck and cover. Jill and I are
Speaker 1: praying for all the victims today, including the teacher and
Speaker 1: teenage student who were killed and those who sustained injuries.
Speaker 1: We are grateful for the first responders who quickly arrived
Speaker 1: on the scene, and the FBI is supporting local LA enforcement
Speaker 1: efforts in my direction. My team has reached out to
Speaker 1: local officials to offer further support as needed. My administration
Speaker 1: has taken aggressive action to combat the gun violence epidemic.
Speaker 1: We passed the most significant gun safety legislation in nearly
Speaker 1: thirty years. I have taken more executive action to reduce
Speaker 1: gun violence than any other president in history, and I
Speaker 1: created the first ever White House Office of Gun Violence Protection.
Speaker 2: But more is needed.
Speaker 1: Congress must pass common sense gun safety laws. And then
Speaker 1: we get to the kicker. Congress must pass must pass
Speaker 1: common sense gun safety laws. Universal background checks with a period,
Speaker 1: a national red flag law with a period, a ban
Speaker 1: on assault weapons, and high capacity magazines with a period
Speaker 1: have been commas. But all right, universal background checks. How
Speaker 1: is this released with a straight face? And of course
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the Hunter Biden part. So here here's
Speaker 1: the President saying we need universal background checks. There are
Speaker 1: federal background checks, and the entire line of argument from
Speaker 1: Democrats over the last over this past month, sort of
Speaker 1: trying to line up to defend the Hunter Biden pardon,
Speaker 1: has been as follows. So let me let me just
Speaker 1: go back before I explain.
Speaker 2: This line of argument.
Speaker 1: Basically, their line of argument is that Hunter Biden shouldn't
Speaker 1: have been charged with any crime for lying on a
Speaker 1: federal background check on the basis of well.
Speaker 2: These kinds of crimes are rarely charged.
Speaker 1: So let me let me explain why Hunter did all right.
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden was charged was actually indicted for two different things.
Speaker 1: Federal tax violations where basically he didn't pay taxes on
Speaker 1: millions of dollars of income, which at a certain point,
Speaker 1: if you're not paying your taxes, it ceases to be
Speaker 1: an IRS intervention and it becomes a federal prosecutor intervention
Speaker 1: where you're you're being criminally charged because you're not paying
Speaker 1: you so much in taxes. So he was charged with
Speaker 1: the tax stuff. He was also charged with a gun crime. Basically,
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden gets a form. The form asks if he
Speaker 1: has a history of drug abuse, and Hunter Biden lied
Speaker 1: on the form. Hunter actually has a rich, storied, abundant
Speaker 1: and varied history of drug abuse and continued to be
Speaker 1: using drugs and behaving erradically, I believe after he got
Speaker 1: after filling out that form, so he'd been using it before,
Speaker 1: he continued to use after. So he lied on a
Speaker 1: federal background check, which is a crime. That's the whole
Speaker 1: point of the background check is to try to cells
Speaker 1: out if you are the kind of person who is
Speaker 1: qualified to purchase and own a gun. Now, often what
Speaker 1: happens in the background check process when people lie on
Speaker 1: the form is that in the course of doing the
Speaker 1: background check, the FEDS realize that this person is not
Speaker 1: actually qualified to have a gun. These are called lie
Speaker 1: and try cases, where the person lies on the form
Speaker 1: but the FEDS who are looking through the form and
Speaker 1: doing the background check realize way to sy no, this
Speaker 1: guy's lying. He says on the form that he doesn't
Speaker 1: have a felony conviction, but actually our review of local
Speaker 1: and of state and federal records indicates that he has
Speaker 1: a felony conviction in Oklahoma in two thousand and six.
Speaker 1: And so sorry, you lied on the form, but we're
Speaker 1: not gonna approve your background check. That's called a lie
Speaker 1: and try. So someone lies on the form, but the
Speaker 1: FEDS catch the lie, and so the person does not
Speaker 1: get the gun. He tried but he failed. And then
Speaker 1: the question gets passed on to prosecutors. To federal prosecutors,
Speaker 1: all right, well, this person lied on their background check
Speaker 1: to try to get a gun. They didn't ultimately get
Speaker 1: a gun. So do we expend federal resources to prosecute
Speaker 1: this person for lying but ultimately not getting the gun.
