John Gerardi Guest Hosts - My Mind Is All Over the Place About the Filibuster

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I want to talk about the philibuster, and I will

(00:03):
admit to my mind being all over the place with
the filibuster. I used to I was sort of more
in favor of getting rid of it, and now I'm
a little more conflicted. So let me lay out all
sides of this for all of you to understand, and
maybe we can all make up our own minds together.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
Here we go. What is the filibuster?

Speaker 1 (00:24):
The filibuster comes out of this tradition of the Senate
as sort of the elder brother of the two houses
of Congress. The Senate is sort of designed to be
fancies itself, styles itself as the senior of the two houses,
the more serious, the more weighty, less rough and tumble,

(00:47):
less subject to the whims of democratic furer and democratic
shifting opinions, small d democratic, And it kind of comes
out of the theory of government that the Greek philosophers had,
where they sort of divided up forms of government into three.

(01:08):
You had monarchy ark is rules rule by one person.
You had oligarchy, rule by a few, which could be
a kind of aristocracy, rule by the best people. So
a rule by a small group of people selected for
certain specific characteristics or traits, money, seniority, et cetera. And

(01:33):
then you have democracy rule by the demos the people,
where the people directly vote on their legislation. Now, the
Founding Fathers did not really like democracy. They thought that
the whims of popular opinion needed to be restrained by
seasoned and wise counsel, and so they created this mixed

(01:56):
form of government where they were they were not imitating
the Founding father were not imitating Athens. Okay, sometimes people
think about they think about Athens and Rome as sort
of these two exemplars of ancient culture. Although Athens was
one city state, one of the most prominent ones, but
one city state out of many in the ancient Greek world.

(02:16):
There was Sparta. There were all these different kinds of
city states in the Greek world that had less democratic
forms of government than Spartan had sort of more mixed
constitutions with maybe some kind of aristocratic element, but they
would always have some sort of what they would call
the boule, the assembly of the citizenry voting on stuff,
as did the Romans. The Founding Fathers wanted to imitate

(02:40):
the Roman model, and so we have a mixed form
of government with some democratic elements, some oligarchic aristocratic elements,
and a big old monarchic element, the president. The idea is,
the president is monarchic, not in the sense that it's hereditarian.
You know, one president has a kid and that kid
gets crowned, although that did happen a couple of times

(03:03):
in American history. The Bushes, the Adams is. The idea
is just it's ruled by one person. So there are
certain things under the control of the executive where one
person is deciding things. One person is setting our foreign policy.
One person is setting our military strategy policy, one person
is in charge of law enforcement. But one of the

(03:25):
most oligarchic things we have is the Senate. It can
even be seen in the name. The words senate comes
from the Latin word senex, which means old. It's the
council of the old guys. It's the council of the elders, okay,

(03:47):
And so the Senate is not supposed to be democratic.
The House of Representatives is kind of the closest thing
we have to democracy, Okay. The House, or every member
of the House of Representatives is up for reelection every
two years. If the whole country has a big shift
in its mood in over a two year stretch. Well,
the whole House Representatives could get theoretically thrown out of

(04:10):
office and replaced with a whole new batch of people.
The membership of the House of Representatives is proportionate to
the population of the country, so California gets, you know,
fifty House members, in Wyoming only gets one. So the
House of Representatives is kind of more democratic. The Senate

(04:33):
is not. Apportionment in the Senate is not based on
your population. Every state gets two. Senators have the longest
term of office of anyone in our constitution who has
a term of office. I guess judges get lifetime appointments.
Senators are up for election only every six years, so

(04:55):
they don't have to worry about the day to day
trends of shifting political opinion. They sort of have.

Speaker 2 (05:01):
A longer run.

Speaker 1 (05:02):
In the original Constitution, as it was ratified in the
seventeen eighties. Before the adoption of the seventeenth Amendment in
the twentieth century, senators were not even directly elected by
the people. They were elected by the state legislatures. So

(05:24):
basically the Senate was this kind of oligarchic institution. It
was thought to be. This is the Council of Elders.
These are the wise seasoned people picked by their fellow
lawmakers from the states. It's not about getting majority votes.
We want our wisest, most seasoned, most experienced statesmen to

(05:48):
be in the Senate helping advise. The Senate gives advice
and consent to the President for the nomination of judges,
the nomination of members of his cabinet. It's just the
Senate that does that, not the House. The Senate approves treaties,
not the House. So as part of this whole idea

(06:08):
of the Senate as the wise seasoned, venerable deliberative body,
one of the ideas the conceits of the Senate is
debate in the Senate can theoretically go on forever. They
don't impose limits on how long you can debate stuff.
For the most part, in the House, it's like, no,

(06:30):
you got we got we got too many people in here,
we got to vote on this. You get this many,
this much time.

