Speaker 1: I want to talk about the problem of analyzing any
Speaker 1: legal issue in the Trump era, and maybe this is
Speaker 1: a very particular to me problem. Okay, I am doing
Speaker 1: a thing that most people don't do. I get on
Speaker 1: the radio and I give my opinion about political things
Speaker 1: on a almost daily basis. So most people don't have
Speaker 1: the problem that I have, and I have the luxury
Speaker 1: thanks to the kind people at Power Talk Slash iHeart,
Speaker 1: I have a good deal of editorial control. I'd say
Speaker 1: pretty much total editorial control. I kind of talk about
Speaker 1: what I want to talk about, and iHeart does not
Speaker 1: harass me about what I do or don't choose to
Speaker 1: talk about. And some of you may have noticed I
Speaker 1: really have not talked much about the whole Abrego Garcia,
Speaker 1: the story the guy who was deported, the illegal alien
Speaker 1: who was in Maryland, who got deported, who got sent
Speaker 1: to the mega prison in El Salvador, and the claim
Speaker 1: is he was sent there utilized with President Trump utilizing
Speaker 1: the Alien Enemies Act. Apparently there had been a prior
Speaker 1: immigration ruling giving a hold that he not be sent
Speaker 1: back to El Salvador. The administration has now admitted in
Speaker 1: court that they wrongly sent him there. And the Trump
Speaker 1: administration has received orders from lower courts, now from the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court asking that he tried to facilitate Abrego Garcia's
Speaker 1: release from that Salvador in prison prison, and President Trump
Speaker 1: seems to be trying to minimally complain with those court orders.
Speaker 1: And that case and some of these other cases with
Speaker 1: the l Salvador is at the heart of the left
Speaker 1: wing critique that Trump has initiated a constitutional crisis. Basically
Speaker 1: the idea that courts have issued rulings and Trump has
Speaker 1: deliberately not followed them. And I don't think that that
Speaker 1: flatly is an accurate description of the situation. I think
Speaker 1: you have that Trump administration is not taking the posture
Speaker 1: of we are going to disobey these rulings from the courts.
Speaker 1: They are at least giving a facial appearance of trying
Speaker 1: to comply, trying to comply in the most minimal way possible.
Speaker 1: Some courts have in fact written, I think sloppy rulings
Speaker 1: that Trump and his team complied with, complied with in
Speaker 1: ways that we're hitting the letter and not the spirit
Speaker 1: of the ruling and making these judges mad. But it's
Speaker 1: the letter of the ruling and I don't think that's
Speaker 1: a constitutional crisis at the actual level that it would
Speaker 1: really be a constitutional crisis. This is a party engaging
Speaker 1: in one could argue bad behavior. That is different from
Speaker 1: a full blown constitutional crisis in which we have unbalanced
Speaker 1: the sort of set arrangements between the courts and the
Speaker 1: executive branch. Furthermore, there are other arguments on the other
Speaker 1: side of you know of this, about our federal judges
Speaker 1: initiating a constitutional crisis, which I actually think is more
Speaker 1: the case, and I'll talk about that in a little bit.
Speaker 1: But here's the thing that I have noticed for basically
Speaker 1: the entire Trump era as a commentator, and I think
Speaker 1: this is something that impacts respectable figures on the right,
Speaker 1: or people who deem themselves respectable and intelligent figures on
Speaker 1: the right. Here's how it works. We have a media
Speaker 1: culture that wants to react to things instantaneously. We have
Speaker 1: cable news, we have talk radio, and now we have Twitter. Okay,
Speaker 1: we have Twitter where people we have social media where
Speaker 1: people are reacting to stuff right away, and people are
Speaker 1: giving their takes on political issues immediately right away. And
Speaker 1: a lot of this throughout the Trump era. Many of
Speaker 1: the controversies are legal controversies. It's controversies about has President
Speaker 1: Trump violated the law in this way or that way?