Speaker 1: You could see how maybe that would be a question
Speaker 1: for for prosecutors, you know, any US Attorney's office.
Speaker 2: So the US attorneys.
Speaker 1: Are basically the federal prosecutors, and US attorney's offices are
Speaker 1: divided by the various federal court districts throughout the country.
Speaker 1: So we in the presdent in the present area, we're
Speaker 1: in the Eastern District of California. So there's a US
Speaker 1: Attorney for the Eastern District of California. There are federal
Speaker 1: judges appointed for the Eastern District of California, et cetera.
Speaker 1: The US attorneys for the Eastern District of California, maybe
Speaker 1: they might determine. Okay, well if we you know, we're
Speaker 1: busy prosecuting major drug crimes and this and that, and
Speaker 1: you know, we only have so many attorneys in our
Speaker 1: office and so many hours in the day. You know,
Speaker 1: we don't want to spend a bunch of time and
Speaker 1: energy and resources prosecuting people who just lied on a
Speaker 1: federal background check. So lie and try cases often don't
Speaker 1: get prosecuted again, where someone lies on the form, but
Speaker 1: the lie is found out and the person is not
Speaker 1: given the gun. And again, it's just this position where
Speaker 1: the prosecutors are like, well, we have this person who
Speaker 1: lied on the form, but they didn't get a gun.
Speaker 1: Nothing bad happened. Ultimately, so do we spend the time
Speaker 1: and energy and resources prosecuting this person? Hunter Biden was
Speaker 1: not that kind of case. Though Hunter Biden lied on
Speaker 1: the form, and because he lied, he was able successfully
Speaker 1: to get a gun. It wasn't a lie and try
Speaker 1: And this is the this is the thing where commentators
Speaker 1: have been really dishonest. Both commentators and Joe Biden have
Speaker 1: tried to make the argument that, you know, people are
Speaker 1: rarely prosecuted for lying on federal background checks for guns,
Speaker 1: so's it seems like targeted political persecution that my son
Speaker 1: Hunter was singled out for this kind of a prosecution.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 1: Lie and try cases are often not prosecuted. This was
Speaker 1: a lieon succeed case. Hunter lied on the form by lying,
Speaker 1: he got the gun. If he had told the truth,
Speaker 1: he wouldn't have gotten the gun. But he lied and
Speaker 1: thereby got the gun that presumably the background checkers weren't
Speaker 1: able to find any other evidence of Hunter's drug abuse,
Speaker 1: so he got the gun. Not only did he get
Speaker 1: the gun, we then had the kind of bad gun
Speaker 1: outcome that the federal background check is deliberately designed to prevent.
Speaker 1: Hunter was behaving so erratically with this gun that his
Speaker 1: girlfriend at the time, Halle Biden, Bo's widow. You know,
Speaker 1: we don't need to talk about how extremely weird that is. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Halle Biden is so concerned about his erratic behavior that
Speaker 1: in a moment seemingly of desperation, she takes the gun,
Speaker 1: brings it out of the house, and dumps it in
Speaker 1: a garbage can that's near a school. That's a bad outcome,
Speaker 1: loses the gun. That is the precise kind of bad outcome, bad, dangerous,
Speaker 1: risky outcome that you fully expect is within the realm
Speaker 1: of possibility if a druggie gets a gun, if a
Speaker 1: guy lies on a background check as a drug ee
Speaker 1: and gets a gun. So Hunter wasn't a lie and
Speaker 1: try case where he just lied on the form. The
Speaker 1: Feds figured it out and he never got the gun. No,
Speaker 1: he was a lie and succeed and misused the gun.
Speaker 1: Case he lied on the federal background check, he got
Speaker 1: the gun, he was misusing it, and a bad outcome
Speaker 1: resulted from it.
Speaker 2: Thankfully, no one was hurt.
