Liberals Treat Supreme Court Rulings Like Bad Yelp Reviews: Ignore and Move On

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I've noticed a trend for the left and their approach
to Supreme Court decisions they don't like, which is basically
that they're going to ignore them. I'm seeing this with
lower federal courts who sort of strain gnats and find

(00:22):
ways to ignore Supreme Court decisions that are clearly on
point that they just don't like, and they just sort
of bypass them, forcing the Supreme Court to have to
come in and slap them down and say no, you
will actually enforce what we believe. But I also see
it just with on the ground, ordinary people, the day

(00:44):
to day workings out of various kinds of big Supreme
Court decisions. So I've got a couple of examples of this,
really kind of three examples. We've got abortion, which i'll
say for later, but then we've got admissions, college admissions,

(01:04):
no race based college admissions. And we've got Mahmud v.
Taylor last summer. I guess back from June, the Supreme
Court decision from June saying that schools have to afford
parents the opportunity to opt their kids out of school
lessons that present gay marriage and transgenderism as normative goods.

(01:33):
So I want to talk about let me talk about
Mahmud v. Taylor, all right. I talked on this show
about and I wrote about it for National Review, how
California was looked like it was getting set up to
ignore Mahmud v. Taylor, and they the state of California,

(01:54):
the Department of Education, had written a letter, a non
binding guidance letter to public school districts talking about Moovie Taylor,
but giving no actual concrete guidance on how to actually
implement it. I mean, this is the Supreme Court saying
parents have a right religious parents who object to this

(02:16):
stuff have a right under their First Amendment right to
free exercise of religion to opt their kids out of
public school lessons teaching about gay marriage or transgenderism as
normative goods, and public schools have to respect that and
offer them opportunities to opt out. California's got that kind

(02:36):
of thing suffused throughout the curriculum, which, by the way,
was a thing Justice Alito talked about in his majority
opinion that public schools can't try to avoid this by
so thoroughly suffusing their curriculum with pro LGBT material that
it's basically impossible to segregate out the lessons for which

(02:59):
kids need and opt out. He says that, well, that
that's inappropriate. You need to restructure your curriculum. Then if
that's what you're doing. The guidance that the California Department
of Education gave to these public schools was basically no
guidance at all. They basically said, no, just you know, uh,
you got to figure it out on your own. And

(03:20):
I think what that was was the State of California
doing its best to just dully, obtusely not comply, don't
comply at all with what the with the Supreme Court,
because then it basically becomes every individual school district in

(03:42):
California will make its own decision. And let me tell
you something. Go through the website for Los Angeles Unified
School District, which is, like, I think it's the biggest
school district in the country. It's certainly the biggest in California.
It has something like over five hundred thousand kids go
to school there. It is so thoroughly riddled with pro

(04:02):
LGBT propaganda. Let me tell you something. They are not
going to comply with that Supreme Court ruling without being
forced to, without kicking and screaming their way into doing it.
The teachers' union that runs LA Unified is so radically
left wing they're absolutely not gonna go along with it.

(04:24):
San Francisco Unified never ever in a million years going
to go along with it. So I actually I wrote
my nrpiece about like, hey, I think California is just
gearing up to not comply on a massive scale, and
I bet other liberal school districts around the country are
going to do the same. Well, lo and behold, here's

(04:47):
a news story. Washington State, Seattle Public Schools uh da
da da da Seattle Public Schools. This is a state
and from Seattle Public Schools. Seattle Public Schools works to
provide a wide range of educational opportunities that reflect whose
students are, help them build empathy for others, and prepare

(05:08):
them to be compassionate citizens of a diverse and changing world.
There is no option to quote opt students out end
quote of learning about particular identities or groups of people.
This guidance is reinforced by OSPI, the State Superintendent's office,
the policies of other major urban districts, including the states
of California, New York, and the outcomes of federal cases
around the country. We celebrate all students in Seattle public schools.