Speaker 2 (06:37):
Now.

Speaker 1 (06:37):
The rule developed over time in the Senate because there
were some senators who, following the example of Julius Caesar's
great foe, Cato, the younger Kato, who was this foil
to Julius Caesar, And when Julius Caesar was console, Cato
would try to block Caesar from introducing legislation by basically

(06:59):
talking in the Senate chamber and talking and talking and
talking and talking until the sun went down. And by
the time the sun went down, the Senate had to
dismiss And so he used that to block various of
Julius Caesar's I would say, incredibly reasonable legislative proposals. Well,
senators today can do the same thing. They can filibuster.

(07:23):
They can talk and talk and talk and talk and talk,
effectively killing the bill. And now they don't have to
even physically talk. Now the modern procedure is, well, we
are invoking philibuster. The only way to stop a filibuster,
according to the Senate rules as they developed over the
course of the twentieth and twenty first centuries, is to

(07:43):
invoke cloture c L O T U R the closing
of a debate. And how do you invoke cloture? Sixty votes?

Speaker 2 (07:56):
So what does this do?

Speaker 1 (07:57):
Well, this effectively gives a weapon to the party in
the minority. You can block legislation as long as you
have at least forty one votes. Now, the filibuster rule
in the Senate, it doesn't apply to everything. There are
certain kinds of things for which they don't have sixty

(08:18):
vote cloture, certain things that are tied to the budget,
no invoking of no sixty vote threshold. The confirmation of
presidential nominees either for judgeships or for members of the
cabinet not subject to the sixty vote cloture threshold. But

(08:40):
for everything else, yeah, you need sixty votes. And this
is the struggle that Republicans are facing right now, the
Republicans and President Trump. This is why the government is
shut down. Republicans wanted to just continue funding the government
at its existing levels, and Democrats said, well, no, we
don't want to do that. We have all the subsidies
that exist for the Affordable Care Act to actually make

(09:03):
it affordable, which are set to expire. If so, we're
we're going to add this as a new issue right now,
all of a sudden, instead of just a continuing resolution
to keep the government funded at its current levels without
any alterations or anything.

Speaker 2 (09:21):
No, no, no, no, no.

Speaker 1 (09:22):
We want now to be the time when we argue
for these Obamacare subsidies and Republicans are saying, well, no,
we're going to we should deal with that as a
separate thing, that that's not the issue right here, and
Democrats are digging in their heels. I suspect that Democrats
realized that they were sort of politically winning the government
shut down fight, particularly in the state of Virginia. Half

(09:46):
of northern Virginia either works for the federal government or
works for a contractor that works for the federal government,
and everyone was miserable with the government. Northern Virginia, Maryland,
DC are basically the only parts of the country that
give it dang about the fact that the government is
currently shut down. Other than now people are starting to
lose snap benefits and food stamps and things like that.

(10:08):
But prior to this juncture, the only people who were
really upset were people living in the DC area, and
so they knew and that's effectively what happened. I think
it was basically impossible for the Republicans to win. As
long as Trump's the president and there's a government shutdown
going on, it was impossible for the Republicans to win,
and indeed Republicans got wiped out in Virginia. Now President

(10:31):
Trump keeps saying we should get rid of the filibuster
rule in the Senate. We should get rid of this
philibuster rule. It's not something that the Constitution requires. It's
an internal Senate rule that could be eliminated with a
simple majority of Democrat senators just voting to change Senate rules.

Speaker 2 (10:46):
This is that Trevor Carey show on the Valley's.

Speaker 1 (10:49):
Power Talk filibuster rule which requires sixty votes rather than
a mere fifty plus one in order to advance most
pieces of legislation through the state, and it's been a
real hindrance to the Senate passing all kinds of legislation
over the years. Should the Republicans get rid of it?
Trump is getting frustrated with the government shut down. He's

(11:11):
telling Republicans, we need to get rid of this philibuster
rules so we can end this shutdown and let's pass
all these great, wonderful laws that Republicans have wanted to
pass for years and years and years and years.

Speaker 2 (11:22):
Let's do it.

