August 23, 2024 • 55 mins
At the Democratic National Convention, powerful testimonies from a married couple and two young women were shared, detailing their painful experiences with restrictive abortion laws. These stories, filled with grief and hardship, call for a thoughtful response. Mike invites colleagues Megan Almon and Alycia Wood to analyze and comment on these testimonies, diving deep into the complexities of each case.
We hear Amanda's heartbreaking account of being denied an abortion despite a life-threatening situation, Caitlin's struggle with a miscarriage under restrictive laws, and Hadley's tragic story of abuse and pregnancy at a young age. Each story raises critical questions about the impact of abortion laws on women's lives.
The episode also addresses the broader implications of these testimonies, discussing the pro-life position from scientific, philosophical, and ethical perspectives. We examine the DNC's strategy, the ethics of abortion, and the importance of understanding what makes human life valuable.
Tune in for a compassionate yet intellectually rigorous discussion that seeks to provide clarity on one of the most divisive issues of our time. Learn how to navigate these complex conversations with empathy and understanding, armed with well-rounded knowledge.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:03):
Kamala Harris is making abortion one of the, if not the, central issue of her campaign.
She has stated that she will restore the national right to abortion.
And at the DNC, abortions were provided for free, as were vasectomies along
(00:24):
with tacos to any that wanted them.
Inside the convention, there was a segment where there were some,
I would say, powerful testimonies of a married couple and two young women describing
their painful experiences with restrictive abortion laws.
(00:46):
And it was, again, a powerful testimony that I think needs a response.
So I've asked two of my colleagues here, Megan Allman and Alicia Wood,
to bring some analysis and some commentary to this.
And we're going to watch the video and break down some pieces of it.
So, hey, Megan. Hey, Alicia. Thanks for joining me in this.
(01:08):
Yeah, of course. Thank you for doing this.
Well, if we can do the tech, then we'll do it.
Let's see. I'm an old man now. Here we go. Let's check this out.
When you're expecting a baby, packing for the hospital should be a joyful moment.
(01:30):
For us, it was different.
We were told with 100% certainty we would lose our baby girl, Willow.
And we were sent home.
For three days, we waited until Amanda was sick enough to receive standard abortion care.
(01:53):
Eventually, Amanda's temperature spiked. She was shaking, disoriented, and crashing.
I don't remember what I threw into our bag that day, only that instead of welcoming
Willow, I was hoping Amanda's life could be saved.
(02:14):
I'm here tonight because the fight for reproductive rights isn't just a woman's
fight. This is about fighting.
This is about fighting for our families. And as Kamala Harris says, our future. Thank you.
Music.
(02:41):
Sir. Every time I share our story, my heart breaks.
For the baby girl we wanted desperately. For the doctors and nurses who couldn't
help me deliver her safely.
For Josh, who feared he would lose me too.
But I was lucky. I lived.
(03:04):
So I'll continue sharing our story, standing with women and families across the country.
Today, because of Donald Trump, more than one in three women of reproductive
age in America lives under an abortion ban.
(03:26):
A second Trump term would rip away even more of our rights.
Passing a national abortion ban, letting states monitor pregnancies and prosecute
doctors, restricting birth control and fertility treatments.
We cannot let that happen.
(03:54):
We need to vote as if lives depend on it, because they do.
Thoughts? Yeah. Well, let me just say first, I think, you know,
(04:20):
No, I think what we're going to see as we watch these videos is just three tragic
stories, first of all. Okay.
And while I've never suffered a miscarriage, I definitely know of women who
have and family members who have and people who are close to me.
And so as a result, you know, whenever you see something like this,
I think I can understand, you know, the pain.
(04:42):
I've watched another video of them where she's just crying, holding the blanket
she was going to bring Willow home in.
Right. So this is like real life for her, not just on a DNC stage.
And so just to give a little bit further, further context for people to understand
a little bit more of Amanda's story is that 18 weeks pregnant,
(05:03):
she did begin to have a miscarriage.
She suffered what's called a preterm prelabor rupture of membranes.
So she did go to a Catholic hospital in Austin, Texas, but she was denied the
abortion because the doctors could still detect fetal cardiac activity.
So the baby was still, the heart was still beating. And so as a result,
they denied the abortion.
She was then sent home, as her husband mentioned, and three days later,
(05:25):
due to signs of infection, she went back in, ended up being diagnosed with sepsis.
And while then at that point, the doctors did perform the emergency induction
abortion, it did result in her spending three days in the ICU fighting for her life.
Obviously, she survived, thankfully, but she did lose one of her fallopian tubes
in the sense of use in terms of function.
(05:47):
It's permanently closed. And so
now she has had to turn to in vitro fertilization IVF to start a family.
So there are some serious outcomes here and some challenges that have resulted
as a result of what she has been through.
What is interesting to me, in addition to some of the things that she says,
(06:07):
is kind of near the end, she switches over to this idea of restrictive birth control and fertility.
Treatments, which is a little bit of a veering away from her story. actually.
We're sitting here grieving with the miscarriage, but then there's this introduction
of these other things that don't necessarily, would not have been of help to
(06:27):
her in that particular moment.
And so it seems like what's happened here is what the doctors have done,
which we will see as we continue on, is that there seems to be a challenge with
doctors to try and understand how do we respond?
When is it an okay time to respond when a woman is going through something like this.
And Megan, I know you have some thoughts on this, so I'll let you add on there.
(06:50):
Yeah, a little bit. I know that Amanda's story or what happened to Amanda and
Willow and her husband happened really shortly after the overturn of Roe v.
Wade with the Dobbs Supreme Court decision.
And so the law in Texas was a trigger law that went into effect very shortly thereafter.
It's possible during that time that there was some confusion about what doctors
(07:11):
could or could not do and that abortion was very restricted and still is in
the state of Texas, which I actually think is a good thing.
But coming at this, you know, to hear Amanda's story is one thing.
I think there's an assumption there that pro-lifers will, oh,
yeah, that's really sad, but kind of thing.
And that's not the case. That would be kind of an implicit character attack if that's there.
(07:37):
However, when you hear a story like hers, it is important to listen to what
she's saying and what's trying to be promoted to those who are hearing.
I mean, she's standing on that stage. She's been coached through talking through
her story in a very tight way.
Even the gestures are intentional.
And I think it's important that we understand what abortion is.
(07:57):
And normally when people start to talk about abortion, typically,
and this is a case I think that this happens, they're talking about anything but abortion, right?
Abortion is defined as the intentional killing of the human embryo or fetus.
And that's a definition that doesn't beg any questions across the board.
I think there are pro-choice scholars and individuals who are fine with that
(08:18):
definition, as well as pro-life ones.
They might use the word baby, but the definition is fine.
In this case, Amanda was suffering a miscarriage and she went into the first
time her child was still alive.
And so these doctors working with this new law are doing the best they can to
try and understand what is within the parameters for them to be able to do or not.
(08:39):
But at that point in time, they had a living child and a mother who was needing medical care.
Um, so I think that, you know, the best we can do is go, what happened to Amanda was an abortion.
And what she needed also didn't qualify as an abortion.
She needed a life-saving treatment because in her case, she was looking at losing Willow.
(09:00):
Their words, I can't go verify that right now, but 100% certainty that they
were going to lose Willow.
And that with Willow, they could possibly lose Amanda.
So when doctors look at a case where they have two lives that are at stake,
they will do. And every law on the books in the United States right now will
(09:20):
allow them to do the greater moral good by saving one life rather than losing both lives.
This would be true in cases of ectopic pregnancy, which was not Amanda's case,
but hers was very similar.
And so it looks like what happened is it went it went farther than it needed to.
It went farther than it was supposed to. In her case, it was really dangerous.
But still, what she's talking about wouldn't qualify as an abortion by definition.
(09:45):
The intent was not to kill Willow.
The intent was to save Amanda when both Amanda and Willow might die.
And I think part of the challenge here, too, is that the Texas law does the
Texas does have a law against abortion.
Obviously, that's where we're talking about her particular situation.
But many people don't realize the exception that it does have, which Megan alluded to.
(10:07):
And the exception that it has is that situations such as the life or health
of the pregnant patients of the mother is at risk. risk, right?
So that is the key thing. So really, I'm not sure why the doctors would have
even sent her home, at least keep her in the hospital, I would have thought,
so they can at least just monitor her as she's miscarrying this baby.
(10:27):
If they're concerned about acting.
They can at least just keep her in there so that they can monitor her.
And look, it did get to the point where they did feel like, okay,
we are safe under the law to actually proceed with helping save her life.
And so I think it's really important for people to understand here that it comes
across as if the Dobbs decision put her life at risk because there's no help or treatment for her.
(10:55):
And that's actually not what the law says.
There was treatment options for her. There was help for her.
Even under Dobbs, it just that treatment did not happen.
I think you two answered or provided really good analysis on this,
and I don't have much to add except for when it comes to situations like this
(11:16):
where our hearts are involved,
we have to sometimes slow down, take a breath, and take a step back.
And it's not enough just to have the right heart regarding an issue.
We also have to have the right mind.
And in situations like this where the emotion of the situation is what we're
confronted with, we must move beyond the emotion, not turning cold or unloving, but move,
(11:43):
what's a better way to say it, marry our emotion with the facts and understand
the law and understand what is the fundamental issue when it comes to abortion,
which is what is the unborn and what makes human beings valuable in the first place.
That's the fundamental question that needs to be addressed when we are encountering
(12:03):
hard cases like this and the hard cases in some way, rightfully so,
I might want to say, distract us from the fundamental issue when it comes to abortion,
which is what is the unborn and what makes human life valuable in the first place?
And maybe we'll unpack that a little bit more, but let's watch the next video
and see what you guys have to say about it.
(12:25):
Two years ago, my husband and I were expecting our second child.
Our daughter, Lauren, couldn't wait to be a big sister.
I was getting ready for her fourth birthday party when something didn't feel right.
Two emergency rooms sent me away. Because of Louisiana's abortion ban,
no one would confirm that I was miscarrying.
(12:47):
I was in pain, bleeding so much my husband feared for my life.
No woman should experience what I endured, but too many have.
