Illegal Immigration, Abortion & Sex Trafficking

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I feel more confident than ever. Well, I should say
I have completely one eighty flipped. I now feel totally
confident at a time where even six months ago I
felt totally non confident that Gavin Newsom's going to be
the Democrat nominee for president. You can take all of

(00:25):
his failures, all of the dumb things Gavin Newsom's done,
and you can now finally shove him in the garbage can.
Why Because Gavin Newsom now finally has something to run
on in a Democrat primary. That's the important thing in
a Democrat primary. I don't know if he's got much

(00:49):
to run on in a general election, but he's got
something to run on in a Democrat primary. And we're
just talking about is Gavin Newsom going to be the
nominee for the presidency for the Democrats in twenty twenty?
And I now think he will. My thesis had been,
and this was up until May, Gavin Newsom just is

(01:14):
too susceptible to attack from all quarters from his fellow
Democrats because of his record as governor of California. My
thought was, Gavin Newsom just doesn't have very many successes
California's economy wasn't doing all that hot. There's a certain
degree to which California is always gonna have some dynamism

(01:36):
in its economy because Silicon Valley is here, Los Angeles
is here, be front property that there's always a certain
desirableness to moving and living in California. Hollywood is here,
there's a certain desirability of living in California that's always
going to give it a certain amount of dynamism. And

(01:59):
so and we'll be able. Oh we're now the fourth
largest economy in the world, and blah blah blah blah blah.
But in the words of Barack Obama, you didn't build that.
You didn't build that, and he didn't build that. Furthermore,
all of his actual accomplishments things are all. He doesn't

(02:23):
have any real accomplishments. He has lots and lots of failures,
and not just failures, but things that are bi partisan
recognizable failures. We were gonna you know, he ran he
campaigned in twenty eighteen on the grounds of we're gonna

(02:43):
have single payer healthcare in California. And all these left
wing politicians they all say they're gonna run on they
all run on single payer health care, and then when
the going gets tough, they flip flop and they chicken
out and they don't run on single payer health care.
But not me. I'm gonna run on single payer healthcare. Well,
he didn't run on single he didn't actually pursue single
payer health care. Instead, he just made our medical system

(03:08):
more and more financially unsustainable by just adding more and
more and more people to be eligible for medical coverage,
including the Kudi gras last year, adding illegal aliens to
be eligible for medical coverage, which he then had to
retract in some disgrace this past year because it was

(03:32):
hugely more expensive than he anticipated and we were running
this massive deficit. That's a failure. It's a failure on
as the right views it, because one, he was pursuing
single payer health care to begin with and then flip flopped.
But then he was funding health insurance for illegal aliens,

(03:54):
which the right doesn't like. But it's also a failure
from the left. Said he would do single pair, didn't
said he would fund medical for illegal aliens, rolled back
his own policy, and his other failures have this sort
of bipartisan character to them. Also, nobody likes the fact
that there's zero movement on the high speed rail. Nobody

(04:17):
likes the fact that homelessness just keeps growing as a
problem in California. No one likes the fact that we
spent something like fourteen billion dollars on combating homelessness and
we have no metrics for even measuring whether it was
effective or not, let alone know that it was effective.
There's all kinds of scammers abusing the system, trying to

(04:38):
set up various kinds of temporary homelessness shelters to go
to provide certain kinds of services, bill medical for those services,
get money from medical, and then not really do much
as far as actually improving the situation for homeless people.
During COVID people scam California's unemployment office to the tune

(05:02):
of tens of billions of dollars. Wildfires were terrible at
the start of Newsom's governorship in twenty nineteen twenty twenty.
They and then whatever Newsom did to try to address
it clearly didn't work, because in twenty twenty five January,

(05:22):
we had the one of the worst, most destructive, most
financially disaster disastrous, ruinous wildfires in California's history. Housing continues
not to be building at the rate it needs to
be building. The Dallas the greater Dallas Fort Worth metro

(05:45):
area builds more homes in a year than California does.
The whole state. Just issue after issue after issue. Oh uh, well,
combating high gas, California has the highest gas prices in
the state. Gavin Newsom introduces legislation to say, oh, oil

(06:06):
refineries in California, you need to maintain consistently high levels
of gasoline on hand, of oil and gasoline on hand,
so that we don't have price spikes anymore. The oil
refineries told him that's a really stupid idea. That's just
going to inflate our costs all year round. And if