Speaker 1: Has the Trump administration violated the law in this way,
Speaker 1: that way, or this way. And people want to give
Speaker 1: knee jerk reactions to what are really actually fairly complex
Speaker 1: legal questions. That's hard to do, right. It's hard to
Speaker 1: actually analyze a complex legal question, really understand it, and
Speaker 1: then synthesize it, analyze it, and give an opinion on
Speaker 1: it in twenty four hours, let alone two hours. I
Speaker 1: remember this, you know, during the first Trump administration, the
Speaker 1: first blush of the Ukraine phone call, the phone a
Speaker 1: perfect phone call to Zelenski that resulted in Trump getting
Speaker 1: impeached the first time. I remember the first blush basically
Speaker 1: was the media painting this atmosphere that this is really serious.
Speaker 1: And I mean I was sort of like, oh, jeez,
Speaker 1: was this really serious? And I'm trying to think through it.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to analyze it, I'm trying to discuss it.
Speaker 1: And what I realized was it took people like a
Speaker 1: solid couple of weeks to sort of realize maybe you
Speaker 1: might think that it was sleazy for Trump to try
Speaker 1: to put pressure on Zelensky to investigate a family member
Speaker 1: of a guy who was going to be his eventual
Speaker 1: opponent in the twenty twenty election. This was again the
Speaker 1: phone call to Zelenski in which Trump sort of intimated
Speaker 1: that he might make military aid contingent upon Zelenski investigating Barisma,
Speaker 1: the big Ukrainian energy concern that Hunter Biden was on
Speaker 1: the board of directors of which we now know today
Speaker 1: was a super sleazy arrangement. We didn't exactly know it
Speaker 1: one hundred percent at the time. Well, anyone with a
Speaker 1: brain knew it was super sleazy. And again, after the
Speaker 1: first blush of the news story, it took us about
Speaker 1: a week and by us, I mean the media globally,
Speaker 1: the commentariat globally to sort of realize what was the
Speaker 1: actual crime that President Trump committed. What did he do
Speaker 1: that was illegal? The arguments that it was a campaign
Speaker 1: finance violation because he asked Zelensky to do something that
Speaker 1: was helpful for his No, that's not a campaign finance violation.
Speaker 1: That's not an unreported campaign finance expense, it's not unreported
Speaker 1: appo research. No, campaign finance law is a certain thing,
Speaker 1: and that's not a campaig and finance expense that he
Speaker 1: should have reported or something some such thing. In fact,
Speaker 1: it I find it hard to think it was even
Speaker 1: much of an abuse of his office, given the fact
Speaker 1: that I think it's pretty hard to escape the conclusion
Speaker 1: that Hunter Biden was engaged in shady dealings in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: and I still to this day think it beggars belief that.
Speaker 1: I think you have to have your ostrich head buried
Speaker 1: in the sand to think that Joe Biden wasn't benefiting
Speaker 1: from a whole bunch of shady and illegal activity that
Speaker 1: his son was doing. I think his son was acting
Speaker 1: as an agent of a foreign country and had never
Speaker 1: registered under the Farah laws, the Foreign Alien Foreign Agents
Speaker 1: Representative Act FARA. Basically, you can work as an American
Speaker 1: citizen on behalf of a foreign country he as an
Speaker 1: agent of a foreign country, but you got to register
Speaker 1: as such. Hunter Biden never did that. I think there
Speaker 1: were money laundering things that the Bidens were doing. Why
Speaker 1: were they creating this large network of various companies. Why
Speaker 1: were millions of dollars flowing into the Biden family going
Speaker 1: to the bank accounts of family members who had nothing
Speaker 1: to do with anything going, you know, going to Halle Biden,
Speaker 1: who was a kindergarten teacher, getting payments from Romanian business
Speaker 1: concerns or whatever. Why you know, you had several people
Speaker 1: going on the record accusing Joe Biden of being the
Speaker 1: big guy ten percent going to the big guy, all
Speaker 1: this stuff where Biden was utilizing his political influence as
Speaker 1: the vice president to get deals for his son. His
Speaker 1: son was clearly selling it anyway. But this is the problem.