Speaker 1: Other than maybe whatever kind of psychological fear and torture
Speaker 1: his girlfriend at the time experienced from this maniac druggie
Speaker 1: waving a gun around. In fact, there is if you
Speaker 1: go to the Laptop from Hell and all the photos
Speaker 1: that are stored on Hunter's laptop from Hell, there are
Speaker 1: pictures of Hunter with two different kinds of guns. So
Speaker 1: Hunter was only prosecuted for the one. It seems actually
Speaker 1: that there's evidence that he did he may have done
Speaker 1: this twice because he's got two different guns.
Speaker 2: So how Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: Can stand up there with a straight face and say
Speaker 1: that we need universal gun background checks after pardoning his son,
Speaker 1: and not just pardoning his son, but pardoning his son,
Speaker 1: while saying he shouldn't be prosecuted, that he was singled
Speaker 1: out for prosecution. I don't know what Joe Biden wants
Speaker 1: there for. Do we want to have federal gun control
Speaker 1: laws that are just on the books but that we're
Speaker 1: not enforcing. Is that what he wants? More background checks
Speaker 1: that we don't prosecute people for under what circumstances does
Speaker 1: Joe I think we should prosecute people who lie on
Speaker 1: background checks? So he thinks that Hunters shouldn't have been prosecuted,
Speaker 1: who should? What has to happen with the gun before
Speaker 1: you actually prosecute people for lying on a federal background check?
Speaker 1: Does the person have to lie on the form and
Speaker 1: get the gun and murder somebody first? Is that what
Speaker 1: has to happen before you're okay with prosecuting them. I mean,
Speaker 1: the whole idea of the background check is for it
Speaker 1: to serve as a prophylactic against bad people getting guns,
Speaker 1: the kinds of people who he thinks shouldn't have a
Speaker 1: gun getting a gun.
Speaker 2: That's the whole point of it.
Speaker 1: If you're not gonna prosecute somebody who you realize lied,
Speaker 1: then what's the point Why have the law on the
Speaker 1: books if you're not going to prosecute it. And apparently,
Speaker 1: in Joe Biden's mind, someone who lies and tries shouldn't
Speaker 1: be prosecuted. Someone who lies and succeeds and has a
Speaker 1: bad and dangerous outcome his own son shouldn't be prosecuted.
Speaker 1: And this is the I just find it outrageous that
Speaker 1: the White House would have the temerity to issue this
Speaker 1: kind of a statement.
Speaker 2: Just what was it two weeks.
Speaker 1: Ago Hunter got three two or three weeks ago Hunter
Speaker 1: got pardoned? It boggles the mind. I mean, maybe it's
Speaker 1: just a thing of the lights are on and nobody's home,
Speaker 1: nobody gives a crap anymore. This is the lamest lame
Speaker 1: duck president presidency. I've heard people comment that nobody has
Speaker 1: he's been more clearly in charge during the kind of
Speaker 1: interregnum between the election day and January twentieth than Donald
Speaker 1: Trump has been. The flip side of that is that
Speaker 1: no one has been a lamer lamer, lamer lame duck
Speaker 1: than Joe Biden. You know, he's not doing anything.
Speaker 2: You know, he's there.
Speaker 1: People asked him, the President, Biden, why didn't you go
Speaker 1: to the reopening of you know, Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump went, Joe Biden went. Why didn't Joe go? Oh,
Speaker 1: Joe had a prior commitment, He had a scheduling conflict,
Speaker 1: so he couldn't go. But he's very proud of the
Speaker 1: First Lady and her represented her representing our country. And
Speaker 1: then people look at the schedule. He had nothing on
Speaker 1: his schedule. Yeah, he didn't want to go. He's tired,
Speaker 1: he's tired of international travel. So maybe I don't know,
Speaker 1: maybe Joe never even looked at this statement, which seems
Speaker 1: like it was written by some annoying millennial staff, or
Speaker 1: even down to the style in which it's written, in
Speaker 1: the fact that it's.
Speaker 2: Poorly edited, et cetera. But it just boggles my mind
Speaker 2: how this is done.