They write to me saying, what happened to you happened to me.
Sometimes they're miscarrying, scared to tell anyone, even their doctors.
(13:09):
Our daughters deserve better. America deserves better.
Kamala Harris and Tim Walz will fight for reproductive rights and our freedom and our shared future.
(13:33):
Okay so we have another challenging situation
here um where what what uh
what caitlin was talking about was essentially the beginning of her miscarriage
where around 10 to 11 weeks pregnant with her second child um she started to
miscarry and in one article i read about her she mentioned that the pain was
(13:53):
so bad during the miscarry that it was worse than childbirth Now,
keep in mind, this is a woman who's already had a baby.
She drove herself to the ER at Women's Hospital in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, where they took her vitals and they drew blood. They did a physical and an ultrasound.
And sadly, the ultrasound showed that the baby that she was carrying had stopped
growing and only had a faint heartbeat.
(14:14):
So even though it looked like she was in the stages of miscarrying,
the hospital staff wouldn't confirm it.
And they didn't discuss any treatment options with her. And so she went home.
The next day, she had more bleeding and pain. pain, and so she went to another ER.
So she goes to a second one, a different one than she went to the first time,
which is Baton Rouge General, and she got another ultrasound.
(14:37):
She was then sent home again and told to follow up with her OBGYN in two to three days.
And then she asked, you know, is there a way, is there anything that you can
give me for pain or to speed up the process, you know, like a DNC or anything like that?
And because they were both considered procedures for abortions,
the doctor replied that we're not doing that now.
Kind of like, almost like, you know, we don't do that anymore kind of a thing.
(15:00):
They wouldn't discharge her with papers saying that she had a miscarriage because
they were scared that would trigger an investigation into them.
So here you have another situation where a woman is miscarrying.
She's really struggling. She's trying to get help.
She goes to one hospital and it seems like while they can see the beginning
stage is happening. They're hesitant to treat or help.
(15:22):
She gets sent back home. Things continue to get worse. She goes to another hospital
and kind of experiences the same thing.
In her particular situation, she actually did fully carry out the miscarriage at home.
And so she did have the miscarriage apart from the hospital.
And thankfully, obviously, is alive today.
(15:43):
So that's just to kind of give you all a bit more story here.
And there's going to be... Oh, go ahead.
Well, I was going to say, and so similar to the first one, right,
that this is a tragic story, and it's even more tragic if the unborn are not
distinct living and whole human beings. Right.
(16:03):
Who possess the same value as you and I do.
So I don't know, Megan, I know you've got something to say, but maybe you want
to put that there because if the unborn aren't distinct living and whole human beings,
and they do not share the same value as us, we ought to hear this story and
do everything we can to make sure that this, there are no laws anywhere that
(16:26):
would cause any problem like this.
But if it is true that the unborn are distinct living and whole human beings,
and they do have the same moral worth as we do, that's going to inform how we
think about this issue and even these tragic scenarios.
So do you want to comment on that? Essentially, what is the pro-life position
(16:48):
from a scientific and a philosophical standpoint? Good.
Yes, I can comment on that. And I agree with you, Mike.
If the unborn are not distinct living in whole and abortion is truly no different
than a simple medical procedure.
Like extracting a tooth or cutting my fingernails, which isn't a medical procedure,
but that's still that kind of thing, then yes, then we should get behind Caitlin
(17:11):
and we say, what in the world?
Now, the pro-life position laid out in a very, I guess, condensed way says that
we are pro-life because we think that it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
The definition of abortion being the intentional killing of the human embryo or fetus.
And the best of science, particularly the area of embryology,
(17:32):
tells us that from the moment of conception, every single one of us was a living,
distinct, and whole human being.
And you can unpack all of those things in amazing ways, living, distinct, and whole.
And philosophy tells us that there is no morally relevant difference between
the embryos we once were and the adults that we are today that would have justified
killing us back then, but not now.
(17:55):
Stephen Schwartz, the philosopher, points out four areas of difference,
size, level of development, which that's got a lot of different little,
you know, sub points, environment, which is location and degree of dependency.
Those are the differences, but those differences don't make it okay to have
been killed back then based on size or level of development or environment or
(18:18):
degree dependency, but not now as the young adults or adults that are listening,
whoever's listening as you are.
That is the basic pro-life position as an appeal to science and philosophy.
In Caitlin's case, I am truly befuddled by this one,
that she was experiencing what in every way was marking a miscarriage and that
(18:41):
the doctors would not intervene in a way to help her through this process,
even if it was to help her try and support her child for a while longer.
Why wasn't, you know, but I wasn't there. I don't know the intricacies of the what happened.
I do agree with what she said. No woman should experience what I endured.
(19:01):
I agree. No woman should experience miscarriage to begin with.
No woman should experience that kind of pain or the loss of her child. I agree.
The worldview I adhere to, the Christian worldview, has room for why that's not okay.
But as far as the particulars of this case, I don't know why the physicians
(19:22):
were afraid unless it had something to do with the prior case as well,
that these trigger laws had gone into effect and the doctors were unclear as to what the law allowed.
In this case, that that's a case of miscommunication or misunderstanding that
resulted in a potentially very dangerous situation, not a case of we need abortion
(19:42):
so that women like Caitlin can be okay.
Because again, a miscarriage and an abortion are not the same thing,
though she was seeking an abortion procedure toward the end of her miscarriage. Right. Right. Yeah.
And isn't because there was a misunderstanding and a misapplication of the law
(20:06):
that led to a traumatic medical hardship for this young woman.
The therefore isn't, it should be legal to intentionally kill innocent human
beings for any reason at any point. That's just not the therefore.
And I think that's the appropriate way to look at that tragic situation.
(20:27):
Alicia, did I cut you off? No, that's okay. You know, I just,
I do think that that's one of the key things we have to remember, right?
Both Caitlin and Amanda did not want to lose their children.
In other words, they both felt like, I want this baby.
I have a blanket for my baby, right? Right. So even they were these these are
very different cases than I think than what is often taught about why we are
(20:51):
advocating for abortion.
These are not these are not those kind of situations.
These are women who wanted their children and lost their children and are grieving
the loss of their child as well.
So in both Amanda's situation and Caitlin's situation, we're not just grieving for them.
We're grieving for the loss of life that also suffered as well.
Which, I'll say this, it's a brilliant move on the part of the DNC to present
(21:15):
stories of abortion that all involve, well, the two that we've watched involve
people who wanted abortion.
Which that's a clever way to present the issue when the reality is such that that is not.
I guess I'll be careful about saying. Yeah, go ahead.
(21:36):
Yeah, I think both of the stories have abortion as a part of the story on the
peripheral, the perimeter.
But these are tragic stories about miscarriages and about potentially life-threatening situations.
They are not stories about abortion.
Right. Again, remember what abortion is and what it does.
(21:56):
And so what's brilliant on the part of the DNC is taking the ball and moving
it over here in a way that is emotionally hard hitting.
It was a throat punch in terms of emotion and it should be. Right.
These are horrific stories.
And to a degree from the, you know, separating the people telling the story
(22:16):
from maybe even the DNC here,
the strategy is to hide behind the hard case because their real position on
abortion is unrestricted abortion for any reason up until or past the point
of birth. That is their position.
And so there's a little bit of dishonesty here to me where you're going to hide
behind the hard cases and present yourselves as, look, this is why we're pro-choice.
(22:40):
It's because of these reasons. No, no, no.
These are exceptional hard cases that are even complicated.
In some cases, It's just a misunderstanding and application of a clear or not so clear law.
It's not their real position on the issue.
And they're hiding behind it, which, you know, maybe is a point made after the next.
(23:02):
Because the contrast is Caitlin.
And free tacos and vasectomies and chemical abortions outside, right?
Like what that is just, it is,
it's mind blowing in the, in the stark difference in the two situations.
Yeah. So can I, can I add on to, because when I first found out about what was
(23:23):
going on outside of the DNC, I, I was just floored, right?
So for those of you who don't know, first of all, kudos to you,
you've probably had a much better 24 hours than I have. of.
But outside of the DNC, there was a Planned Parenthood mobile truck and also
a table set up by the Chicago Abortion Fund.
So the Chicago Abortion Fund table was like offering free goodie bags and face
(23:44):
masks and candy and painkillers and cards of affirmation, these kind of things.
But Planned Parenthood was offering free vasectomies to men that wanted them,
as well as free abortions to women that wanted them.
And if you got a vasectomy, you got a free taco, because there was also a taco
food truck that was stationed there, but it was only free if you got a vasectomy.
(24:05):
So they opened up registration before they even got there. And all 40 slots
for vasectomies were filled up before the DNC even started.
So men had already signed up to get their vasectomies before the DNC even started.
And so they went and performed them and they were aiming for about 25 or so
abortions between Monday and Tuesday, which they did, which is what it is.
(24:25):
But what's interesting to me as well is I was reading about this, Dr.
Colleen McNichols, who was the woman that was there performing the abortions.
She was the chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood in the area.
And she emphasized that it's important to have healthcare policy that's based
on science and evidence.
And to me, that was so interesting because on the Chicago abortion front table,
(24:50):
there were these little pins that said pro-trans and and pro-abortion.
And I'm like, oh, this is interesting. So we have pro-trans, pro-abortion pins.
And yet we have the chief medical officer for Planned Parenthood saying that
she wants, you know, health care policy that is based on science and evidence.
And I'm like, there's nothing in the transgender argument that's actually based on science.
(25:12):
So there was just even a blatant contradiction, even in the in the pin that
the Chicago Abortion Fund table was putting out right next to the Planned Parenthood group.
Is like there isn't a science-based argument for gender because biology says
that the genders are binary, male and female.
So it was just an interesting, odd type thing to do outside of the DNC.
(25:35):
And, you know, it made some people who I think are probably much more pro-choice
begin to really question what the DNC is after or what Planned Parenthood is
after or what any of these pro-choice organizations are after because,
you know, we've come a long way from the Bill Clinton era of rare, safe, and legal, right?
And so instead what we have is like kind of like we've alluded to just,
(25:57):
hey, just get abortion on demand. Everybody should be able to do that.