(05:31):
They're blatantly saying that they're not going to comply with
a Supreme Court decision like here, they are citing all
of this stuff that reinforces what they're doing. The state
superint Oh, the State Superintendent's office says, we don't have
to provide opt outs. The policies in New York and

(05:53):
California were consistent with theirs, and the outcomes of federal
cases around the country seemingly conveniently ignoring a Supreme Court decision.
So someone tweeted this over to Harmy Dillon, who's the
Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division at the

(06:16):
Department of Justice. And for those who don't know, Harmon
Dillon was a big time kind of like civil rights
attorney in California and she represented a bunch of conservatives
in different kinds of conservative civil rights cases. And Army
Dillon tweeted out, this is FAFO territory, which stands for

(06:36):
bleep around and find out territory where I live. So
apparently she is looking very closely at what Seattle is doing.
But that's the amazing thing here is here's the Supreme
Court entering it. Here's this kind of nationwide dilemma. So

(06:57):
many public school districts, even way to many public school
districts in Red States, frankly, are completely dominated by the left,
completely overtaken by the left, controlled by the left. The
left has completely conquered the education space for primary and
secondary education in so many places across the country. Okay,
they infused all this pro LGBT propaganda into the public schools,

(07:22):
and it was on the grounds that, well, it's not
a religion, it's just it's a secular originated ethic. Now,
if you try to introduce chastity talks or things like that.

Speaker 2 (07:37):
Well, theocracy trying to put evangelical Protestantism into the public schools. Oh,
what's next, You're gonna gonna do the pledge of allegiance
to Jesus next. This is a separation of church and state,
right right right, right, right right right. But because it's
LGBT stuff and it's originating from this secular perspective, oh yes, perfectly,

(07:57):
but absolutely no problem for it to be in public schools.
I mean, just teaching kids about compassion and acceptance and tolerance.

Speaker 1 (08:04):
Are you against tolerance? Doing my Adam West impression. Right there,
are you against tolerance? Robin? Yeah, Batman, I am good.
We should be intolerant of Devians. By the way, my
kids love the old Adam West Batman. And he says

(08:24):
some hilarious Adam West says some hilarious stuff in that show.
He has like a couple lines. He's like, they may
be smokers, Robin, but they're still human beings. It's this
weird like this weird Batman is like this weirdly moralizing
character anyway, all right, So Christian parents have had this

(08:50):
dilemma of well, do I send my kid to a
public school and just allow the schools to to indoctrinate
my kid with a message that's directly contrary to my
you know, strongly held religious beliefs, or what else do
I do? Chill out tens of thousands of dollars for

(09:13):
private schools homeschool? Is that even a thing that our
family can sustain? What the heck am I supposed to do? Now?
The Supreme Court enters in and resolves it and says, hey,
parents have a right to the free exercise of religion

(09:33):
guaranteed by the First Amendment. These parents are paying for
public schools, And here are the public schools putting them
in this sort of intractable dilemma, burdening one of the
fundamental aspects of exercising their religion, which is the transmission
of their faith to their kids. And here's the public

(09:55):
schools like actively undermining that. So no, public schools don't
get to do that. They need to afford parents the
opportunity for notice and to opt their kid out of
those lessons. So here's the Supreme Court saying, this is
what the First Amendment to the Constitution, this is what
the United States Constitution mandates. And that's a serious thing,

(10:23):
that's a huge, significant thing. And these school districts around
the country, Eh, we're just gonna ignore it. Just no urgency,
no sense that we've got to change a darn thing.
They're blatantly telling us, merely blatantly telling us we are

(10:50):
not gonna change a darn thing. And this is for
a Supreme Court decision. I mean, every Republican state in
the Union buckled immediately in nineteen seventy three when the

(11:12):
Supreme Court issued Roe v. Wade. Every state in the Union,
not one state, was trying to challenge the Supreme Court
and say, well, you know, we're still not going to
allow abortion clinics. We're still going to do it. No,
every state backed off and respected the will of the Court,
respected the sort of ordering of things with you know,

(11:34):
the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, and this is the
sort of Marbury versus Madison world in which we live.
And as a result, yep, we're respecting that. But liberals
don't give a crap. They don't give a crap about
the sort of constitutional order that we've sort of inherited
at this point in you know, early twenty first century America.

