New Yorkers Cut off Their Noses To Spite Their Faces in Savage Self-Sabotage

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
A lot of people are struggling to understand why New
York would elect someone who to be mayor who is
like actively facilitating the demise of the city. And the
thing you got to understand is the attitude ethic of

(00:21):
millennial and younger college educated lefties, okay, and the sort
of consequence free world into which they think they were born.
This is the thing, So let me try and break
this down. I was not surprised that Zorn Mamdani won

(00:46):
once I looked at the demographic breakdown of how people
voted for mayor of New York. It basically was everyone
under the age of forty who was why and college
educated voted for him, and everyone over the age of
forty or who wasn't white or who wasn't college educated

(01:12):
voted for Cuomo. And that's all you need to know.
College educated whites will vote for the person that they
think is the more ethically correct person, even if it

(01:32):
means that they have to throw themselves off a cliff
and ethically correct within this specific lefty intersectionality morality universe
that they live in of not being racist, not being sexist,
not being homophobic, being pro trans being pro Palestine, being

(01:57):
pro the whole laundry list of left wing causes that
are the UNICAUS, the unicause, which was on full display
the weekend before last, for the whole No Kings Rallies
all over the country. We had these No Kings Rallies
all over the country where I remember I drove past
one of them on Shaw Avenue in front of Fashion

(02:18):
Fair the Saturday before last, and I saw all these
people all lined up, and the thing that really struck
me was the kinds of signs they were all carrying
were hilarious. It was some people with Planned Parenthood signs,

(02:42):
some people with transgender flags, some people with gay Pride flags,
some people with Palestinian flags, some people with Mexican flags,
some people with upside down flag, upside down American flags,
And I was thinking, isn't this And it was this
whole wide diversity of different Planned Parenthood was all set

(03:05):
up there with a booth and handing out posters, and
I thought, wait a minute, I thought this was protesting
Trump's deportation efforts. Isn't that what this was about? What's
Planned Parenthood doing there at all? Why is someone there
with a Gaza flag? What does the pride flag have
anything to do with any of this, because it's all

(03:29):
part of this single left wing body of ethics that
college educated liberals absorb and have to live out or
they will die like it is so deeply embedded in

(03:51):
their being because I think they realize if they trespass
any provision of that, they are afraid of getting verbally canceled,
whether that's shunned by friends, criticized by friends or acquaintances.
This is the morality that these people live with, and

(04:16):
this morality deeply impacts how they vote, they will, and
to such an extent that these people, these people will
imbibe this morality so much that, I mean, I've seen
it even with people I know that they put this
tremendous distance between themselves and their parents because of differences

(04:39):
of opinion on politics. They'll put they'll cut their parents
out of their life because their parents watch Fox News.
They'll I mean, I've seen people do this. Their political
beliefs and their deep seated certainty that they are right

(04:59):
and ethical and correct leads to shunning others, shunning others
as an out group. And they would rather I genuinely
believe this if they thought that jumping off a cliff
was the morally ethically correct thing to do as far

(05:19):
as the ethics of intersectional liberalism. They would one do
it rather than not jump off a cliff. And I
think that's what New York City just did, electing this
guy as mayor. Now, it didn't help that he was
going up against a guy who's fairly loathsome in Andrew Cuomo.

(05:40):
Now I have no great love for Andrew Cuomo. In
the words of Tony Soprano, if he was drowning, I'd
throw him a cinderblock. I hate Andrew Cuomo. He was
one of the worst governors in America. During COVID killed
just a ton of old people by just shoving them

(06:03):
all into nursing homes, which was the perfectly wrong place
to put them, because you know COVID, it's transmitted by
a bunch of people sharing closed quarters, and especially the
only group of people COVID was really really dangerous for
as far as life threatening illness was old people. That
was the silly That's the amazing thing about COVID was, yes,

(06:26):
it was very dangerous for very elderly people, and it
wasn't really that dangerous for anybody else. But that was
a hilarious thing about COVID hilarious. Ruefully, the most basic
reason why we shouldn't have shut down all of society
was this fact that, you know, the only people it

(06:49):
was really that dangerous for were the elderly, and that
we should have just vaccinated all the elderly and let
everyone else get vaccinated if they wanted to give especially
once we learned that the vaccination doesn't actually stop you
from transmitting COVID. That sort of collapsed the whole argument
for mandatory universal vaccination anyway. It's also one of the

(07:13):
things you see was so anyway. Essentially college educated New Yorkers,
especially white millennial and zoomer New Yorkers, voted for Mom
Donnie and Droves. And you can see the class based thing.

