WEBVTT - Time for New Conversation about Roe V Wade.  David French talks to Armstrong & Getty

0:00:00.200 --> 0:00:03.120
<v Speaker 1>It's nothing short of an attack on women's basic human

0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:05.720
<v Speaker 1>rights and civil rights, and it's something that women in

0:00:05.800 --> 0:00:08.320
<v Speaker 1>America are going to have to fight against with everything

0:00:08.320 --> 0:00:12.440
<v Speaker 1>they've got. They want to challenge Roll verses Wade, but

0:00:12.840 --> 0:00:17.480
<v Speaker 1>my humble is that this is not the case we

0:00:17.520 --> 0:00:19.720
<v Speaker 1>want to bring to the Supreme Court because I think

0:00:19.760 --> 0:00:24.160
<v Speaker 1>this want to lose. So that was Senator Kirsten Gillibrand

0:00:24.400 --> 0:00:27.720
<v Speaker 1>doing the saying the same thing all the Democratic presidential

0:00:27.760 --> 0:00:30.160
<v Speaker 1>candidates said yesterday about the war on women and all

0:00:30.160 --> 0:00:33.440
<v Speaker 1>that sort of stuff. And then Pat Robertson, who's on

0:00:33.479 --> 0:00:35.839
<v Speaker 1>the other side, he's a televangelist. He's on the other

0:00:35.840 --> 0:00:38.479
<v Speaker 1>side who has problems with the Row Versus way, but

0:00:38.560 --> 0:00:41.440
<v Speaker 1>doesn't think this is the way to go about it right,

0:00:41.880 --> 0:00:44.360
<v Speaker 1>although I think he's missing a key point or two.

0:00:44.520 --> 0:00:47.640
<v Speaker 1>And David French, senior writer for National Review, senior fellow

0:00:47.640 --> 0:00:51.200
<v Speaker 1>at the National Review Institute, has written an absolutely terrific

0:00:51.200 --> 0:00:54.960
<v Speaker 1>and thought provoking peace about what Alabama and Georgia are

0:00:55.000 --> 0:00:57.280
<v Speaker 1>trying to do. And David French joins us, Now, David,

0:00:57.280 --> 0:00:59.959
<v Speaker 1>how are you. I'm good. Thanks for having me. It's

0:01:00.000 --> 0:01:03.480
<v Speaker 1>our pleasure. Really enjoyed your your reasoning in the article,

0:01:03.520 --> 0:01:08.160
<v Speaker 1>why don't we lay out for the folks the legislatures

0:01:08.160 --> 0:01:10.920
<v Speaker 1>in Alabama and Georgia understand this law will not take

0:01:10.920 --> 0:01:15.319
<v Speaker 1>act effect anytime soon. What are they trying to do? Well,

0:01:15.319 --> 0:01:18.480
<v Speaker 1>what they're trying to do is create the right vehicle

0:01:18.600 --> 0:01:23.240
<v Speaker 1>for challenging Row versus ways. And the reason why they've

0:01:23.319 --> 0:01:26.360
<v Speaker 1>drafted the law with this in mind and in some

0:01:26.400 --> 0:01:30.800
<v Speaker 1>really important ways. One, Uh, this is a law unlike

0:01:30.840 --> 0:01:34.520
<v Speaker 1>a lot of the restrictions on abortion that you've seen,

0:01:34.560 --> 0:01:38.600
<v Speaker 1>these more modest restrictions for example that um, for example,

0:01:38.680 --> 0:01:41.240
<v Speaker 1>say you know an abortion clinic has to meet these

0:01:41.319 --> 0:01:45.760
<v Speaker 1>kinds of medical requirements and facility requirements, or that abortion

0:01:45.760 --> 0:01:49.720
<v Speaker 1>doctors have to have admitting privileges. Uh, this is far

0:01:49.800 --> 0:01:53.560
<v Speaker 1>beyond that. There are beyond that, and in what they've

0:01:53.600 --> 0:01:55.840
<v Speaker 1>done because and the reason why they've done that, one

0:01:55.920 --> 0:01:58.720
<v Speaker 1>this is a matter of moral conviction. And the other