Speaker 1: When we return, would any of these things have stopped
Speaker 1: this shooter? Next on the John Girardi Show, I want
Speaker 1: to go through President Biden's kind of astonishing statement or
Speaker 1: the White Houses anyway, I don't I'm not sure if
Speaker 1: President Biden had anything to do with this statement. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure if President Biden has anything to do with
Speaker 1: anything at this point. But the White House issued this
Speaker 1: statement after this school shooting that happened in Madison, Wisconsin,
Speaker 1: in which the same repeated Democrat talking points about gun
Speaker 1: control get you know, reiterated and reiterated and reiterated. And
Speaker 1: the thing that always frustrates me is how often the
Speaker 1: purported solutions have actually no connection whatsoever to the crime
Speaker 1: that happened. So let's go through the purported.
Speaker 2: Actions that happened.
Speaker 1: All right, Let's go through the purported solutions, and we'll
Speaker 1: compare it against the action that happened in this school
Speaker 1: shooting in madisone. So for those again just learning about this.
Speaker 1: I believe it was yesterday a school shooter, a fifteen
Speaker 1: year old girl, killed a fellow student and a teacher
Speaker 1: at a Christian school in Madison, Wisconsin. Here are the
Speaker 1: things that the Biden administration says we need to do
Speaker 1: universal background checks now. Again, as I said in the
Speaker 1: first segment, recommending universal background checks is laughable given that
Speaker 1: Joe just pardoned his son for lying on a background check. Nonetheless,
Speaker 1: a background check wouldn't have helped here. It appears this
Speaker 1: fifteen year old got her dad's gun. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: how the dad's background check would Maybe he already passed
Speaker 1: a background check, probably did. How that would have stopped this?
Speaker 1: I'm not sure a national red flag law. Again, this
Speaker 1: fifteen year old didn't even own the gun. She was
Speaker 1: able to get it from her dad or to steal
Speaker 1: it from her dad. No red flag law would have
Speaker 1: been able to flag this. You know, she was a
Speaker 1: fifteen year old girl who was kind of depressed. There
Speaker 1: was some evidence that she was depressed, no indication again
Speaker 1: that I'm not sure a national red flag law would
Speaker 1: not have helped. A ban on assault weapons and high
Speaker 1: capacity magazines. She used a handgun. It was her dad's
Speaker 1: handgun wasn't There's no definitely. I mean, the term quote
Speaker 1: assault weapon is a kind of made up term that
Speaker 1: is not really a term of art within gunsmith ry
Speaker 1: or gun manufacture. It's a made up term that lawmakers
Speaker 1: use for certain kinds of features of different kinds of guns,
Speaker 1: some of which are purely cosmetic.
Speaker 2: So none of the White House's policy.
Speaker 1: Recommendations actually would have done anything to have stopped this shooting.
Speaker 1: And I think this is the frustration Democrats have. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: I think what democrats want is something the Second Amendment
Speaker 1: wouldn't allow. They just don't want people to own guns, period.
Speaker 1: They just don't want people to own guns. And clearly
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment is in their way. Clearly, this Supreme
Speaker 1: Court and its interpretation of the Second Amendment is in
Speaker 1: the way of them achieving those policy goals, and Democrat
Speaker 1: have always this is part one of many reasons why
Speaker 1: Democrats are driven so insane by the current six to
Speaker 1: three Republican appointee majority on the Court. They're so furious
Speaker 1: over it, in part because they've always been able to
Speaker 1: use the Supreme Court as the shortcut to getting the
Speaker 1: kinds of policies they want, so they don't have to
Speaker 1: do the hard work of actually convincing people and passing legislation. Abortion.
Speaker 1: Just have the Court do it via Roe v. Wade,
Speaker 1: same sex marriage. Just have the Supreme Court do it
Speaker 1: via oh Bergefell. They want, they have wanted a decision
Speaker 1: like that for guns for forever, and they didn't get
Speaker 1: it in the time when they had, you know, a
Speaker 1: pretty sizable majority on the Court. And now they look
Speaker 1: at the makeup of the Court. They look at the
Speaker 1: fact that Donald Trump is now in office and the
Speaker 1: very distinct likelihood that he and a Republican controlled Senate
Speaker 1: are going to be able to replace Sam Alito and
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas, maybe even John Roberts, and as a result,
Speaker 1: there's going to be Republican appointee majority control of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court for the foreseeable future.