(07:33):
Everyone in New York whose median income was over one
hundred thousand, they voted for Mom Donnie by thirteen points.
Everyone whose median income was fifty to one hundred thousand
per year voted for Mom Donnie by six points. Everyone
whose median income was under fifty thousand voted for Cuomo
by nineteen points. Cuomo absolutely did way better with working

(07:53):
class voters, poor voters, non college voters. It was this
huge divide in New York City between left and right,
not left and right, between white voters versus non white voters.
Non white voters voted predominantly for Cuomo, older voters versus

(08:15):
younger voters. Older voters predominantly for Cuomo, Younger voters predominantly
under forty voters predominantly for Mamdani. And I want to
just discuss the arch type that I despise the most,
which is the millennial voter for whom the Obama era

(08:35):
was their formative experience. So this is someone between the
age of forty and thirty. Okay, So if you're between
the age of forty and thirty, then at some point
during your teenage, college, grad school years, Obama was either
president or running for president, and Obama was you or

(09:01):
I think what John Kennedy was to a whole generation
of baby boomer liberals, Obama is for millennial liberals. This huge,
outsized influence on their life, personality, politics, ethics, whatnot, the
catalyst for them rejecting the Fox Newsy conservatism of their parents.

(09:24):
The Iraq War was dragging on, George W. Bush was
more and more unpopular. Here comes Barack Obama running against
old man John McCain crushes him. It's so exciting of Obama.
He's so young, he's so young, so charismatic, such a
great speaker. And I could see. I was in college
from two thousand and six to twenty ten, and then

(09:46):
law school twenty ten to twenty thirteen, so I was
in college and grad school for both of Obama's election victories.
I saw I was in college for the tail end
of the Bush years and as the Iraq War dragged
on in college during the two thousand and eight campaign,
when everyone was so excited about Obama, and I could

(10:07):
see people my age like morphing themselves into more and
more liberal Democrats, just morphing themselves into the Obama mold,
and the kinds of like woke restrictions on like language
on no, you can't say that, you can't use that language.

(10:27):
You can't you know, you can't refer to someone as
this the woke language rules. All of that stuff started.
Maybe I'm maybe I'm just too colored by this. My
experience is coloring things too much. This all really ramped
up in the late two thousands in the Obama era.
The stuff that we got the peak of wokeness whenever

(10:49):
that was twenty twenty or twenty twenty one. All of
that stuff started with college students in the late two
thousands who loved Obama and wanted to be Obama. And
they were so smarty, these especially these boys, these boys

(11:11):
who would try to dress in like button up shirts.
And you can see there are a number of figures
in American public life who were of that attitude, like
this guy John Favreau, the guys who run the Podsave
America podcast, all who are some of the worst people
in Democrat politics. It's all these guys who are about

(11:34):
forty years old right now, who were all very very
young in their like early to mid twenties during the
Obama presidency, early mid late twenties during the Obama presidency,
and they they think of Obama as the smartest, the greatest,
the best of the ball the ignoring that Obama had, I mean,

(11:58):
I think Obama's smarter than Joe Biden, but ignoring Obama's many, many,
many failures. But it was that culture that millennials were
steeped in, especially if you went to college. College educated

(12:18):
millennials got absolutely steeped in this culture and began to
learn this sort of wokeness and cancel culture sort of
attitudes of like, no, you can't call them Indians, you
have to call them Native Americans. You can't call them black,
you have to call them African American, which then shifted
to you have to call them black with a capital B,

(12:38):
and that oh, then the communities you can't call someone
a colored personal communities of color, like the shifting of
language where something that was totally appropriate one month becomes
inappropriate the next month. Something that was totally inappropriate one
month becomes appropriate the next month, like colored. Saying colored

(12:59):
person was obviously for a very long time not PC,
not okay, but all of a sudden, saying communities of
color is like now totally okay, like okay. When the
heck did that happen? That sort of policing of language
took place again. I believe it really took place when millennials,

(13:22):
especially college educated millennials, were in this formative phase of
being in college and imbibing this from their professors, imbibing
it from the environment around them, from the media they consumed,
et cetera. And it's developed this morality where once you
learn that something is problematic, a term, phrase, an opinion,