Speaker 1 (11:23):
And Trump makes one point that I think is super solid.
Trump points out, look, Democrats were two votes away from
getting rid of the philibuster rule during the Biden years.
During the first two Biden years, Democrats tried to get
rid of the philibuster. One to pass their Democrat Voting Bill,

(11:47):
basically try to export California's voting rules nationwide. That was
very early in the Biden presidency, and they only didn't
accomplish it because Joe Manchin and Kirsten Cinema, who are
now no longer in the Senate, said no, we're not
going to We're not going to get rid of the
philibuster for this. The other issue was to pass nationwide

(12:09):
legal abortion basically reinstate the terms of Roe versus Wade,
but to do it through legislation. And again it was
Joe Mansion and Kirsten Cinema who said, no, if we
get rid of the philibuster, it sets a precedent for
Republicans to use it back at us. Now that has

(12:30):
actually happened with the philibuster. There's the whole history of
the use of the philibuster to block judicial appointments. So
it used to be no one ever filibuster judicial appointments.
Then under George W. Bush, all of a sudden, the
Democrats started filibustering judicial appointments. The Republican majority in the
Senate instead of just shutting that down right away, they said, oh, well,
maybe we would like to filibuster if a Democrat's ever

(12:54):
in office and we're in the minority in the Senate,
maybe we would like to.

Speaker 2 (12:56):
Filibuster Democrat appointees.

Speaker 1 (13:01):
Once they try doing that to Barack Obama, guess what,
Harry Reid changed the rules back so that you can't
filibuster judicial appointments. So it was one set of rules
when Republicans were in power that the Democrats wanted filibustering,
and then a whole other set of rules when Democrats
got into power they wanted to stop filibustering. So democrats

(13:21):
are are are this is part of their governing philosophy
is not being fair. They don't care about consistency for
process reasons. They just want to win that phil You know,
getting rid of the philibuster is the worst, most evil
attack on democracy and stability of our institutions ever when
Republicans are in office, and it's the reasonable thing that

(13:43):
should be done when Democrats are in office. Now, what's
more important getting a bunch of stuff done as Republicans
or being afraid of and maintaining of being afraid of
Democrats accomplishing a bunch of things and maintaining your ability

(14:05):
to credibly play defense. That's the question. Now, what Trump
points out is Democrats already tried to get rid of
the philibuster. They're gonna get rid of the filibuster as
soon as they can. Once they get a majority in
the House, a majority in the Senate and the White House,
they'll get rid of the filibuster, and then it's game

(14:26):
over for us. Why because Democrats will pass the most
radical legislation possible. They will legalize abortion nationwide. They will
pass the Green New Deal or some version of it.
They will pack the Supreme Court, they'll pass their entire agenda,

(14:46):
and they'll create a couple of new Democrat states. They'll
make Puerto Rico a state. They'll make the District of
Columbia state. Who knows, maybe they'll make Guam into a state.
And they'll give themselves somewhere between four and six new
Democrat senators. So they'll do stuff to permanently entrench themselves

(15:10):
in power. So Trump's saying, you don't want to be
the second party to try to break the filibuster. Let's
break it now. Let's do all of our stuff now.
Democrats have already told us they're going to do it,
and I agree with Trump. I have agreed with Trump

(15:32):
for a long time on this, and I've thought we
should get rid of the philibuster rule in the Senate.
The only reason I don't is this my total lack
of faith in Republicans. I feel like if Republicans got
rid of the philibuster, they just wouldn't do enough with it.
The only reason to break the filibuster is if you

(15:53):
are going to do stuff to entrench yourself in power
long term. If Republicans took the filibuster, outlawed, put huge
restrictions on abortion nationwide, imposed everything we want with regards

(16:15):
to the tax code, and with this, and with that
regulations and blah blah blah blah blah and spending, and
the got our fiscal house in order, and did everything
we wanted with immigration, and did an and created three
new Republican states. Somehow, I don't know how you do that,
the states of North Texas, West Texas, and East Tech.

Speaker 2 (16:38):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (16:41):
To give us a bunch of new Democrats, new Republican
senators to intrenches in power. Short of that, I don't
think breaking the filibuster is worth doing. I don't think
Republicans would do any of those things. I think Republicans
wouldn't meaningfully pass good social legislation. I think they're too
scared to do it. I don't think Republicans would do
much other than maybe a tax cut, and they certainly

(17:03):
wouldn't do the kind of ruthless things you would need
to do do entrench yourself in power for the long term.
They won't. They wouldn't do anything with it. If we
abolish the filibuster while the Republicans are in power, they
won't use it right, they won't do enough, and then
Democrats will get it and they'll do all of the

(17:23):
horrible things that at the moment they can't do because
the philibuster rules in place.