Speaker 2: And it infuriates them.
Speaker 1: Because really, what they should propose is the thing that
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom kind of pretended like he's proposing. Really, this
Speaker 1: was just a fundraising employ by Gavin Newsom. I don't
Speaker 1: think there's any real substance to it, but you know,
Speaker 1: I'll give him credit.
Speaker 2: Ga.
Speaker 1: What Gavin Newsom proposed is, hey, we should amend the Constitution.
Speaker 1: We should amend the Constitution to give the government more
Speaker 1: leeway to regulate guns, because that's ultimately what they need.
Speaker 1: Their problem is actually with the Second Amendment. Their problem
Speaker 1: is with the fact that the Second Amendment provides, by many, many, many,
Speaker 1: many extremely reasonable readings of the text of the Second Amendment,
Speaker 1: provides for people to own guns. And that just drives
Speaker 1: them up the wall. When we return distressing court developments
Speaker 1: for the establishment of an abortion clinic in Vicealia, what
Speaker 1: it excuse me into, Larry, what it could mean for
Speaker 1: abortion as a civil right in California. That's next on
Speaker 1: the John Groarty Show. So yesterday I attended the hearing
Speaker 1: at the Vice Salia at the Superior Court, the California
Speaker 1: State Superior Court in Vice Salia. This was a hearing
Speaker 1: in front of the judge, Brett Hillman's California State Judge.
Speaker 1: And this has to do with a court case that
Speaker 1: I'm going to be following on this show, and I
Speaker 1: might be writing about all the folks at GV wire,
Speaker 1: might be sending over a little op ed to them
Speaker 1: today maybe later on this evening. And it has to
Speaker 1: do with an attempt to open an abortion clinic in Visalia,
Speaker 1: and it's raising some interesting legal issues for how California
Speaker 1: law should approach doing abortion. The right to apparently a
Speaker 1: right that we're just sort of making up to do
Speaker 1: abortions as opposed to a right to have an abortion.
Speaker 1: This distinction between doing abortions and having abortions is a
Speaker 1: troubling distinction. Well, it's a distinction that is troublingly elided
Speaker 1: all the time. There have been a number of Supreme
Speaker 1: Court cases where I mean the whole characterization of the
Speaker 1: right to abortion from row to planned parent versus Casey,
Speaker 1: although that is now gone at the federal level, but
Speaker 1: the characterization of the right to abortion within the California Constitution,
Speaker 1: et cetera. It's always framed as a right that the
Speaker 1: woman has, that the pregnant woman has, she has a
Speaker 1: right to abortion. That's always how it's framed. But when
Speaker 1: it comes time to vindicate that right in court, very often,
Speaker 1: for some reason, the abortion provider is deemed to have
Speaker 1: standing on behalf of those women, which Clarence Thomas always
Speaker 1: pointed out, No, that doesn't not necessarily or naturally follow
Speaker 1: There are certain kinds of principles of third party standing
Speaker 1: where someone other than the directly impacted party can sort
Speaker 1: of stand in for and represent that injured party. But
Speaker 1: by his contention, he's often said, I don't see why
Speaker 1: abortion providers, abortion doctors who are doing abortions should be
Speaker 1: able to stand in for women who want to have abortions.
Speaker 1: And what this has resulted in in federal abortion legislation.
Speaker 1: In the pre Dobbs era, some state would pass some
Speaker 1: kind of restriction on abortion, and who would sue It
Speaker 1: would usually be Planned Parenthood or some abortion doctor, as
Speaker 1: if the abortion doctor, as if the abortion doctor naturally
Speaker 1: has the exact same interests as the women having the abortions,
Speaker 1: even for stuff like Okay, Texas passed a law with
Speaker 1: health and safety standards for abortion clinics, and the clinics sue,
Speaker 1: saying that it violates the right to abortion. Well, do
Speaker 1: the clinics have the same interests of the women there?