And so as a result, it's just kind
of, they're like, well, what does the vasectomies have to do with this?
You know, it just seems like there is a massive shift, or there has been,
and we recognize this from actually looking out for women and trying to protect
women and keep them safe to actually just saying, hey, you have a problem.
(26:19):
Oh, don't worry. We can help you deal with that.
Yeah. Two little things there. One, the best of science and evidence would point
to the pro-life argument, as we have just demonstrated.
If we're following science and evidence, it tells us exactly what the unborn are.
And so that was a curious thing for them to say, even with everything thing that was going on.
(26:39):
The second thing is, even in the Clinton era, if abortion is nothing but a simple
medical procedure, why does it need to be safe, legal, and rare?
So it's just an interesting, all over the place, the mind games are there,
and they have been for a long time.
Let's watch this last one. And it's, again, sad, and it has,
(27:00):
oh my gosh, a powerful line in it.
I'm really curious to see what your response is to this line here.
Growing up, I was an all-American girl.
Varsity soccer captain, cheerleading captain, homecoming queen, and survivor.
(27:26):
Thank you.
Music.
I was raped by my stepfather after years of sexual abuse.
At age 12, I took my first pregnancy test, and it was positive.
(27:50):
That was the first time I was ever told, you have options.
I can't imagine not having a choice.
But today, that's the reality for many women and girls across the country because
of Donald Trump's abortion bans.
(28:14):
He calls it a beautiful thing. What is so beautiful about a child having to
carry her parent's child? child.
There are other survivors out there who have no options.
(28:37):
And I want you to know that we see you. We hear you.
Kamala Harris will sign a national law to restore the right to an abortion.
(29:11):
She will fight for every woman and every girl, even those who are not fighting for her.
So this one, that line. Yeah. That, that line is a big one.
First, just the, the, the, what is beautiful about a child having to carry their parents, child.
(29:39):
It's ugly, right? No, I hear you. That's disgusting.
And that sin and that crime is horrific and far too many young men and women
have suffered at the hands of wicked adults.
And it's disgusting and it is heartbreaking.
(30:05):
Yeah this is yeah this is
a pretty this situation in and of
itself is just horrific it's gross it's disgusting
for this abuse of Hadley began at the age of five she got pregnant at 12 by
her stepfather so these are for multiple years and and of course he did the
(30:26):
typical manipulation this is what daddies do to their little girls and all this
kind of stuff and this This is normal.
And even when she questioned it, even when she started fighting back,
she would get like a scar or, you know, bruise on her leg.
And she would, her mom would ask her about it. And she would just say,
oh, you know, I just, you know, skin my knee doing this or whatever.
And I mean, that's what she did as a little child to try and cover up for what
(30:51):
he did because she was so scared.
She was so confused. I mean, this is just disgusting.
Thankfully, he is in prison for what he did do to her. So this is a pretty horrible thing.
And and it's this one's different, I think, than than some of the other ones,
because obviously, number one, the circumstances are very different.
(31:13):
But what also makes this one different is, you know, she is talking about how
the difficulties that she didn't have options at 12.
You know, if if abortion was illegal, what would what would what would happen
and what would be done? on.
And I think there's a bit, there's an aspect here where people can get confused
(31:34):
as to what she's actually speaking about.
So maybe I can just give more clarity to the story.
Hadley actually did not have an abortion at age 12.
She, like the other two women on stage, also miscarried.
So while it may seem like she's saying, if I didn't have any options,
I couldn't have aborted, I would have been stuck, forced to carry a child.
(31:58):
That's actually not what happened. She actually miscarried.
And so as a result, this is a slightly different situation than the other two in that I think for her,
this is going to be dealt more with more of an unwanted pregnancy versus the other two.
And so that's going to be a slight different dimension to that piece as well.
(32:22):
And so, yeah, this is pretty horrific. This is pretty horrible.
I think, you know, with both the first two situations, there was laws inactive in Louisiana.
We didn't mention it, but Louisiana law completely would have given doctors
permission to be able to help Caitlin at either hospital she went to during
her miscarriages and those kind of things, even though the doctors were still
(32:43):
trying to figure out if this was a miscarriage or just bleeding or what.
But regardless, both laws would have, both states, Texas and Louisiana,
had laws that would have protected the mothers in both the situation.
But Hadley's story is different.
And I think that that's important to bring out.
Yeah, this is, again, one of those things where when we start to talk about
(33:07):
abortion, we start to talk about all of the very hard things that bump into
abortion rather than about abortion.
But we can talk about Hadley, right? We can absorb rightly and be angry about what happened to her.
I don't think that the correct, I think there's a dichotomy being drawn here
(33:27):
or even a polarization happening happening where the implied assumption is that
pro-life individuals who would not have advocated for a choice for Hadley,
again, what kind of choice are we talking about?
That they somehow just don't care about her, that their hearts are dead into her story.
And that's just not it. There's not a single person that I know who is pro-life
(33:51):
or otherwise who would be okay with with anything happening to a woman because of abortion.
In fact, the pro-life person would go so far as to say, I don't want anyone
harmed because of abortion, right?
But in Hadley's case, there was a great evil done to her that stripped things
(34:12):
away from her, including her innocence.
And in the case of when she became pregnant, her options.
And I think that we could even go so far as to say the evil done to her also
stripped away the option to intentionally take another human life,
because that's impermissible morally speaking for people people would see abortion
(34:33):
for what it is and what it does actually so when i hear a story like hadley's
and it stops at that my anger is already off the charts for this for her that
for hadley as a little girl and for hadley now as this,
victim who is a survivor, right?
But my anger is also off the charts that the best we have to offer her in America
(34:54):
by way of loving her well is, oh, option to abort.
That drives me insane. Who could look at that little girl and say that?
But here's what I, well, I know who could because I know where the sympathy
lies, but I also know more about what abortion is and does.
Hadley was asked to be a hero before she was ever ready to and when she didn't want to.
(35:15):
And typically that's what happens with heroic acts. Nobody's looking to be one
when those things happen. It's because of what's done to them that they're put
in an impossible situation.
When she asks the question, question she says that
trump calls it beautiful now trump
isn't calling what happened to her beautiful so that
(35:36):
was a bit of a i'm going to take liberty by putting words in
his mouth donald trump was talking i think about childbirth about um fetal development
about motherhood about family and that is in and of itself on the surface of
things innately beautiful um there is not anything beautiful about what happened to Hattie.
(35:58):
If there is, and I'm not causing a strict philosophical sense of what is beauty
and how do we think about it, it would be the miracle of new life,
though she wasn't looking for that.
So it would not be something that was beautiful in the situation or the circumstance.
However, when we work through something like this, I could counter that.
(36:21):
And if I could do it on strict intellectual grounds, which I'm going to take
this kite string that I'm holding on to because that is attached to Hadley,
who was harmed and go up into the abstract to talk about abortion for a second,
then we could ask the question, what happened to you?
Hadley is not beautiful. No, it's not. It's evil.
But what is so beautiful about the proper response being the dismemberment of another innocent life?
(36:50):
We can do better than that.
And essentially what we're doing is we're saying the form, the method of conception
determines the value of the baby.
And that is what we need to be careful to not do, because then we've made life
conditional, right? It's a conditional value.
And so when you look at the history of Planned Parenthood, and you can go on
(37:15):
the website and they will tell you that their linkage that comes from Margaret
Sanger, and they'll talk to you about how she was racist.
You know, they'll talk to you about how she believed in certain selection and
things like that of humans, that certain people should have children,
certain people shouldn't. Right.
Margaret Sanger gets her roots from social Darwinism, you know,
which essentially is like, let's get rid of the misfits.
(37:37):
Let's get rid of those that are that are going to contaminate our gene pool, essentially.
Potentially right so you've got this lineage there
that does see human life as certain
as not an equal quality of value but as a certain level
of ranking based off of what i think it should be and well well prime parenthood
has worked hard to try and distance themselves from margaret singer and they
(38:01):
do say that on their website they disagree with margaret singer's racist racism
and things like that they do acknowledge that even though they do put out there
that that is our founder, and they do talk about her.
But what's interesting to me is you can try and pull yourself away from that
kind of mindset of certain humans are more important and more valuable than other humans.
But the reality is, is unless you actually fundamentally change that value thinking
(38:23):
and that line of thought, you are still going to find yourself trapped in that
same pattern, even though you are trying to get yourself out of it.
What do you mean, Alicia?
Well, Well, let me give you an example. On their Planned Parenthood website,
it says that more than 70% of their patients have incomes at or below 150% of
the federal poverty level.
(38:45):
So that's about $3,900 a month for a family of four.
So essentially, Planned Parenthood, over 70% of their patients come from lower income families.
So when you think about what Margaret Sanger advocated for, when you think about
social should Darwinism advocate for, the less educated, the poor,
(39:06):
the not as physically strong, whatever, the list goes on and on.
Planned Parenthood may want to say, we renounce Margaret Sanger's racist views.
And I think that they mean that.
But the reality is her views aren't just teachings.
It came from a value system that Planned Parenthood still holds,
that humans aren't equal.
And we determine their value based on how they were conceived or based on the
(39:29):
mother's life circumstances or based on if this child is wanted or based on
if there's financial support.
So you have all of these conditions on human value and human life that Margaret
Sanger had and that social Darwinism had.
And many others. Yes, exactly. I mean, the whole thing, by the way,
people don't realize the links between social Darwinism and World War II,
(39:49):
like Hitler saw the American eugenics movement.
He was watching it as a corporal in the German army at the time, and he admired it.
So the reality is, as I think, ultimately, what this comes down to is how do
we see human value? And how do we know that humans are important?
That's what it comes down to. Because then we can look at each one of of these
(40:10):
situations and say, I grieve for the mom and I grieve for the human life that was lost. Yes.
And that is one of many reasons why our organization speaks into this issue,
because what does it mean to be human and what makes us valuable in the first
place is one of the most fundamentally important questions that exists.
And the problem with the pro-choice position is it undermines it all.
(40:32):
It undermines human equality. It undermines human flourishing.
And the pro-choice position proves too much.
