Gavin Newsom's Wild Ride: What's California's Golden Boy Really Up To?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's very confusing. Now, what exactly does Gavin Newsom thing
about boys playing girls sports? I mean, you gotta kind
of really ask, genuinely, what do you think about it?
Is it your private opinion that it's deeply unfair, but

(00:24):
also that it must remain the law of the land
in California. So this is occasioned by the fact that
basically there is this back and forth between the Department
of Education and the California Department of Education and the

(00:50):
California Interscholastic Federation. Okay, the Californian inter Interscholastic Federation is
the governing body for California high school sports, and then
the California Department of Education. Obviously they were having this

(01:11):
back and forth about their policies with boys playing girls' sports,
and it came sort of to a head in late May.
And this was occasioned by the fact that there was
a boy who was about to compete in and wound
up winning several events in the California State Track and
Field Championships that the CIF hosted, and that was at

(01:36):
over at Buchanan High School, which yours truly covered. In
the blazing hot heat. It was like one hundred five degrees.
But earlier this year, you had Gavin Newsom go on
a podcast. Gavin Newsom went on a podcast and he

(01:58):
said to Charlie Kirk on this podcast, he gave his
opinion that he thought it was deeply unfair and he
used those words quote deeply unfair for biological boys to
play biological girls' sports. And I guess that's where it

(02:20):
leaves me. Now, what does Gavin Newsom think he's gonna
I mean, how does Gaven neusm think this is gonna
work for him? That? I guess that's the thing I'm
fascinated by. Now the actual lawsuit itself. The federal government
just filed this lawsuit. The Department of Justice, the Civil

(02:44):
Rights Division under Harmeat Dylan filed this lawsuit in the
Central District of California under the direction of the new
US Attorney for the Central District of California, Bill A. Sale.
Bill A Sale, who was one of our favorite for
Jonathan Keller and I'm my co host on Right the
Life Radio, one of our favorite members of the California

(03:04):
State Legislature, very aggressive conservative lawyer who's now the US
Attorney for the Central District. He and Harmy Dillon are
running this. So they file this lawsuit against the California
inter Scholastic Federation and the California Department of Education. Just

(03:28):
was it today or just yesterday? Anyway, they file this
lawsuit and they are arguing. Here, I'll read the introduction
from the lawsuit. The United States of America brings the
civil action pursuant to Title nine and twenty USC. Sixteen

(03:49):
eighty one for declaratory injunctive and damages relief. The US
alleges on information and belief as follows. Across the state
of California, girls must compete against boys in various sports
worts pursuant to policies enforced by the California Department of
Education and the California Interscholastic Federation. These discriminatory policies and
practices ignore undeniable biological differences between boys and girls in

(04:12):
favor of an amorphous gender identity. The results of these
illegal policies are stark. Girls are displaced from podiums, denied awards,
and miss out on critical visibility for college scholarships and recognitions.
In the words of the Governor of California, it is
quote deeply unfair for girls to compete against boys. So
they're using this is the federal the Trump administration basically

(04:34):
filing this lawsuit against California using Gavin Newsom's own words
in their lawsuit. In their legal filing citing citing it,
Gavin Newsom calls transports participation deeply unfair, breaking with Democrats.
NBC News has the news story that's the citation there.

(04:54):
This discrimination is not only illegal and unfair, but also demeaning,
signaling to girls that their opportunity and achievements are secondary
to accommodating boys. It erodes the integrity of girls' sports,
diminishes their competitive experience, and undermines the very purpose of
Title nine to provide equal access to educational benefits, including
interscholastic athletics. Despite warnings from the United States Department of Education,

(05:18):
defendants continue to require California schools to allow boys to
compete against girls. The US accordingly files this action to
stop defendant's illegal sex discrimination against female student athletes. So
this is the bizarre position where it's the California Department
of Education, which is part of the executive branch within California,

