July 9, 2025 • 28 mins
British celebrity Lily Allen is going mega viral after making some unhinged comments about abortion on a BBC podcast. I break it down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, top Democrats make outlandish claims about the Big Beautiful Bill and claim it will kill 100,000 people -- we debunk this alarmist narrative.
Send me a voice note: https://www.speakpipe.com/bradvseveryone
Check out the merch: https://bp-shop.fourthwall.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Abortions. I've had a few, but then again, I can't
remember exactly how many, really, I can't remember.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Yeah, I think maybe, like I want to say five,
four or five. Yeah, I've had about five two.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Just when you thought you've seen it all, the most
unhinged feminist podcast on the Internet decides to go viral.
We're going to break this down and so much more
on today's episode of The Barad Versus Everyone Podcast, my
(00:36):
daily show where we take on the craziest ideas across
the Internet, our media, and our politics, all from an
independent perspective. Up first, guys, I had never heard of
any of these people or this podcast, but I had
the misfortune to be acquainted with it because of a
clip that's going viral right now. So you have to
(00:57):
suffer through it as well with me, because that's what
we do here on this show. I'm a little sick
like that. So this is an actress and singer named
Lily Allen, who I wasn't familiar with, but apparently is
a C list celebrity of some note on the miss
Me podcast on BBC Sounds. This is an official BBC
production over in the UK, and she and her co
(01:18):
host are going viral right now because of one of
the saddest and most unhinged sixty second clips of video
I've seen in a long time. And that's saying something.
We're going to take a listen to this. It touches
on abortion and reveals something really sad and kind of
(01:39):
sick that I actually think transcends the debate over the
legality of abortion and is much bigger than that. Let's
take a listen to this.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
I can't remember. I just remember I have an iud now.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
I think I'm on my third, maybe fourth, And I
just remember before that was a complete disaster area. Like
I was just yeah, I'd get pregnant all the time.
All it's.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
Fads are like in those days. Oh yeah, Because you know,
I said to date it someone, I was like, I
actually don't know if Lily's had an abortion. I didn't know.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Okay, God, see, why didn't we talk about that? Abortions?
I've had a few, But then again, I can't remember
exactly how many.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Really, Yeah, why didn't this come up in last week's episode?
Speaker 3 (02:27):
We were just talking about abortions.
Speaker 4 (02:29):
Because I was just letting you you were on with
it everything.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
I can't remember. Yeah, I think maybe like I want
to say five, four or five. Yeah, I've had about
five two, and Lily, I've never I'm so happy I
can say that and you can say it and no
one came to shoot us down, no judgment, no judgment.
We've had about the same amount of abortions.
Speaker 4 (02:49):
So I remember once getting pregnant and the man paying
for my abortion and me thinking it was so romantic.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
I actually think that is romantic, do you not? I
think that's her runting works mined here, well, getting rid
of the problem. No, but like, let me take care
of this.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
So I've seen that clip three or four times now
because I watch things obviously when I'm preparing the show.
I'm still not over it, how sad it is. You know,
a lot of people are responding by ridiculing this woman,
Lily Allen, who says she does not know how many
abortions she has had. I'm not going to ridicule her
(03:30):
because it gives trauma to me. Actually, she seems traumatized
by this, but not even aware of how deeply she's
been traumatized by this. Because to not remember such significant
occasions in your life is a sign of trauma. It's
not normal. That you would not remember how many abortions
you've had. That's a unique experience, right, It's something in
(03:53):
your memory that would stand out. This is not like
how many times have I been to the dentist in
my life. That's not the question, that's not the equation.
So you know, I can remember really important things in
my life, even though I have a very poor memory overall,
and I my heart breaks for her in a sense.
(04:14):
In another sense, I think the messaging here is incredibly toxic,
very very very irresponsible to do with your platform. And
I actually think this conversation exists independently of the debate
over the legality of abortion, because I have people I know,
love and respect who come down on either side of
(04:36):
that issue, some who are pro choice, some who are
pro life. My personal views are somewhere in the middle.
I can understand both perspectives. What I cannot and have
never been able to understand, though, is the glib, callous,
and celebratory way that some not all, but some high
(04:58):
profile pro choice, pro abortion activists like this celebrity speak
about abortion. Because I think it totally betrays the severity,
the emotional and moral gravity of the act. Even if
you think it should be preserved as a legal option.
And I can understand why people hold that belief. I
(05:20):
can't understand why anybody wouldever view abortion is something cute
or fun or as a form of basically as a
form of birth control. I mean, obviously I'll never be
in this situation, but I can intellectually comprehend how somebody
could end up inadvertently pregnant once or maybe even twice,
five times? What five times, and you didn't pursue more
(05:47):
serious or more consistent forms of birth control. Something there
is not clocking, something there is not adding up. And
I actually think this kind of thing, if you are
somebody deeply invested in preserving legal access to abortion, this
kind of thing should actually horrify you, because I really
I have a hard time imagining a worse way to
(06:10):
advocate or defend or support abortion access than this. I
have a hard time imagining a way that's more off
putting to normal people, that's more outrageous and scandalous and
comes off as more heartless and ghoulish than this. It's
really really shocking stuff. And when she says no judgment,
(06:34):
at some point we need to do some judgment, you know,
I think society for a long time, was far too judgmental,
stigmatized far too many things, shamed and bullied people. But
like anything, the difference between an antidote and a poison
is the dosage, right, The difference between a medicine and
(06:56):
a poison is a dosage. You can't have zero in
a society. You can't have zero judgment. And if you're
getting five abortions and laughing about it, if you're getting
so many abortions you can't even remember how many you've had,
you're going to be judged for that, and I think
(07:18):
you probably should be. Now we should have compassion as well, because,
like I said, this person gives off traumatized to me.