(11:55):
They don't care. They're just going to ignore Supreme Court
decisions they don't like because it's for something that they
hold to deer. When we return, I'm going to talk
about this in the context of a couple of other areas,
the overturning of Rob Wade, but also in the context

(12:18):
of race based admissions in public school in colleges and universities.
It's next on the John Girardi Show. At first, I
was getting the rumblings that California was going to ignore
a Supreme Court decision it didn't like mahamoudby Taylor mandating
opt outs for students, for lessons that teach about same

(12:40):
sex marriage and transgenderism as normative goods. I think California
public schools are going to ignore it. Now it looks
like Seattle public schools are going to ignore it. And
it seems to follow this trend where liberals are just
not They're just going to ignore Supreme Court decisions they
don't like. And beyond that, it's this disturbing thing of

(13:05):
we know that they're gonna ignore it, like no one
is surprised. I don't think anyone surprised that the liberals
who control these public school districts are just not gonna comply.
They're just not gonna comply with mahamud Vi Taylor. They
are not gonna provide those opt out opportunities. They're gonna
force parents to have to sue to vindicate their ability

(13:25):
to opt out, or they're going to force the hand
of to get the Department of Justice involved. And it
looks like Harmeat Dillon from the Civil Rights Division is
starting to eyeball this, which I had sort of called
for in my National Review piece about this about two
weeks ago. So. And that's the amazing thing about it is,

(13:49):
this is a Supreme Court decision. This is the Supreme
Court interpreting, not a statute, not a regulation, interpreting the
First Amendment and saying the First Amendment right to free
exercise of religion extends here. You have to do this,
you public schools. You have to afford parents this ability

(14:10):
to opt their kids out of these kinds of lessons,
and you can't hide by and specifically dealt with the
objection that schools can't hide behind the idea of well,
this is just about acknowledging that trans people exist or
learning tolerance. The court specifically dealt with it and said, no,
if your books, if your lessons are affirmatively teaching gay marriage,

(14:35):
transgenderism as normative goods in ways that are contradicting the
religious beliefs of parents, you've got to provide them with
the ability to opt out. And that's what all these
lessons do. I mean, I looked at like the paradigmatic
book that California uses for this kind of thing for

(14:56):
second graders. The whole idea of the book is to
say that this lesbian marriage is quote everything a marriage
should be, and that the one family who doesn't accept
them is bad. But they're good. They're a wonderful, happy family,
They're everything a marriage should be. That is a presentation
of gay marriage as a normative good. That is something,

(15:19):
and I will affirm this as a believing Catholic. That
is something that if it were taught to my kids,
would undermine my transmission of my religious faith and my
ethical beliefs to my kids one hundred percent. But there
are other areas where liberals are just gonna ignore Supreme

(15:42):
Court decisions, and we all know that they're going to
ignore them, and they know that we know. Let's talk
about race based college admissions. The Supreme Court very definitively
ruled on this. No, we're done. We're done with the
business of race based college admissions. The ridiculous sort of

(16:05):
splitting the baby that Sandrade O'Connor tried to do in
the early two thousands, where she basically said, Okay, well,
you can't have a crude system in college admissions where
you know, all your applicants get a certain number of
points and black kids get just extra points right off

(16:26):
the bat for being black. Okay, no, you're not allowed
to do that.

Speaker 3 (16:30):
But as part of a broad based assessment, So the
tutology of circumstances of all the characteristics and qualities of
an applicant and their life experience. Of this may be
a way of blah blah, the two incorporate some consideration
of race may be acceptable as part of this broader review.