(05:49):
it's under Gavin Newsom. Now that they do have an
elected state superintendent of public instruction. I guess I'm a
little unsure about the authority structure there that if so,
Tony Thurman is the state Superintendent of Public Instruction, and
that's a position that's elected statewide. So you could theoretically have,

(06:15):
say a Republican Superintendent of public instruction, but a Democrat governor,
or a Republican governor and a Democrat state superintendent of
public instruction. So I guess I don't know what exactly
would happen in the event of the governor thinks one
thing and the Superintendent of public Instruction thinks another. I mean,

(06:36):
I would have to assume the governor has some ability,
legally speaking, to intervene to change these policies. It's not
completely up to the Superintendent of public instruction regardless. I
feel like Gavin Newsom is trying to have it both ways,

(06:58):
which wouldn't be the first time and tried to have
it both ways for example, like trying to be someone's
friend but also trying to sleep with their wife. You
know he's done that before. I feel like Gavin Newsom's
trying to have it both ways. Because here's Gavin Newsom
out in South Carolina right now, campaigning big old broad

(07:19):
smiling faces, glad handing all the important politicians you need
to get in South Carolina. And remember, for Democrats, South
Carolina is maybe the most important primary and a lot
of it has to do with Jim Clyburn. Okay, Jim Cliburn,

(07:39):
the longtime Democrat House member from South Carolina. Who South
Carolina is? What is it? I think South Carolina is
like the third state that has a primary in the
presidential cycle. You have Iowa, New Hampshire and then South Carolina.
And for Democrats, South Carolina is really important because South
Carolina Democrats are predominantly overwhelmingly African Americans, and often who

(08:07):
can really secure and energize the African American vote that
is the decisive factor for presidential candidates, especially for deciding
who are presidential candidates going to be. In two thousand
and eight, when it was a little up in the air,

(08:27):
who was it? It was Barack Obama because you know,
Democrats liked and trusted the Clintons, but they weren't going
to go for the Clintons over Barack Obama of all people.
In the twenty sixteen excuse me, in the twenty twenty
Democrat primary, Biden was completely flailing. I mean, Biden was

(08:49):
doing terribly. He had very disappointing finishes in both Iowa
and New Hampshire. His whole campaign was on the rocks.
And what happened. Jim Clyburn endorsed him in South Carolina.
Biden won South Carolina, and Boom got all the momentum
behind him, all the African American He was clearly the
one candidate that African American Democrats actually liked and trusted

(09:12):
and supported, And in very short order you had, you know,
Amy Klobashar dropped out, indoors stim, Pete Boodagid dropped out,
endorsed him, and that was that. So there you got
Gavin Newsom, who's Gavin Newsom's no dummy. He realizes, I
gotta go to South Carolina. I gotta kiss Jim clyburns,

(09:33):
but I gotta, you know, meet with all these people.
And Jim Clyburn has this comment, Oh, he's very impressive,
very impressive guy. It's so funny how he's like obviously
so obviously a king maker on the Democrats side. That
you've got these Democrats just opening openly, you know, you know,
begging for his endorsement, endorsement. But that's the thing, like,

(09:56):
I don't understand where Gavin Newsom stands on all this.
As a private matter, he thinks it's very unfair, But
as a public matter, as a matter of public policy,
he's not gonna do anything intervene in any way with
regards to this deeply unfair question. And I think that's

(10:23):
the conundrum, that this is the lose lose sort of
corner into which Newsom has painted himself. Okay, I'm gonna
actually cut this segment short. I'm gonna do a longer segment.
My thesis for why Gavin Newsom's never gonna win is
because he has issue after issue where he has non

(10:50):
partisan angles for people to completely sink his campaign. I'll
explain that when we return. That's next on the John
Growardy Show. All right, let me explain why I just
do not think Gavin Newsom's gonna win. And this most
recent lawsuit regarding girls participation in boys participation in girls' sports. Rather,