Speaker 1: I mean, couldn't the health and safety regulations be interpreted
Speaker 1: as benefiting women? Could the abortion clinics posture of not
Speaker 1: wanting these health and safety standards be deemed as being
Speaker 1: antagonistic to their abortion seeking female patients. Anyway, this has
Speaker 1: been a problem in the history of American abortion jurisprudence
Speaker 1: where we just sort of slip in the slide between
Speaker 1: abortion as a right that women possess versus do women
Speaker 1: have a right to get abortions? Or do doctors have
Speaker 1: a right to perform them? I think that's those are
Speaker 1: two very different things. Is there some civil right that
Speaker 1: women have to have abortions? All right, if you want
Speaker 1: to argue that, okay. I think that's different though, from
Speaker 1: the right of a doctor to perform them. And this
Speaker 1: is kind of the heart of this dispute that's happening
Speaker 1: in the city of to Larry. So there's a office
Speaker 1: complex and I talked about this a bit yet last week.
Speaker 1: There's an office complex in the city of Tillarry, the
Speaker 1: Tilarry Medical Center, and it's basically an office suite with
Speaker 1: a bunch of different individual doctors' offices.
Speaker 2: The complex is governed by a covenant. Think of it.
Speaker 1: It's almost like a homeowner's association agreement, where you know,
Speaker 1: it's a private agreement between all the parties in this
Speaker 1: place about the kinds of standards according to which their
Speaker 1: businesses will operate. And in the context of this you know,
Speaker 1: medical center, this office, this you know, suite of offices,
Speaker 1: what kinds of businesses, what kinds of practices they will
Speaker 1: allow to set up within the complex. This covenant is
Speaker 1: from nineteen ninety one, and it has certain kinds of
Speaker 1: things that excludes. They say, we're not going to have chiropractors. Okay,
Speaker 1: we're not going to have this. We're not going to
Speaker 1: have that. You know, if you want to have a
Speaker 1: kind of professional setting, a professional medical office setting, maybe
Speaker 1: there are certain kinds of businesses you don't want to
Speaker 1: have so they don't allow. They don't allow chiropractors. I
Speaker 1: think they said they didn't want to have pediatrists office.
Speaker 2: Maybe I'm making this up.
Speaker 1: And obviously, you know, if you've got a professional office complex,
Speaker 1: you know you don't want a liquor store in it.
Speaker 2: You don't want a pizza parlor in it. Nothing against
Speaker 2: liquor stores and pizza parlors, but it's just not for
Speaker 2: this place. One of the things they.
Speaker 1: Exclude is abortion clinics. They say right there in their covenant,
Speaker 1: we don't want to have an abortion clinic. One of
Speaker 1: the owners of one of the spaces seemingly is renting
Speaker 1: out leasing the space to family planning Associates now Family
Speaker 1: Planning Associates.
Speaker 2: It's like.
Speaker 1: It's like a mini Planned Parenthood. Basically, it's just a
Speaker 1: California only chain of abortion providers. There's one in Fresno
Speaker 1: in downtown, and so the doctors in this complex are
Speaker 1: suing Family Planning Associates say Hey, you can't operate here.
Speaker 1: We say, no abortion clinics. You're an abortion clinic.
Speaker 2: Now. FPA has been a little.
Speaker 1: Squirrely about exactly what services they're doing. On their website,
Speaker 1: they list surgical abortion and pill abortions MiFi pristone as
Speaker 1: services they offer. It seems as though they're not actually
Speaker 1: doing surgical abortions that they said in a letter, No,
Speaker 1: we're not going to do surgical abortions. Therefore we're not
Speaker 1: an abortion clinic. But at the same time they seem
Speaker 1: to be acknowledging that this covenant could apply to them, because,
Speaker 1: I mean, they may be referring out patients for surgical abortions,
Speaker 1: but they're definitely wanting to do pill abortions where they
Speaker 1: prescribe mif A pristone to a patient, which is, by
Speaker 1: the way, the most common form of abortion in America.