0:01:58.760 --> 0:02:02.320
<v Speaker 1>reason is that report could uphold every one of these

0:02:02.360 --> 0:02:05.600
<v Speaker 1>modest abortion restrictions that are before it now, every single

0:02:05.640 --> 0:02:08.520
<v Speaker 1>one of them, without touching Row or Casey. They could

0:02:08.520 --> 0:02:10.959
<v Speaker 1>just say, well, you know, this is just the modest

0:02:11.000 --> 0:02:14.280
<v Speaker 1>restricts and abortion. Wow, we're really we're really having very

0:02:14.360 --> 0:02:19.239
<v Speaker 1>inequality of voice quality. David, I don't know if there's anything. Yeah, sorry,

0:02:19.240 --> 0:02:21.800
<v Speaker 1>it's just kind of phasing in and out. But anyway,

0:02:22.000 --> 0:02:26.480
<v Speaker 1>we'll plunge on. Uh. But so they want to challenge

0:02:26.720 --> 0:02:29.280
<v Speaker 1>Row though, And I like the part of your piece

0:02:29.320 --> 0:02:35.120
<v Speaker 1>where they're talking about establishing the personhood of the baby

0:02:35.200 --> 0:02:38.840
<v Speaker 1>the fetus. Why is that so important? Yeah, that's important

0:02:38.880 --> 0:02:42.200
<v Speaker 1>because of suchs and nine of the rosy Rade opinion

0:02:42.320 --> 0:02:45.600
<v Speaker 1>by Justice Blackman, And in that he says, if the

0:02:45.680 --> 0:02:49.800
<v Speaker 1>personhood of the feet of the fetus is established by

0:02:50.120 --> 0:02:54.680
<v Speaker 1>constitutional laws, in the case for Row for abortion collapses.

0:02:55.280 --> 0:02:58.480
<v Speaker 1>In other words, once a baby is protected as a

0:02:58.560 --> 0:03:02.280
<v Speaker 1>person under law, a person cannot lose its life without

0:03:02.280 --> 0:03:05.840
<v Speaker 1>a right to do process for example. Um, and so

0:03:06.760 --> 0:03:09.600
<v Speaker 1>then the abortion case for abortion collapses. And so what

0:03:09.760 --> 0:03:12.720
<v Speaker 1>these both Alabama and Georgia are doing is they are

0:03:12.840 --> 0:03:17.120
<v Speaker 1>saying that they're that an unborn baby in these states

0:03:17.240 --> 0:03:22.200
<v Speaker 1>is a person. They're bestowing under state law personhood on

0:03:22.280 --> 0:03:24.760
<v Speaker 1>the baby. And now they're saying, well, we have established

0:03:24.800 --> 0:03:30.840
<v Speaker 1>personhood under ROW, the case for abortion therefore collapses. Now

0:03:31.520 --> 0:03:35.880
<v Speaker 1>the counter argument to that is that, well, under Row,

0:03:36.000 --> 0:03:39.360
<v Speaker 1>the only thing that matters is whether the federal Constitution

0:03:39.520 --> 0:03:45.200
<v Speaker 1>establishes personhood, but that's not really traditional American law that

0:03:45.360 --> 0:03:50.600
<v Speaker 1>the the parameters of individual liberties can be expanded by state,

0:03:51.280 --> 0:03:54.880
<v Speaker 1>not contracted by states. And so what they're arguing is

0:03:54.920 --> 0:03:59.440
<v Speaker 1>that by bestowing personhood on the child, they're expanding the

0:03:59.520 --> 0:04:02.640
<v Speaker 1>liberty of the child. Now, the counter argument would be, well,

0:04:02.680 --> 0:04:06.360
<v Speaker 1>then you're constricting the liberty of the mother, and that

0:04:06.400 --> 0:04:08.520
<v Speaker 1>would be the core fight at the Supreme Court. But

0:04:08.600 --> 0:04:12.120
<v Speaker 1>this is aimed directly at that section nine of the

0:04:12.200 --> 0:04:16.120
<v Speaker 1>Row opinion. As the sponsor of George's legislation said, his