(06:26):
you keep insisting on this, we're going to shut down
some refineries because it's not worth the hundreds of millions
of dollars of investment we have to put in to
keep these refineries going. Newsom ignored them. He signed this
legislation in twenty four and then we get, oh, well,
now guess what with two fewer refineries because two refineries
closed in California. Now guess what, less supply, equal demand,

(06:50):
higher prices, And now Newsom has to scramble to fix
his own problems angering the environmentalist soh Newsom's whole record
as governor involves problem after problem after problem that is
unappealing to both the left and the right. It's not

(07:13):
that he did just a ton of things that anger
conservatives but you know, delight liberals. It was he has
a lot of failures that have this sort of bipartisan
recognizable character to them. And my thought had always been,
I'd always painted this picture on the show when I
talked about this the CNN Democrat presidential primary debate or

(07:38):
the MSNBC Democrat presidential primary debate. I don't know if
Fox would host it. I don't know whatever or if
the Democrats would want it on Fox. But let's imagine
the debate stage. Here's Gavin Newsom, Here's Pete Boodhagig, Here's
Kamala Harris. Maybe here's John Shapiro, governor of Pennsylvania. Here's AOC.

(08:08):
They all want to win, and they're at a point
where they're willing to tear each other down. They're ambitious,
they want to win. They gotta differentiate themselves from all
their other opponents. They got to do something to drag
down Gavin Newsom and Newsom offers them ample opportunities for

(08:36):
dragging them down because he's got all these flaws, these
failures as governor that are again by partisan in nature,
and these ambitious politicians have reasons to tear him down.
AOC could tear him down viciously for flip flopping on

(08:56):
single payer healthcare, on withdrawing medical coverage for ill legal
aliens out, AOC could be ruthless to him. So for
those reasons. As recently, as of as May of this year,
I thought Gavin Newsom was cooked. I thought he has
he has no chance of being the next Democrat nominee.

(09:18):
And I just thought he only he doesn't have very
much time left. He's only got like a year and
a half left as governor. I don't know if he
can clean up his mess. I don't know what he
can do, And but it may was maybe the nader
of Gavin Newsom's popularity even among Democrats. By May of
this last year, Newsom was at his lowest point of popularity.

(09:42):
He had just released his revision to the twenty twenty
five budget. So the way it works, as the governor
of California introduces a budget in January and then after
the April tax Day, he issues his revision, the revive,
the May revise, as it's called. And in the May Revise,
this was when he said, we have to cut medical

(10:03):
coverage for illegal aliens. We have to cut this, we
have to cut that, and the left was going nuts.
I went to Sacramento around that time. I went there
to testify on a bill, and I happened to be
in one of the Senate committee chambers while the Senate
Budget Committee was meeting. And holy cow, were they mad?

(10:27):
Were the liberal activist groups who dominate the holes in Sacramento. Wow,
were they mad. They were furious. They were spitting mad
at Gavin Newsom and other Democrat legislators were furious. Okay,
Joaquin Arambula, who still you know, for some reason, people

(10:50):
in the valley pretend think that Joaquin Arambula is some
kind of moderate. I can guarantee you he's not, because
here he is on the floor of the California State
Assembly ranting that he represents this population of people who
are losing their health insurance coverage, and he represents which

(11:12):
really presented to me some bizarre kind of questions about
political theory and political It's an interesting political science question.
I was like, well, Jaquin Arambula, do you actually represent
people who are illegal aliens? Is that your role as
a California State Assembly member. I mean, presumably you would

(11:32):
most of all represent the interest of voters. Then citizens
who are not voters, I guess children who live in
your district, but to whom you're not one hundred percent responsive.
Then maybe to a certain extent you represent lawful immigrants
who are not yet citizens, but obviously you're the degree
to which you represent them has to be something different.