Speaker 1: It's basically prescribed this woman a pill up to the
Speaker 1: first ten weeks of pregnancy.
Speaker 2: She takes this pill, it results.
Speaker 1: In the fetus or embryo detaching from the uterine wall
Speaker 1: being cut off from its food supply. The woman is
Speaker 1: then given a second drug that results in expelling the
Speaker 1: baby from her body. That's the most common method of abortions.
Speaker 1: So if they're prescribing that it's an abortion clinic, I'd
Speaker 1: say by any fair reading. Well, the doctors filed emotion
Speaker 1: for what's called a preliminary injunction and basically says, hey,
Speaker 1: for the duration of this lawsuit, we want them to
Speaker 1: stop doing the activity that we think is bad. We
Speaker 1: want them to stop operating because we're going to suffer harms.
Speaker 1: You know, we have this CCNR. We sorry, we have
Speaker 1: this covenant in place saying we don't want abortion clinics.
Speaker 1: It changes the tenor of the office space. It changes
Speaker 1: you know, it reflects poorly on what we want to
Speaker 1: do as an office space. If you let them function,
Speaker 1: it results in harm to us. We want you, therefore,
Speaker 1: to stop having them function for the duration of the
Speaker 1: lawsuit until we can ultimately decide this thing. So they
Speaker 1: file a motion for a preliminary injunction stop operating for
Speaker 1: the duration of the lawsuit. Now, the thing with preliminary
Speaker 1: injunctions is that very often if you prevail at the
Speaker 1: preliminary injunction phase, it usually means that you're going to
Speaker 1: ultimately prevail because one of the things the judge is
Speaker 1: determining is your likelihood of success on the merits for
Speaker 1: the ultimate issues presented. On Monday, the Superior Court judge,
Speaker 1: Judge Hillman indicated he released a tentative statement that I
Speaker 1: believe is now the non tentative final ruling following the
Speaker 1: court hearing that they are not going to get this
Speaker 1: preliminary injunction. This abortion clinic is going to be allowed
Speaker 1: to continue to function at the Tillary Medical Center. And
Speaker 1: the reason why is really troubling. So what the judge
Speaker 1: keeps citing as something that could be the case, he's
Speaker 1: not definitively saying it, but he's saying that an argument
Speaker 1: could be a very strong argument could be made that
Speaker 1: California civil rights law.
Speaker 2: Would apply to the ability.
Speaker 1: Of a doctor to perform abortions and that singling them
Speaker 1: out for exclusion could basically constitute discrimination against women. So
Speaker 1: how does this work? The Civil Rights Act, the Federal
Speaker 1: Civil Rights Act, as well as the California Unrue Civil
Speaker 1: Rights Law.
Speaker 2: UNRU was the name of the lawmaker after whom it.
Speaker 1: Was named, prohibits various kinds of business discrimination on the
Speaker 1: basis of and then a list is given of different
Speaker 1: protected categories race, sex, et cetera. If this office complex
Speaker 1: had a covenant that said, we're not going to allow
Speaker 1: any black doctors to set up their shingle in this
Speaker 1: office complex and serve patients, well, that would be unenforceable.
Speaker 1: That would be an unenforceable and illegal covenant. Businesses are
Speaker 1: not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race like that.
Speaker 1: If the doctors had put something in their covenant that said,
Speaker 1: we're not going to allow any female doctors to work here,
Speaker 1: to set up their shingle and have their practice in
Speaker 1: this office complex, that too, would likely be illegal.
Speaker 2: It would violate California civil rights law.