But that is not something society should just like uplift
and accept as wonderful and positive. And what's so fascinating
to me about this is that even the viewership of
a BBC feminism podcast, which newsflash is gonna be left wing,
(07:42):
is gonna be pro choice, was absolutely not having it.
In the comments, one person wrote, this conversation is helping
the anti abortion movement in so many ways. Yeah, I agree,
if you wanted a better advertisement for like a pro
life movement, I mean and they'll probably clip this up
and put it in their TV commercials. So you're just
(08:03):
gifting your opponent's content with this kind of extremism. Another
person wrote, I had an abortion when I was eighteen,
and it still haunts me, and I live with guilt
every day. I certainly couldn't make light of it. Well,
my heart goes out to this woman and to others
like her. I mean, whether you believe it should be
legal or not, an abortion is something that has a
profound effect on a lot of women, and it should
(08:25):
not be treated lightly. It should be a decision treated
with the utmost gravity, because some women are traumatized by it,
have regret, and at the very least I would implore
people to not just casually use it as a form
of birth control for goodness sake. Another person says I'm
pro choice, but I'm revolted by this. It's one thing
(08:45):
to need one, it's another to do it this way
and brag about it no less utterly vile. Another one wrote,
I find this conversation incredibly insensitive. I'm very much pro choice,
but I'm genuinely shocked by what was said. I can
understand and unplayed pregnancy happening once, maybe even twice, But
to have ten abortions collectively, jeez, Louise, and then joke
(09:07):
about it. It feels deeply irresponsible and selfish. There are women
who are longing for children, and yet they're making light
of the situation. Why not use protection if you knew
you didn't want children now, the person says, I'm one
hundred percent for a woman's right to abortion, but treating
it like a joke is sick. There's a thing called contraception.
Their comments are disgusting and make a mockery of people
(09:29):
who've had no choice or who cannot get pregnant. What
a sad pair. It really is interesting how many of
the commentators made it extremely clear that they were pro
choice but were horrified by these comments. And I appreciate that.
Another person said, disgusting being so casual about the subject.
Of course, women should have choice over their bodies and
(09:49):
not feel shame. But equally, I don't feel abortion is
something to muck around with and just make a joke of.
We're still talking about creating the beginnings of a life
and then the ending of it, so surely it should
be last resort. I was struck by that as well,
like we are so far culturally and politically from the
days of safe, legal and rare that I just find
(10:12):
it astounding because that's the that's the pro choice position
that I can understand. I know a lot of people
who hold and we could debate the ethics and morality
of it, and I acknowledge it's extremely complex, but at
least that I can can wrap my head around. I
cannot wrap over my head around the depravity in this club.
Another person wrote, I'm pro choice and feel women have
the right to have abortions, but the way you two
(10:32):
are handling the subject matter gives into the pro life
dumpster fire of examples they love to use for smear campaigns.
You too sound so ignorant, callous, and too immature to
discuss this topic. Should have kept this amongst yourselves. Another
person wrote, absolutely disgusting and shameful. Abortion was never meant
to be used as birth control. I am pro choice,
but if this becomes the norm, I'm changing the pro
(10:54):
life grow up and be responsible. Yeah, I mean, that's it.
There's just a complete lack of personal responsibility here and
it is disturbing. I watched coverage of this on Piers
Morgan and the left wing panelists were defending this and
saying this is fine, and this is good. Abortion is
just healthcare, and we should want people to have more healthcare.
(11:16):
I'm just mortified by all of this. I'm also mortified
by the fact that this is an official BBC podcast.
I mean, the Brits in my audience can correct me
if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure they have to
fund that with their tax dollars, and I certainly wouldn't
want my tax dollars to fund this kind of callous
celebration of abortion, and just the general toxicity of this podcast.
(11:41):
I'd never heard of it before today. But listen to
this other clip. Because when I see a little viral
snippet like this, and I saw it first on X,
I usually try to go and watch the full episode
to make sure I'm not missing context or anything. So
I actually watched the full podcast. This is a part
of this thirty second clip that was going viral on Twitter,
and I mean, it was more of the same, but
(12:03):
it definitely wasn't taken out of context, and there was
also other stuff in it like this that was really
disturbing to me. Take a listen, like.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
Men of trash.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
I wonder why it's never come up that the man
should be in charge of this.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
Excuse the pump and put it on them.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
Yeah, okay, yeah, I mean that's just lovely, just casually
hating entire groups of people. And I don't really think
they're joking. I'm not one to get offended over jokes.
But it wasn't giving joke to me. So I would
not be thrilled as a male UK taxpayer if I
was funding podcasts for people to cheer double digit abortions
(12:42):
and castigate and condemn half the population by virtue of
their biology. But everything is fine. This is fine. Society
and culture is doing amazing. Okay, guys, up next, we're
going to talk about some really horrifying rhetoric. I've seen
that it strikes me as nothing more than utter gaslighting
(13:05):
and emotional manipulation. Major Democratic figures have claimed that the
Republican Big Beautiful Bill, which I've criticized. I'm not a
fan of the bill. I think it will add a
lot to the death there's a lot of crap in there.
But because it makes some reforms to Medicaid, people are
going on television and claiming with their whole chest that
by modestly trimming Medicaid growth in spending around the edges,
(13:30):
Republicans are going to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Seriously,
that is the claim. Take a listen to this from
Lawrence Summers, the former Obama administration Treasury secretary and a
Democratic economist on ABC News. Take a listen to this.