(11:55):
Right to what extent, Joaquin Arambula, do you represent illegal aliens? Anyway,
that was the whole thing. But at that time in May,
Gavin Newsom was persona non grata. He was ticking off
the pro abortion side, he was ticking off pro immigrant

(12:15):
advocacy groups. He was ticking off unions in California because
he was like, Hey, we have to tighten our belt.
We're running twenty billion dollar rolling deficits year over year.
We have to cut local government. He wanted a freeze
on local government salaries, and government workers' unions were extremely powerful,

(12:37):
were super ticked off at him. And along comes this
redistricting idea proposition fifty has totally flipped the script for
Gavin Newsom. It's flipped everything because now finally, and it's

(13:00):
the most recent thing, Newsom has a w. He has
something to run on. He's got something to run on
in a way that mutes the criticism. It mutes the
criticism that could come from AOC or this person or
that person. Well, because in part they were all rushing

(13:25):
to do the ads for it, Newsom got AOC to
be on one of the ads that he cut for
Prop fifty. I saw it. He had AOC, he had
Elizabeth Warren, he had this person that he had Alex Padilla.
They all joined in and it's a w especially if

(13:48):
this thing survives its legal challenges, if it makes it
all the way to a new map being adopted and
we get to the twenty twenty six elections and Democrats
to pick up five seats. I mean, Newsom is going
to be a hero if Democrats can flip the House.

(14:11):
And part of it is because Gavin Newsom gave the
Democrats five extra seats in California. Gavin Newsom is going
to be the top dog. He is going to be
the main rooster in the Henhouse on the Democrats side,
and I think that's a very very likely outcome. It's

(14:33):
very likely. I mean, I mean, look, the odds of
the Republicans holding onto the House of Representatives were already
going to be small. I think the redistricting, the sort
of redistricting war that's taking place with Republicans doing redistricting
in Missouri and Texas and wanting to do more redistricting
in Ohio, Indiana, all these other Republican controlled states, is
kind of being neutralized now by Democrat redistricting efforts in

(14:57):
California and these other states. It's going to be a wash.
But even if that weren't so, Republicans were going to
have a hard time holding the House off Your elections
are just really hard. It's very difficult to not lose
a bunch of seats during the off year elections. It's
always been the historical trend. I see no reason to

(15:19):
think it won't be the trend next time. So I'm
I'm fairly confident that we're going to have a shift
in the House of Representatives, and Gavin Newsom will be
part of the reason for that. He'll be a big

(15:40):
part of the reason. And Newsome in putting prop fifty together.
What did he get? He got Barack Obama front and
center for the effort. I mean most of the ads
had Barack Obama in them. And I'm laughing because that
it was just it was clearly like one recording session

(16:00):
with Barack Obama. And it was the same recording session
where Obama was cutting his ads for Abigail Spanberger, the
guy who just won governor of Virginia. He's wearing. It's
the same room, he's wearing the same outfit. Yeah, he
was like, all right, I'm gonna knock I'm gonna knock about.
I'm gonna knock about four commercials out and then I'm
gonna go play golf. But Newsom got Obama, he got AOC,

(16:21):
he got Elizabeth Warren, he got Alex Padilla, He's got
he got all these people, and he's gonna be the
top dog. So I think that is the most significant
outcome of these twenty twenty five elections. Yes, the new

(16:45):
governor of Virginia and then the whole the huge Democrats
sweep in Virginia is terrible. I think it gets a
little bit more attention than it needs because it's Northern Virginia,
DC and media is covering that a lot. You know,
Democrats winning the governorship in New Jersey, Okay, Zoron Mamdani
getting elected mayor of New York City is obviously a

(17:05):
very significant thing that we now have a Communist or
damn near as the mayor of the largest city in America.
But I think Prop fifty was the most significant thing
to happen this past Tuesday because it's setting up the
guy who could God forbid, be the next president of

(17:28):
the United States when we return. Some thoughts on are
California Republicans just totally inept that is next on the
John Girardi Show, California Republicans. I'm not sure if they
are or aren't totally incompetent. So there's this gal I've

(17:50):
started following on Twitter who is a board member for
the La Republican Party, like the County GOP Central Committee,
and clearly she's sort of like wanting to be some
kind of influencer type gal. But one of the things
she kept tweeting about and ranting about is Republicans need
to vote early. Republicans need to get over their weird

(18:14):
hang ups about early voting, mail and voting and just vote.
The benefit, as she kept emphasizing, let me give her
point of view here. That benefit is you don't forget
on election day. If you just get it done out
of the way, it's done, and you voted, period, end

(18:36):
of sentence, You're done. Meanwhile, there was this whole that
there has been for the last several years, all this
angst on the part of Republicans about oh, it's rigged,
all the mail and voting's rigged, all that this voting's rigged,