(13:47):
a mindset, even even concepts. Believe all women. Oh, we
learned that. No, it's wrong to question any woman's story
when it comes to sexual assault. Believe all women, and
that you hear that, that that's the ind doctrine, and
you can't get it out of your head. You like

(14:09):
have to accept it. And if you don't accept it,
then you are a monster. And then someone raises their
hand and says, well, okay, I think we should give
everybody due process, give everyone a fair hearing. But you know,
due process means questioning people to make sure of the

(14:32):
veracity of their claims. But no, no, you have to
believe all women. Believe all women. Believe all women to
the point of kicking the Duke lacrosse team out of
school when, oh, it turns out that the person who
made those accusations was completely full of it. People getting
railroaded out of colleges and universities on the basis of
mere accusations of sexual harassment or something like that. I mean,

(14:56):
this stuff happened during the Obama years, and it was
because of these dogmas of left wing ideology that you
would hear during college, and because you didn't want to.
You wanted to appear enlightened, You wanted to appear smart,
you wanted to appear ethical within this certain ethic, and

(15:21):
you would sooner. I mean this the imbibing of this
ethic by millennials. Many of them would rather cut off
their family than betray this ethic that they've consumed. They
would rather distance themselves from their family, cut themselves off
from their family like this happened to millions of millennial,

(15:42):
college educated white people. So if you think that these
people who would be willing to have a permanent rift
with their parents rather than question anything about the politics
they imbibed in college, if you think those people would
be shy about voting for a socialist to be the
mayor of New York City, of course they're not, by

(16:09):
the way, And part of it is They've never known
anything but plenty in their lives. I'm gonna talk about
that because I think it relates to both California and
New York. How the fact that America being so materially
prosperous over the course of millennials' lives leads them to
think that their votes will have no real world consequences.

(16:32):
That is next on the John Jrwardy Show. There are
some people who are characterizing the decision by New Yorkers
to vote for Zoron Mamdani to win the Democrat primary
for mayor and thus be the heavy odds on favor
to become the next mayor of New York that they've
characterized it as a luxury belief. And it's not wrong.

(16:55):
You look at the breakdown of who voted for Cuomo
versus who voted for Mamdanni. Median income of over one
hundred thousand, Mom Donnie won by plus thirteen. This is
the socialist candidate, apparently the candidate of the working man
of the people. He won among over one hundred thousand
dollars median income voters by thirteen points. For people who

(17:17):
made between fifty and one hundred thousand, they voted for
Mom Donni by six points. And for voters making under
fifty thousand dollars in median income Cuomo by plus nineteen.
So Cuomo dominated among low income voters. And why is this? Well,
As I said in the first segment one, I think

(17:39):
millennial and zoom younger voters who have especially college educated
millennial and younger voters who have imbibed the full range
of left wing dogmas about race and racism and sexism
and protrions and badah, the whole panoply of liberal values.

(18:02):
Many of them are totally fine cutting their parents out
of their lives over politics. I mean, there's plenty of
Google that topic. You'll find plenty of articles about this.
If you think that they're afraid to vote for a
socialist as mayor of New York City when he might
just destroy the city, of course they're not afraid of that.

(18:25):
That they would if they have deemed that this guy
is the right person to vote for, the more suitable person,
the more suitably woke person to vote for, they will
do it. They will cut off their nose to spite
their face. And I think part of it is the
tremendous material prosperity that college educated liberals have been able

(18:48):
to live under over the last over their entire lives.
I mean, I look at myself. Okay, I'm a college
educated white my parents were both doctors. I have never
known poverty, fear struggle. I'm very middle class. Right now,

(19:11):
I am now finally at the point of seeing, Wow,
the policies these people have voted for are really adversely
impacting my life as far as the housing costs in California,
taxes in California, costs of everything, costs of goods, cost
of energy, etc. I am finally seeing, as a thirty
seven year old man, the impact of all these bad

(19:32):
policy decisions. A lot of these young, college educated liberals
have only known plenty their whole lives, and I think
they have this disconnect that no matter who I vote for,
nothing bad's going to happen to me, what bad's going

(19:54):
to happen. It's as if their vote is just an
expression of morality going to actually result in any tangible,
real world harm to themselves. They can keep voting for Democrats,
voting for Democrats, voting for Democrats, voting for Democrats, and
they just don't think any bad things will happen. It's
finally happening in California that some people are sort of