(11:13):
why this lawsuit exemplifies it. Gavin Newsom has as Gavin
Newsom is cavorting in South Carolina right now, trying to
you know, glad Hand, Jim Clyburn trying to, you know,
make an impression with South Carolina African Americans. You know,
that's he's got to get that vote. If he gets

(11:34):
that vote, he's got a good shot. But ultimately, why
I think Gavin Newsom's candidacy could be somewhat weak. He
just has issue after issue after issue where it's not
that he's done things that conservatives dislike, but liberals like

(12:01):
Barack Obama, had several things that he accomplished that conservatives
did not like and liberals liked, Passing Obamacare being the
single biggest example. What I'm talking about with Newsome are
failures that everyone has to recognize as a failure. We

(12:23):
had horrible wildfires in twenty nineteen, twenty twenty, we had
horrible wildfires again in twenty twenty five. Clearly, whatever he
did in the meantime didn't fix it. He's had six years.
We still have almost no progress on developing new housing,

(12:43):
on building more housing, enough housing to meet with demand,
which is a major driver of cross in California. Gas
prices are going to explode under his watch in the
next year or two, specifically because of laws he passed.
No One likes high gas prices. No one likes the
high cost of housing. No one can deny that we're

(13:04):
not building enough. Even he has to admit we're not
building enough. The high speed rail still does not have
a single inch of operable track. His I mean, just
issue after issue after issue. It's either things where he

(13:28):
had to contradict himself, like giving medical coverage to illegal aliens,
where he had to reverse his own policy because it
was such a fiscal nightmare disaster, or you know, issue
after issue after issue that it's just bad. No one
likes wildfires, no one likes homelessness, no one likes the
high cost of living. No one likes high gas prices.

(13:49):
And he's had six years now the stuff that the
problems in the state he has to take the blame for.
At this point, he's been governor for six and a
half years. And this boys playing girls sports thing is
another example. I think Newsome should never have tried to

(14:11):
say that it was unfair that boys played girls' sports.
If we're talking about pure politics, if he said boys
should be if he said trans girls are girls, and
I'll always protect the rights of trans people, and and
I'm going to protect their rights in California to play
the sport that matches their gender identity. If he had

(14:32):
just said that and kept to that position, I mean,
it's not a popular position nationwide, but it's popular with
Democrat primary voters, and it's at least consistent. Now he's
got a position that I don't understand how anyone likes it.

(14:56):
Now his position has pretty much zero percent approval for
people who like me actually do think it's unfair for
boys to play girl sports. I find his position right
now wholly unsatisfactory. Okay, you think it's unfair for boys
to play girl sports, yet here you've got the Department
of your your state's Department of Education, this other state agency,

(15:21):
the Californians Scholastic Federation, insisting that no, we will continue
to let boys play girl sports. We will not change,
we will not acknowledge title night, we will not agree
with the Trump administration's interpretation of this. You haven't done anything.
So basically, you privately think that it's unfair for boys
to play girls sports, But as a matter of public policy,

(15:45):
you're gonna keep endorsing something that you privately believe to
be deeply unfair. Only it's not really your private belief
because you broadcast it on your own podcast available from iHeartMedia.
So which is it? And that's the thing. Imagine Gavin

(16:09):
Newsom on a debate stage. It's the twenty twenty eight
Democratic primary debate hosted by CNN. Here he is fresh
off of his book in which he pretended like he's
taking accountability for not reporting on Joe Biden being senile,
even though he blasted everyone who said Joe Biden was

(16:29):
seen aw the whole time up until it became painfully
apparent that Biden was a political liability. Here's Jake Tapper.
Governor Newsom, you said that you think it was deeply
unfair for boys to play girls sports, but then the
Trump administration sued California over it, and you didn't do
anything to change it. Explain yourself. He can't explain himself.