Because as we're confronted with these hard cases and you hear rhetoric like
a mom living beneath the poverty line and has six kids living in poverty,
(40:52):
you're telling us we should force her to bring a seventh child into an impoverished world?
Well, it just proves too much. If it is true that we are morally justified in
killing innocent human beings in the name of economic hardship,
what does that mean for all human beings currently living in economic hardship?
Are we morally obligated to help them and alleviate their suffering through means other than death?
(41:18):
Or can we just, in the name of mercy, take innocent life? Of course not.
Of course not. Same thing with a hard case involving rape.
Let's say, for example, there's a mother, and there's plenty of stories like
this, that is, is raped, decides to carry the child, gives birth.
(41:42):
What about maybe at six months old? Right.
When let's say it's her son begins to resemble her attacker and it creates an
unbearable psychological grief.
Is she able to kill that six month old in the name of psychological hardship?
Well, people would say, of course not. Well, why not? What is morally significantly
(42:05):
different in terms of value between that six month old and a six week preborn child?
That's where the pro-choice position becomes philosophically indefensible.
And if you buy into pro-choice principles, it proves too much.
And if we were to live consistently following a pro-choice ethic,
(42:26):
it would undermine human equality that we are all fighting for. Yeah.
Yeah, Mike. You know, my daughter came home from school yesterday and I showed
her the six minute clip because I wanted to hear her thoughts on it.
Now, with our daughter, we have done really what you advised in the article
that we posted last week on the website, Mike, about talking to our kids about abortion.
(42:50):
We started early. That website being apologetics.org.
Exactly where this one will end up eventually.
We started talking to her early.
And really, it was about these very things, the value of human life.
All human beings are valuable, not just some more valuable than others.
(43:13):
You are an intrinsically valuable human being made in God's image.
You are not valuable because of the grades you bring home or the performance
in the game or the things like that.
Those are fun things and good things that you can do to excellence,
but your value is already determined.
So these are things we started with and it bled into talking about the issue
of abortion as she got a little older.
So she sat down and watched this and she pointed out things immediately.
(43:38):
I didn't even get to the philosophy, Mike, because in the words that were used
by those on stage, and this is my daughter whose heart is breaking watching these women.
But when asked, baby, what did you hear?
She said, well, in their words, they assumed that the unborn were not human like the rest of us.
So it was not it was it was the philosophy even or I'm sorry,
(44:00):
the science even that was that was that was being undermined.
And it may have been the philosophy, depending on what they meant by by this.
But she heard two lines in particular at the beginning and at the end that couched
the whole thing. The first one was said by Amanda, and she talked about the
fact that we need to vote as if lives depend on it, because they do.
(44:21):
Neely was watching the video, and while it was playing, she said, which lives?
Do the lives include the unborn lives, Mom?
And she nailed it at the end of the video, even after Hadley's heart-wrenching story.
And by the way, there was a lie in that story as well, not in the story,
(44:42):
but in what people would hear from the story because it's permeated the culture
that if somehow Hadley was allowed to have an abortion,
though that's not what happened to her, that would undo what had been done to
her. The abortion would undo it.
And that's a lie. That's false. But Hadley said, Kamala Harris will fight for
(45:04):
every woman and every girl.
And my daughter heard that and said, not every woman and not every girl,
mom, because she's not talking about the unborn ones.
So even just within that to look for and hear the words that are being said
and go, wait, what's going on here?
We have to be intellectually honest, even as we carry the hardship of the hard
(45:29):
cases, because both matter when it comes to human value, human life that extends
to every single one of us.
So my daughter heard those things and I thought it was.
I thought it was interesting that she, as a young woman, you know,
high school student would pick up on it and go, that's that's not all true.
(45:49):
Yeah. So because the unborn are distinct living and whole human beings bearing
the same moral value as you and I,
and especially if you're a Christian that understands that all humans are made
in the image of God, we are morally compelled to seek the good of our unborn
neighbor and their mothers in love.
(46:11):
So during a politically contentious season like this, where videos like what
we just watched are circulating.
It's more important than ever,
or it's as important as ever that followers of Jesus Christ understand clearly the pro-life position,
understand what abortion is and understand the merits of each position and decide,
(46:35):
kind of choose this day who you're going to serve to protect and who you're.
The pro-life position is remarkably simple to understand. It's defensible through
science and philosophy and scripture.
And we need more Christians in particular that understand it and know how to love in practical ways.
(47:02):
Our organization is dedicated to helping to bring understanding and clarity to this issue.
It's why, for example, we're involved in an initiative in Florida right now
where this November on the ballot in the state of Florida is Amendment 4 that
if passes, will write unrestricted abortion into the state's constitution.
So we've created a series of videos.
(47:24):
We're making ourselves available to speak at churches and other organizations
and special events in the coming months to raise awareness to both this particular amendment,
to understand what it's about and what it will mean for the state of Florida,
but also just to clearly articulate the pro-life position and how we can make
a reasonable defense of it.
(47:45):
So now's the time to act.
And not just a select few, it's a time for all of us to grow in knowledge of
this issue so that we can speak clearly on it and again, act in accordance with
love towards our neighbors.
Anything else to say? We thought we'd go 20 minutes. That's long gone.
I knew that wouldn't happen. I saw a look in your eyes when I said that earlier.
(48:10):
No, I think I think I just want to reiterate one thing you said earlier,
Mike, about hiding behind hard cases that we should hear and listen to the stories
of Amanda and Caitlin and Hadley and of Amanda's husband, by the way,
which kudos to them for giving a man a voice on the issue. That's true.
For so long, the pro-choice position has said men aren't allowed to speak on the issue.
(48:31):
I hope they would extend that same courtesy to the pro-life men who are defending
their side of things, trying to come to an agreement or trying to come to a
better position of how can we love all of these human beings well.
A more intellectually honest position of the DNC at this point in time,
given their party platform is about abortion on demand and restoring a national right to abortion,
(48:55):
would have been to defend what
was going on outside and why they would allow that in the parking lot.
That would have been more intellectually honest than perhaps just making it
about these three stories with the giant reproductive freedom screened behind them.
So I'm glad Megan mentioned that because I also struggle to see what the sterilization
(49:23):
of men has to do with women's safety when it comes to abortion or when it comes
to women's access to abortion.
I as well see a massive contradiction there.
And I think, I guess my final thoughts, you know, all three of these stories were sad.
(49:44):
I mean, that's just the way they are. All three of them are sad.
And I think what frustrated me about the way that the DNC did this,
and keep in mind, this isn't about DNC and RNC.
If the RNC had done this, I would have been as ticked as well.
This is not about political sides.
This This is about what I feel like was misleading information,
(50:05):
because when I watched these things, I was misled to believe and conclude certain things.
And then when I did research into the particular situations and I found out
that all the three of these were miscarriages and that two of them was,
(50:25):
you know, doctors not reaching out to them and treating them with that in a
way that was within within the laws of both of those states,
that the whole thing was misleading, made you feel like the Dobbs decision made
it so that all the laws in the laws in Texas and Louisiana were so restrictive,
completely 100%. And that's not the case.
(50:45):
And it just I think I was just so frustrated.
Because I was able to sit there and do the research to look into it more,
but how many other people didn't.
And to me, this was was just a massive intentional misleading.
And I would say lying on behalf of the DNC to lead people to conclude things
that were not true, such as the situation with Hadley, that she didn't have
(51:10):
an abortion, she miscarried.
That wasn't stated to make it clear on the stage. And I think that's an important thing to have done.
And so I think for me, I think it was just,
What they did is kind of, I guess, the classic argument where you ignore the
98% or so of cases that it has nothing to do with miscarriages,
(51:34):
nothing to do with rape or incest, none of those things.
And you disregard the overall majority of cases, which are just, I don't want this baby.
I can't afford this baby. I already have enough kids.
They didn't deal, and this is what Megan was getting at, and I think this was
spot on. they did not deal with those situations.
I want to hear you make a case for those situations.
(51:57):
And you can also talk about the rape, incest, and the minor things.
But what they didn't do is they ignored the 98 or so percent.
And that's intentional. Remember that.
Why did they not focus on that?
Because they knew that those were not rare. They knew that it was much harder
to defend those situations.
And then when you have vasectomies happening outside, you see that people are
(52:19):
going to start to make linkages between, is this a war on like human reproduction altogether?
Not just about women, but just men too. Is this a battle against reproduction?
Which I don't know where that leaves us as a species.
So I think for me, I think that was really where it was frustrating.
It was a very misleading, but emotionally and heart tugging type segment segment,
(52:40):
that I think warranted a lot more honesty on behalf of the DNC.
So in conversation, if someone's watching this and going, okay,
great, what in the world do I do about this?
A couple of things. One, I think relationally, learn.
One, learn the pro-life position, but when you're talking about it,
learn how to ask really good questions.
(53:01):
So for example, when someone's presenting a hard case, don't try to be like,
okay, and I heard this YouTube video, I read this book, I know the response.
You can ask a simple question like this to kind of get at the heart of the issue.
You could say something like, okay, I hear you on these hard cases.
If I were to join you in advocating for abortion law that restricted,
(53:22):
or allowed for abortion in these hard cases, would you join with me and see
that abortion was restricted in all other cases like the Vest, majority of the 98%?
You know what your friend or your opponent is going to say. They're going to say no.
And then you can say, well, why are you hiding behind the heart issues?
Can we talk about what the main issue is here when it comes to abortion,
(53:42):
which is what is the unborn and what makes human beings valuable in the first place?
So learn how to ask really good questions.
Don't feel like you have to give a lecture and a presentation in every opportunity.
You can just ask questions and learning how to do so as an effective way to make the case for life.
Second thing is you do need to be politically active.
(54:03):
That's not the same thing as saying which candidate necessarily you should vote
for, though there are implications clearly to how we are to vote.
And in some states, for example, like Florida.
You can vote against Amendment 4 and not vote for either candidate.
So abortion is clearly a political issue. Either presidential candidate.
(54:24):
What did I say? Oh, you said candidate. But yeah, either presidential candidate.
So, I mean, abortion is clearly a political issue, but it's also just,
it's a moral issue and we're morally obligated to seek the good of our neighbor.