Speaker 2 (17:28):
So there's a part of me.

Speaker 1 (17:32):
That would like to get rid of the filibuster, that
would very much like to get rid of the philibuster.
But I know it's just not worth doing unless you're
gonna go whole hog with it, unless you're gonna put
the pedal to the metal, put it in sixth gear,

(17:55):
and accomplish everything that was in the twenty sixteen Republican platform,
everything that was in Broad twenty twenty five. Whatever it
is create the perfect sort of order that we want,
although I mean, I don't know. I'm not always the
most doctrinaire Republican, and I'm not even sure with whether
all that those changes with spending in this and that
would it would even be the best thing in the

(18:16):
world anyway, regardless, short of completely crushing Democrats and entrenching
yourself in power, it's not worth doing, and I have
no confidence that Republicans would do that.

Speaker 2 (18:30):
This is the Trevor carry Show on the Valley's Power Talk.

Speaker 1 (18:36):
I am the executive director at Right to Life of
Central California.

Speaker 2 (18:40):
You can go to.

Speaker 1 (18:41):
RTLCC dot org slash Christmas. Our big Christmas dinner and
auction is coming up on Friday, December fifth. It's the
biggest party of the year. It's going to be in
the Valdez Hall the President Convention Center. An awesome dinner,
silent auction, live auction. It's a great time, great time

(19:02):
to be had by all. You can support our work.
If you want to buy tickets, you can do so
right there from the website RTLCC dot org slash Christmas.
All right, I want to dig into this.

Speaker 2 (19:16):
Some of you may know.

Speaker 1 (19:17):
Especially listening to John Girardi show, you hear me bragging
about this all the time. I have been writing now
for about seven months, since February. Well, I guess it's
nine months now. Jeez, Louise, time flies when you're having fun.
I've been writing since February for National Review. I got

(19:38):
to meet some folks from National Review through a friend
and supporter of ours, that Right to Life Es Central California,
who knows a bunch of people over there and is
very close with them, and they very graciously run a
whole bunch of articles that I've submitted to that. I've
now had about eighteen little op eds that they have
run on their website. And one of the most recent

(19:59):
things I did was a piece about sex trafficking in
the Los Angeles area. Now, being the director at Right
to Life Central California, obviously I care a lot about
the abortion issue. A lot of the stuff I write
for National Review has to do with abortion, and this
piece is talking about abortion and sex trafficking. Now, this

(20:19):
the piece is in response to this massive feature that
ran in the New York Times magazine. This was about
two weeks ago. New York Times published is big long
feature and it's all about sex trafficking on Figaro Avenue

(20:39):
near the University of Southern California. And it's a really
well written piece. You know, I'm gonna go I'm right here.
I'm gonna go to my Twitter account Twitter dot com
slash Fresno Johnny. I'm gonna retweet this so that maybe
it's actually I think it's my pinned. It's my pintweet.

(21:00):
If you go to Twitter dot com slash president Johnny
or x dot com slash Fresno Johnny at Frisno Johnny,
you can find my piece there. So The New York
Times wrote this big long feature for the New York
Times magazine about this explosion that's happened in sex trafficking
on Figaro Avenue in Los Angeles, right near the University

(21:21):
of Southern California. It's just open season and a lot
of it has to do with SB three fifty seven.
This was a law that was passed in twenty twenty
one by the California state Legislature, signed by Gavenu, some
authored by Scott Wiener, who's currently vying for Nancy Pelosi's
seat in the House of Representatives. Nancy Pelosi anounce she's

(21:41):
not running.

Speaker 2 (21:42):
SB three fifty seven.