Speaker 1: The first blush of the story is Trump has done
Speaker 1: something illegal, and then it takes about a week for
Speaker 1: people to realize either and this is more of a
Speaker 1: fifty to fifty situation or even I don't know that
Speaker 1: Trump did anything wrong to this day, I really don't think,
Speaker 1: especially the grand sweep of history, the first Trump impeachment
Speaker 1: feels to me unbelievably silly, unbelievably silly threatening to withhold
Speaker 1: military aid to Ukraine, which he ultimately didn't even do.
Speaker 1: He didn't even follow through on it. The Ukrainians did
Speaker 1: not investigate hunder Biden, and Trump still gave them the
Speaker 1: military aid. So that's why I've been a little silent
Speaker 1: about all of this stuff. With the deportations to l Salvador.
Speaker 1: The factual scenarios are so complex, and the stories initially
Speaker 1: just get presented in such a one sided fashion as
Speaker 1: Trump as violent has deliberately disobeyed an order from a
Speaker 1: federal court. And I just don't know that it's quite right.
Speaker 1: And even there's this whole attitude that's being presented about
Speaker 1: they're violating the due process rights of these immigrants, of
Speaker 1: people who are in this country, of non citizen aliens
Speaker 1: in this country, that they're violating their due process rights. Okay,
Speaker 1: let me just explain this. Due process means different things
Speaker 1: for different kinds of people in different kinds of situations.
Speaker 1: If you're an American citizen who's being arrested on suspicion
Speaker 1: that you have committed a crime, you have a very
Speaker 1: robust degree of due process protections that are afforded to you.
Speaker 1: You get your Miranda rights read to you, you have
Speaker 1: a right to atturn, you have this you. The kinds
Speaker 1: of due process that we have to give to an
Speaker 1: illegal alien is not the same as the kinds of
Speaker 1: due process we have to give to an American citizen
Speaker 1: an America, and especially this particular illegal alien, this Obrego
Speaker 1: Garcia guy who It's clear the government had a good
Speaker 1: bit of information that this guy was no good. He
Speaker 1: had already been determined to have been an illegal alien.
Speaker 1: They had a good bit of reason to think he
Speaker 1: was involved with MS thirteen. They had a ton of
Speaker 1: reason to think he was a slimeball who was beating
Speaker 1: up his girlfriend wife. I'm not sure. I think it's
Speaker 1: his girlfriend it he's a bad dude, clearly. Now, there
Speaker 1: had been an immigration ruling in his case saying that
Speaker 1: he was not to be deported back to El Salvador,
Speaker 1: and the Trump administration has admitted that they wrongly released
Speaker 1: him to El Salvador. Now I think that that, you know,
Speaker 1: I've read up on that ruling. That ruling was dumb. Okay,
Speaker 1: that was a silly ruling. Basically, he made this claim
Speaker 1: that when he was twelve, local gangsters were trying to
Speaker 1: shake down his mom's She had some sort of food restaurant,
Speaker 1: food store kind of thing. I think she was selling
Speaker 1: a rape bus or something. Local gangsters were trying to
Speaker 1: shake her down. This was like over a decade ago,
Speaker 1: when he was twelve. So he got this immigration judge
Speaker 1: to say, well, it would be a humanitarian problem if
Speaker 1: you sent him back to El Salvador because those gangs,
Speaker 1: even though the mom's business doesn't exist anymore, it was
Speaker 1: over a decade ago. He said, well, you can't send
Speaker 1: him back to El Salvador because he'll be persecuted for that,
Speaker 1: which is a ridiculous ruling. It seems as though they
Speaker 1: accidentally released this guy to El Salvador, and the Salvadorans
Speaker 1: have said, no, we are holding this guy for our
Speaker 1: own reasons and we don't want to release him. And
Speaker 1: that's the thing. I mean it kind of I think
Speaker 1: an analogy to think of is, you know, I think
Speaker 1: our American courts can demand that President Trump do his
Speaker 1: best to facilitate the guy's return all day, But the
Speaker 1: courts don't have the authority to dictate to the American President,
Speaker 1: who has sole exclusive responsibility of this how he conducts
Speaker 1: foreign policy and President Trump interacting with the president of
Speaker 1: l Salvador, that's his exclusive domain. Courts can't get into
Speaker 1: the nitty gritty of how he relates to it, and
Speaker 1: I know John Roberts doesn't want to step into that territory.