0:04:16.200 --> 0:04:19.920
<v Speaker 1>bill wasn't waving its fisted row. It's answering Row versus

0:04:19.920 --> 0:04:24.919
<v Speaker 1>Wade exactly. So it's exactly aimed at part of Justice

0:04:24.960 --> 0:04:28.400
<v Speaker 1>Blackman's opinion. I think it's a very smart Now, again

0:04:28.400 --> 0:04:31.039
<v Speaker 1>there's still guarantee that it will that it will win

0:04:31.080 --> 0:04:33.800
<v Speaker 1>the day, but I think it's a very smart and

0:04:33.880 --> 0:04:39.680
<v Speaker 1>it's a it's a philosophically and morally and scientifically, I believe,

0:04:40.320 --> 0:04:44.599
<v Speaker 1>proper approach to the abortion issue, because the core assertion

0:04:44.640 --> 0:04:47.640
<v Speaker 1>of the pro life movement is that that is a person,

0:04:47.800 --> 0:04:50.719
<v Speaker 1>a very small person inside the mother's wound. Right would

0:04:50.720 --> 0:04:52.960
<v Speaker 1>the court have to establish at what point it becomes

0:04:52.960 --> 0:04:55.960
<v Speaker 1>a person though, because I could get pretty thorny, well,

0:04:56.080 --> 0:05:00.280
<v Speaker 1>you know, and that's that is a essentially that they

0:05:00.279 --> 0:05:02.440
<v Speaker 1>could say is that the Court doesn't establish that the

0:05:02.480 --> 0:05:05.719
<v Speaker 1>states do that the Constitution of the US is silent

0:05:05.880 --> 0:05:09.880
<v Speaker 1>on the state's ability to establish personhood beyond that, they

0:05:09.920 --> 0:05:12.960
<v Speaker 1>cannot restrict personhood beyond which the you know, to a

0:05:13.040 --> 0:05:16.520
<v Speaker 1>level the beyond the Federal Constitution. So the Supreme Court

0:05:16.560 --> 0:05:20.280
<v Speaker 1>doesn't have to decide personhood. The Supreme Court can say

0:05:20.400 --> 0:05:23.120
<v Speaker 1>the Constitution of the United States is silent on abortion,

0:05:23.640 --> 0:05:26.160
<v Speaker 1>and it permits states to define personhood in a way

0:05:26.200 --> 0:05:29.320
<v Speaker 1>that's more expansive than the Federal Constitution does and leave

0:05:29.360 --> 0:05:32.120
<v Speaker 1>it to the states, which is I believe, the proper

0:05:32.160 --> 0:05:35.200
<v Speaker 1>constitutional approach. I'm glad you brought that up. David French

0:05:35.279 --> 0:05:37.679
<v Speaker 1>is online senior writer for National Review and Senior Fellow

0:05:37.680 --> 0:05:39.800
<v Speaker 1>at the National Review Institute. I had one of my

0:05:39.839 --> 0:05:43.320
<v Speaker 1>favorite professors in college a thousand years ago. Um made

0:05:43.320 --> 0:05:48.600
<v Speaker 1>the point that the Road decision removed the well, it

0:05:48.680 --> 0:05:52.320
<v Speaker 1>distorted the politics of it. States could no longer vote

0:05:52.360 --> 0:05:54.960
<v Speaker 1>in a meaningful way on what they're people believed on

0:05:55.000 --> 0:05:59.120
<v Speaker 1>this extremely difficult topic. Um, and you make another point

0:05:59.160 --> 0:06:03.279
<v Speaker 1>in your piece about how it's distorted national politics presidential elections,

0:06:03.320 --> 0:06:06.440
<v Speaker 1>for instance, What did you mean by that? Yeah, So

0:06:06.640 --> 0:06:09.000
<v Speaker 1>think about this. If I live in the state of tendency,

0:06:09.120 --> 0:06:13.080
<v Speaker 1>and I do UM, and I want to impact the

0:06:13.120 --> 0:06:17.039
<v Speaker 1>abortion laws of my state, by far, by far, the

