Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It is Verdict with Ted Cruz, the Weekend Review, Ben
Speaker 2: Ferguson with you, and here are the big stories that
Speaker 2: you may have missed that we talked about this week.
Speaker 2: First up, we may be finding out a lot more
Speaker 2: about what Harvard has been doing with your tax dollars
Speaker 2: this as the President has said, we are going to
Speaker 2: stop sending many to Harvard after some of their radical
Speaker 2: ideology has been on full display, including rewarding students with
Speaker 2: big grants who went after Jewish students. Will have those
Speaker 2: details for you in just a second. Also, in PR,
Speaker 2: are we going to defund them? It looks like there's
Speaker 2: a very good chance MPR may have to stand on
Speaker 2: their own two legs for the first time ever. Why
Speaker 2: will this happen and what could it mean for your
Speaker 2: tax dollars? And finally, Planned Parenthood in an undercover sting
Speaker 2: operations exposed for prescribing hormones for minors. When it comes
Speaker 2: to with gender affirming care, it's the week Can Review
Speaker 2: and it starts right now as they fight this final question,
Speaker 2: is there an opportunity through this legal challenge for us
Speaker 2: to even be able to find out more about what
Speaker 2: Harvard is doing? Is that part of what could happen
Speaker 2: in the upside here is Hey, we get to ask
Speaker 2: more questions, we get to see more behind the books,
Speaker 2: we get to see more of the propaganda that we
Speaker 2: were talking about right now.
Speaker 3: That is absolutely right, And I'm going to say the
Speaker 3: facts are going to get worse and worse as they
Speaker 3: come out. Harvard doesn't want people to know the fact. So,
Speaker 3: for example, there were a whole series of stories that
Speaker 3: came out about the Harvard Law Review. Now, now, what
Speaker 3: is the Harvard Law Review. The Harvard Law Review is
Speaker 3: a legal journal that's at Harvard Law School that has
Speaker 3: eighty students who are student editors. And getting on the
Speaker 3: Law Review is incredibly prestigious. It is incredibly difficult to do.
Speaker 3: Typical Harvard Law School class is about five hundred and
Speaker 3: sixty people, so you have about forty people out of
Speaker 3: five sixty that make it on the class make it
Speaker 3: on the Law Review.
Speaker 1: When I'm there, I was on the Law Review.
Speaker 3: When I was there, roughly half of the editors on
Speaker 3: the Law Review made it from a combination of grades
Speaker 3: and a week long, incredibly arduous writing competition. Another roughly
Speaker 3: half made it from purely the writing competition, But when
Speaker 3: I say roughly half, at the time it was thirty
Speaker 3: two where grades in writing, thirty two were just writing
Speaker 3: and then eight were reserved for affirmative action. That's when
Speaker 3: I was there. Now, by all appearances, it has gotten
Speaker 3: much worse. It was brazen then, It was racially discriminatory then,
Speaker 3: but it is now much worse. The Harvard Law Law
Speaker 3: Review now uses race explicitly to number one select their editors.
Speaker 3: And by the way, becoming an editor at the Law
Speaker 3: Review increases your chances of getting a judicial clerkship, dramatically
Speaker 3: increases your chances of getting a Supreme Court clerkship, dramatically
Speaker 3: increases your chances of getting hired by a big prestigious
Speaker 3: law firm that pays a lot of money, dramatically increases
Speaker 3: your chances of becoming a professor at a prestigious university dramatically.
Speaker 3: So the Law Review is a major gateway to elite
Speaker 3: success in the legal world. And the Harvard Law Review
Speaker 3: now in writing, they are quite open in saying that
Speaker 3: that they will discriminate for editors based on race, and
Speaker 3: they will also discriminate on the articles they pick. So,
Speaker 3: for example, in a twenty twenty four memo. One journal
Speaker 3: article argue that the fact that the author was quote
Speaker 3: not from an underrepresented background was a negative when it
Speaker 3: came to evaluating the piece for publication. There is a
Speaker 3: Quote Holistic Review Committee, which now selects nearly half the
Speaker 3: student editors and has made the inclusion of quote underrepresented
Speaker 3: groups its first priority. You're saying violates Title six.
Speaker 2: So to be clear, you're there's a chance now that
Speaker 2: if you were at Harvard you wouldn't get picked. Is
Speaker 2: that what you're telling me?