Speaker 1 (21:43):
What it did was it legalized loitering with intent to
commit prostitution. So basically means cops can't just arrest someone
who is standing on the corner in stiletto heels and
a g string, leaning into the window of passing cars
and flagging down passing cars. Cops can't just arrest someone
for that kind of loitering. They need evidence of some

(22:05):
greater crime before they can detain someone. And this is
horrible for victims of sex trafficking who are often forced
to be standing on that corner wearing stiletto heels and
not much else. And anti sex trafficking advocacy organizations all
up and down the state were furious at Gavin Newsom

(22:26):
and Scott Wiener for introducing and passing this bill because,
as they pointed out, often the only way police can
intervene in the lives of women who are being or
men who are victims of sex trafficking is by making
those kinds of arrests. Are I mean, this is a
common thing in criminal procedure. If you're a cop and

(22:52):
you know someone did a drive by shooting out of
a red car and you don't have much of another
description other than red car. And you see a red
car that's maybe, you know, a mile two miles away
from the side of the shooting, and you notice that
driver seems to be behaving erradically, Well, you might pull

(23:16):
that red car over if it shifts lanes without using
its turn signal. Why, Well, you need probable cause as
a cop before you can detain someone. Probable cause that
an actual crime has happened. But sometimes you might want
to detain someone for a minor violation because you deeply
suspect that a worse violation has happened. And that's what's

(23:37):
what we're talking about with sex trafficking victims. You detain
someone who's standing on a corner dressed like a prostitute,
acting like a prostitute. You detain someone for loitering with
a tent to commit prostitution. Why because you're afraid that
that's a fifteen year old on the corner who's maybe
getting trafficked. So by detaining that person, you might be

(23:59):
able to get person away from their trafficker and save
their life. So this big, long New York Times story
it's detailing, this is a horrifying universe, and it focuses
on the three different main figures that they focus on.
A twenty seven year old female police officer from the

(24:19):
LAPD and who's sort of helping coordinate this whole vice
team to take down sex traffickers, including at one point
she's a she's a twenty seven year old cop. She's
dressing as a prostitute to do a sting operation to
try to get a trafficker, which I mean, you talk

(24:41):
about bravery, I mean, geez, Louise. So you got a cop,
You've got a girl, a young woman who's a victim
of sex trafficking. She's nineteen years old, she got into
sex trafficking when she was thirteen and when her sister
was eleven, and her struggles and trials as she gets

(25:01):
into and out of trouble, into and out of bad
situations of abuse of control by pimps.

Speaker 2 (25:08):
And then a.

Speaker 1 (25:11):
Anti sex trafficking nonprofit worker and her efforts to help
this young woman as she gets into and out of
these difficult, horrible situations. Now, I want to focus a
little bit on two things that as horrible as this,

(25:31):
as gripping as that story was, and as much as
it revealed how terrible Democrat soft on crime laws are.
I mean the whole you read the whole story, you
can't come to any other conclusion other than that that
SB three, p. Fifty seven, the law that Gavin Newsom
and Scott Wiener passed.

Speaker 2 (25:49):
Was a disaster.

Speaker 1 (25:52):
Never Now, one of the problems is it never mentions
Gavin Newsom or Scott Wiener by name. I thought that
was kind of cowardly. But there were two other things
that it doesn't talk about, and I want to talk
about them. One is illegal immigration. This big, long piece
about sex trafficking in Los Angeles not one mention of immigration.
It has a point where they're talking about how these

(26:14):
sex traffickers are bringing girls in from all different parts
of the United States, bring girls from the South and
from other parts of the country to come to Los Angeles.
Really that no international movement, no women being brought across
the board, in spite of the fact that it's well known.
I mean, I found this story in my piece, I

(26:35):
write about it. The DEA has been writing for a
long time, the Drug Enforcement Administration about how Latin American
drug cartels are moving into sex trafficking to expand their
business operations, and even the New York Times piece it
talks about these drug dealers realized, well, rather than a

(26:56):
one time consumable good, let's just continually sell a woman.
Let's continually sell a woman's body. In this horrific sex
slavery operation that we have. It's horrifying. So I refuse
to believe that in Los Angeles, a city that is
like thirty five percent foreign born, that has an estimated

(27:18):
nine hundred thousand illegal aliens living in it. I mean,
just you take any slice of LA's population, you're gonna
find some people who are illegal aliens. I refuse to
believe that there's no involvement by drug cartels and illegal
immigration in sex trafficking. I refuse to believe it. The

(27:39):
other big issue is abortion, and I'm gonna save that.
I think I'm gonna say that for this next thing.
We're going to head into the break.

Speaker 2 (27:47):
This is the Trevor Charry Show on the Valley's Power Talk.

Speaker 1 (27:52):
And basically my contention that I think abortion is a
major factor in facilitating sex trafficking. And this had to
do with the big New York Times story, this big
New York Times magazine feature that talked about this explosion
that's happened with sex trafficking on Figaroa Avenue in Los Angeles,

(28:12):
And you read through the article and there's no mention
about abortion anywhere at all, But.