(20:16):
starting to see that, oh, actually bad things are happening.
But for plenty of well off liberals, well off, white,
suburban dwelling liberals in California, h they're they're doing pretty,
They're doing just fine. They can keep voting for Democrats,
especially if they're you know, sort of upper half of
the median income chart. They'll just keep voting for Democrats

(20:37):
for forever, and nothing bad will happen. They still have
their very nice house in you know, some Bay Area
suburb in you know where their house is worth a
gazillion dollars. They'll just keep voting for Democrats, keep voting
because it's the right thing to do, and they don't
experience that much material pain. They don't experience that much

(20:59):
material I hurt. The interesting thing to see in New
York is if you have this combination of the District
Attorney of Manhattan who has no interest in actually enforcing
criminal law, plus a new mayor who may not have
any interest in enforcing criminal law. Will this result in

(21:19):
crime just skyrocketing in the city. Will this genuinely lead
to tons of wealthy people the tax base of New
York City. Let's remember New York City is like one
of the only cities in America with an income tax
just fleeing the city and the city facing real serious challenges.

(21:41):
I think it could, and I think part of the
reason why, again, I think part of the reason why
young millennial, especially higher income whites, are willing to vote
for Democratic socialists is because they think, well, it won't
impact me, it won't harm it won't harm me, nothing
bad is going to happen to me. Well, I'm sure

(22:02):
a lot of people thought that in Los Angeles until
their house burned down this January. Yeah, we can keep
voting for incompetent Democrats. Well, now my house is burnt
down and it's taking them forever to get the permit
to rebuild it. Maybe I'll just go to Florida. Maybe
I'll just go to Texas. I could very much see

(22:23):
something like that happening to a lot of people in
New York City. But again, I think California and New
York are both examples of this. People are willing to
keep using their vote as a morality exercise without concern
for the consequences that those votes wreck on everybody else.

(22:45):
When we return the third anniversary of Rov Wade going
Away and the challenges that still remain next on The
John Girardi Show, this is kind of a mini version
of what I'm going to talk about on Friday on
Saturday rather on Right to Life Radio. But I think
it's worth discussing on this show that yesterday was the

(23:06):
third anniversary of the overturning of Roe versus Wade, and
a massive milestone moment in American constitutional law, a milestone
moment for human rights, if you will, if you want
to use that term, and I want to talk about

(23:28):
it just a little bit, just to explain kind of
the significance of what it was and what it meant
from and maybe do a little bit of constitutional law
about the importance of the constitutional law change of getting
rid of Roe v. Wade. Now we'll talk about some
of the effects, I think maybe the next segment, but
let's talk about the constitutional law impact of getting rid

(23:49):
of rov Wade. So let's understand what Roe v. Wade was.
I think a lot of people sort of have a
loosey goosey sense of Row versus Wade, the nineteen seventy
three Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. They have a
sense that some people actually have a sense that it
was sort of a moderate thing. Well, you know, I

(24:13):
don't like abortion, but you know, maybe for cases, you know,
serious cases, and you know, I think Rob Wade, you know,
just to give someone the right to do that. And
people will talk about Rovy Wade like that as if
it is something moderate and The point I try to
make it is that it wasn't It was far from moderate.
It was a radical thing to do from a constitutional

(24:35):
law perspective, and it imposed a radical sort of raft
of abortion laws on the whole country. So let me
lay out the situation. Prior to nineteen seventy three, every
state regulated abortion as it wanted, and most states had
prohibitions on abortion on the books. At the time of

(25:00):
the American founding at the common law, so common law
was the body of judge made law, where judges would
issue legal rulings on specific cases or circumstances, and those
rulings would get passed down over the course of time
through a system of precedent, where different legal doctrines would
get defined and refined over the course of time, such

(25:20):
that a lot of the major American legal principles and
ideas that we have today come to us from the
British and then early American common law. So the definition
of murder, the definition of burglar, the definition of all
these different kinds of legal concepts, all kinds of concepts,
property law, torts, this, and that, all kinds of things
comes to us from the common law. So the common

(25:43):
law rulings on abortion were largely pretty negative, largely criminally punitive.
We don't have great records about sort of colonial or
revolutionary war era, you know, eighteenth century legal decisions. A
lot of those records. Some of those records got destroyed