And so you need to be aware that, for example, in Florida, if you can't stomach
voting for either candidate, you at least should go to the ballot box and vote no on Amendment 4.
(54:46):
Though I do think this has broader implications for how you should vote come
November for who's in the presidency, but we'll save that discussion for a future date.
Thank you, Megan and Alicia.
There's more resources for those of you that are watching at apologetics.org.
You can go to apologetics.org forward slash pro-life. life.
(55:08):
And if there is a way that we can serve you and help you and answer your questions
and help make the case for life, we are here for you. Thanks.
Music.
Kamala Harris is making abortion one of the, if not the, central issue of her campaign.
She has stated that she will restore the national right to abortion.
And at the DNC, abortions were provided for free, as were vasectomies along
(00:24):
with tacos to any that wanted them.
Inside the convention, there was a segment where there were some,
I would say, powerful testimonies of a married couple and two young women describing
their painful experiences with restrictive abortion laws.
(00:46):
And it was, again, a powerful testimony that I think needs a response.
So I've asked two of my colleagues here, Megan Allman and Alicia Wood,
to bring some analysis and some commentary to this.
And we're going to watch the video and break down some pieces of it.
So, hey, Megan. Hey, Alicia. Thanks for joining me in this.
(01:08):
Yeah, of course. Thank you for doing this.
Well, if we can do the tech, then we'll do it.
Let's see. I'm an old man now. Here we go. Let's check this out.
When you're expecting a baby, packing for the hospital should be a joyful moment.
(01:30):
For us, it was different.
We were told with 100% certainty we would lose our baby girl, Willow.
And we were sent home.
For three days, we waited until Amanda was sick enough to receive standard abortion care.
(01:53):
Eventually, Amanda's temperature spiked. She was shaking, disoriented, and crashing.
I don't remember what I threw into our bag that day, only that instead of welcoming
Willow, I was hoping Amanda's life could be saved.
(02:14):
I'm here tonight because the fight for reproductive rights isn't just a woman's
fight. This is about fighting.
This is about fighting for our families. And as Kamala Harris says, our future. Thank you.
Music.
(02:41):
Sir. Every time I share our story, my heart breaks.
For the baby girl we wanted desperately. For the doctors and nurses who couldn't
help me deliver her safely.
For Josh, who feared he would lose me too.
But I was lucky. I lived.
(03:04):
So I'll continue sharing our story, standing with women and families across the country.
Today, because of Donald Trump, more than one in three women of reproductive
age in America lives under an abortion ban.
(03:26):
A second Trump term would rip away even more of our rights.
Passing a national abortion ban, letting states monitor pregnancies and prosecute
doctors, restricting birth control and fertility treatments.
We cannot let that happen.
(03:54):
We need to vote as if lives depend on it, because they do.
Thoughts? Yeah. Well, let me just say first, I think, you know,
(04:20):
No, I think what we're going to see as we watch these videos is just three tragic
stories, first of all. Okay.
And while I've never suffered a miscarriage, I definitely know of women who
have and family members who have and people who are close to me.
And so as a result, you know, whenever you see something like this,
I think I can understand, you know, the pain.
(04:42):
I've watched another video of them where she's just crying, holding the blanket
she was going to bring Willow home in.
Right. So this is like real life for her, not just on a DNC stage.
And so just to give a little bit further, further context for people to understand
a little bit more of Amanda's story is that 18 weeks pregnant,
(05:03):
she did begin to have a miscarriage.
She suffered what's called a preterm prelabor rupture of membranes.
So she did go to a Catholic hospital in Austin, Texas, but she was denied the
abortion because the doctors could still detect fetal cardiac activity.
So the baby was still, the heart was still beating. And so as a result,
they denied the abortion.
She was then sent home, as her husband mentioned, and three days later,
(05:25):
due to signs of infection, she went back in, ended up being diagnosed with sepsis.
And while then at that point, the doctors did perform the emergency induction
abortion, it did result in her spending three days in the ICU fighting for her life.
Obviously, she survived, thankfully, but she did lose one of her fallopian tubes
in the sense of use in terms of function.
(05:47):
It's permanently closed. And so
now she has had to turn to in vitro fertilization IVF to start a family.
So there are some serious outcomes here and some challenges that have resulted
as a result of what she has been through.
What is interesting to me, in addition to some of the things that she says,
(06:07):
is kind of near the end, she switches over to this idea of restrictive birth control and fertility.
Treatments, which is a little bit of a veering away from her story. actually.
We're sitting here grieving with the miscarriage, but then there's this introduction
of these other things that don't necessarily, would not have been of help to
(06:27):
her in that particular moment.
And so it seems like what's happened here is what the doctors have done,
which we will see as we continue on, is that there seems to be a challenge with
doctors to try and understand how do we respond?
When is it an okay time to respond when a woman is going through something like this.
And Megan, I know you have some thoughts on this, so I'll let you add on there.
(06:50):
Yeah, a little bit. I know that Amanda's story or what happened to Amanda and
Willow and her husband happened really shortly after the overturn of Roe v.
Wade with the Dobbs Supreme Court decision.
And so the law in Texas was a trigger law that went into effect very shortly thereafter.
It's possible during that time that there was some confusion about what doctors
(07:11):
could or could not do and that abortion was very restricted and still is in
the state of Texas, which I actually think is a good thing.
But coming at this, you know, to hear Amanda's story is one thing.
I think there's an assumption there that pro-lifers will, oh,
yeah, that's really sad, but kind of thing.
And that's not the case. That would be kind of an implicit character attack if that's there.
(07:37):
However, when you hear a story like hers, it is important to listen to what
she's saying and what's trying to be promoted to those who are hearing.
I mean, she's standing on that stage. She's been coached through talking through
her story in a very tight way.
Even the gestures are intentional.
And I think it's important that we understand what abortion is.
(07:57):
And normally when people start to talk about abortion, typically,
and this is a case I think that this happens, they're talking about anything but abortion, right?
Abortion is defined as the intentional killing of the human embryo or fetus.
And that's a definition that doesn't beg any questions across the board.
I think there are pro-choice scholars and individuals who are fine with that
(08:18):
definition, as well as pro-life ones.
They might use the word baby, but the definition is fine.
In this case, Amanda was suffering a miscarriage and she went into the first
time her child was still alive.
And so these doctors working with this new law are doing the best they can to
try and understand what is within the parameters for them to be able to do or not.
(08:39):
But at that point in time, they had a living child and a mother who was needing medical care.
Um, so I think that, you know, the best we can do is go, what happened to Amanda was an abortion.
And what she needed also didn't qualify as an abortion.
She needed a life-saving treatment because in her case, she was looking at losing Willow.
(09:00):
Their words, I can't go verify that right now, but 100% certainty that they
were going to lose Willow.
And that with Willow, they could possibly lose Amanda.
So when doctors look at a case where they have two lives that are at stake,
they will do. And every law on the books in the United States right now will
(09:20):
allow them to do the greater moral good by saving one life rather than losing both lives.
This would be true in cases of ectopic pregnancy, which was not Amanda's case,
but hers was very similar.
And so it looks like what happened is it went it went farther than it needed to.
It went farther than it was supposed to. In her case, it was really dangerous.
But still, what she's talking about wouldn't qualify as an abortion by definition.
(09:45):
The intent was not to kill Willow.
The intent was to save Amanda when both Amanda and Willow might die.
And I think part of the challenge here, too, is that the Texas law does the
Texas does have a law against abortion.
Obviously, that's where we're talking about her particular situation.
But many people don't realize the exception that it does have, which Megan alluded to.
(10:07):
And the exception that it has is that situations such as the life or health
of the pregnant patients of the mother is at risk. risk, right?
So that is the key thing. So really, I'm not sure why the doctors would have
even sent her home, at least keep her in the hospital, I would have thought,
so they can at least just monitor her as she's miscarrying this baby.
(10:27):
If they're concerned about acting.
They can at least just keep her in there so that they can monitor her.
And look, it did get to the point where they did feel like, okay,
we are safe under the law to actually proceed with helping save her life.
And so I think it's really important for people to understand here that it comes
across as if the Dobbs decision put her life at risk because there's no help or treatment for her.
(10:55):
And that's actually not what the law says.
There was treatment options for her. There was help for her.
Even under Dobbs, it just that treatment did not happen.
I think you two answered or provided really good analysis on this,
and I don't have much to add except for when it comes to situations like this
(11:16):
where our hearts are involved,
we have to sometimes slow down, take a breath, and take a step back.
And it's not enough just to have the right heart regarding an issue.
We also have to have the right mind.
And in situations like this where the emotion of the situation is what we're
confronted with, we must move beyond the emotion, not turning cold or unloving, but move,
(11:43):
what's a better way to say it, marry our emotion with the facts and understand
the law and understand what is the fundamental issue when it comes to abortion,
which is what is the unborn and what makes human beings valuable in the first place.
That's the fundamental question that needs to be addressed when we are encountering
(12:03):
hard cases like this and the hard cases in some way, rightfully so,
I might want to say, distract us from the fundamental issue when it comes to abortion,
which is what is the unborn and what makes human life valuable in the first place?
And maybe we'll unpack that a little bit more, but let's watch the next video
and see what you guys have to say about it.
(12:25):
Two years ago, my husband and I were expecting our second child.
Our daughter, Lauren, couldn't wait to be a big sister.
I was getting ready for her fourth birthday party when something didn't feel right.
Two emergency rooms sent me away. Because of Louisiana's abortion ban,
no one would confirm that I was miscarrying.
(12:47):
I was in pain, bleeding so much my husband feared for my life.
No woman should experience what I endured, but too many have.
They write to me saying, what happened to you happened to me.
Sometimes they're miscarrying, scared to tell anyone, even their doctors.
(13:09):
Our daughters deserve better. America deserves better.
Kamala Harris and Tim Walz will fight for reproductive rights and our freedom and our shared future.
(13:33):
Okay so we have another challenging situation
here um where what what uh
what caitlin was talking about was essentially the beginning of her miscarriage
where around 10 to 11 weeks pregnant with her second child um she started to
miscarry and in one article i read about her she mentioned that the pain was
(13:53):
so bad during the miscarry that it was worse than childbirth Now,
keep in mind, this is a woman who's already had a baby.