Speaker 1: So you have the Supreme Court saying, okay, well do
Speaker 1: what you can to facilitate the return. If El Salvador
Speaker 1: is willing and Trump's sort of saying, well, it's not
Speaker 1: going to happen, and I don't know. At a certain
Speaker 1: point the Supreme Court even can't really do much with it.
Speaker 1: If the else, If the Salvadorans are saying, we don't
Speaker 1: want to release this guy because he's our citizen. We
Speaker 1: think he's a bad dude, what are we supposed to
Speaker 1: do now when we return. I want to talk about
Speaker 1: this constitutional crisis language and try to assess is there
Speaker 1: what what what do people actually mean when they say that,
Speaker 1: and try try to assess is there such a crisis happening.
Speaker 1: That's next on the John Grardy Show. Are we in
Speaker 1: a constitutional crisis? Let's break down what do people mean
Speaker 1: when they are saying that President Trump has initiated a
Speaker 1: constitutional crisis? All right, this is what they mean. We
Speaker 1: have had a fairly well settled constitutional order within American government.
Speaker 1: It's something that's not exactly written in the Constitution. This
Speaker 1: is the order of operations. Since Marbury versus Madison, the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has held and the other branches have sort
Speaker 1: of accepted this power that courts have the power of
Speaker 1: what's called judicial review. They can review actions by the executive.
Speaker 1: They can review laws passed by Congress for their constitutionality.
Speaker 1: They can only review laws passed by Congress in the
Speaker 1: context of an active case or controversy. It's not like
Speaker 1: Congress passes law and the Supreme Court just sort of
Speaker 1: jumps up and says, hey, that's unconstitutional. No, an actual
Speaker 1: case or controversy has to arise, an actual, real lawsuit
Speaker 1: has to make its way to the Supreme Court. They don't.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court does not give advisory opinions about the
Speaker 1: constitutionality of laws anyway. And we sort of accept within
Speaker 1: our political order that when the courts, and especially the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court rule on an executive action and its constitutionality
Speaker 1: or not because a lawsuit was generated out of it,
Speaker 1: or when the courts rule on the constitutionality of a law,
Speaker 1: we accept, We accept acc ept the holding of the court,
Speaker 1: and we abide by it. The executive and it's a
Speaker 1: fit allow that to be enforced. We accept this constitutional order,
Speaker 1: even though this is a bit of a lacuna, a
Speaker 1: gap within the actual written order of our constitution. Okay,
Speaker 1: this isn't all necessarily spelled out in the Constitution itself.
Speaker 1: It is a kind of settlement that we have arrived at.
Speaker 1: This is the most majorum, and it's kind of the
Speaker 1: way in which the custom of our ancestors, if you will.
Speaker 1: That's how the Roman Constitution worked within the Roman Republic.
Speaker 1: The Romans didn't have a written constitution with all of
Speaker 1: its various procedures and stuff written out. They had bits
Speaker 1: of legislation passed by this body or that body, and
Speaker 1: the constitution of the Roman Republic. The actual setup of
Speaker 1: it was kind of like your eccentric uncle's crazy addict
Speaker 1: where Rube Goldberg machine esque kind of craziness. But the
Speaker 1: Romans would appeal to the most majoram the custom of
Speaker 1: our ancestors. This is the way our ancestors did it. It
Speaker 1: was always an appeal to tradition. And we kind of
Speaker 1: have a little thing like that within our American constitutional order,
Speaker 1: particularly as it involves the relationship between the courts and
Speaker 1: the other branches of government. There have been occasions in
Speaker 1: our history, though, where we sort of didn't respect that order.
Speaker 1: Andrew Jackson once, you know, there's sort of a myth
Speaker 1: I guess that Andrew Jackson once said about the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court in an opinion that was issued in eighteen thirty
Speaker 1: two that John Marshall, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: has made his decision, now let him enforce it. Now.