0:06:17.080 --> 0:06:19.440
<v Speaker 1>most important election that I will cast a vote in

0:06:20.000 --> 0:06:24.800
<v Speaker 1>is the United States presidential election. Because the president appoints

0:06:24.560 --> 0:06:27.480
<v Speaker 1>a justice or can appoint justices of the Supreme Court,

0:06:28.040 --> 0:06:30.760
<v Speaker 1>my own state Supreme Court, my own state laws are

0:06:31.080 --> 0:06:35.640
<v Speaker 1>far less relevant to the actual right to an abortion

0:06:35.920 --> 0:06:39.800
<v Speaker 1>than the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States.

0:06:40.160 --> 0:06:44.520
<v Speaker 1>And this is something that has has meant that national politics,

0:06:44.600 --> 0:06:48.839
<v Speaker 1>now for a generation since Roe have become have escalated

0:06:48.880 --> 0:06:51.520
<v Speaker 1>in intensity because you hear, you have one of the

0:06:51.560 --> 0:06:56.239
<v Speaker 1>most emotionally fraud issues, if not the most emotionally fraud

0:06:56.240 --> 0:06:58.840
<v Speaker 1>issue in the entire all of the United States politics,

0:06:59.560 --> 0:07:04.240
<v Speaker 1>and your ability to impact it is at best indirect

0:07:04.400 --> 0:07:06.640
<v Speaker 1>by voting for a president who appoints a justice, and

0:07:06.680 --> 0:07:09.800
<v Speaker 1>then once the justice is um and Um in office,

0:07:09.840 --> 0:07:12.720
<v Speaker 1>he does what he wants to do. And so what

0:07:12.880 --> 0:07:15.840
<v Speaker 1>I say is when you if you overturn row. If

0:07:15.880 --> 0:07:17.640
<v Speaker 1>you were to live in New York and you want

0:07:17.640 --> 0:07:21.760
<v Speaker 1>to protect abortion rights, then the most important election that

0:07:21.800 --> 0:07:23.200
<v Speaker 1>you're going to vote in is going to be like

0:07:23.240 --> 0:07:26.160
<v Speaker 1>your local state legislature. Right. And as you make the point,

0:07:26.200 --> 0:07:29.760
<v Speaker 1>we've got this savage, bitter partisanship at the national level

0:07:29.880 --> 0:07:33.760
<v Speaker 1>over an issue that we will have teeny tiny incremental

0:07:33.960 --> 0:07:38.120
<v Speaker 1>indirect effects on as as voters, and so it's not

0:07:38.120 --> 0:07:43.520
<v Speaker 1>worth all the hatred exactly. So it's distorting our politics massively,

0:07:44.200 --> 0:07:47.200
<v Speaker 1>and what we need in this country we need to

0:07:47.400 --> 0:07:52.160
<v Speaker 1>de escalate presidential elections. We need to de escalate national politics.

0:07:52.200 --> 0:07:56.240
<v Speaker 1>Good luck with that. Yeah, but the citizens of California

0:07:56.320 --> 0:07:58.560
<v Speaker 1>have too much power over the citizens of Texas and

0:07:58.640 --> 0:08:00.880
<v Speaker 1>vice versa. I mean, this is this is not what

0:08:01.000 --> 0:08:04.239
<v Speaker 1>the founders intended. And when you're talking about a hyper

0:08:04.280 --> 0:08:08.480
<v Speaker 1>emotional issue like abortion, that is the constitutional United States

0:08:08.480 --> 0:08:10.720
<v Speaker 1>is silent about it. This isn't the first Amendment, this

0:08:10.760 --> 0:08:13.480
<v Speaker 1>isn't the second Amendment, this isn't the fourth or fifth Amendment.