Speaker 2 (28:21):
But you kind of do some math.

Speaker 1 (28:24):
One of the things the story talks about is how
some of these pimps on Figaroa Avenue are enforcing that
the women whom they are trafficking basically need to make
a financial quota where they have to service a client

(28:45):
every half hour on the half hour. So you're talking
about here's dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens and
dozens of women all along Figaroa Avenue servicing having enormous
amounts of sexual contact. If that operation is gonna continue,

(29:07):
those traffickers need some stuff. They need a lot of
birth control, they need a lot of the morning after pill,
they need a lot of std SDI treatment might not
be as easy a sell. If someone's got obvious, open,
untreated sdds sdis that they're suffering from and they need abortion,

(29:32):
no one's gonna have, you know, no one's gonna pay
for a trafficked woman who is obviously pregnant. It's just
not gonna happen, and it's horrible and it's revolting and
it's terrifying, But this is the reality of sex trafficking.
There's a study in twenty fourteen from this woman Laura Lederer,

(29:53):
who's a legal scholar and was a state department official
who worked extensively in the area of sex trafficking. And
she did the survey of a hundred six different women
who were survivors of sex trafficking. She found that seventy
one percent of them had had at least one pregnancy
while they were trafficed. Twenty one percent reported five or
more pregnancies, fifty five percent of them had at least

(30:14):
one abortion while they were being trafficked. Thirty percent of
them had multiple abortions. More than half of them said
the abortions were forced, so they've I mean, it's impossible
to think that you can have an enormous amount of
sex trafficking on Figaroa Avenue without abortion, without birth control,

(30:37):
without the morning after built, without STDSDI treatment. Where are
they getting it. I'll tell you where they're getting it.
It was a planned parenthood right there, right on Figaroa Avenue. Now,
an enterprising reporter, I think would maybe give that Planned

(30:58):
Parenthood a call and say, hey, how many unaccompanied minors
do you get here as patients? How many referrals are
you making? You you're a medical clinic, you are mandatory
reporters when you see evidence of child sex abuse, You
guys are mandatory reporters. How many referrals are you making?

(31:21):
How many mandatory reporting reports are you making about suspected
child sex abuse per month over the last year. You know,
we know there's this huge explosion of sex trafficking, and
figure out we know a lot of it is for miners.
One of the details from the New York Times story
was that people pay more for minors. The younger you are,
the more they pay, which is horrifying. So Planned parentoedd,

(31:46):
what are you doing? How many cash pay abortions morning
after pill? You know, how many cash pay things are
you doing. One of the things that that Planned Parenthood does,
I think a lot of Planned parenthoods do, is they
add they're telemedicine services. What percentage of minor patients are

(32:06):
using telemedicine? And this is, by the way, another real
big reason why the decision by Joe Biden's FDA in
twenty twenty one to allow the abortion pill MiFi pristone.
This is the most common form of abortion in America now.
It's a drug someone takes within the first ten weeks
of pregnancy to kill their growing fetus or embryo. About

(32:33):
sixty three over sixty three percent of abortions in America
are done through this method now, not through surgery, and
it can be prescribed with just a telemedicine visit. This
was a change that the FDA made under Joe Biden
with their health and safety regulations on this drug, the
abortion pill drug called mifipristone. They said it can be
prescribed with just a telemedicine visit and then the drug

(32:56):
can be shipped to the patient through the mail. Here's
my question. How many young women or girls are being
coerced by their traffickers to get abortions through this method
to make it less likely that sexual abuse sexual assault

(33:18):
is going to be detected. How many are being for
how many fifteen year old girls are being forced to say, yes,
my fifteen year old boyfriend got me pregnant, so that's
why I need the abortion pill.

Speaker 2 (33:30):
How many?

Speaker 1 (33:32):
How often does that happen? And by the way, yeah,
in California, a girl as young as twelve can get abortion,
contraception SDASDI treatment with no parental consent, with no parental notification.

(33:53):
That's on the books. So I'm not saying that the
people at this planned parenthood clinic are breaking the law,
are knowingly failing to report child sex abuse. However, there's
no way that sex trafficking can happen without all of

(34:17):
the services that a planned parenthood provides.

Speaker 2 (34:20):
The Assistant Tremor Carry show on The Valley's Power Talk