(18:58):
all of that voting is rigged, and it just leads
to people not voting, especially like when it gets to
the level of like, this is one of the dumbest
things candis Owan has said. Candaez Owans who's still like
in on some conspiracy theory that some shady cabal of
people murdered Charlie Kirk and that it wasn't just the
the obviously mentally deranged left wing shooter who actually did

(19:21):
kill Charlie Kirk, No, some shadowy cabal by which she's
heavily implying it was the Jews who did it. Yeah,
because that's the sort of lovely stuff she's into these days. Uh,
she tweets out, I'm not voting until we find out
who killed Charlie Kirk for real, I don't care, Just like,

(19:44):
what does the one have to do with the other?
What the hell are you talking about? In short, Republicans
need to get over all their weird hang ups about voting.
They need to get over like all the voting is rigged. Well,
then what are we doing. If you're so convinced in
California that the voting is rigged, then what are you

(20:06):
doing it? Stop giving yourself excuses to not go vote.
Just vote? Okay, Look, I know whatever voting system we
have in Preson County isn't perfect, but these these are
county wide elected people in Fresno County, of all places.
They want to count the votes. They're doing a fairly

(20:27):
okay job. Like, I am so tired of Republicans just
finding reasons not to vote. So meanwhile, here's Democrats laughing
all the way to the bank, just sending their early
voting mail ballot right away. They check it two days later,

(20:50):
they confirm that it got in. Not a care in
the world. And yet we're like, oh, agonizing about, oh
is this the right thing to do? Should I do it?
In my right? Sure? Drawing in person the day of both, Like, yes,
if I could waive a magic wand and change California's
law to say everyone needs to vote in person on
that on the Tuesday itself in your local precinct, That's

(21:12):
how I would do it. But that's not the way
it is, So get over yourselves, all right. When we return,
I want to go back to this topic of sex
trafficking and my piece in National Review about it. That's
next on the John Girardi Show. I want to talk
about again megalomania being a key feature of being a

(21:35):
talk radio host that you know, I feel like I
have the right to lecture an entire community for a
solid hour every weeknight. I also now have added to
my megalomania the idea that I should be able to
lecture an entire country, or at least the entire readership
of National Review with a column that they just published
on their site this morning. It's a piece I wrote

(21:59):
about sex traf Basically, I was writing about sex trafficking
in response to a big article that was in the
New York Times, and this was I'll say this, I'm
gonna give it praise and I'm gonna give it blame,
which you know, I'm not inclined usually to be nice

(22:19):
to the New York Times. They're pretty bad folks, but
I thought this was a pretty courageous thing for them
to publish. It was this big, long feature that was
published in the New York Times magazine, and it was
all about sex trafficking in Los Angeles, specifically this area
called the Blade, which is this stretch of Figaroa Avenue

(22:41):
that's right near the University of Southern California, and how
sex trafficking has just exploded there since twenty twenty three.
And not coincidentally, this is the time when SB three
point fifty seven came into effect. SB three fifty seven
was a California law. It was all authored by Scott Wiener,

(23:02):
the California State Senator from San Francisco who is now running.
By the way, Nancy Pelosi announced she's not running for reelection,
so Scott Wiener is running for her seat in San Francisco.
Scott Wiener has authored some of the most vile, awful
bills that the California State legislature has passed, but only

(23:27):
becomes prominent because Gavin Newsom keeps signing his bills into law.
So we should note that Scott Wiener wrote this bill
SB three fifty seven and Gavin Newsom signed it into law,
and what this bill does and this hopefully this will
help educate all of you about how some basic principles
of how a criminal procedure works. The law decriminalizes loitering

(23:55):
with intent to commit prostitution. Loitering with intent to commit prostitution.
This is a crime that's been on the books in California.
I'm sure other states have similar laws on their books.
And basically what it means is if a police officer
is driving down the street at two o'clock in the
morning on patrol and he sees standing on a corner

(24:18):
a woman or I guess a man dressed in extremely
revealing clothing and stiletto heels who seems to be trying
to flag down passing by cars. The obvious math of
what's happening in the police officer's brain, Oh, this is

(24:38):
obviously a prostitute. The police officer is able to act
on that. He doesn't have to sit there and allow
this woman to keep doing what she's doing without using
his brain and realizing, oh, that's exactly what's happening. He
can go over detain her and cite her with loitering

(25:02):
with intent to commit prostitution. Now a bunch of left
wing criminal justice types who are all totally bought into
the idea of equity in criminal justice. And what does
equity mean in this context? Equity means an equality of outcomes.