(16:51):
He has a fundamentally contradictory position where the state is
defending boys playing girls sports, but he thinks it's deeply unfair.
Zero percent of the public likes him, zero percent of
the public will like that position rather, and he's on
that debate stage that is presented to him first. What

(17:12):
does he say in response? I don't know how he
gets himself out of that pickle. But then someone really
aggressive who actually has a consistent view on the matter
will just jump in. Elizabeth Warren jumps in, it's shameful
that Governor Newsom said it was deeply unfair. It's deeply

(17:32):
unfair that trans people are being erased, and Governor Newsom
is flip flopping trying to pander to what he thinks
was politically expedient at the time. Blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah. Or maybe I don't know,
maybe there's some more conservative Democrat who actually has a
consistent viewpoint on the other side, like John Fetterman or someone.
I don't actually know what John Fetterman's views, but let's

(17:52):
pretend John Fetterman, for the moment, has this view who
says Governor Newsom is a complete fraud. Out of one
side of his mouth, he says it's deeply unfair. On
the other side of his mouth, he does nothing to
change it. He also signed laws to let biological men
be housed in women's prisons, which has resulted in the
prisoners being raped by biological men pretending to be women.

(18:16):
He has no credibility on this issue. I mean left
or right will tear him to shreds. Pete Botagig can
come in and says, you know, we we had The
Department of Transportation tried to help Gavin Newsom get that
high speed rail train done. He didn't do anything. He
can't get this done. They were the high speed rail

(18:38):
program was a disaster, root and branch all four years.
I tried to deal with it. I tried to help
it out. I did so much to help. I gave
them all this money, and not one inch of operable
track is done. He's a disgrace. He hasn't gotten one
inch of track open. Some other Democrat can say, look,
he had horrible wildfires in twenty nineteen. Clearly he didn't
do whatever was necessary. He had more horrle wildfires in

(19:00):
twenty twenty five. Horrible environmental damage was caused as a
result of his mismanagement. Got some other Democrat come on
and say, look, homelessness was a huge problem for him
in twenty nineteen when he started as governor. It's a
worse problem now. He blew through billions and billions of

(19:20):
dollars that he's spent on the problem. Twenty four billion
dollars he spent on the program that not only wasn't effective,
but seemingly didn't even have any controls on it to
assess whether it was or wasn't effective at all. He's
throwing money into the wind. How can we trust this
guy to be president? That's the thing with Newsome. You

(19:44):
could see all of the Democrats who are going to
run for president making those kinds of criticisms of him,
and they're all gonna be fair, They're all gonna be accurate,
They're all gonna be legit. John Fetterman will criticize it.
Gavin Newsom extended medical benefits to people who aren't even

(20:04):
in the country legally. How outrageous is that AOC can
get up and say, Gavin Newsom took away medical after
giving medical coverage to illegal aliens. Gavin Newsom took healthcare
coverage away from illegal aliens, our most vulnerable population. How
dare he? How could he? He's cold and heartless and unfeeling.

(20:25):
I don't understand how Gavin Newsom with his record, is
possibly gonna survive. He he has nothing, He has nothing,
he has no His record is just stacked with so
many bipartisan failures, or things where he's had to go

(20:48):
against his own policy, or things where he's had to
reverse himself. Things that have zero percent approval ratings, more
homelessness zero percent approval, wildfires zero percent approval, higher cost
of living zero percent approval, really high gas prices zero
percent approval, giving illegal aliens medical and then taking it

(21:11):
away zero percent approval, saying boys playing girl sports is unfair,
but then doing nothing to stop it when the Trump
administration sues over it. Zero percent approval. He's just got
too much. And then so what's left the force of

(21:31):
his personality, his hair, his veneers, the fact that he's
also a scumbag who slept with his friend's wife. I mean,
his winning, charming personality has all the appeal of a snake.