(26:04):
during the Civil War in different states. But what records
we do have, they all indicate abortion was not favored.
It was either it was usually criminally punished, especially if
it happened later in pregnancy, but also earlier in pregnancy
it could be punished. When we get to nineteen seventy three,
only a few states had passed laws to legalize abortion,

(26:27):
like California, New York. And what happened around the time,
basically around the time of the Civil War, there was
a growing realization that human life actually began at the
moment of egg sperm fusion. That it wasn't some potential
life that eventually got a soul breathed into it at

(26:48):
some point during the pregnancy process. No, that the instant
an egg and a sperm meat, you have a new,
living human organism. And so there came this growing sense that, well, no,
abortion is not especially early, abortion is not some form
of contraception. Basically, its actual homicide in its genuine sense.

(27:14):
Killing of a human side is the Latin route for
killing homo is the Latin route for human being. Okay,
so homicide. And as a result of that realization that
happened over the course of the eighteen hundreds, before, during,
and after the Civil War, pretty much every state in
the Union passed laws to flat out outlaw criminally prohibit abortion.

(27:40):
Every state in the Union, essentially. Now again, fast forward,
in nineteen seventy three, only a couple of states had
passed laws to loosen up restrictions on abortion, specifically New
York and California. This was following that the new feminist
movement that was arising that was very much in favor
of abortion as a means of women's liberation, basically women's

(28:02):
sort of economic liberation. Women have to be able to
put aside the burdens of a pregnancy as easily as
a man. The United Kingdom had legalized Parliament had legalized
abortion in the sixties. So we get to nineteen seventy three,
and the sort of accepted wisdom among the liberal intelligencia
was that abortion, some sort of limited permission for abortion,

(28:23):
should be given. So in nineteen seventy three, a court
case arose in Texas. A woman in Texas who wanted
an abortion. She well, really a bunch of lawyers around
her who wanted to challenge this got this woman to

(28:43):
be their plaintiff for their lawsuit. It's a woman named
Norma McCorvey, who was Jane Rowe of Roe versus Wade.
Wade was I believe the local district attorney in Texas
that the lawsuit was sort of filed against. They followed
this lawsuit saying that Texas's anti abortion statute was unconstitutional,
that violated the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically what's called the due

(29:05):
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says no State
shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law. Now we need to understand the
Fourteenth Amendment because the Fourteenth Amendment was sort of the
springboard for a bunch of different alleged constitutional rights that

(29:27):
the Supreme Court began to recognize over the course of
the twentieth century, even things like gay marriage, all kinds
of stuff. The Fourteenth Amendment due process clause, let's understand it.
After the Civil War, the victorious North said to the

(29:48):
defeated Southern states. All right, you guys can come back
into the Union. But if you come back into the Union,
here's three things you gotta agree to, which is these
constitutional amendments. You got to ratify these. If you ratify them,
we'll let you back in the Union, along with a
lot of other conditions. The thirteenth Amendment which abolishes slavery,

(30:13):
the fourteenth Amendment that makes freed slaves into new citizens
along with a bunch of other rights, and the fifteenth
Amendment which makes these newly freed slaves now citizens into voters. Now,
that was the concern with these amendments and the context

(30:35):
in which they were introduced. So the fourteenth Amendment has
this provision, the due process clause no state. So let's
remember the context. This is a federal restriction on state conduct.
That's important to understand for how understanding how Roe v.
Wade worked because it was a Fourteenth Amendment based decision.

(30:58):
It was a rule constitutional restriction on state conduct. This
is the federal Constitution, which is very hard to change,
telling states what they can and can't do. So the
fourteenth Amendment said that no state can deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Now,

(31:20):
why do you think the federal government was telling states that, Well,
what the Feds didn't want was for states to admit
all these new former slaves in as citizens and then
set up phony Bologney criminal judicial processes for them that

(31:41):
didn't have the kinds of due process safeguards that normal
trials for normal people had. So the North was saying, Hey,
you're not allowed to execute anybody, take their life, you're
not allowed to throw anyone in jail, take their liberty,
You're not allowed to take their without due process of law,

(32:03):
fair judicial standard, fair practices. And I don't think it's
a coincidence that it was right next to right in
the same constitutional amendment as the equal protection clause, and
no one shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.
So that was the context of the fourteenth Amendment. The