Speaker 3: You know, I don't know, and you don't know, So
Speaker 3: I say that what's interesting about it is you genuinely
Speaker 3: don't know. Is one of the things that they're very
Speaker 3: clever in how they discriminate, because you don't know on
Speaker 3: what basis you were admitted. I had the grades to
Speaker 3: get in on grades, and I think I did well
Speaker 3: in the writing competition, but I have no idea which
Speaker 3: of the slots I was in, because nobody does. They
Speaker 3: don't tell you. They just announced the forty editors that
Speaker 3: have gotten in, So I don't know. But I'll tell
Speaker 3: you a story I've told before. So when I was
Speaker 3: on the Law of You, there were a number of
Speaker 3: conservative editors, and we made a run at ending affirmative
Speaker 3: action in the law of you.
Speaker 1: And I have to admit I sat.
Speaker 3: Back there was we were all eighty of us were
Speaker 3: gathered in a classroom and we were debating this, and
Speaker 3: there were some other students that were really kind of
Speaker 3: leading the charge, some other conservatives.
Speaker 1: I agreed with them, but I also could care votes.
Speaker 3: And out of the eighty students there were maybe eight
Speaker 3: or ten of us that were conservatives. We were a
Speaker 3: tiny minority. So I was like, look, we ain't gonna
Speaker 3: win the vote, but all right, this is fine, let's
Speaker 3: have the debate. So we're having the debate, and I
Speaker 3: was sitting in the back. It was fairly quiet, and
Speaker 3: I remember this one supercilious liberal stood up and said,
Speaker 3: if we eliminate affirmative action, the Harvard Law Review will
Speaker 3: be nothing but white men. And I have to admit
Speaker 3: I was kind of a little bit checked out in
Speaker 3: the back of the room and I heard that, and
Speaker 3: that pissed me off, and I said, you know what,
Speaker 3: you want to understand why affirmative action is so insidious.
Speaker 3: The arrogance of that imbecile just showed it. His belief
Speaker 3: as an enlightened leftist is that if merit were the
Speaker 3: only criterion, only white men would get in, that no
Speaker 3: one who is African American would get in. Who is Hispanic?
Speaker 3: And let's be clear, I'm Hispanic. He's sitting there. And
Speaker 3: in fact, I I said, all right, big guy, you
Speaker 3: want to pull your transcript out in my transcript and
Speaker 3: drop him on the table right there, Let's see what
Speaker 3: pure merit produces. But there was something even more dripping
Speaker 3: in his leftist condescension, which is, at the time, the
Speaker 3: Harvard affirmative Action program did not include gender, so there
Speaker 3: was not affirmative action for women. And I said to
Speaker 3: all the women editors, do you hear what he just
Speaker 3: said to you? He believes if it's pure merit, no
Speaker 3: women would make it. And by the way, historically all
Speaker 3: the women editors who were liberals voted against adding gender
Speaker 3: to affirmative action because they recognized that if it was
Speaker 3: added to it that that people it would devalue what
Speaker 3: they had accomplished. But it showed just the absolute arrogance
Speaker 3: of the left when it comes to embracing racism, because
Speaker 3: at the end of the day, they that they look
Speaker 3: down on the poor benighted people that will only succeed
Speaker 3: in life with their beneficence. And by the way, the
Speaker 3: price for that beneficence is for them to be loyal
Speaker 3: and obedient for the rest of their lives. I mean,
Speaker 3: that is the very explicit left wing charter the affirmative Action.
Speaker 2: Is based on, which brings us to another story where
Speaker 2: this stuff started on college campuses and now it's made
Speaker 2: our way into courtrooms. The Tesla Arson suspect one of them,
Speaker 2: and there's a lot of mout there, right, but this
Speaker 2: one specifically, and we'll get to the story of what
Speaker 2: happened here in a second, but has been quote released
Speaker 2: because of gender transition. Would be at risk if they
Speaker 2: didn't release. So if you're going to jail, just say
Speaker 2: you're doing a gender transition and apparently then the law
Speaker 2: cannot hold you accountable for your terrorist actions.
Speaker 3: So there's an individual named Owen McIntyre who was on
Speaker 3: spring break in Missouri and he firebombed to Tesla cyber tree.
Speaker 3: He threw molotov cocktails, he fire bombed it. He got caught,
Speaker 3: and he was charged charged with domestic terrorism. And then
Speaker 3: what happened is his federal public defender argued that going
Speaker 3: to jail will disrupt his gender affirming medical care, which
Speaker 3: began in March of this year. It is likely to
Speaker 3: be interrupted or terminated entirely if he remains in pre
Speaker 3: trial detention. And the federal magistrate judge bought that argument
Speaker 3: and let him go.