(21:53):
I mean his chummy demeanor. Yeah, the everyman appeal of
a guy who never looks like he's dressing in an
outfit that costs less than three thousand dollars. That's the
thing I I don't understand. I don't understand why conservatives

(22:13):
are afraid of him. I mean, I just feel like
the first Democratic primary debate, he's either gonna be He's
either gonna be the greatest you know, escape artists since
Houdini or the other Democrats are going to tear him
to shreds and they have plenty to work with. All right,

(22:38):
when we return, I want to share with you guys
this research project I'm working on that I'm hoping we'll
turn into something I don't know, some kind of article
or something about planned parentdoidic clinics and how they are
actually doing financially and how the obbbbb's defunding might impact them.
Next on the John Grardy Show. So this show is
about me and what interests me, and you know, if

(22:59):
you want to talk about what interests you, feel free
to get your own radio show. And what I've been
doing the last day or so here is forever ruining
my Internet search history by looking up information about every
single Planned parenthood affiliate in the United States of America,
all forty nine of them, and trying to figure out, well,

(23:23):
Trump's one big, beautiful bill is defunding abortion providers for
one year, defunding them for one year, what is the
impact of that going to be? And it's one of
the disappointing outcomes of how the sausage gets made with
the OBBB. Obviously, it's got to get a majority of
the House, it's got to get a majority of the Senate.

(23:44):
And the disappointing thing that happened in the Senate was
that you had both Rand Paul and Tom Tillis, who
Rand Paul Senator from Kentucky, Tom Tillis, Senator from North Carolina.
Both of them are very pro life. Neither one one
of them wants to give Planned Parenthood money. I think
both of them are fine with defunding Planned Parenthood. But

(24:06):
they opposed the OBBB for different reasons. Ran Paul opposed
it because he thought it was spending too much. Tom
Tillis opposed it because he thought the cuts to Medicaid
were too significant. So without them, so Republicans have fifty
three votes in the Senate, Republicans lost Rand Paul, they

(24:27):
lost Tom Tillis, and they lost Susan Collins from Maine,
meaning only fifty Republicans left. And so the OBBB had
to be acceptable to every single one of those fifty Republicans.
And unfortunately, one of those fifty remaining Republicans was drum
roll if you please, Lisa Murkowski. Lisa Murkowski, the awful

(24:53):
liberal Republican senator from Alaska who's pro choice, pro abortion rather,
who watered down the House version of the bill. The
House version of the OBBB said ten years, we're going
to defund Planned Parenthood more or less permanently, then you know,

(25:13):
reassess it after ten years, and Murkowski weakened that to
just one year. Only one year are we defunding Planned Parenthood.
So a lot of people were saying, well, what the
heck is that going to do? You know, I mean,
they'll just you know, one year off and then they'll
be right back at it. And I was curious about

(25:37):
what's the impact really going to be. So what I
did was I did this research project and I looked
up the nine to ninety forms for every single Planned
Parenthood affiliate in America to try to get a sense
of their financial standing and how reliant they are on

(25:59):
medical or excuse me, medicaid in California. Medical Now, a
nine to ninety form is a form that a nonprofit
has to file along with its taxes every year, and
it becomes a publicly viewable thing. So the idea with
nonprofit organizations is that no one owns a nonprofit. It's

(26:21):
kind of like a pool of money in assets, governed
by a board of directors, overseen by a CEO or
some executive staff, and basically the United States government in
the US tax Code thinks, well, this entity is doing
some kind of public good for the community. The purpose

(26:45):
of it is not to make a bunch of money.
The purpose is some kind of public good. So we're
going to allow people to donate to it and make
a tax deduction when they donate, and we're not going
to tax a sentity. But because it has all this
favorable treatment, there are certain aspects of it that we
want to be transparent. So you can publicly see a

(27:08):
lot of information about nonprofit organizations. I'm sure if you
looked up right to Life of Central California you can
find you can figure out what my salary is, or
what it was in twenty twenty three or twenty twenty four,
whatever the most available, the most recently available version of
the nine nineties available. You can look up my salary.
You can look up at the salary of basically anybody
who runs a nonprofit because they always list executive compensation

(27:31):
on there. You can see who's on the board of directors,
and you can also see sort of some of the
baseline basic economic information about a nonprofit. You can see
its profit, you can see its revenues, you can see
its expenses, and you can you know, subtract one from
the other and you can figure out whether it operated
out of profit or at a loss for the year.