Speaker 1 (16:53):
That was the Sandrade O'Connor standard, which I think she
thought that that was, you know, a more moderating position,
because she didn't want a crude kind of quota system
or a crude sort of points system. But actually all
that she wound up doing was saying, hey, college admissions departments, colleges,

(17:17):
you're allowed to discriminate on the basis of race and
your admissions as long as you don't leave a very
clear paper trail, as long as you don't have a
very clear system that we can follow and track and supervise.
As long as your system has no transparency to it,
then sure, that's fine. That's the effect of what sandredal

(17:38):
O'Connor did. And the Supreme Court said, no, no, you're
not allowed to consider race and admissions. End of story.
Equal Protection clause and all the various federal law, Federal
Civil Rights Act laws that say no discrimination on the
basis of race means no discrimination on the basis of race.
It doesn't mean no discrimination on the basis of race

(18:02):
unless it's benefiting certain minority groups and not others. It
means no discrimination. Because I mean, this was the incredible
thing to me, how there's this blase attitude on the
left of the race based nature of college admissions meant
that they were actively discriminating against Asians and for Latino applicants,

(18:30):
under what historical assessment of the relative plights of Latinos
versus Asians in this country's history, can you justify giving
favorable treatment to Latinos as a historically discriminated against group
and not give but punish Asians because allegedly they weren't

(18:57):
historically discriminated against group. First of all, neither one of
them had the African American experience. Let's just start off
the bat there. Neither of them were the subjects of
legal slavery. It's not like the Chinese had an easy
time in America. It's not like the Japanese had an
easy time in America. Okay, you know one of these

(19:21):
groups was put into internment camps during World War Two.
It wasn't. It wasn't Latinos. And look I'm not saying
Latinos had it easy, but neither did the Chinese or Japanese.
On what basis were college admissions discriminating against Chinese, Japanese,

(19:41):
Asian East Asian applicants and discriminating in favor of Latinos. Why, well,
it's obvious why these colleges and universities want a certain
sort of vision of themselves, a sort of equity based
vision of themselves. They want their campuses to look like
the Rainbow Diversity Coalition because if they purely did admissions

(20:04):
on the basis of merit, they're worried that they would
have way too many, in their eyes, too many white
and Asian kids and not enough Black and Latino kids,
and they would feel bad about themselves. And that desire
for equity registered trademark. Everyone knows that what's happening right
now with college and university admissions departments is they are

(20:27):
trying to find any way humanly possible to still discriminate
on the basis of race without saying that they're discriminating.
The indications now are that they're all trying to have
some kind of, you know, way to have students indicate
it in like a student essay. You've got some of

(20:49):
these colleges and universities trying to get rid of any
sort of standardized testing metrics so that they can sort
of figure out which applicants are black or Latino and
then you know, accept them without having the you know,
the anvil of the objective reality of SAT scores in
front of them. Now, the problem with that is the problem.

(21:14):
I did see a story that the problem with getting
rid of SAT scores is that it actually hurts lower
income applicants. When you get rid of SAT scores, higher
income applicants actually do much better in that kind of
a system because you've eliminated the one leveling the playing
field metric that lower income kids have, which is the SAT.

(21:35):
Lower income kids can still do really well on the SAT,
and it takes away a lot of the other kinds
of advantages that higher income kids have. I'll help with
your college admissions essay. Knowing the system blah blah blah
blah blah. So everyone knows they're going to ignore that.
And the last thing I guess I'll say is, and
this will lead into the third and fourth segment, is

(21:57):
with abortion. The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. This
allowed a bunch of Red states to outlaw abortion, and
the left basically has de outlawed abortion in Red states
by illegally shipping the abortion pill into them with state

(22:18):
governments sanctioning it. California's state government, New York state government
providing these shield laws to protect abortion distributors abortion pill
distributors in their states from any legal consequences for shipping
abortion pills illegally into Texas, into Louisiana, into these pro
life states. Basically, it's this amazing culture where the Supreme