(32:25):
problem is that in the twentieth century, the Supreme Court
kept finding and inventing new constitutional rights for people, positive
constitutional rights for people in that due process clause, saying that, well,
no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property. Well,
what is liberty? And then they imported into the word

(32:47):
liberty all these different kinds of things that they thought
were good right. For example, Griswold Versus Connecticut Supreme Court
decision from the nineteen sixties that said states can't prohibit
contraception the use or purchase of contraception. Now, you may
think contraceptive use or purchasing is good and fine and

(33:08):
not a thing that states should regulate. Okay, your mileage
may vary. I would certainly argue, though, that the Constitution
doesn't have anything to say about it. If you don't
like your state's law about contraception, have your state changed
the law. Don't argue that this is something embedded in
the Constitution. It's clearly not. But this was the new

(33:32):
in doctrine, importing into the Fourteenth Amendment due process laws,
something that was concerned with fair procedural stuff, fair processes
for judicial proceedings, importing positive substantive rights into it. And
that's precisely what happened with abortion in Roe v. Wade.

(33:55):
The Court found somewhere in the Constitution, and they kind
of allocated it in a couple different potential places, but
the Fourteenth Amendment was where it would ultimately reside, holding
that the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause says no person
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property. That abortion

(34:16):
was contained in that word liberty. The right to have
an abortion was contained in that word liberty. So again,
what was that they're saying that the federal restriction on
state activity which the fourteenth Amendment represents, included a prohibition
on state's banning abortion. And they didn't stop there. The Court,

(34:40):
in both Roe v. Wade and its successor case from
nineteen ninety two, Planned Parenti versus Casey, gave like a
very like a timetable up until fetal viability. Basically, the
states could could States could not restrict abortion up to
the time of fetal viability, the point of pregnancy where
a baby could survive being the But after fetal viability,

(35:03):
states could restrict abortion, but only if there was an
exception for a situation where the mom's health was threatened.
But we're going to define health in this really broad
way that basically encompasses every pregnancy. So effectively, what happened
on January twenty second of nineteen seventy three, the day
Roe v. Wade was issued, was America went from having
some of the most restrictive abortion laws in America to

(35:25):
some of the most permissive abortion laws in America. Forty
week legal abortion effectively for any reason. So rov Wade
was not moderate. It invented a constitutional right, and not
only invented it, but states couldn't do anything to modify
it or limit it. No state could be that well,
could we just have only in Georgia, Could we only

(35:46):
have legal abortion, maybe just for the first trimester. No,
because the Supreme Court said no. The Fourteenth Amendment mandates
that you have legal abortion for this entire duration of pregnancy,
up until viability, and then after viability if there's a
quote health excuse. So when we return, I'll talk very

(36:06):
quickly about Dobbs and where we get to. But they'll
just put it bluntly. What Dobbs did was it said, no,
there's no right to abortion in the Constitution. There's no
hidden right to abortion in that word liberty. Abortion was
never recognized ever in the history of American law prior
to nineteen seventy three, as being some kind of deep

(36:27):
seated right that's rooted in American history or legal tradition
or the Constitution or anything. It just isn't, and thus
states at the very least should be able to do
what they want with it. That was what the Dobbs
decision did. It restored at least some sanity to America's
abortion law to say that no, it's abortion was not

(36:48):
magically mystically hidden in the word liberty, especially for something
that had no prior history as an accepted American legal right.
When we return, we'll talk about where we stand with
abortion today in America and the answer is not in
a good place. That's next on the John Girardi Show.
It's the third anniversary of the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Where do we stand with abortion? Not in a good place.

(37:11):
While the overturning of Row has allowed states to pass
their own individual restrictions on abortion, and I think many
of those restrictions have been quite effective, the problem is
that the total number of abortions has increased by about
two hundred thousand a year since the start of the
Biden administration. I don't think overturning Roe v. Wade led

(37:32):
to more abortions. I think Joe Biden led to more abortions.
What Biden has done to allow the abortion pill to
be shipped to people directly through the mail so that
people don't have to go to abortion clinics. Abortions come
to them in the mail in the form of mifepristone.
The abortion pill has led to a massive increase in
the number of abortions. And I think unlessen until Donald

(37:54):
Trump is willing to regulate the abortion pill and its
interstate shipment and the safety restrictions round it from the FDA,
the abortion numbers are only going to keep climbing. That'll
do it, John Girardi Show, See you next time on
Power Talk.