(25:24):
If the number of if the percentage the breakdown of
people being arrested for a certain crime, charged with a
certain crime, convicted for a certain crime, imprisoned for a
certain crime. If the demographic breakdown doesn't match the general

(25:45):
demographic breakdown of the community at large. For example, if
more African Americans are arrested for charged with, convicted for X, Y,
or Z crime, then that inherently means means that inequality,
that inequity, if you will, because that's how they're using
the word equity. That inequity of outcome means that there

(26:09):
is racism somewhere in the system. That's what it means.
And the that mere statistical inequity is enough evidence for
say the Obama or Biden Justice Department to come in
and demand all kinds of things of law enforcement. But

(26:30):
criminal justice equity, equity in law enforcement is a major
driving principle of the left and their approach to criminal
law a bunch of LGBT activist types, and Scott Wiener
is very much that Scott Wiener marches around in leather

(26:53):
clothes going to gay pride parades while he's a sitting
state senator. Scott Wiener points out that transgender people are
disproportionately arrested for this crime of loitering to it with
intent to commit prostitution, as are African Americans other peoples

(27:14):
of color. So he introduces SB three fifty seven to
say this shouldn't be a crime. Dressing outlandishly is not
a crime. Problem solved now, here's the thing. And Scott
Wiener was not ignorant of this because every group in
the state that advocates on behalf of victims of sex

(27:37):
trafficking was screaming this at him at the time when
he introduced this law. Sometimes police officers will arrest people
for some lesser offense as a means of investigating their
hunch whether some much more serious offense is actually gone

(28:00):
going on. They hear a report that someone with a
red car committed a drive by shooting and killed a
five year old. Ten minutes later, couple, you know maybe
a mile away from the scene of the shooting. Mile
or two away from the scene of the shooting, police
officer sees a red car that kind of matches the description.

(28:26):
Police officer starts following the car. The car, the red
car shifts lanes without signaling. Oh, the police officer pulls
that car over for a traffic violation. But the critical
thing is the police officer has to have some kind

(28:46):
of legally acceptable reason to detain someone in the first place,
they have to have police officer needs to have probable
cause in order to detain someone. Probable cause means in
the police that the police officer has a reasonable judgment
that there ponderance of the evidence indicates that this person

(29:07):
has violated the law somehow. So someone shifts lanes without signaling, Nope,
that's a that's a minor traffic violation. We're going to
detain this person for that, even though the real motive
that the cop might have is I'm concerned that this
was the guy who shot up, you know, shot someone up,

(29:29):
you know, ten minutes ago in a drive by shooting.
So it's that is sometimes a very valuable investigative tool
that the police have to investigate more serious offenses. You
can detain someone for a lesser offense, and that might
allow you to find the evidence necessary to uncover the

(29:50):
more serious offense. The chief value of arresting someone on
a charge of loitering with intent to commit prostitution is
that you might It's the one way that police officers
might be able to find and rescue someone who's a

(30:14):
victim of sex trafficking, being forced to be on the
corner against her will, especially miners. It gives police. This
law criminalizing loitering with intent to commit prostitution allows police
officer to look on the corner and see someone who
looks pretty darn young, wearing stiletto heels and a mesh

(30:35):
skirt or jes whatever, not dressed very much, hailing at
passing cars. The police officer can see that that person
looks really young. All right, I'm gonna go over there.
I'm gonna arrest this person. I'm going to talk with
them if I realize that this is a miner, this
is a victim here, and we need to get this
young person away from whoever is trafficking her, whoever with

(30:59):
the pimps, whoever is controlling her. It's like the one
tool cops have. It's often maybe one of the only
tools cops have to intervene into the lives of a
sex trafficking victim to get them out of the situation
they're in. Gavin Newsom and Scott Wiener decriminalize that. So

(31:24):
what does that mean If loitering with intent to commit
prostitution is not a crime, what does that mean for
police officers? Well, it means police officers can't detain someone
in that situation that they need evidence of that person
committing some other offense before they can go and detain them.