She drove herself to the ER at Women's Hospital in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, where they took her vitals and they drew blood. They did a physical and an ultrasound.
And sadly, the ultrasound showed that the baby that she was carrying had stopped
growing and only had a faint heartbeat.
(14:14):
So even though it looked like she was in the stages of miscarrying,
the hospital staff wouldn't confirm it.
And they didn't discuss any treatment options with her. And so she went home.
The next day, she had more bleeding and pain. pain, and so she went to another ER.
So she goes to a second one, a different one than she went to the first time,
which is Baton Rouge General, and she got another ultrasound.
(14:37):
She was then sent home again and told to follow up with her OBGYN in two to three days.
And then she asked, you know, is there a way, is there anything that you can
give me for pain or to speed up the process, you know, like a DNC or anything like that?
And because they were both considered procedures for abortions,
the doctor replied that we're not doing that now.
Kind of like, almost like, you know, we don't do that anymore kind of a thing.
(15:00):
They wouldn't discharge her with papers saying that she had a miscarriage because
they were scared that would trigger an investigation into them.
So here you have another situation where a woman is miscarrying.
She's really struggling. She's trying to get help.
She goes to one hospital and it seems like while they can see the beginning
stage is happening. They're hesitant to treat or help.
(15:22):
She gets sent back home. Things continue to get worse. She goes to another hospital
and kind of experiences the same thing.
In her particular situation, she actually did fully carry out the miscarriage at home.
And so she did have the miscarriage apart from the hospital.
And thankfully, obviously, is alive today.
(15:43):
So that's just to kind of give you all a bit more story here.
And there's going to be... Oh, go ahead.
Well, I was going to say, and so similar to the first one, right,
that this is a tragic story, and it's even more tragic if the unborn are not
distinct living and whole human beings. Right.
(16:03):
Who possess the same value as you and I do.
So I don't know, Megan, I know you've got something to say, but maybe you want
to put that there because if the unborn aren't distinct living and whole human beings,
and they do not share the same value as us, we ought to hear this story and
do everything we can to make sure that this, there are no laws anywhere that
(16:26):
would cause any problem like this.
But if it is true that the unborn are distinct living and whole human beings,
and they do have the same moral worth as we do, that's going to inform how we
think about this issue and even these tragic scenarios.
So do you want to comment on that? Essentially, what is the pro-life position
(16:48):
from a scientific and a philosophical standpoint? Good.
Yes, I can comment on that. And I agree with you, Mike.
If the unborn are not distinct living in whole and abortion is truly no different
than a simple medical procedure.
Like extracting a tooth or cutting my fingernails, which isn't a medical procedure,
but that's still that kind of thing, then yes, then we should get behind Caitlin
(17:11):
and we say, what in the world?
Now, the pro-life position laid out in a very, I guess, condensed way says that
we are pro-life because we think that it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
The definition of abortion being the intentional killing of the human embryo or fetus.
And the best of science, particularly the area of embryology,
(17:32):
tells us that from the moment of conception, every single one of us was a living,
distinct, and whole human being.
And you can unpack all of those things in amazing ways, living, distinct, and whole.
And philosophy tells us that there is no morally relevant difference between
the embryos we once were and the adults that we are today that would have justified
killing us back then, but not now.
(17:55):
Stephen Schwartz, the philosopher, points out four areas of difference,
size, level of development, which that's got a lot of different little,
you know, sub points, environment, which is location and degree of dependency.
Those are the differences, but those differences don't make it okay to have
been killed back then based on size or level of development or environment or
(18:18):
degree dependency, but not now as the young adults or adults that are listening,
whoever's listening as you are.
That is the basic pro-life position as an appeal to science and philosophy.
In Caitlin's case, I am truly befuddled by this one,
that she was experiencing what in every way was marking a miscarriage and that
(18:41):
the doctors would not intervene in a way to help her through this process,
even if it was to help her try and support her child for a while longer.
Why wasn't, you know, but I wasn't there. I don't know the intricacies of the what happened.
I do agree with what she said. No woman should experience what I endured.
(19:01):
I agree. No woman should experience miscarriage to begin with.
No woman should experience that kind of pain or the loss of her child. I agree.
The worldview I adhere to, the Christian worldview, has room for why that's not okay.
But as far as the particulars of this case, I don't know why the physicians
(19:22):
were afraid unless it had something to do with the prior case as well,
that these trigger laws had gone into effect and the doctors were unclear as to what the law allowed.
In this case, that that's a case of miscommunication or misunderstanding that
resulted in a potentially very dangerous situation, not a case of we need abortion
(19:42):
so that women like Caitlin can be okay.
Because again, a miscarriage and an abortion are not the same thing,
though she was seeking an abortion procedure toward the end of her miscarriage. Right. Right. Yeah.
And isn't because there was a misunderstanding and a misapplication of the law
(20:06):
that led to a traumatic medical hardship for this young woman.
The therefore isn't, it should be legal to intentionally kill innocent human
beings for any reason at any point. That's just not the therefore.
And I think that's the appropriate way to look at that tragic situation.
(20:27):
Alicia, did I cut you off? No, that's okay. You know, I just,
I do think that that's one of the key things we have to remember, right?
Both Caitlin and Amanda did not want to lose their children.
In other words, they both felt like, I want this baby.
I have a blanket for my baby, right? Right. So even they were these these are
very different cases than I think than what is often taught about why we are
(20:51):
advocating for abortion.
These are not these are not those kind of situations.
These are women who wanted their children and lost their children and are grieving
the loss of their child as well.
So in both Amanda's situation and Caitlin's situation, we're not just grieving for them.
We're grieving for the loss of life that also suffered as well.
Which, I'll say this, it's a brilliant move on the part of the DNC to present
(21:15):
stories of abortion that all involve, well, the two that we've watched involve
people who wanted abortion.
Which that's a clever way to present the issue when the reality is such that that is not.
I guess I'll be careful about saying. Yeah, go ahead.
(21:36):
Yeah, I think both of the stories have abortion as a part of the story on the
peripheral, the perimeter.
But these are tragic stories about miscarriages and about potentially life-threatening situations.
They are not stories about abortion.
Right. Again, remember what abortion is and what it does.
(21:56):
And so what's brilliant on the part of the DNC is taking the ball and moving
it over here in a way that is emotionally hard hitting.
It was a throat punch in terms of emotion and it should be. Right.
These are horrific stories.
And to a degree from the, you know, separating the people telling the story
(22:16):
from maybe even the DNC here,
the strategy is to hide behind the hard case because their real position on
abortion is unrestricted abortion for any reason up until or past the point
of birth. That is their position.
And so there's a little bit of dishonesty here to me where you're going to hide
behind the hard cases and present yourselves as, look, this is why we're pro-choice.
(22:40):
It's because of these reasons. No, no, no.
These are exceptional hard cases that are even complicated.
In some cases, It's just a misunderstanding and application of a clear or not so clear law.
It's not their real position on the issue.
And they're hiding behind it, which, you know, maybe is a point made after the next.
(23:02):
Because the contrast is Caitlin.
And free tacos and vasectomies and chemical abortions outside, right?
Like what that is just, it is,
it's mind blowing in the, in the stark difference in the two situations.
Yeah. So can I, can I add on to, because when I first found out about what was
(23:23):
going on outside of the DNC, I, I was just floored, right?
So for those of you who don't know, first of all, kudos to you,
you've probably had a much better 24 hours than I have. of.
But outside of the DNC, there was a Planned Parenthood mobile truck and also
a table set up by the Chicago Abortion Fund.
So the Chicago Abortion Fund table was like offering free goodie bags and face
(23:44):
masks and candy and painkillers and cards of affirmation, these kind of things.
But Planned Parenthood was offering free vasectomies to men that wanted them,
as well as free abortions to women that wanted them.
And if you got a vasectomy, you got a free taco, because there was also a taco
food truck that was stationed there, but it was only free if you got a vasectomy.
(24:05):
So they opened up registration before they even got there. And all 40 slots
for vasectomies were filled up before the DNC even started.
So men had already signed up to get their vasectomies before the DNC even started.
And so they went and performed them and they were aiming for about 25 or so
abortions between Monday and Tuesday, which they did, which is what it is.
(24:25):
But what's interesting to me as well is I was reading about this, Dr.
Colleen McNichols, who was the woman that was there performing the abortions.
She was the chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood in the area.
And she emphasized that it's important to have healthcare policy that's based
on science and evidence.
And to me, that was so interesting because on the Chicago abortion front table,
(24:50):
there were these little pins that said pro-trans and and pro-abortion.
And I'm like, oh, this is interesting. So we have pro-trans, pro-abortion pins.
And yet we have the chief medical officer for Planned Parenthood saying that
she wants, you know, health care policy that is based on science and evidence.
And I'm like, there's nothing in the transgender argument that's actually based on science.
(25:12):
So there was just even a blatant contradiction, even in the in the pin that
the Chicago Abortion Fund table was putting out right next to the Planned Parenthood group.
Is like there isn't a science-based argument for gender because biology says
that the genders are binary, male and female.
So it was just an interesting, odd type thing to do outside of the DNC.
(25:35):
And, you know, it made some people who I think are probably much more pro-choice
begin to really question what the DNC is after or what Planned Parenthood is
after or what any of these pro-choice organizations are after because,
you know, we've come a long way from the Bill Clinton era of rare, safe, and legal, right?
And so instead what we have is like kind of like we've alluded to just,
(25:57):
hey, just get abortion on demand. Everybody should be able to do that.
And so as a result, it's just kind
of, they're like, well, what does the vasectomies have to do with this?
You know, it just seems like there is a massive shift, or there has been,
and we recognize this from actually looking out for women and trying to protect
women and keep them safe to actually just saying, hey, you have a problem.
(26:19):
Oh, don't worry. We can help you deal with that.
Yeah. Two little things there. One, the best of science and evidence would point
to the pro-life argument, as we have just demonstrated.
If we're following science and evidence, it tells us exactly what the unborn are.
And so that was a curious thing for them to say, even with everything thing that was going on.