(22:40):
Court rules on a thing, Liberals are not gonna comply
with what the Supreme Court says. Everyone knows they're not
going to comply with what the Supreme Court says. And
this is just sort of like bah yeah, liberals are
just going to ignore the Supreme Court. It's this amazing,
just this absolutely amazing landscape we've landed in. All Right,

(23:03):
when we return, I want to talk a little bit
more about RFK Junior's testimony yesterday in front of the
United States Senate and specifically what he said or didn't
say about the topic of the abortion pill, and we'll
kind of lead into our Right to Life Radio discussion
for Saturday. That's next on the John Gerardi Show. Our
FK Juniors testimony before the Senate Health Committee was some

(23:26):
pretty riveting stuff and there are a lot of pretty
interesting exchanges about vaccines and different kinds of things. Especially,
I thought his interactions about the hep B vaccines were
pretty interesting. I think that this the drive to give
infants hepatitis B vaccines, I think is very misguided. Anyway,

(23:50):
I want to talk though about the one area of
the subject matter area that I know the most about,
which is abortion. He had a couple of questions about it,
and and I'm hoping I can get a piece of
published a National review about this. I sort of wrote
about it, and a lot of it had to do
with the abortion pill if A pristone, which is the

(24:12):
most common way that abortions happen in the United States today. Basically, basically,
it's this drug. It cuts off the hormone progesterone, and
within the first ten weeks of pregnancy it can be prescribed.
It cuts off the hormone progesterone so that the fetus
or embryo detaches from the uterine walls, cut off from

(24:35):
food and oxygen, and dies in the womb. The woman
then takes a second drug to expel the baby from
her body. This is now the most common way that
abortion happens in America. Abortion is it's over sixty percent
of abortions. Abortion is not really a surgical thing, not
nearly as much anymore as it used to be. So
if a pristone, the abortion drug was first approved by

(24:59):
the FDA in two two thousands, and it had a
lot of health and safety restrictions on it, and those
health and safety restrictions have been loosened over the years,
first in the big loosening in twenty sixteen under the
Obama administration FDA, and then a huge loosening of restrictions
in twenty twenty one under President Biden, where in twenty
twenty one, Biden loosens these restrictions to allow the abortion

(25:21):
pill to be prescribed with no in person patient examination.
So even though you're only supposed to prescribe it in
the first ten weeks of pregnancy because you're complication. I mean,
think about it like a miscarriage, Okay, a miscarriage. The
later it happens in a pregnancy, the more serious a
health event it is, the more serious the complications can be.

(25:45):
So the abortion pill process is kind of similar in
that regard. The later you do it in a pregnancy,
the more the complications and the more serious the complications
are going to be. So you're only supposed to prescribe
it for the first ten weeks. But Biden allowed the
abortion pill to be prescribed with no in person visit,
just a telemedicine visit. Well, what the hell good is

(26:07):
that you can't confirm a baby's gestational age with a
telemedicine visit. You got to do an ultrasound or something.
You have to do something where you're in person to
confirm the gestational age. So Biden issued this rule the
telemedicine visit, allowing a telemedicine visit to be sufficient for

(26:28):
a provider to prescribe the abortion pill, and allowing the
abortion pill to be shipped through the mail directly to
someone's house or to be picked up at a major pharmacy.
The old rules prior to twenty twenty one were that
you had to go in person to the clinic to
actually get the pill, and again this helped facilitate like

(26:49):
actually checking that a woman was ten weeks pregnant, or
with or less than ten weeks pregnant to avoid serious complications.
Biden evustrated that why did he do it? Let me
just explain this because you may be thinking, why would
Biden allow such a dangerous process for doing abortions. The

(27:11):
Democrats don't use the phrase. A lot of you remember
this phrase from the nineties. Remember how they always used
to say that they wanted abortion to be safe, legal,
and rare. They don't want that. They want abortion to
be safe, legal, and accessible. Above all, they want access.