(31:45):
They've got to see money exchange for drugs, or they
got they got to see something, or they got to
have an audio recording hearing a verbal agreement to have
sex for money. Like, they got to have something. They
can't just again, see a girl on the corner obviously
loiter around in very little clothing trying to hail passing
by cars. That's not enough anymore. They need something more

(32:06):
than that. So this enormously neuters the ability of police
to stop sex trafficking. And what's happened in La on
figaroa avenue boom explosion, explosion of sex trafficking, tons of
girls being trafficked tons of girls who are miners, miners
as young as fifteen, thirteen eleven. The story details. Now

(32:33):
there are two taboos that the New York Times didn't address,
and I should say I credit the New York Times.
This story demolishes the idea that we should be decriminalizing
glittering with intent commit prostitution. It completely devastates a lot
of these bogus equity arguments and shows the genuine, the

(33:00):
horrifying human wreckage left behind by these dumb, will intentioned
liberal policies, which I don't even know how well intentioned
they were, because when that law got passed in twenty
twenty one, every victim advocacy group for sex trafficking victims
all up and down the state mostly comprised of very
liberal women. These organizations are headed by liberal women who

(33:24):
are helping out these girls who are victims of sex trafficking.
They were screaming at Scott Wiener, don't do this. They
were screaming at gavinus not to do this, and they
did it anyway. And the exact thing that they threaten
they warned about is happening on Figueroa Avenue. So credit
to the New York Times for demolishing that, I mean,
by their standards, this was an incredibly brave piece for

(33:48):
them to publish. But there were two things they didn't
want to talk about, illegal immigration and abortion. We're going
to talk about those next on the John Girardi Show.
Sex trafficking is this hugely horrible evil in American society.
The New York Times, I think, for them, by their standards,
was very brave in publishing this piece demolishing SB three

(34:11):
point fifty seven, the ridiculous California law that decriminalized loitering
with intent to commit prostitution because it allegedly was targeting
transgender people or some nonsense, which, oh, now we can
feel better about ourselves for not targeting transgender people. But
in the meantime, children who are being forced into sex
trafficking there are left to the wolves, and sex trafficking

(34:34):
has exploded, particularly in Los Angeles. There are two things, though,
that The New York Times didn't want to talk about.
One was illegal immigration. This big, long story about sex
trafficking bringing girls in from all other parts of the
country to be trafficked on Figuaroa Avenue. Not one mention

(34:58):
of illegal imgras not one mention of the drug cartels,
which I mean, there's stuff from the DA saying drug
cartels want to move into sex trafficking. I find it
impossible to think that. In Los Angeles, California, of all
places where I looked up these statistics, thirty five percent

(35:19):
of LA residents were not born in the United States.
They estimate that about nine hundred thousand LA residents are
in fact in the country illegally. I mean, just statistically speaking,
if there are one hundred girls being forced into sex
trafficking on the street on Figueroa Avenue, you're talking about

(35:43):
how many of them have been it must be illegal immigrants.
I mean a certain number of them certainly is just
by demographics alone, and I'd guess it's actually a much
higher percentage than the norm for the general Los Angeles population,
given the kinds of pressures, given the kinds of circumstances

(36:03):
that surround someone being in the country unlawfully. The other
issue not talked about was abortion. You've got hundreds of
girls on this one stretch of Figaro Avenue having enormous
amounts of sexual contact with men. The story talks about it.

(36:27):
It's just heartbreaking, But it's talking about how these girls,
and I do mean girls, that some a lot of
these people are miners, are being forced to have sex
with men like every half or some kind of sexual
contact I guess every half hour over the course of
the night. That's what they need to do in order
to meet their quota of how much money they have

(36:50):
to make for their pimps, for their traffickers over the
course of a night, every half hour. So that is
a ton of people having a ton of sexual contact
with a ton of men, and an operation like that,
if you're going to keep those girls on the street,
what do you need? You need a lot of birth control,

(37:10):
you need a lot of the morning after pill LaVonne
or gestral plan B, you need a lot of STD
and STI treatment, and you need a lot of abortions,
all right. I mean there's people who've done studies on
women who are victims of sex trafficking that most of
them have abortions over the course of their trafficking. About

(37:32):
half of them report that the abortions were forced and coerced,
like it has to happen. There's a planned parenthood right
there on FIGAROA. Do they know what's going on. Are
they fudging things with you know, knowing that they have

(37:53):
people here who are victims of child sexual abuse? How
often is that happening that they're reporting it. These are
the questions that I think should have been asked in
that story, and weren't. Abortion and abortion providers are a
key cog I think in the machinery of sex trafficking.

(38:13):
That'll do it. We'll talk to you next time on
The John Girardi Show.