0:08:13.960 --> 0:08:16.720
<v Speaker 1>The Constitution is silent on that. That is a classic

0:08:16.840 --> 0:08:21.520
<v Speaker 1>recipe for resolution by the states. And the more I

0:08:21.520 --> 0:08:25.120
<v Speaker 1>think we can communicate that to people, that let Alabamabama

0:08:25.160 --> 0:08:27.720
<v Speaker 1>be Alabama. Let New York be New York and have

0:08:27.800 --> 0:08:30.320
<v Speaker 1>the pro life and pro choice movements fight it out

0:08:30.400 --> 0:08:33.120
<v Speaker 1>on that turf. I think it's going to be better

0:08:33.240 --> 0:08:35.880
<v Speaker 1>for our nation. Is certainly going to be better for

0:08:35.920 --> 0:08:39.560
<v Speaker 1>unborn children. Its state after state after state announces it's

0:08:39.559 --> 0:08:44.200
<v Speaker 1>it's pro life intentions. And look, if people want to

0:08:44.240 --> 0:08:48.760
<v Speaker 1>build and create pro choice jurisdictions, they can do so. Hey, David,

0:08:48.760 --> 0:08:50.600
<v Speaker 1>I wanted to ask you this question just because we

0:08:50.679 --> 0:08:51.880
<v Speaker 1>bring it up a lot, and I don't ever hear

0:08:51.920 --> 0:08:55.280
<v Speaker 1>it anybodywhere else talking about it being hyper emotional and

0:08:55.480 --> 0:08:57.439
<v Speaker 1>you know, such a charge edition, all that sort of thing.

0:08:57.720 --> 0:09:02.120
<v Speaker 1>The polling shows that most people, even Democrats, are uncomfortable

0:09:02.160 --> 0:09:04.840
<v Speaker 1>with abortion after the first trimester. It's, you know, the

0:09:04.880 --> 0:09:07.520
<v Speaker 1>controversies all in that first trimester or whether it should

0:09:07.520 --> 0:09:10.400
<v Speaker 1>be allowed at all, But after that, the vast majority

0:09:10.440 --> 0:09:12.360
<v Speaker 1>of people who say no, that ain't cool after the

0:09:12.360 --> 0:09:15.559
<v Speaker 1>first trimester. Why can't we get some sort of ground

0:09:15.640 --> 0:09:19.160
<v Speaker 1>going there in terms of the battle, Well, and I

0:09:19.200 --> 0:09:21.880
<v Speaker 1>don't think most people know those poll numbers, by the way, listening,

0:09:22.040 --> 0:09:25.120
<v Speaker 1>you know the way I take it through the news, right, Well,

0:09:25.200 --> 0:09:27.480
<v Speaker 1>I think there's two reasons for that one. The number

0:09:27.480 --> 0:09:29.880
<v Speaker 1>one most important reason is because this issue has been

0:09:29.960 --> 0:09:33.000
<v Speaker 1>removed from the democratic process, largely by the Supreme Court

0:09:33.000 --> 0:09:35.880
<v Speaker 1>of the US. We haven't had an opportunity to have

0:09:36.000 --> 0:09:40.040
<v Speaker 1>national debates and reach a consensus and limitations that reflects

0:09:40.080 --> 0:09:42.200
<v Speaker 1>public values. We have not been able to do that

0:09:42.280 --> 0:09:45.400
<v Speaker 1>ever since Rows. So that's number one, and then number two.

0:09:46.000 --> 0:09:51.080
<v Speaker 1>These national polls are very deceptive because the regional and

0:09:51.200 --> 0:09:55.360
<v Speaker 1>state by state differences are dramatic. So you might have

0:09:55.600 --> 0:09:57.680
<v Speaker 1>a state of New York with a whole, you know,

0:09:57.760 --> 0:10:00.080
<v Speaker 1>ton of people who live there, they might have a

0:10:00.120 --> 0:10:04.439
<v Speaker 1>supermajority for a less restrictive abortion regime. But then you

0:10:04.520 --> 0:10:07.920
<v Speaker 1>might have a state of Alabama that has a supermajority

0:10:07.960 --> 0:10:10.679
<v Speaker 1>for as far more restrictive. Okay, well, that reinforces the

0:10:10.800 --> 0:10:14.040
<v Speaker 1>argument about letting the states, you know, or jurisdiction, very jurisdictions,