(27:53):
So I basically did that. Now most nonprofits right now,
the only nine ninety that's available is for the tax
year ending June twenty twenty three. Most entities operate under
a fiscal year that's different from the calendar year, a
fiscal year that runs from July to June, so twenty

(28:15):
twenty three was the most recent for most planned parenthoods.
Some planned parentids, though, had either a nine to ninety
or an audit available publicly available for twenty twenty four.
So I basically divided it. I have every single planned
parentoid affiliate, all forty nine affiliates, they're nine nineties from

(28:38):
twenty twenty three, and then I have several of them
that had something available for twenty twenty four, either their
nine ninety or an audit. So I put this information
together in a spreadsheet, and what I found was really
quite remarkable. Planned parenthood is going to be hurt big time,

(29:03):
big time, even by a one year defunding. Basically, what
you have is so let me explain how Planned Parenthood
is organized. First, Planned Parenthood is organized into regional affiliates.
So these are individual nonprofits that are affiliated with Planned
Parenthood Federation of America. They all do their separate corporations

(29:28):
from each other. They do more or less the same thing.
They use the Planned Parenthood brand logo planned parenthood dot
org as a website. They receive various kinds of support
from Planned Parenthood of America. But each Planned Parenthood affiliate
is a separate corporate entity and the affiliates. Each affiliate

(29:51):
is a nonprofit corporation running several clinics one or more
clinics within a given region. So you have Planned Parenthood
of Wisconsin. Planned PARENTOEDI of Wisconsin runs I forget how many,
I think it's about twenty two clinics throughout the state
of Wisconsin, so that one nonprofit entity is running twenty

(30:14):
two clinics. The Planned Parenthood clinics in Fresno are part
of Planned Parenthood mar Monti, which is a Planned Parentoid
regional affiliate that runs a bunch of clinics in Northern California,
Central California, and Nevada. So there are forty nine of
these different planned parenthood affiliates. Some of them cover multiple states.

(30:40):
Some states have multiple affiliates, so it ends up at
forty nine Planned PARENTOIDA affiliates. All right, and how they're
doing varies wildly from place to place. All right, So

(31:04):
pulling up my spreadsheet here, some planned parenthoods are doing gangbusters,
making big amounts of money. They're just doing fine. Other
planned parenthoods, though, are doing really bad. Okay, so let
me see. Let me go to the biggest ones, the
planned parenthood affiliates in Florida. There are two Planned PARENTDOI

(31:25):
affiliates in Florida, Planned PARENTDODI of South Florida and the
Treasure Coast and Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Central Florida. The
one is losing lost in twenty twenty three three point
nine million dollars with thirty point five million dollars in expenses.
The other lost four point nine million dollars with twenty
four with excuse me, thirty one point two million dollars

(31:47):
of expenses. That's a lot. That's not great. Planned Parenthood
in Texas is doing extremely badly. Let's see if I
can see if I can find Plan parentdedic Okay, actually

(32:08):
here plan let's do Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio. Plan
parentode of Greater Ohio lost ten point six million dollars
in twenty twenty three, twenty two point two million dollars
of revenue thirty two point eight million dollars of expenses.
Another big one that I thought was indicative is Planned

(32:31):
PARENTOI of Wisconsin. Planned Parent of Wisconsin lost five point
six million dollars forty one point nine million dollars in expenses.
So that's a big budget deficit for a year, and
twenty four million dollars they receive in what's called program services.