Speaker 5 (13:46):
Is now from former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, also the
former president of Harvard University. Larry, thank you for joining
us this morning. In the New York Times this week,
you and Robert Rubin, who also served as as Treasury Secretary,
called this bill dangerous, said it posts a huge risk
to the economy. What are those risks?
Speaker 6 (14:06):
George? Just to start with what your people have been
describing is the biggest cut in the American safety net
in history. The Yale Budget Lab estimates that it will
kill over ten years, one hundred thousand people. That is
two thousand days of death like we've seen in Texas
(14:29):
this weekend. In my seventy years, I've never been as
embarrassed for my country on July fourth.
Speaker 3 (14:36):
Wow, that is an extreme statement, and I was instantly
horrified and intrigued. So I wanted to know where this
number came from, how did they reach this result? And
is this really true? Spoiler alert, it's not, and we're
going to break it down. But just first one note
to talk about the Texas floods and invoke that when
(15:00):
you're talking about public policy debates over federal legislation. Is
something about that is kind of callous to me and
kind of gross, like little girls being drowned, and you're
going to conflate that with modest medicaid cuts in a
reconciliation packaging Congress. I just maybe don't do that. It
(15:20):
feels like politicizing a tragedy in a really unfair and
nasty way to me. So I wasn't a fan of that.
But I do take Larry Summers seriously somewhat. I mean,
he during the Biden administration criticized a fair amount of
the Biden legislation and made some warnings about inflation that
turned out to be true. So I was like, WHOA,
(15:41):
is this real? Is this really a thing? Is this
bill going to result in one hundred thousand people dying?
So I did some research, I spoke to some experts,
and I found the underlying analysis this is based on
which is a Washington Post article by a Yale lawyer
that claims one hundred thousand people will die because if
the Medicaid cuts, I mean, in the long term, Medicaid
(16:05):
spending is still only going to go up, but they're
cuts compared to the baseline, and when you look into it,
this number collapses and it becomes apparent that there's no
real truth to this claim at all. We're going to
walk through that, and now it's just even to the
extent there is some truth to it, it's incredibly deceptive framing.
So let's walk through it. So first things first, the
(16:25):
way they reached this claim, the Yale experts in their
analysis was that they took the number of people that
the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan CBO, which I do
respect and is not, despite what some Republicans say, is
not like a woke LIB run factory or anything like that.
But I mean, they're making very rough estimates. Their track
(16:48):
record is mixed on predicting things. And anyway, they estimated
that earlier versions of this bill, the Big Beautiful Bill,
would result in about eleven million people losing coverage healthcare
coverage under Medicaid, government program for health insurance. Taxpayer funded
health insurance was supposed to be for disabled and low
income people, but now has kind of morphed into something
(17:10):
much bigger. Anyway, they come up with this eleven million number.
So what these Yale analysts did is they took that
eleven million number, then they took some studies that suggest
a correlation between medicaid access and mortality rates, and then
they did the math taking that correlation and extrapolating it
(17:32):
based on that eleven million number to come up with
these figures that Larry Summers then not exactly accurately cites,
but do suggest that tens of thousands or even hundreds
of thousands of people will die because of these cuts.
There are two key problems with analysis. The first one
(17:52):
is that that eleven million figure itself is almost certainly
totally wrong. So if the input number is incorrect, then
the whole analysis becomes kind of worthless. So why do
I say that that eleven million number is totally wrong?
There are two main reasons here. One is that the CBO,
while they are, like I said, an institution I respect,
(18:15):
is very bad at projecting how policy changes will affect
healthcare coverage. So, for example, when the Republicans changed a
piece of Obamacare that imposed a financial penalty on people
who did not purchase health insurance. The CBO's estimate of
how many people would lose coverage compared to the reality
(18:37):
was about ten to twenty times too high, depending on
the way you look at the numbers. It was wildly off.
So they vastly overestimate how many people will lose coverage,
at least in very recent history, they have done so,
so it's pretty suspect. Then when you look at that
eleven million number, several pieces of it aren't even relevant anymore.
(18:58):
So I've used for this analysis data and an expert
insight from the Paragon Health Institute, which is a more
free market oriented healthcare policy think tank, and they have
a breakdown of this eleven million, or it's really ten
point eight million. Who is this that would lose their
Medicaid coverage? So one point four million is illegal immigrants who,
(19:20):
as they report, some states have chosen to voluntarily provide
taxpayer funded healthcare for millions of unauthorized immigrants, often with
federal funding obtained through money laundering schemes. However, cuts to
these provisions did not make it into the final bill. So,
first off, it's kind of crazy that illegal immigrants are
(19:42):
ever receiving any form of taxpayer funded healthcare. And the
logic of Larry Summers and the Democrats we are pedaling
his talking point would suggest that if you support removing
illegal immigrant beneficiaries of taxpayer funded healthcare programs, you're committing
thousands of murders. That's what their logic would suggest, which
clearly something has to be wrong with that. Otherwise we
(20:06):
are committing murder by not providing the entire world with
free taxpayer healthcare every day. So, but the more important
thing is that provision didn't even make it into the
final bill. So already that eleven million subtract one point
four million already huge numbers difference there. Then who is
the rest of this ten point eight million that we're
(20:28):
talking about here, Well, four point eight million are people
who won't meet modest community engagement requirements or what's being
called work requirements. In reality, people are being asked that
if they're going to receive taxpayer fund and healthcare, they
have to either volunteer or work eighty hours a month
twenty hours a week and volunteering, and of course this
(20:51):
does not apply to disabled people, does not apply to
elderly people, does not apply to children. But for able
body adults, they have to fill out some basic work
showing that they are working or volunteering or in some
way contributing to the community. It's estimated that five million
people or so will lose coverage because they can't or
won't satisfy those requirements in the basic paperwork to show them.