0:10:14.040 --> 0:10:17.640
<v Speaker 1>make their own decisions. Then exactly exactly, And you know,

0:10:17.679 --> 0:10:20.199
<v Speaker 1>people will point to national polls to try to rebut

0:10:20.280 --> 0:10:22.920
<v Speaker 1>what Alabama is doing. But you know, you know who

0:10:22.960 --> 0:10:27.600
<v Speaker 1>knows Alabama politics better than national posters. Alabama politicians, and

0:10:27.640 --> 0:10:32.080
<v Speaker 1>they voted a massive supermajority for this. Alabama law. A

0:10:32.160 --> 0:10:35.520
<v Speaker 1>massive in the Missouri um is just about to pass

0:10:35.520 --> 0:10:39.439
<v Speaker 1>an eight week abortion ban, ban on abortions after eight weeks,

0:10:39.480 --> 0:10:42.199
<v Speaker 1>and the margin in the House there with one seventeen

0:10:42.280 --> 0:10:45.840
<v Speaker 1>to thirty nine and in the Senate four to ten.

0:10:45.960 --> 0:10:49.440
<v Speaker 1>So if you're throwing a national poll at a local

0:10:49.559 --> 0:10:55.960
<v Speaker 1>southern politicians their board, right right, David matter, David final question,

0:10:56.440 --> 0:10:59.040
<v Speaker 1>in the limit of time we have, Unfortunately, what are

0:10:59.040 --> 0:11:00.920
<v Speaker 1>the chances you think this gets all the way to

0:11:00.960 --> 0:11:04.480
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court either of these cases. Let me put

0:11:04.480 --> 0:11:07.360
<v Speaker 1>it this way. I'm pessimistic, but I'm not as pessimistic

0:11:07.440 --> 0:11:10.560
<v Speaker 1>ause I used to be. I think the more states

0:11:10.640 --> 0:11:14.360
<v Speaker 1>that pass a heartbeat bill or a bill like Alabama's,

0:11:14.840 --> 0:11:16.839
<v Speaker 1>the greater the likelihood that it will get to the

0:11:16.880 --> 0:11:20.360
<v Speaker 1>Spreme Court, simply because the Supreme Court will realize that

0:11:20.480 --> 0:11:24.440
<v Speaker 1>it has a popular ground swell on its hands and

0:11:24.480 --> 0:11:27.640
<v Speaker 1>it's going to either have to say once in you know,

0:11:27.720 --> 0:11:31.240
<v Speaker 1>at least decide this for a whole another generation, and say, no,

0:11:31.360 --> 0:11:34.760
<v Speaker 1>we're gonna open this up. The Constitution is silent on abortion.

0:11:34.800 --> 0:11:36.920
<v Speaker 1>We're going to open up for the states, or we're

0:11:36.920 --> 0:11:39.200
<v Speaker 1>going to reaffirm row. Either way that's going to be

0:11:39.320 --> 0:11:43.439
<v Speaker 1>very clarifying. But when you're talking about an immense, geographic,

0:11:43.520 --> 0:11:47.000
<v Speaker 1>contiguous section of the United States of America now is

0:11:47.040 --> 0:11:51.960
<v Speaker 1>declaring itself unequivocally for life, that increases the chances that

0:11:52.000 --> 0:11:54.199
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court will take this up. David French, Senior

0:11:54.200 --> 0:11:56.360
<v Speaker 1>writer for the National Review, Senior fellow at the National

0:11:56.400 --> 0:11:58.400
<v Speaker 1>Review Institute, David, we can talk to you all day,

0:11:58.440 --> 0:12:00.400
<v Speaker 1>but instead of that will have a link to your

0:12:00.520 --> 0:12:03.160
<v Speaker 1>piece so folks can find it easily great to talk

0:12:03.160 --> 0:12:05.560
<v Speaker 1>to you. Thank you, thanks so much for having me

0:12:05.679 --> 0:12:08.480
<v Speaker 1>our pleasure. Isn't it corrected that the woman involved in

0:12:08.480 --> 0:12:11.000
<v Speaker 1>the ROVERSUS Wade case ended up pro life at the