Speaker 1: That is kind of a myth. Jackson never uttered those words,
Speaker 1: but the story sort of makes sense. It shows you
Speaker 1: sort of the kind of ify nature of the Court's standing.
Speaker 1: The Court can issue decisions all at once, but the
Speaker 1: Court relies on the executive branch to enforce the law
Speaker 1: and to ensure that its decisions are carried out. Because
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court doesn't have cops. The Supreme Court doesn't
Speaker 1: have guys with guns at the end of the day
Speaker 1: to enforce its decisions, even when the Supreme Court is
Speaker 1: ruling against the executive branch. So when the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: rules against the executive branch and tells the executive branch
Speaker 1: you can't do X, Y, or Z, the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: has no way to force the executive branch to comply.
Speaker 1: They don't have off, they don't have guys with guns.
Speaker 1: With the Supreme Court has is its moral and political authority.
Speaker 1: It's auctoreitas, sort of the Roman word basically meant how
Speaker 1: much weight you had, how much pull you had. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's all they've got, and if the Supreme Court keeps
Speaker 1: over if this is really more a problem of the
Speaker 1: lower courts, but if the lower courts keep issuing rulings
Speaker 1: that are clearly beyond their scope. I mean, yesterday we
Speaker 1: had an immigration a federal judge give a ruling that
Speaker 1: is sure to be over turned very quickly saying that
Speaker 1: border patrol can't detain an illegal alien without a warrant
Speaker 1: for their arrest, which is insane, Okay, an insane ruling,
Speaker 1: totally lawless. But basically, the courts rely for their standing
Speaker 1: on the president, on the executive branch's goodwill, and I
Speaker 1: think they are starting, they are really approaching with the
Speaker 1: proliferation of nationwide rulings by individual district court judges, this
Speaker 1: overstepping of individual district courts authorities authority, I think that
Speaker 1: is precipitating a constitutional crisis in which this sort of
Speaker 1: settled order of things that we have that we've had
Speaker 1: in America for hundreds of years, that settled order is
Speaker 1: going to get upset. And people on the left are
Speaker 1: all just going to blame Donald Trump for not following courts.
Speaker 1: I think these judges will have them really have themselves
Speaker 1: to blame because at a certain point, the president would
Speaker 1: have to ignore judges. If a judge tells the president, Hey,
Speaker 1: you can't move the marines from this marine battalion over here,
Speaker 1: you need to move them over there, at that point
Speaker 1: the president is like, no, you are infringing. A district
Speaker 1: court judge is not allowed to tell me what to
Speaker 1: do about moving marines around. Sorry, that is my job
Speaker 1: and my responsibility. And I think we'd all agree the
Speaker 1: president should blow off a court who told him that.
Speaker 1: That is the problem. If the president is refusing to
Speaker 1: obey a court, whose fault is it. Is it the
Speaker 1: president's fault for disobeying or is it the court's fault
Speaker 1: for wildly overstepping it's authority. I tend to think it's
Speaker 1: chicken and egg. But I think a lot of the
Speaker 1: problems that we've seen in the last one hundred days
Speaker 1: have been from courts overstepping their authority. When we return
Speaker 1: new data on abortion, new data on transgender interventions, could
Speaker 1: this reshape how the expert class talks about these topics.
Speaker 1: Next on The John Gerardi Show, there are two big stories,
Speaker 1: one of which I talked about a little earlier this week,
Speaker 1: and I'll talk about again on Saturday for Right to
Speaker 1: Life Radio, and another having to do with transgenderism. Basically,
Speaker 1: there's new research coming out that is breaking the lefty
Speaker 1: social lefty consensus of about eight years ago, which centered
Speaker 1: around two propositions, one that the abortion pill is the
Speaker 1: safest thing that has ever happened, and two that transgender
Speaker 1: surgeries are supported by science. We follow the science and
Speaker 1: I want to talk about them, and I'm hoping that
Speaker 1: the Trump administration can use new data to break the
Speaker 1: back of these two movements over the course of the
Speaker 1: next four years. Now here's a piece in National by
Speaker 1: Abigail Anthony. HHS report finds no strong evidence that supporting
Speaker 1: gender affirming care is effective so called gender affirming care.