(21:16):
So I'm left wondering, are we murdering these people by
telling them that they can continue to receive health care
paid for by their neighbors, but they simply have to
give back to the community in some way and fill
out some paperwork, and then they are unwilling or unable
to do that, and then they lose coverage. Are we
murdering them? I don't think we are murdering them. Actually.
(21:40):
I think that if they choose or for some unknown
reason are unable to fill out basic forms to not
get coverage, and then something bad happens because they don't
have health care coverage, that is unfortunate. But I do
not feel that I have murdered them because of that.
You let me know if you disagree. And the other
thing here is that millions of the people who will
(22:01):
lose coverage under these reforms. The reason they'll lose coverage
is because they are literally ineligible for the programs they
are currently enrolled in, but that just hasn't been enforced.
So the Paragon estimates that about one point six million
people on Medicaid are just not eligible for Medicaid, and
they are about three point one million people who are
(22:22):
improperly enrolled in the Obamacare exchanges that would be affected
by the big beautiful bill. So you've got nearly another
five million people who will lose coverage because under law
as it is written, they're not supposed to be receiving
that coverage. Maybe their income is much higher than the
cutoff that's supposed to be. Are we killing them by
(22:43):
not giving them coverage they're not supposed to get under
the program and how it's written and who it's supposed
to be four I again, I don't really think so.
And all these people who lose coverage, many of them
will get insurance coverage somewhere else through an employer, will
purchase it on the Obamacare exchanges, or another access to
(23:04):
another program. So you can see that the base input
of this analysis is highly suspect this eleven million figure,
and so if that's wrong, then the whole estimates are wrong. However,
there's another layer to it, the second piece of that
equation eleven million times the reduction in mortality associated with
(23:26):
expanding healthcare access in terms of insurance. That figure that
they use is also deeply flawed in suspect. I will
link to the full research and break down from the
Paragon Institute in the description if you're interested in the
details of this. But in short, the people at Yale
who came up with this analysis used a very high
(23:49):
end estimate from studies that suggest a reduction in mortality
from expanding insurance coverage. The actual totality of the research
is much more mixed on this, and there's actually a
lot of research suggesting no clear causal or correlation between
expanding insurance access and reducing mortality. Reading from Paragon here,
(24:11):
a thorough review of studies claiming that health insurance improved
health outcomes found that most did not establish a causal relationship.
Nearly all were observational studies that are prone to bias
and confounding by unobserved factors. They did not adequately address
the energeneity of health insurance that observe differences in health
outcomes may have resulted from unobserved differences between the insured
(24:34):
and the uninsured. Insurance increased medical care consumption and modestly
improved self reported health, but outside of a few vulnerable
population subgroups, for example, children, there is little evidence that
insurance significantly improves the health of most people. A twenty
year observational study attempted to counteract that efficiencies of earlier
short term observational studies by using the more complete set
(24:56):
of covariates to adjust for the differences between insurre and
uninsured individuals. It found that insured people use more health
care services, but there was no significant effect of insurance
on health and mortality. Study with sixteen years of follow
up by Richard Kronick, a former Obama Obama administration official
who worked on ACA implementation, found that after adjusting for
(25:18):
high risk characteristics, being uninsured was not associated with an
increased risk of mortality. He concluded that there actually wouldn't
be much change in the number of deaths in the
United States as a result of universal health insurance coverage.
Now I can't say that I'm one hundred percent confident
in these studies or this analysis either. It's very murky,
(25:40):
but the research is all over the place when it
comes to what exactly is the relationship between health insurance
coverage and mortality. It's obviously an important financial tool, but
how much does it actually reduce the rate at which
people die being uninsured versus insured is unclear. Yet they
(26:01):
took for this Yell analysis, some unreliable high end estimates
and then just extrapolated it to this eleven million figure
that is not a real or meaningful figure, and then
they produce this huge figure of how many people will
die supposedly that is then parroted by Democrats and by
media figures and used to essentially emotionally gaslight us and
(26:24):
manipulate us into never cutting anything ever, or people will die.
We heard this with Trump's first term tax cuts. Major
Democratic officials claimed that people will die. They say this
every single time. And it's not fair because you know,
at some point, we are so many trillions of dollars
(26:44):
in debt and these programs are so unsustainable that real,
real harsh cuts will have to happen and then whatever
effect there is will be a lot more severe. So
I really I wish we could have an honest conversation
weighing the pro and cons of these kinds of policies.
And I'm not telling you there's no trade offs. I'm
not telling you no one will be harmed by these
(27:06):
reductions or anything of the sort. But what I am
telling you is that when you hear these alarmist apocalyptic
numbers and rhetoric, often beneath the surface. If you look
just a little bit beneath the surface, it becomes clear
how many logical leaps and massive extrapolations and stretches and
deceptive distortions are behind those claims. Because they're not really
(27:29):
meant to inform. They're meant to emotionally blackmail us into
never cutting anything ever, because people will literally die if
we do. What do you guys think? Have you seen
this kind of alarmist rhetoric? Was my analysis or breakdown
here helpful to you? Please do let me know in
the comments. All right, guys, that'll be it for this
(27:50):
episode of the Bad Versus Everyone Podcast. Thank you all
so much for tuning in. Please do make sure you subscribe.