0:12:11.080 --> 0:12:13.880
<v Speaker 1>end of her life. Yeah. Yeah, This might be one

0:12:13.880 --> 0:12:16.400
<v Speaker 1>of those issues that I never thought would move in

0:12:16.440 --> 0:12:19.160
<v Speaker 1>my lifetime, like a lot of them out there that

0:12:19.240 --> 0:12:23.559
<v Speaker 1>have recently, and that is going to get some movement. Yes, yeah,

0:12:23.720 --> 0:12:28.959
<v Speaker 1>and and honestly, especially if you can let the States

0:12:29.200 --> 0:12:33.640
<v Speaker 1>tailor the approach to this incredibly troubling issue to the

0:12:33.679 --> 0:12:39.560
<v Speaker 1>will of their own people. Um that I think the solution,

0:12:39.559 --> 0:12:42.400
<v Speaker 1>the quote unquote solution for everybody will be much more

0:12:42.400 --> 0:12:48.160
<v Speaker 1>comforta when wass um, I know they didn't have the

0:12:48.160 --> 0:12:50.400
<v Speaker 1>they certainly didn't have the three D pictures of babies

0:12:50.400 --> 0:12:52.439
<v Speaker 1>that they have now where you just see a baby

0:12:52.440 --> 0:12:54.680
<v Speaker 1>in there. Um, did they even have ultrasounds? Did they

0:12:54.720 --> 0:12:56.280
<v Speaker 1>have could you hear a heartbeat back then? I don't

0:12:56.280 --> 0:12:58.400
<v Speaker 1>think you could even hear a heartbeat back then. So

0:12:58.440 --> 0:13:02.040
<v Speaker 1>it was completely just you know, a conversation with with

0:13:02.080 --> 0:13:04.320
<v Speaker 1>no knowledge of what's going on in there. For the

0:13:04.360 --> 0:13:07.760
<v Speaker 1>most part um you you would hope this wasn't true,

0:13:07.760 --> 0:13:12.480
<v Speaker 1>but it is absolutely true. The more focused and abstraction comes,

0:13:12.480 --> 0:13:15.400
<v Speaker 1>and the more becomes and the more real it becomes,

0:13:15.800 --> 0:13:19.000
<v Speaker 1>the more details, your understanding of it becomes a completely changed.

0:13:19.360 --> 0:13:22.040
<v Speaker 1>That's why they think polling has changed on this issue.

0:13:22.120 --> 0:13:25.000
<v Speaker 1>It's here in the heartbeat, it's seen the pictures, it's right,

0:13:25.120 --> 0:13:28.920
<v Speaker 1>Oh that's a kid, right, And there are plenty on

0:13:28.960 --> 0:13:31.240
<v Speaker 1>the left to the major media have a great deal

0:13:31.240 --> 0:13:35.560
<v Speaker 1>of sympathy for who are okay with offering the baby

0:13:35.720 --> 0:13:40.120
<v Speaker 1>after it's born, which which is an extremist position supported

0:13:40.120 --> 0:13:44.160
<v Speaker 1>by virtually no but insane and listen. I respect people's

0:13:44.240 --> 0:13:46.760
<v Speaker 1>views on this topic on all sides, I really do.

0:13:46.960 --> 0:13:49.040
<v Speaker 1>It's a thorny one, it's a hard one. I don't

0:13:49.080 --> 0:13:51.640
<v Speaker 1>respect you on people's on all sides that view you

0:13:51.679 --> 0:13:54.440
<v Speaker 1>just put out that crazy. I mean, on both sides.

0:13:54.480 --> 0:13:56.280
<v Speaker 1>You know, I lean this way, I lean now, I

0:13:56.320 --> 0:13:59.000
<v Speaker 1>find I get it. But yeah, that that's an incredibly

0:13:59.040 --> 0:14:03.320
<v Speaker 1>extremist view, and we are getting a absolutely fraudulent view

0:14:03.360 --> 0:14:07.240
<v Speaker 1>of what people think about that from our lying, lying media,

0:14:07.320 --> 0:14:10.520
<v Speaker 1>and the varant are strong and Jetty