Speaker 1: She writes, there is not strong evidence that quote gender
Speaker 1: affirming care for miners is effective for treating gender dysphoria
Speaker 1: or improving mental health. According to a report issued on
Speaker 1: Thursday by the Department of Health and Human Services based
Speaker 1: on a review of existing literature, the researchers found that
Speaker 1: existing studies suffer from bias and methodological errors, while the
Speaker 1: literature also fails to appropriately consider potential harms such as
Speaker 1: the loss of sexual function. OH that would seem to
Speaker 1: be a harm. I think I would be upset at that.
Speaker 1: Just that's just me. The gender affirming model of care
Speaker 1: includes irreversible endocrine and surgical interventions on minors with no
Speaker 1: physical pathology. Reads the reports forward, these interventions carry rips
Speaker 1: of significant harms, including infertility and sterility, infertility slash sterility,
Speaker 1: sexual dysfunction, impaired bone density, accrual, adverse cognitive impacts, cardiovascular
Speaker 1: disease in metabolic disorders, psychiatric disorders, surgical complications, and regret. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: systematic reviews of the evidence have revealed deep, uncerted uncertainty
Speaker 1: about the purported benefits of these interventions. In an executive
Speaker 1: order titled Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation issued
Speaker 1: on January twenty eighth, President Trump announced that the Secretary
Speaker 1: of Health and Human Services would publish a review of
Speaker 1: the existing literature on best practices for promoting the health
Speaker 1: of children who assert gender dysphoria, rapid onset gender dysphoria,
Speaker 1: or other identity based confusion within ninety days, given the
Speaker 1: toxicity of this issue, and in order to allow for
Speaker 1: a peer review process that focuses on the substance of
Speaker 1: this report. The names of the contributors are not being
Speaker 1: released at this time. A source familiar with the report
Speaker 1: told national review like the CAST review commissioned by the
Speaker 1: UK National Health Service on gener related medical care for minors,
Speaker 1: that concluded this is an area of remarkably weak evidence.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty four, the HHS report found that quote
Speaker 1: the overall quality of evidence concerning the effects of any
Speaker 1: intervention on psychological outcomes, quality of life, regret, or long
Speaker 1: term health is very low. Proponents of PMT, which I
Speaker 1: guess is I'm not sure what that acronym stands for.
Speaker 1: I guess that means child sex change interventions. Proponents of
Speaker 1: PMT often describe it as life saving. Some physicians recommending
Speaker 1: PMT have urged anxious parents to consent to irreversible interventions
Speaker 1: for their distressed children, warning that not doing so may
Speaker 1: increase the risk of suicide. Reads the report, Such claims
Speaker 1: are not supported by the evidence and have been criticized
Speaker 1: as unethical. Additionally, the HHS report, or titled Treatment for
Speaker 1: Pediatric Gender Dysphoria Review of Evidence in Best Practices, notes
Speaker 1: a blind spot in the existing studies. Most fail to
Speaker 1: appropriately consider any potential harms The HHS Report is an
Speaker 1: umbrella review of seventeen pre existing systematic reviews, with some
Speaker 1: reviews encompassing more than one topic. Two on the effects
Speaker 1: of social social transition so kid just wearing different clothes
Speaker 1: and using a different name, nine on puberty blocking drugs,
Speaker 1: eight on cross sex hormones, three on surgery, five on psychotherapy.