If you aren't yet, do hit that like button for
you go And with that we'll talk again. We also
voting
Abortions. I've had a few, but then again, I can't
remember exactly how many, really, I can't remember.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Yeah, I think maybe, like I want to say five,
four or five. Yeah, I've had about five two.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Just when you thought you've seen it all, the most
unhinged feminist podcast on the Internet decides to go viral.
We're going to break this down and so much more
on today's episode of The Barad Versus Everyone Podcast, my
(00:36):
daily show where we take on the craziest ideas across
the Internet, our media, and our politics, all from an
independent perspective. Up first, guys, I had never heard of
any of these people or this podcast, but I had
the misfortune to be acquainted with it because of a
clip that's going viral right now. So you have to
(00:57):
suffer through it as well with me, because that's what
we do here on this show. I'm a little sick
like that. So this is an actress and singer named
Lily Allen, who I wasn't familiar with, but apparently is
a C list celebrity of some note on the miss
Me podcast on BBC Sounds. This is an official BBC
production over in the UK, and she and her co
(01:18):
host are going viral right now because of one of
the saddest and most unhinged sixty second clips of video
I've seen in a long time. And that's saying something.
We're going to take a listen to this. It touches
on abortion and reveals something really sad and kind of
(01:39):
sick that I actually think transcends the debate over the
legality of abortion and is much bigger than that. Let's
take a listen to this.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
I can't remember. I just remember I have an iud now.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
I think I'm on my third, maybe fourth, And I
just remember before that was a complete disaster area. Like
I was just yeah, I'd get pregnant all the time.
All it's.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
Fads are like in those days. Oh yeah, Because you know,
I said to date it someone, I was like, I
actually don't know if Lily's had an abortion. I didn't know.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Okay, God, see, why didn't we talk about that? Abortions?
I've had a few, But then again, I can't remember
exactly how many.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Really, Yeah, why didn't this come up in last week's episode?
Speaker 3 (02:27):
We were just talking about abortions.
Speaker 4 (02:29):
Because I was just letting you you were on with
it everything.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
I can't remember. Yeah, I think maybe like I want
to say five, four or five. Yeah, I've had about
five two, and Lily, I've never I'm so happy I
can say that and you can say it and no
one came to shoot us down, no judgment, no judgment.
We've had about the same amount of abortions.
Speaker 4 (02:49):
So I remember once getting pregnant and the man paying
for my abortion and me thinking it was so romantic.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
I actually think that is romantic, do you not? I
think that's her runting works mined here, well, getting rid
of the problem. No, but like, let me take care
of this.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
So I've seen that clip three or four times now
because I watch things obviously when I'm preparing the show.
I'm still not over it, how sad it is. You know,
a lot of people are responding by ridiculing this woman,
Lily Allen, who says she does not know how many
abortions she has had. I'm not going to ridicule her
(03:30):
because it gives trauma to me. Actually, she seems traumatized
by this, but not even aware of how deeply she's
been traumatized by this. Because to not remember such significant
occasions in your life is a sign of trauma. It's
not normal. That you would not remember how many abortions
you've had. That's a unique experience, right, It's something in
(03:53):
your memory that would stand out. This is not like
how many times have I been to the dentist in
my life. That's not the question, that's not the equation.
So you know, I can remember really important things in
my life, even though I have a very poor memory overall,
and I my heart breaks for her in a sense.
(04:14):
In another sense, I think the messaging here is incredibly toxic,
very very very irresponsible to do with your platform. And
I actually think this conversation exists independently of the debate
over the legality of abortion, because I have people I know,
love and respect who come down on either side of
(04:36):
that issue, some who are pro choice, some who are
pro life. My personal views are somewhere in the middle.
I can understand both perspectives. What I cannot and have
never been able to understand, though, is the glib, callous,
and celebratory way that some not all, but some high
(04:58):
profile pro choice, pro abortion activists like this celebrity speak
about abortion. Because I think it totally betrays the severity,
the emotional and moral gravity of the act. Even if
you think it should be preserved as a legal option.
And I can understand why people hold that belief. I
(05:20):
can't understand why anybody wouldever view abortion is something cute
or fun or as a form of basically as a
form of birth control. I mean, obviously I'll never be
in this situation, but I can intellectually comprehend how somebody
could end up inadvertently pregnant once or maybe even twice,
five times? What five times, and you didn't pursue more
(05:47):
serious or more consistent forms of birth control. Something there
is not clocking, something there is not adding up. And
I actually think this kind of thing, if you are
somebody deeply invested in preserving legal access to abortion, this
kind of thing should actually horrify you, because I really
I have a hard time imagining a worse way to
(06:10):
advocate or defend or support abortion access than this. I
have a hard time imagining a way that's more off
putting to normal people, that's more outrageous and scandalous and
comes off as more heartless and ghoulish than this. It's
really really shocking stuff. And when she says no judgment,
(06:34):
at some point we need to do some judgment, you know,
I think society for a long time, was far too judgmental,
stigmatized far too many things, shamed and bullied people. But
like anything, the difference between an antidote and a poison
is the dosage, right, The difference between a medicine and
(06:56):
a poison is a dosage. You can't have zero in
a society. You can't have zero judgment. And if you're
getting five abortions and laughing about it, if you're getting
so many abortions you can't even remember how many you've had,
you're going to be judged for that, and I think
(07:18):
you probably should be. Now we should have compassion as well, because,
like I said, this person gives off traumatized to me.