(32:54):
So what's program services. Program services means basically, Plan Parenthood
provides some service and they get reimbursed by insurance for it.
And fifty four percent of Plan parentid Wisconsin's patient revenue
is coming from medicaid. So for one year, all of

(33:17):
the federal medicaid money is more than half of that money.
So let's say a quarter of this revenue, a quarter
of this twenty four million dollars, so six million dollars.
They're already operating at a five point six million dollar loss.
You're gonna take six million extra dollars away from them.
You're gonna have an a eleven or twelve million dollar

(33:40):
loss on an organization that has forty one point nine
million dollars in expenses. You can't do that. You can't
sustain that. You're already doing badly, and you're gonna have
this year where you're gonna do even worse. Plan PARENTID
Wisconsin's already saying we're gonna have to close some clinics,
We're going to have to close some locations, and I

(34:04):
could see that happening in a lot of places. You
know a lot of planned parent affiliates in California are
heavily reliant on Medicaid reimbursement medical. If they lose all
their federal medical money, what are they gonna do now?
California seems like it's prepared for this with this extra

(34:25):
boat of state money that I think is kind of
designed to help plan parenthoods stay afloat even if they
lose out on federal Medicaid money. But they're heavily reliant
on insurance reimbursement. Their donations are only taking them so far.
So you have a lot of Planned Parenthood affiliates that

(34:50):
are either actively losing money or are only very narrowly
profitable between and there are two sources of revenue. Chiefly
are donations and what they get from insurance reimbursements. And
they get some grants and other things, but that's chiefly
what it is. I mean, you've got Planned Parenthood of

(35:15):
the Heartland, which is Iowa and Nebraska's Planned Parenthood lost
nine point one million dollars with an organization that had
twenty seven million dollars in expenses. Planned Parenthood of the
Rocky Mountains in Colorado lost two point two million dollars
sixty five million dollars in expenses. You know, you've got

(35:39):
a lot of Planned Parenthood clinic. Planned Parenthood of Greater
Texas lost sixteen point five million dollars organization with forty
eight point five million dollars in expenses. If they lose
another source of revenue even for a year, I don't understand.
I don't see how these things can stand up. Now
when we return, I'll mention what Planned Parenthood could still

(36:06):
do to still kill a bunch of babies. That's next
on the John Jruardy Show. So I've done this big
analysis of basically every Planned Parenthood affiliate in America, and
what I've determined is that a lot of Planned Parenthood
affiliates are losing a lot of money, and that if
they even for one year with the one big beautiful Bill,

(36:28):
even if for one year they lose out on federal funding,
I think it could be really devastating for Planned parented.
Not everywhere in the country. I think in deep blue states,
many deep blue states, I think they're going to be okay.
But in certain states, even certain pretty purple states like
Wisconsin and Michigan, I could really see planned parenthood taking
a major hit. And certainly in a couple of red

(36:50):
states like Florida, Texas, I could see planned parenthood really
taking a big time hit. But here's the one problem.
Planned parento is already kind of going in this direction
of having fewer physical sights and switching more to abortion

(37:12):
via telemedicine. Basically, instead of going to a doctor and
having an abortion, you have a telemedicine visit with a
doctor who prescribes you the abortion pill mif a pristone,
which within the first ten weeks can basically artificially create
a miscarriage. You get a prescription over the phone. You

(37:33):
don't need to go in, don't need an ultrasound. How
do you determine if the baby is only at ten
weeks just station without an ultrasound. Good question. It's almost
like it's a really dangerous way of doing healthcare. They
ship the abortion pill to your house so you pick
it up at a pharmacy. You don't have to go
into a clinic. And my fear is that that's what

(37:54):
Plant parent It's going to do. They're going to downsize
a bunch of their physical plants, a bunch of their staff,
and they'll just be basically a call in abortion service,
and they'll still kill tons of babies. That's my fear
that'll do it. John dierlready show seey'all next time on
Power Talk