(26:39):
The second thing is, even in the Clinton era, if abortion is nothing but a simple
medical procedure, why does it need to be safe, legal, and rare?
So it's just an interesting, all over the place, the mind games are there,
and they have been for a long time.
Let's watch this last one. And it's, again, sad, and it has,
(27:00):
oh my gosh, a powerful line in it.
I'm really curious to see what your response is to this line here.
Growing up, I was an all-American girl.
Varsity soccer captain, cheerleading captain, homecoming queen, and survivor.
(27:26):
Thank you.
Music.
I was raped by my stepfather after years of sexual abuse.
At age 12, I took my first pregnancy test, and it was positive.
(27:50):
That was the first time I was ever told, you have options.
I can't imagine not having a choice.
But today, that's the reality for many women and girls across the country because
of Donald Trump's abortion bans.
(28:14):
He calls it a beautiful thing. What is so beautiful about a child having to
carry her parent's child? child.
There are other survivors out there who have no options.
(28:37):
And I want you to know that we see you. We hear you.
Kamala Harris will sign a national law to restore the right to an abortion.
(29:11):
She will fight for every woman and every girl, even those who are not fighting for her.
So this one, that line. Yeah. That, that line is a big one.
First, just the, the, the, what is beautiful about a child having to carry their parents, child.
(29:39):
It's ugly, right? No, I hear you. That's disgusting.
And that sin and that crime is horrific and far too many young men and women
have suffered at the hands of wicked adults.
And it's disgusting and it is heartbreaking.
(30:05):
Yeah this is yeah this is
a pretty this situation in and of
itself is just horrific it's gross it's disgusting
for this abuse of Hadley began at the age of five she got pregnant at 12 by
her stepfather so these are for multiple years and and of course he did the
(30:26):
typical manipulation this is what daddies do to their little girls and all this
kind of stuff and this This is normal.
And even when she questioned it, even when she started fighting back,
she would get like a scar or, you know, bruise on her leg.
And she would, her mom would ask her about it. And she would just say,
oh, you know, I just, you know, skin my knee doing this or whatever.
And I mean, that's what she did as a little child to try and cover up for what
(30:51):
he did because she was so scared.
She was so confused. I mean, this is just disgusting.
Thankfully, he is in prison for what he did do to her. So this is a pretty horrible thing.
And and it's this one's different, I think, than than some of the other ones,
because obviously, number one, the circumstances are very different.
(31:13):
But what also makes this one different is, you know, she is talking about how
the difficulties that she didn't have options at 12.
You know, if if abortion was illegal, what would what would what would happen
and what would be done? on.
And I think there's a bit, there's an aspect here where people can get confused
(31:34):
as to what she's actually speaking about.
So maybe I can just give more clarity to the story.
Hadley actually did not have an abortion at age 12.
She, like the other two women on stage, also miscarried.
So while it may seem like she's saying, if I didn't have any options,
I couldn't have aborted, I would have been stuck, forced to carry a child.
(31:58):
That's actually not what happened. She actually miscarried.
And so as a result, this is a slightly different situation than the other two in that I think for her,
this is going to be dealt more with more of an unwanted pregnancy versus the other two.
And so that's going to be a slight different dimension to that piece as well.
(32:22):
And so, yeah, this is pretty horrific. This is pretty horrible.
I think, you know, with both the first two situations, there was laws inactive in Louisiana.
We didn't mention it, but Louisiana law completely would have given doctors
permission to be able to help Caitlin at either hospital she went to during
her miscarriages and those kind of things, even though the doctors were still
(32:43):
trying to figure out if this was a miscarriage or just bleeding or what.
But regardless, both laws would have, both states, Texas and Louisiana,
had laws that would have protected the mothers in both the situation.
But Hadley's story is different.
And I think that that's important to bring out.
Yeah, this is, again, one of those things where when we start to talk about
(33:07):
abortion, we start to talk about all of the very hard things that bump into
abortion rather than about abortion.
But we can talk about Hadley, right? We can absorb rightly and be angry about what happened to her.
I don't think that the correct, I think there's a dichotomy being drawn here
(33:27):
or even a polarization happening happening where the implied assumption is that
pro-life individuals who would not have advocated for a choice for Hadley,
again, what kind of choice are we talking about?
That they somehow just don't care about her, that their hearts are dead into her story.
And that's just not it. There's not a single person that I know who is pro-life
(33:51):
or otherwise who would be okay with with anything happening to a woman because of abortion.
In fact, the pro-life person would go so far as to say, I don't want anyone
harmed because of abortion, right?
But in Hadley's case, there was a great evil done to her that stripped things
(34:12):
away from her, including her innocence.
And in the case of when she became pregnant, her options.
And I think that we could even go so far as to say the evil done to her also
stripped away the option to intentionally take another human life,
because that's impermissible morally speaking for people people would see abortion
(34:33):
for what it is and what it does actually so when i hear a story like hadley's
and it stops at that my anger is already off the charts for this for her that
for hadley as a little girl and for hadley now as this,
victim who is a survivor, right?
But my anger is also off the charts that the best we have to offer her in America
(34:54):
by way of loving her well is, oh, option to abort.
That drives me insane. Who could look at that little girl and say that?
But here's what I, well, I know who could because I know where the sympathy
lies, but I also know more about what abortion is and does.
Hadley was asked to be a hero before she was ever ready to and when she didn't want to.
(35:15):
And typically that's what happens with heroic acts. Nobody's looking to be one
when those things happen. It's because of what's done to them that they're put
in an impossible situation.
When she asks the question, question she says that
trump calls it beautiful now trump
isn't calling what happened to her beautiful so that
(35:36):
was a bit of a i'm going to take liberty by putting words in
his mouth donald trump was talking i think about childbirth about um fetal development
about motherhood about family and that is in and of itself on the surface of
things innately beautiful um there is not anything beautiful about what happened to Hattie.
(35:58):
If there is, and I'm not causing a strict philosophical sense of what is beauty
and how do we think about it, it would be the miracle of new life,
though she wasn't looking for that.
So it would not be something that was beautiful in the situation or the circumstance.
However, when we work through something like this, I could counter that.
(36:21):
And if I could do it on strict intellectual grounds, which I'm going to take
this kite string that I'm holding on to because that is attached to Hadley,
who was harmed and go up into the abstract to talk about abortion for a second,
then we could ask the question, what happened to you?
Hadley is not beautiful. No, it's not. It's evil.
But what is so beautiful about the proper response being the dismemberment of another innocent life?
(36:50):
We can do better than that.
And essentially what we're doing is we're saying the form, the method of conception
determines the value of the baby.
And that is what we need to be careful to not do, because then we've made life
conditional, right? It's a conditional value.
And so when you look at the history of Planned Parenthood, and you can go on
(37:15):
the website and they will tell you that their linkage that comes from Margaret
Sanger, and they'll talk to you about how she was racist.
You know, they'll talk to you about how she believed in certain selection and
things like that of humans, that certain people should have children,
certain people shouldn't. Right.
Margaret Sanger gets her roots from social Darwinism, you know,
which essentially is like, let's get rid of the misfits.
(37:37):
Let's get rid of those that are that are going to contaminate our gene pool, essentially.
Potentially right so you've got this lineage there
that does see human life as certain
as not an equal quality of value but as a certain level
of ranking based off of what i think it should be and well well prime parenthood
has worked hard to try and distance themselves from margaret singer and they
(38:01):
do say that on their website they disagree with margaret singer's racist racism
and things like that they do acknowledge that even though they do put out there
that that is our founder, and they do talk about her.
But what's interesting to me is you can try and pull yourself away from that
kind of mindset of certain humans are more important and more valuable than other humans.
But the reality is, is unless you actually fundamentally change that value thinking
(38:23):
and that line of thought, you are still going to find yourself trapped in that
same pattern, even though you are trying to get yourself out of it.
What do you mean, Alicia?
Well, Well, let me give you an example. On their Planned Parenthood website,
it says that more than 70% of their patients have incomes at or below 150% of
the federal poverty level.
(38:45):
So that's about $3,900 a month for a family of four.
So essentially, Planned Parenthood, over 70% of their patients come from lower income families.
So when you think about what Margaret Sanger advocated for, when you think about
social should Darwinism advocate for, the less educated, the poor,
(39:06):
the not as physically strong, whatever, the list goes on and on.
Planned Parenthood may want to say, we renounce Margaret Sanger's racist views.
And I think that they mean that.
But the reality is her views aren't just teachings.
It came from a value system that Planned Parenthood still holds,
that humans aren't equal.
And we determine their value based on how they were conceived or based on the
(39:29):
mother's life circumstances or based on if this child is wanted or based on
if there's financial support.
So you have all of these conditions on human value and human life that Margaret
Sanger had and that social Darwinism had.
And many others. Yes, exactly. I mean, the whole thing, by the way,
people don't realize the links between social Darwinism and World War II,
(39:49):
like Hitler saw the American eugenics movement.
He was watching it as a corporal in the German army at the time, and he admired it.
So the reality is, as I think, ultimately, what this comes down to is how do
we see human value? And how do we know that humans are important?
That's what it comes down to. Because then we can look at each one of of these
(40:10):
situations and say, I grieve for the mom and I grieve for the human life that was lost. Yes.
And that is one of many reasons why our organization speaks into this issue,
because what does it mean to be human and what makes us valuable in the first
place is one of the most fundamentally important questions that exists.
And the problem with the pro-choice position is it undermines it all.
(40:32):
It undermines human equality. It undermines human flourishing.
And the pro-choice position proves too much.
Because as we're confronted with these hard cases and you hear rhetoric like
a mom living beneath the poverty line and has six kids living in poverty,
(40:52):
you're telling us we should force her to bring a seventh child into an impoverished world?
Well, it just proves too much. If it is true that we are morally justified in
killing innocent human beings in the name of economic hardship,
what does that mean for all human beings currently living in economic hardship?
Are we morally obligated to help them and alleviate their suffering through means other than death?
(41:18):
Or can we just, in the name of mercy, take innocent life? Of course not.
Of course not. Same thing with a hard case involving rape.