But that is not something society should just like uplift
and accept as wonderful and positive. And what's so fascinating
to me about this is that even the viewership of
a BBC feminism podcast, which newsflash is gonna be left wing,
(07:42):
is gonna be pro choice, was absolutely not having it.
In the comments, one person wrote, this conversation is helping
the anti abortion movement in so many ways. Yeah, I agree,
if you wanted a better advertisement for like a pro
life movement, I mean and they'll probably clip this up
and put it in their TV commercials. So you're just
(08:03):
gifting your opponent's content with this kind of extremism. Another
person wrote, I had an abortion when I was eighteen,
and it still haunts me, and I live with guilt
every day. I certainly couldn't make light of it. Well,
my heart goes out to this woman and to others
like her. I mean, whether you believe it should be
legal or not, an abortion is something that has a
profound effect on a lot of women, and it should
(08:25):
not be treated lightly. It should be a decision treated
with the utmost gravity, because some women are traumatized by it,
have regret, and at the very least I would implore
people to not just casually use it as a form
of birth control for goodness sake. Another person says I'm
pro choice, but I'm revolted by this. It's one thing
(08:45):
to need one, it's another to do it this way
and brag about it no less utterly vile. Another one wrote,
I find this conversation incredibly insensitive. I'm very much pro choice,
but I'm genuinely shocked by what was said. I can
understand and unplayed pregnancy happening once, maybe even twice, But
to have ten abortions collectively, jeez, Louise, and then joke
(09:07):
about it. It feels deeply irresponsible and selfish. There are women
who are longing for children, and yet they're making light
of the situation. Why not use protection if you knew
you didn't want children now, the person says, I'm one
hundred percent for a woman's right to abortion, but treating
it like a joke is sick. There's a thing called contraception.
Their comments are disgusting and make a mockery of people
(09:29):
who've had no choice or who cannot get pregnant. What
a sad pair. It really is interesting how many of
the commentators made it extremely clear that they were pro
choice but were horrified by these comments. And I appreciate that.
Another person said, disgusting being so casual about the subject.
Of course, women should have choice over their bodies and
(09:49):
not feel shame. But equally, I don't feel abortion is
something to muck around with and just make a joke of.
We're still talking about creating the beginnings of a life
and then the ending of it, so surely it should
be last resort. I was struck by that as well,
like we are so far culturally and politically from the
days of safe, legal and rare that I just find
(10:12):
it astounding because that's the that's the pro choice position
that I can understand. I know a lot of people
who hold and we could debate the ethics and morality
of it, and I acknowledge it's extremely complex, but at
least that I can can wrap my head around. I
cannot wrap over my head around the depravity in this club.
Another person wrote, I'm pro choice and feel women have
the right to have abortions, but the way you two
(10:32):
are handling the subject matter gives into the pro life
dumpster fire of examples they love to use for smear campaigns.
You too sound so ignorant, callous, and too immature to
discuss this topic. Should have kept this amongst yourselves. Another
person wrote, absolutely disgusting and shameful. Abortion was never meant
to be used as birth control. I am pro choice,
but if this becomes the norm, I'm changing the pro
(10:54):
life grow up and be responsible. Yeah, I mean, that's it.
There's just a complete lack of personal responsibility here and
it is disturbing. I watched coverage of this on Piers
Morgan and the left wing panelists were defending this and
saying this is fine, and this is good. Abortion is
just healthcare, and we should want people to have more healthcare.
(11:16):
I'm just mortified by all of this. I'm also mortified
by the fact that this is an official BBC podcast.
I mean, the Brits in my audience can correct me
if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure they have to
fund that with their tax dollars, and I certainly wouldn't
want my tax dollars to fund this kind of callous
celebration of abortion, and just the general toxicity of this podcast.
(11:41):
I'd never heard of it before today. But listen to
this other clip. Because when I see a little viral
snippet like this, and I saw it first on X,
I usually try to go and watch the full episode
to make sure I'm not missing context or anything. So
I actually watched the full podcast. This is a part
of this thirty second clip that was going viral on Twitter,
and I mean, it was more of the same, but
(12:03):
it definitely wasn't taken out of context, and there was
also other stuff in it like this that was really
disturbing to me. Take a listen, like.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
Men of trash.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
I wonder why it's never come up that the man
should be in charge of this.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
Excuse the pump and put it on them.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
Yeah, okay, yeah, I mean that's just lovely, just casually
hating entire groups of people. And I don't really think
they're joking. I'm not one to get offended over jokes.
But it wasn't giving joke to me. So I would
not be thrilled as a male UK taxpayer if I
was funding podcasts for people to cheer double digit abortions
(12:42):
and castigate and condemn half the population by virtue of
their biology. But everything is fine. This is fine. Society
and culture is doing amazing. Okay, guys, up next, we're
going to talk about some really horrifying rhetoric. I've seen
that it strikes me as nothing more than utter gaslighting
(13:05):
and emotional manipulation. Major Democratic figures have claimed that the
Republican Big Beautiful Bill, which I've criticized. I'm not a
fan of the bill. I think it will add a
lot to the death there's a lot of crap in there.
But because it makes some reforms to Medicaid, people are
going on television and claiming with their whole chest that
by modestly trimming Medicaid growth in spending around the edges,
(13:30):
Republicans are going to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Seriously,
that is the claim. Take a listen to this from
Lawrence Summers, the former Obama administration Treasury secretary and a
Democratic economist on ABC News. Take a listen to this.