Speaker 1: The HHS researchers measured the quality of evidence as high, moderate, low,
Speaker 1: or very low by evaluating the risk of bias, unexplained
Speaker 1: variations and results, a lack of direct evidence, wide confidence intervals,
Speaker 1: small sample sizes, and other methodological errors. Of the seventeen
Speaker 1: systematic reviews, seven were rated as having a quote high
Speaker 1: risk of bias overall, while others similarly suffered from methodological flaws. Now,
Speaker 1: this is the thing the left has totally captured the
Speaker 1: American Academy of Pediatrics. People don't appreciate this, the way
Speaker 1: in which the left has completely captured the leadership of
Speaker 1: a number of medical professional associations, particularly ACG, the American
Speaker 1: College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics,
Speaker 1: and others. My parents have talked about this dynamic with
Speaker 1: me for a long time given up. My mom's a dermatologist,
Speaker 1: and my dad who passed away back in March of
Speaker 1: twenty four. My dad was an orthopedic surgeon, and different
Speaker 1: branches of medicine, there diferent sort of professional organizations for
Speaker 1: different branches of medicine. For example, my dad was an
Speaker 1: orthopedic surgeon, so he was part of the American Academy
Speaker 1: of Orthopedics, And basically there were kind of different yeah,
Speaker 1: American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, so that there were different
Speaker 1: kinds of political vibes depending on which specialty you were
Speaker 1: talking about within medicine. The American Academy of Orthpetic Surgeons
Speaker 1: was it tended to be a bit more conservative a
Speaker 1: cog the American College of Obstetricians and kind of cologists,
Speaker 1: and the American Academy of Pediatrics super liberal. And the
Speaker 1: way that the left has gotten away with its manipulation
Speaker 1: of language, its ability to sort of win the debate
Speaker 1: on transgenderism before we had even really had the debate,
Speaker 1: like they declared victory on it. They sort of declared
Speaker 1: that this is the new orthodoxy media right about transgenderism,
Speaker 1: as if the question is already settled. Why Because they
Speaker 1: captured the medical scientific community. They cooked the books with research.
Speaker 1: They presented all these studies purporting to show that, oh,
Speaker 1: it's actually so helpful. Now when you have a more
Speaker 1: skeptical HHS looking at this with a more skeptical eye,
Speaker 1: they say, hey, no, the methodology for a lot of
Speaker 1: these surveys is bad, high risk of bias for a
Speaker 1: ton of these surveys. They're not really demonstrating much benefit
Speaker 1: for these kids who are having these irreversible things, and
Speaker 1: they're not really considering the potential harms. But because you
Speaker 1: have physician groups like the American Academy Pediatrics going oh
Speaker 1: this was fine, this was wonderful, it gives cover to
Speaker 1: this idea that well, the experts say blah blah blah
Speaker 1: blah blah, and the media bases its characterization of these things,
Speaker 1: it bases its reporting on these things with the quote
Speaker 1: value neutral sort of framing that's given by professional medical associations.
Speaker 1: That's why when you read so an allegedly non biased
Speaker 1: media report, they still will talk about transgender people who
Speaker 1: identify as transgender. They'll still they insist on using female
Speaker 1: pronouns for a biological male, or they then pronouns for
Speaker 1: someone who's biologically one way or another. They insist on
Speaker 1: using things like this person was assigned male at birth,
Speaker 1: as if your biological sex is assigned to you. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's a whole worldview contained in a little phrase, the
Speaker 1: idea that your sex is something assigned to you, I eat,
Speaker 1: a label attached to you from the outside, as opposed
Speaker 1: to something that is inherent based on what parts you
Speaker 1: got or what you know, whether you got x x
Speaker 1: or x y chromosomes, etcetera. You know what reproductive organs
Speaker 1: you have, so what the Trump admitted. So that that
Speaker 1: is why the media is able to get away with
Speaker 1: absolutely taking one side of the issue, because we have
Speaker 1: all these professional medical associations that took one side of
Speaker 1: the issue. And I think we can't overlook money, the
Speaker 1: role of money. All right, let's think about this. Great
Speaker 1: Britain rejected transgender interventions for minors without a very strong
Speaker 1: conservative movement, without a strong social conservative movement. Right the
Speaker 1: Prime Minister of Great Britain right now is from the
Speaker 1: Labor Party, super left wing. Prior prime ministers were from
Speaker 1: the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party was dominant in Great
Speaker 1: Britain for years and years and years prior to Cure
Speaker 1: Starmer coming in to office, and they were all socially
Speaker 1: very left wing. Why has Great Britain come to this
Speaker 1: conclusion that they're not going to do transgender interventions on kids. Well,
Speaker 1: I think it's in part because the British, the British
Speaker 1: National Health Service is a socialist is a socialized medicine system.