Let's say, for example, there's a mother, and there's plenty of stories like
this, that is, is raped, decides to carry the child, gives birth.
(41:42):
What about maybe at six months old? Right.
When let's say it's her son begins to resemble her attacker and it creates an
unbearable psychological grief.
Is she able to kill that six month old in the name of psychological hardship?
Well, people would say, of course not. Well, why not? What is morally significantly
(42:05):
different in terms of value between that six month old and a six week preborn child?
That's where the pro-choice position becomes philosophically indefensible.
And if you buy into pro-choice principles, it proves too much.
And if we were to live consistently following a pro-choice ethic,
(42:26):
it would undermine human equality that we are all fighting for. Yeah.
Yeah, Mike. You know, my daughter came home from school yesterday and I showed
her the six minute clip because I wanted to hear her thoughts on it.
Now, with our daughter, we have done really what you advised in the article
that we posted last week on the website, Mike, about talking to our kids about abortion.
(42:50):
We started early. That website being apologetics.org.
Exactly where this one will end up eventually.
We started talking to her early.
And really, it was about these very things, the value of human life.
All human beings are valuable, not just some more valuable than others.
(43:13):
You are an intrinsically valuable human being made in God's image.
You are not valuable because of the grades you bring home or the performance
in the game or the things like that.
Those are fun things and good things that you can do to excellence,
but your value is already determined.
So these are things we started with and it bled into talking about the issue
of abortion as she got a little older.
So she sat down and watched this and she pointed out things immediately.
(43:38):
I didn't even get to the philosophy, Mike, because in the words that were used
by those on stage, and this is my daughter whose heart is breaking watching these women.
But when asked, baby, what did you hear?
She said, well, in their words, they assumed that the unborn were not human like the rest of us.
So it was not it was it was the philosophy even or I'm sorry,
(44:00):
the science even that was that was that was being undermined.
And it may have been the philosophy, depending on what they meant by by this.
But she heard two lines in particular at the beginning and at the end that couched
the whole thing. The first one was said by Amanda, and she talked about the
fact that we need to vote as if lives depend on it, because they do.
(44:21):
Neely was watching the video, and while it was playing, she said, which lives?
Do the lives include the unborn lives, Mom?
And she nailed it at the end of the video, even after Hadley's heart-wrenching story.
And by the way, there was a lie in that story as well, not in the story,
(44:42):
but in what people would hear from the story because it's permeated the culture
that if somehow Hadley was allowed to have an abortion,
though that's not what happened to her, that would undo what had been done to
her. The abortion would undo it.
And that's a lie. That's false. But Hadley said, Kamala Harris will fight for
(45:04):
every woman and every girl.
And my daughter heard that and said, not every woman and not every girl,
mom, because she's not talking about the unborn ones.
So even just within that to look for and hear the words that are being said
and go, wait, what's going on here?
We have to be intellectually honest, even as we carry the hardship of the hard
(45:29):
cases, because both matter when it comes to human value, human life that extends
to every single one of us.
So my daughter heard those things and I thought it was.
I thought it was interesting that she, as a young woman, you know,
high school student would pick up on it and go, that's that's not all true.
(45:49):
Yeah. So because the unborn are distinct living and whole human beings bearing
the same moral value as you and I,
and especially if you're a Christian that understands that all humans are made
in the image of God, we are morally compelled to seek the good of our unborn
neighbor and their mothers in love.
(46:11):
So during a politically contentious season like this, where videos like what
we just watched are circulating.
It's more important than ever,
or it's as important as ever that followers of Jesus Christ understand clearly the pro-life position,
understand what abortion is and understand the merits of each position and decide,
(46:35):
kind of choose this day who you're going to serve to protect and who you're.
The pro-life position is remarkably simple to understand. It's defensible through
science and philosophy and scripture.
And we need more Christians in particular that understand it and know how to love in practical ways.
(47:02):
Our organization is dedicated to helping to bring understanding and clarity to this issue.
It's why, for example, we're involved in an initiative in Florida right now
where this November on the ballot in the state of Florida is Amendment 4 that
if passes, will write unrestricted abortion into the state's constitution.
So we've created a series of videos.
(47:24):
We're making ourselves available to speak at churches and other organizations
and special events in the coming months to raise awareness to both this particular amendment,
to understand what it's about and what it will mean for the state of Florida,
but also just to clearly articulate the pro-life position and how we can make
a reasonable defense of it.
(47:45):
So now's the time to act.
And not just a select few, it's a time for all of us to grow in knowledge of
this issue so that we can speak clearly on it and again, act in accordance with
love towards our neighbors.
Anything else to say? We thought we'd go 20 minutes. That's long gone.
I knew that wouldn't happen. I saw a look in your eyes when I said that earlier.
(48:10):
No, I think I think I just want to reiterate one thing you said earlier,
Mike, about hiding behind hard cases that we should hear and listen to the stories
of Amanda and Caitlin and Hadley and of Amanda's husband, by the way,
which kudos to them for giving a man a voice on the issue. That's true.
For so long, the pro-choice position has said men aren't allowed to speak on the issue.
(48:31):
I hope they would extend that same courtesy to the pro-life men who are defending
their side of things, trying to come to an agreement or trying to come to a
better position of how can we love all of these human beings well.
A more intellectually honest position of the DNC at this point in time,
given their party platform is about abortion on demand and restoring a national right to abortion,
(48:55):
would have been to defend what
was going on outside and why they would allow that in the parking lot.
That would have been more intellectually honest than perhaps just making it
about these three stories with the giant reproductive freedom screened behind them.
So I'm glad Megan mentioned that because I also struggle to see what the sterilization
(49:23):
of men has to do with women's safety when it comes to abortion or when it comes
to women's access to abortion.
I as well see a massive contradiction there.
And I think, I guess my final thoughts, you know, all three of these stories were sad.
(49:44):
I mean, that's just the way they are. All three of them are sad.
And I think what frustrated me about the way that the DNC did this,
and keep in mind, this isn't about DNC and RNC.
If the RNC had done this, I would have been as ticked as well.
This is not about political sides.
This This is about what I feel like was misleading information,
(50:05):
because when I watched these things, I was misled to believe and conclude certain things.
And then when I did research into the particular situations and I found out
that all the three of these were miscarriages and that two of them was,
(50:25):
you know, doctors not reaching out to them and treating them with that in a
way that was within within the laws of both of those states,
that the whole thing was misleading, made you feel like the Dobbs decision made
it so that all the laws in the laws in Texas and Louisiana were so restrictive,
completely 100%. And that's not the case.
(50:45):
And it just I think I was just so frustrated.
Because I was able to sit there and do the research to look into it more,
but how many other people didn't.
And to me, this was was just a massive intentional misleading.
And I would say lying on behalf of the DNC to lead people to conclude things
that were not true, such as the situation with Hadley, that she didn't have
(51:10):
an abortion, she miscarried.
That wasn't stated to make it clear on the stage. And I think that's an important thing to have done.
And so I think for me, I think it was just,
What they did is kind of, I guess, the classic argument where you ignore the
98% or so of cases that it has nothing to do with miscarriages,
(51:34):
nothing to do with rape or incest, none of those things.
And you disregard the overall majority of cases, which are just, I don't want this baby.
I can't afford this baby. I already have enough kids.
They didn't deal, and this is what Megan was getting at, and I think this was
spot on. they did not deal with those situations.
I want to hear you make a case for those situations.
(51:57):
And you can also talk about the rape, incest, and the minor things.
But what they didn't do is they ignored the 98 or so percent.
And that's intentional. Remember that.
Why did they not focus on that?
Because they knew that those were not rare. They knew that it was much harder
to defend those situations.
And then when you have vasectomies happening outside, you see that people are
(52:19):
going to start to make linkages between, is this a war on like human reproduction altogether?
Not just about women, but just men too. Is this a battle against reproduction?
Which I don't know where that leaves us as a species.
So I think for me, I think that was really where it was frustrating.
It was a very misleading, but emotionally and heart tugging type segment segment,
(52:40):
that I think warranted a lot more honesty on behalf of the DNC.
So in conversation, if someone's watching this and going, okay,
great, what in the world do I do about this?
A couple of things. One, I think relationally, learn.
One, learn the pro-life position, but when you're talking about it,
learn how to ask really good questions.
(53:01):
So for example, when someone's presenting a hard case, don't try to be like,
okay, and I heard this YouTube video, I read this book, I know the response.
You can ask a simple question like this to kind of get at the heart of the issue.
You could say something like, okay, I hear you on these hard cases.
If I were to join you in advocating for abortion law that restricted,
(53:22):
or allowed for abortion in these hard cases, would you join with me and see
that abortion was restricted in all other cases like the Vest, majority of the 98%?
You know what your friend or your opponent is going to say. They're going to say no.
And then you can say, well, why are you hiding behind the heart issues?
Can we talk about what the main issue is here when it comes to abortion,
(53:42):
which is what is the unborn and what makes human beings valuable in the first place?
So learn how to ask really good questions.
Don't feel like you have to give a lecture and a presentation in every opportunity.
You can just ask questions and learning how to do so as an effective way to make the case for life.
Second thing is you do need to be politically active.
(54:03):
That's not the same thing as saying which candidate necessarily you should vote
for, though there are implications clearly to how we are to vote.
And in some states, for example, like Florida.
You can vote against Amendment 4 and not vote for either candidate.
So abortion is clearly a political issue. Either presidential candidate.
(54:24):
What did I say? Oh, you said candidate. But yeah, either presidential candidate.
So, I mean, abortion is clearly a political issue, but it's also just,
it's a moral issue and we're morally obligated to seek the good of our neighbor.
And so you need to be aware that, for example, in Florida, if you can't stomach
voting for either candidate, you at least should go to the ballot box and vote no on Amendment 4.
(54:46):
Though I do think this has broader implications for how you should vote come
November for who's in the presidency, but we'll save that discussion for a future date.
Thank you, Megan and Alicia.
There's more resources for those of you that are watching at apologetics.org.
You can go to apologetics.org forward slash pro-life. life.
(55:08):
And if there is a way that we can serve you and help you and answer your questions
and help make the case for life, we are here for you. Thanks.
Music.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.