Speaker 5 (13:46):
Is now from former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, also the
former president of Harvard University. Larry, thank you for joining
us this morning. In the New York Times this week,
you and Robert Rubin, who also served as as Treasury Secretary,
called this bill dangerous, said it posts a huge risk
to the economy. What are those risks?
Speaker 6 (14:06):
George? Just to start with what your people have been
describing is the biggest cut in the American safety net
in history. The Yale Budget Lab estimates that it will
kill over ten years, one hundred thousand people. That is
two thousand days of death like we've seen in Texas
(14:29):
this weekend. In my seventy years, I've never been as
embarrassed for my country on July fourth.
Speaker 3 (14:36):
Wow, that is an extreme statement, and I was instantly
horrified and intrigued. So I wanted to know where this
number came from, how did they reach this result? And
is this really true? Spoiler alert, it's not, and we're
going to break it down. But just first one note
to talk about the Texas floods and invoke that when
(15:00):
you're talking about public policy debates over federal legislation. Is
something about that is kind of callous to me and
kind of gross, like little girls being drowned, and you're
going to conflate that with modest medicaid cuts in a
reconciliation packaging Congress. I just maybe don't do that. It
(15:20):
feels like politicizing a tragedy in a really unfair and
nasty way to me. So I wasn't a fan of that.
But I do take Larry Summers seriously somewhat. I mean,
he during the Biden administration criticized a fair amount of
the Biden legislation and made some warnings about inflation that
turned out to be true. So I was like, WHOA,
(15:41):
is this real? Is this really a thing? Is this
bill going to result in one hundred thousand people dying?
So I did some research, I spoke to some experts,
and I found the underlying analysis this is based on
which is a Washington Post article by a Yale lawyer
that claims one hundred thousand people will die because if
the Medicaid cuts, I mean, in the long term, Medicaid
(16:05):
spending is still only going to go up, but they're
cuts compared to the baseline, and when you look into it,
this number collapses and it becomes apparent that there's no
real truth to this claim at all. We're going to
walk through that, and now it's just even to the
extent there is some truth to it, it's incredibly deceptive framing.
So let's walk through it. So first things first, the
(16:25):
way they reached this claim, the Yale experts in their
analysis was that they took the number of people that
the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan CBO, which I do
respect and is not, despite what some Republicans say, is
not like a woke LIB run factory or anything like that.
But I mean, they're making very rough estimates. Their track
(16:48):
record is mixed on predicting things. And anyway, they estimated
that earlier versions of this bill, the Big Beautiful Bill,
would result in about eleven million people losing coverage healthcare
coverage under Medicaid, government program for health insurance. Taxpayer funded
health insurance was supposed to be for disabled and low
income people, but now has kind of morphed into something
(17:10):
much bigger. Anyway, they come up with this eleven million number.
So what these Yale analysts did is they took that
eleven million number, then they took some studies that suggest
a correlation between medicaid access and mortality rates, and then
they did the math taking that correlation and extrapolating it
(17:32):
based on that eleven million number to come up with
these figures that Larry Summers then not exactly accurately cites,
but do suggest that tens of thousands or even hundreds
of thousands of people will die because of these cuts.
There are two key problems with analysis. The first one
(17:52):
is that that eleven million figure itself is almost certainly
totally wrong. So if the input number is incorrect, then
the whole analysis becomes kind of worthless. So why do
I say that that eleven million number is totally wrong?
There are two main reasons here. One is that the CBO,
while they are, like I said, an institution I respect,
(18:15):
is very bad at projecting how policy changes will affect
healthcare coverage. So, for example, when the Republicans changed a
piece of Obamacare that imposed a financial penalty on people
who did not purchase health insurance. The CBO's estimate of
how many people would lose coverage compared to the reality
(18:37):
was about ten to twenty times too high, depending on
the way you look at the numbers. It was wildly off.
So they vastly overestimate how many people will lose coverage,
at least in very recent history, they have done so,
so it's pretty suspect. Then when you look at that
eleven million number, several pieces of it aren't even relevant anymore.
(18:58):
So I've used for this analysis data and an expert
insight from the Paragon Health Institute, which is a more
free market oriented healthcare policy think tank, and they have
a breakdown of this eleven million, or it's really ten
point eight million. Who is this that would lose their
Medicaid coverage? So one point four million is illegal immigrants who,
(19:20):
as they report, some states have chosen to voluntarily provide
taxpayer funded healthcare for millions of unauthorized immigrants, often with
federal funding obtained through money laundering schemes. However, cuts to
these provisions did not make it into the final bill. So,
first off, it's kind of crazy that illegal immigrants are
(19:42):
ever receiving any form of taxpayer funded healthcare. And the
logic of Larry Summers and the Democrats we are pedaling
his talking point would suggest that if you support removing
illegal immigrant beneficiaries of taxpayer funded healthcare programs, you're committing
thousands of murders. That's what their logic would suggest, which
clearly something has to be wrong with that. Otherwise we
(20:06):
are committing murder by not providing the entire world with
free taxpayer healthcare every day. So, but the more important
thing is that provision didn't even make it into the
final bill. So already that eleven million subtract one point
four million already huge numbers difference there. Then who is
the rest of this ten point eight million that we're
(20:28):
talking about here, Well, four point eight million are people
who won't meet modest community engagement requirements or what's being
called work requirements. In reality, people are being asked that
if they're going to receive taxpayer fund and healthcare, they
have to either volunteer or work eighty hours a month
twenty hours a week and volunteering, and of course this
(20:51):
does not apply to disabled people, does not apply to
elderly people, does not apply to children. But for able
body adults, they have to fill out some basic work
showing that they are working or volunteering or in some
way contributing to the community. It's estimated that five million
people or so will lose coverage because they can't or
won't satisfy those requirements in the basic paperwork to show them.