(27:35):
Access is the big buzzword for the current day pro
abortion left, not your mama's pro abortion movement, not the
nineteen nineties abortion movement. Today they talk about access and
what does access mean. Well, access means we knock down
any wall, any barrier to your access. If a woman

(28:00):
can't get an abortion because she can't afford it, well
then the government should pay for it. If a woman
can't get an abortion because she has to drive too
far to a clinic, well then have her get it
via telemedicine, have it be shipped to her house. And
we're willing to sacrifice safety for the sake of access.

(28:20):
That's the mantra. Like I remember a law got passed
in California a couple of years ago to require abortion
pills to be administered its student health centers on CSU
and u SEE campuses. And the whole argument was, Oh,
these women would have to drive so far to get

(28:42):
the abortion pill. Well, you'd have to drive to get
the abortion Well yeah, that's the idea that driving to
an abortion clinic in California was so great of a
burden on someone that had justified this extraordinary measure of
putting the abortion pill right in student health centers. So

(29:02):
that is the driving focus of the left access. Okay,
so the Obama FDA loosened the restrictions, the Biden FDA
loosen the restrictions further. They allow the abortion pill to
be distributed through the mail. Since that Biden move in
twenty twenty one, the number of American abortions has increased

(29:24):
by about one hundred thousand plus per year, by almost
two hundred thousand abortions per year. There were about nine
hundred thousand abortions per year in twenty twenty. There are
over a million abortions per year in twenty twenty four.
In twenty twenty four, there were over a million abortions

(29:44):
approaching one point one million abortions, and the percentage of
abortions done via the abortion pill has jumped sort of
proportionate with that overall increase. This has led me to
say the biggest driver of abortion today is is mifepristone
is the abortion pill. If the Trump administration can't reverse

(30:06):
those Biden and Obama administration regulations that loosen the health
and safety restrictions around abortion made it so accessible, then
it's ignoring what I think is the single biggest abortion
related issue that's within the power of the Trump administration
to fix. Now, there's also been all this health and

(30:32):
safety data that's come out showing that the abortion pill
is way more dangerous than people thought. This massive review
of insurance claims data was done by this think tank
in Washington called the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and
they reviewed over eight hundred thousand different insurance claims from
women who had abortion pill abortions, and they found that

(30:55):
the incidence of serious complications was eleven percent. Eleven percent
of these women had serious complications when the FDA labeling
for the abortion pill stands at zero point five percent.
The FDA labeling claims that zero point five percent of

(31:18):
women who go through a mifipristone abortion process have a
serious complication. This new study looking at way more people
looking at insurance claims from over eight hundred thousand women
who had mifhipristone abortions, is saying no, the complication rates
more like eleven percent. So Kennedy was asked about this.
Because the FDA is under the purview of the Department

(31:40):
of Health and Human Services, the commissioner of the FDA
answers to Kennedy, and so Kennedy was responding on behalf
of Marty McCary. Who's the doctor, Marty McCarry, He's the
commissioner of the FDA. So he was asked a couple
of things. First, Kennedy did make the claim that the

(32:04):
health and safety data around the abortion pill had been
twisted by prior to liberal administrations. He said that they
had twisted the health and safety information. He did reference
the eleven percent statistic favorably as if that was something
he's going with. He said that the Biden administration twisted

(32:27):
the data to quote Barry safety and information regarding the
abortion pill. He said AHHS would make sure that doesn't
happen again. Now. The problem, the thing I'm worried about,
and I can see that members of Congress are getting
worried about, is two things. We've been told since January
that Marty McCrary and the FDA was going to do

(32:49):
this review of mifipristone and its safety information. And we're
still waiting, and we have no idea what the timetable is.
Harry even during his testimony yesterday, Kennedy couldn't give a timetable.
All he could say was that the review has started
its underway, but that's it. He also Kennedy also couldn't