Speaker 1: Basically what the judge in this case is saying, and
Speaker 1: he's not definitive about this, but he says, there's enough
Speaker 1: of a chance that this is the case that I
Speaker 1: don't think you're likely to prevail ultimately, and therefore I'm
Speaker 1: going to deny this preliminary injunction. The judge in this
Speaker 1: case is basically saying to single out abortion provision is
Speaker 1: a form of discriminating against women. To say that I
Speaker 1: don't want abortion is another way of saying I don't
Speaker 1: want to serve women. It's almost creating as if you know,
Speaker 1: we have protected categories for civil rights law race, sex, Apparently,
Speaker 1: doing abortions, we're thinking here is going to be as
Speaker 1: protected a category under California law as being black. That
Speaker 1: discriminating against someone because they want to do abortions is
Speaker 1: the same as discriminating against someone because they're black, not
Speaker 1: you know, one of the principles for California's civil rights
Speaker 1: law is it protects things that are permanent, static categories
Speaker 1: that someone can't change.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: I can't change the fact of the color of my skin.
Speaker 1: I can't necessarily just you know, snap my fingers and
Speaker 1: cease being Catholic or Buddhist or Muslim or Hindu. I
Speaker 1: can't snap my fingers and change my national origin or
Speaker 1: the fact that I'm.
Speaker 2: A man or a woman.
Speaker 1: But here's this doctor choosing to do this particular kind
Speaker 1: of sub this particular kind of service within his specialty
Speaker 1: of obgyn care, of obgyn practice.
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna call abortion care. You're never gonna hear
Speaker 2: me say that.
Speaker 1: Which he doesn't have to do. He or she, whoever
Speaker 1: the doctor is that's doing these abortions. They could just
Speaker 1: be an OBGYN who doesn't do abortion, you know, like
Speaker 1: ninety whatever percent of obgyns who don't do abortions. But
Speaker 1: it says but instead this guy's like, no, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: do abortions. That decision is apparently protected that we slide from. Look,
Speaker 1: I don't like it, but very clearly established within California law,
Speaker 1: within the California Constitution, you know, since we amended it
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty two, is a right of patients to
Speaker 1: have abortions. Patients have a right to have abortions. It's
Speaker 1: clear in the California Constitution.
Speaker 2: It's right there.
Speaker 1: But you know it's not right there the right of
Speaker 1: doctors to do abortions. And what's in the California Constitution
Speaker 1: is something that says that the state can't hinder a
Speaker 1: woman's right to have an abortion. It doesn't say anything
Speaker 1: about private actors limiting someone's ability to do abortions, which
Speaker 1: is what's happening in this medical complex. So I'm going
Speaker 1: to continue to watch this case. I think it's really
Speaker 1: it could be really, really troubling. We'll have to see
Speaker 1: what the doctors in this lawsuit want to do. Are
Speaker 1: they going to appeal this decision to the appellate court.
Speaker 1: This is a really important case for the development of
Speaker 1: abortion law throughout the state of California. We'll talk about
Speaker 1: it more on Right to Life Radio on Saturday when
Speaker 1: we return. I dare to tread where angels dare not
Speaker 1: ask some questions about autism next on The John Gerardy Show.
Speaker 1: The nomination of RFK Junior to be the Secretary of HHS,
Speaker 1: which I fiercely dislike on abortion grounds, has led to
Speaker 1: a refiring of the debate about whether vaccines cause autism.
Speaker 1: And I'll just make this one point. First of all,
Speaker 1: vaccines are very different from one another, so I justike
Speaker 1: using such broad language, but also autism. People keep saying
Speaker 1: things I keep seeing online, things like we're not allowed
Speaker 1: to question why the incidence of autism has increased so
Speaker 1: dramatically because on a hundred years ago, nobody knew what
Speaker 1: autism was. It's also because am autism, especially the idea
Speaker 1: of the autism spectrum is a very loose over inclusive
Speaker 1: category that includes, on the one end, obviously people who
Speaker 1: have a developmental problem who are you know, nonverbal, but
Speaker 1: on the other end includes a whole bunch of people
Speaker 1: who are just like, kind of socially awkward, who maybe
Speaker 1: don't need that label. So, you know, before we start
Speaker 1: citing the number of people who have autism has spiked drastically,
Speaker 1: maybe let's just think about the nature of what we're
Speaker 1: talking about.
Speaker 2: That'll do it. John Girardi Show, See you next time
Speaker 2: on Power Talk.