(21:16):
So I'm left wondering, are we murdering these people by
telling them that they can continue to receive health care
paid for by their neighbors, but they simply have to
give back to the community in some way and fill
out some paperwork, and then they are unwilling or unable
to do that, and then they lose coverage. Are we
murdering them? I don't think we are murdering them. Actually.
(21:40):
I think that if they choose or for some unknown
reason are unable to fill out basic forms to not
get coverage, and then something bad happens because they don't
have health care coverage, that is unfortunate. But I do
not feel that I have murdered them because of that.
You let me know if you disagree. And the other
thing here is that millions of the people who will
(22:01):
lose coverage under these reforms. The reason they'll lose coverage
is because they are literally ineligible for the programs they
are currently enrolled in, but that just hasn't been enforced.
So the Paragon estimates that about one point six million
people on Medicaid are just not eligible for Medicaid, and
they are about three point one million people who are
(22:22):
improperly enrolled in the Obamacare exchanges that would be affected
by the big beautiful bill. So you've got nearly another
five million people who will lose coverage because under law
as it is written, they're not supposed to be receiving
that coverage. Maybe their income is much higher than the
cutoff that's supposed to be. Are we killing them by
(22:43):
not giving them coverage they're not supposed to get under
the program and how it's written and who it's supposed
to be four I again, I don't really think so.
And all these people who lose coverage, many of them
will get insurance coverage somewhere else through an employer, will
purchase it on the Obamacare exchanges, or another access to
(23:04):
another program. So you can see that the base input
of this analysis is highly suspect this eleven million figure,
and so if that's wrong, then the whole estimates are wrong. However,
there's another layer to it, the second piece of that
equation eleven million times the reduction in mortality associated with
(23:26):
expanding healthcare access in terms of insurance. That figure that
they use is also deeply flawed in suspect. I will
link to the full research and break down from the
Paragon Institute in the description if you're interested in the
details of this. But in short, the people at Yale
who came up with this analysis used a very high
(23:49):
end estimate from studies that suggest a reduction in mortality
from expanding insurance coverage. The actual totality of the research
is much more mixed on this, and there's actually a
lot of research suggesting no clear causal or correlation between
expanding insurance access and reducing mortality. Reading from Paragon here,
(24:11):
a thorough review of studies claiming that health insurance improved
health outcomes found that most did not establish a causal relationship.
Nearly all were observational studies that are prone to bias
and confounding by unobserved factors. They did not adequately address
the energeneity of health insurance that observe differences in health
outcomes may have resulted from unobserved differences between the insured
(24:34):
and the uninsured. Insurance increased medical care consumption and modestly
improved self reported health, but outside of a few vulnerable
population subgroups, for example, children, there is little evidence that
insurance significantly improves the health of most people. A twenty
year observational study attempted to counteract that efficiencies of earlier
short term observational studies by using the more complete set
(24:56):
of covariates to adjust for the differences between insurre and
uninsured individuals. It found that insured people use more health
care services, but there was no significant effect of insurance
on health and mortality. Study with sixteen years of follow
up by Richard Kronick, a former Obama Obama administration official
who worked on ACA implementation, found that after adjusting for
(25:18):
high risk characteristics, being uninsured was not associated with an
increased risk of mortality. He concluded that there actually wouldn't
be much change in the number of deaths in the
United States as a result of universal health insurance coverage.
Now I can't say that I'm one hundred percent confident
in these studies or this analysis either. It's very murky,
(25:40):
but the research is all over the place when it
comes to what exactly is the relationship between health insurance
coverage and mortality. It's obviously an important financial tool, but
how much does it actually reduce the rate at which
people die being uninsured versus insured is unclear. Yet they
(26:01):
took for this Yell analysis, some unreliable high end estimates
and then just extrapolated it to this eleven million figure
that is not a real or meaningful figure, and then
they produce this huge figure of how many people will
die supposedly that is then parroted by Democrats and by
media figures and used to essentially emotionally gaslight us and
(26:24):
manipulate us into never cutting anything ever, or people will die.
We heard this with Trump's first term tax cuts. Major
Democratic officials claimed that people will die. They say this
every single time. And it's not fair because you know,
at some point, we are so many trillions of dollars
(26:44):
in debt and these programs are so unsustainable that real,
real harsh cuts will have to happen and then whatever
effect there is will be a lot more severe. So
I really I wish we could have an honest conversation
weighing the pro and cons of these kinds of policies.
And I'm not telling you there's no trade offs. I'm
not telling you no one will be harmed by these
(27:06):
reductions or anything of the sort. But what I am
telling you is that when you hear these alarmist apocalyptic
numbers and rhetoric, often beneath the surface. If you look
just a little bit beneath the surface, it becomes clear
how many logical leaps and massive extrapolations and stretches and
deceptive distortions are behind those claims. Because they're not really
(27:29):
meant to inform. They're meant to emotionally blackmail us into
never cutting anything ever, because people will literally die if
we do. What do you guys think? Have you seen
this kind of alarmist rhetoric? Was my analysis or breakdown
here helpful to you? Please do let me know in
the comments. All right, guys, that'll be it for this
(27:50):
episode of the Bad Versus Everyone Podcast. Thank you all
so much for tuning in. Please do make sure you subscribe.
If you aren't yet, do hit that like button for
you go And with that we'll talk again. We also
voting
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.