(33:15):
say if the administration would try to revoke the telemedicine
abortion rule trying to ship the abortion pill, the telemedicine
abortion rule and the ability to ship the abortion pill
through the mail, whether the administration would revoke that biden
Era was initially a covid Era regulation. Senator Steve Danes

(33:39):
asked Kennedy about this, and Kennedy said he couldn't comment.
He would have to discuss it with the White House.
So I'm getting concerned, and I think other members of
Congress are as well. A couple about a month ago,
Steve Daane a little over a month ago, Steve Danes,
Marsha Blackburn, Senator Steve Danes' center from Montana, Marshall Blackburn's

(34:02):
senator from Tennessee, Jim Banks, Senator from Indiana, wrote a
letter to Pam Bondy, the Attorney General, asking her to
investigate MIFFI pristone safety data around it, whether there was
collusion between the FDA and abortion pill manufacturers to twist
the safety data. And it was a curious letter because

(34:23):
they wrote it to Pam Bondy. Why would senators bypass
HHS or the FDA and write to the Attorney General
about that issue? Well, I think it's because there are
senators who are getting fed up with the FDA. They're
getting fed up with the current leadership of the FDA,
They're getting fed up with Marty McCarry. In that letter,

(34:50):
Senators Danes, Blackburn, and Banks, all Republicans, all very conservative,
they blasted the continuing recklessness of the FDA around the
abortion pill, well continuing means under the Trump administration. And
why would they have to go to the Attorney General.

(35:10):
Why couldn't they just go directly to the FDA. The
FDA should have no fear about investigating decisions that were
done under the Biden administration. It's the Trump FDA. Why
would they Why should they have any leariness about decisions
made in the Biden era. Josh Holly, the Senator from Missouri,
is also getting ticked off at Marty McCarry in the FDA.

(35:33):
A couple weeks ago, Holly had a tweet being super
critical of an interview Marty McCary gave to Politico, to
Dasha Burns as a lefty journalist for Politico, where McCary said, ah, yeah,
well we have to we kind of have to do
this review of Miff Priston, and we're gonna listen to everybody,
you know. But he seemed to have very little urgency,

(35:54):
and Holly was super ticked off. Holly's like, Okay, this
seems like you're doing this very toothless review. There's no
urgency here. So again I only raise this point again.
Let me just why this is important. The abortion pill
is the biggest driver of abortion in America. It's responsible

(36:15):
for at least one hundred thousand additional abortions per year.
Then there should be that there, then there ought to
be nothing else drives actual concrete abortion numbers as much
as this. If the Trump Administration's not going to do
something to rain this in, then it's missing the opportunity,
the one easiest opportunity they have, an opportunity that's one

(36:38):
hundred percent within the control of the executive branch to
stop a huge number of abortions. When we return Little
Culture Thing, the absolutely awful looking Wuthering Heights remake next
on The John Girardi Show. I went through a phase
in high school where I was reading lots of of

(37:01):
kind of girly literature, not like that kind of girly.
I was reading Emily Bronte, Charlotte Bronte, Jane Austen, and
I count him as a girly author. Charles Dickens just
because he always has some stupid sappy A lot of
his novels have some really stupid sappy love story and

(37:22):
Wuthering Heights was one of those, and I liked it.
It's a bit much, it's a little over dramatic, all
those books are, but it was a good read. And
they're trying to make a Wathering Heights movie with Margot Robbie,

(37:46):
which just seems to be a porno And I'm trying
to think back to when I read Weathering Height, boy,
I don't remember any of this sex stuff. Well, what
the heck's going on? People sucking on each other's finger
and stuff for whoa wow wow wow wow wow. So
way to go, Hollywood, way to just ruin another good Yes,

(38:07):
there was yearning and desire, but that's the idea, is
that it was subtle. All Right, anyway, that'll do it.
Don't watch that movie. That'll do it. John Ferrati Show,
See you next time on Power Talk