Speaker 1: It's not as much driven by the profit motive, not
Speaker 1: as much as the American system. And I think these
Speaker 1: doctors doing these hormonal interventions and surgical interventions on kids
Speaker 1: are making a crapload of money. They are turning these
Speaker 1: kids into just constant revenue generative machines for medical services
Speaker 1: that they can build for and they're making tons of
Speaker 1: money off of these kids so they can have have
Speaker 1: their sort of liberal autonomy based philosophical ideas about oh,
Speaker 1: your identity is whoever you think it is, and your
Speaker 1: body you know you're you're a girl trapped in a
Speaker 1: boy's body, and we're helping you live who you are,
Speaker 1: and expressive individuals and blah blah blah. But you scratch
Speaker 1: the surface of this, and it's about money, filthy stinking money.
Speaker 1: You scratch that rainbow and you're gonna find green underneath.
Speaker 1: Why is it that all these local you know, uh
Speaker 1: LGBT nonprofits, the these LGBT you know support center nonprofits
Speaker 1: that we see locally that are getting all these dollars
Speaker 1: flying in from last from southern California to help establish them.
Speaker 1: There's one and vice Salia Fresno. EOC has one in Fresno.
Speaker 1: Uh why did they? Why are they always sponsored by
Speaker 1: medical clinics? Why are they always supported by medical clinics
Speaker 1: FQHCs who just so happened to offer gender affirm care,
Speaker 1: hormones and stuff. Because it's money. It's money, it's money,
Speaker 1: it's money. They're funneling kids into it for money. That's
Speaker 1: why dirty stinkin filthy money. That's why I would curse
Speaker 1: about it more, but I can't do that on the radio.
Speaker 1: So I think that you know, look, I'm not saying
Speaker 1: socialized medicine is great, but that is one thing that's
Speaker 1: different there. They don't have the profit motive over there
Speaker 1: as much. They were willing to follow the evidence, honestly.
Speaker 1: So I'm hopeful that HHS can break the back of
Speaker 1: this when we return, just really briefly on the revolution,
Speaker 1: the data revolution that could be taking place with the
Speaker 1: abortion pill. That's next. On the John Gruardy Show, we
Speaker 1: talked about this revolution that might be happening with the
Speaker 1: HHS giving this new report on the total lack of
Speaker 1: data of the effectiveness or usefulness or helpfulness of transgender
Speaker 1: interventions for kids. There's a similar thing happening with the
Speaker 1: abortion pill. Remember how everyone kept insisting that the COVID vaccine.
Speaker 1: COVID vaccines are safe and effective. COVID vaccines are safe
Speaker 1: and effective. Now, I'm not as much of a critic
Speaker 1: of COVID vaccines as some, but I got very suspicious
Speaker 1: of the constant, repeated use of that phrase safe and effective,
Speaker 1: safe and effective, safe and effective. The same language has
Speaker 1: been used about the abortion pill, mifipristone, which is the
Speaker 1: chief way that abortions happen in America. Over sixty percent
Speaker 1: of abortions in America happened via the abortion pill. Because
Speaker 1: of the abortion pill and the fact that can be
Speaker 1: shipped through the mail, It's actually resulted in the states
Speaker 1: that have outlawed abortion since the overturning of rov Wade,
Speaker 1: a lot of women are still getting abortions there because
Speaker 1: the abortion pill is being sent in and the federal
Speaker 1: government's not enforcing any kinds of restrictions on shipping abortifations. Well,
Speaker 1: new data has come out that actually eleven percent of
Speaker 1: women who have the abortion pill have serious adverse outcomes.
Speaker 1: It's not safe. This lie is repeated by the left
Speaker 1: to favor things interventions, medical interventions that they like. And
Speaker 1: I'm getting really sick and suspicious of safe and effective,
Speaker 1: Safe and effective, safe and effective. That'll do it. John
Speaker 1: Girardi Show, See you next time on Power Talk.