Speaker 1: And let me say one.
Speaker 3: Of the craziest things about this story. You and I
Speaker 3: Ben spent twenty minutes trying to figure out if this
Speaker 3: defendant is male or female.
Speaker 2: By the way, and the pride he's not lying. I
Speaker 2: want to be clear about that. We literally are googling
Speaker 2: everything is a dude is a chick? If we don't
Speaker 2: know what it is like, that's the insanity of the.
Speaker 3: Where we live, and we can't tell. And you and
Speaker 3: I actually disagree. So I think this is a person
Speaker 3: who was born female who has decided that she is
Speaker 3: a he and wants to be a man.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And the reason I think that, The reason I think
Speaker 3: that is we've googled it and every damn story.
Speaker 1: Uses he he he he he.
Speaker 3: And and given the insane Orwellian world we live in,
Speaker 3: I think if ABC is referring to this person as
Speaker 3: a he and the person is transgender, that that to
Speaker 3: me means the person was born as she.
Speaker 1: Now your argument is, Ben.
Speaker 2: This is a dude that grew in his hair and
Speaker 2: it looks like a chick.
Speaker 1: Then why does all the media refer to this person
Speaker 1: as a he?
Speaker 2: Because I think everybody's lost their damn minds, That's what
Speaker 2: I think, and I think I mean, and the fact
Speaker 2: that we even are at the point where we have
Speaker 2: to have this discussion tells you how insane the world is.
Speaker 3: You Literally, every story I clicked on, I googled it
Speaker 3: and clicked on story after story, and there's not one
Speaker 3: that actually describes the facts one way or the other.
Speaker 3: So if I know, but either way, look, the federal
Speaker 3: prosecutors argue this person is a domestic terrorist. They're throwing
Speaker 3: Molotov cocktails, and it is. It is woke politics taken
Speaker 3: to the level of insanity, that that that to get
Speaker 3: a sex change treatment is now reason to be forgiven
Speaker 3: for domestic terrorism, although to be fair, it's not forgiven.
Speaker 3: It's released from pre trialed attention. But it is still insane.
Speaker 2: Well, but it's it's helping you, right, it's helping you
Speaker 2: not be held accountable for your actions. And it's also
Speaker 2: I think pretty clear that we're saying, if you want
Speaker 2: to not be held accountable for your actions, just claim
Speaker 2: something that's woke, and these radical judges will be like, oh,
Speaker 2: we totally understand. Let's just change the rules for you
Speaker 2: because you're in our you're in our special protected class,
Speaker 2: and we want to see you succeed in your transgenderism,
Speaker 2: which is not supposed to be the job of the court.
Speaker 3: Well, I got to say this, This insanity is a
Speaker 3: big part of the reason Donald Trump won in November
Speaker 3: and we got a Republican House at a Republican Senate,
Speaker 3: because I think a lot of people are looking at
Speaker 3: this and saying this stuff is crazy.
Speaker 2: Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
Speaker 2: you can go back and listen to the full podcast
Speaker 2: from earlier this week. Now onto story number two. There
Speaker 2: may be accountability coming very very soon. When it comes
Speaker 2: to the issue of NPR. This is something that the
Speaker 2: presidents talked about a lot taxpayers don't like it. It's
Speaker 2: been pretty obvious that at MPR in PBS there's a
Speaker 2: lot of our tax dollars that are going to activists
Speaker 2: and to those in the far left that want to
Speaker 2: indoctrinate people through our tax dollars, and now accountability may
Speaker 2: be coming to NPR.
Speaker 1: Well, that's right.
Speaker 3: So the President signed an executive order ending the tax
Speaker 3: fair subsidy of NPR and PBS, both of which received
Speaker 3: millions from taxpayers, and they're just part of and propaganda outlets.
Speaker 3: The order reads as follows by the authority vested to
Speaker 3: me as President by the Constitution and the laws of
Speaker 3: the United States. It is hereby ordered NPR and PBS
Speaker 3: they will be shut down from cash. And let me
Speaker 3: read some facts on NPR. So NPR ran a story
Speaker 3: entitled quote Cannibalism It's perfectly natural, in which the author
Speaker 3: look like, by the way, how am I saying this?
Speaker 1: How is this real? The author describes.
Speaker 3: Eating in others humans plus centa. So let me read
Speaker 3: this excerpt for this is from an NPR story. In
Speaker 3: the book, you describe getting invited over for dinner by
Speaker 3: one of your sources to eat her placenta.
Speaker 1: How was that? Was it good? Yeah?
Speaker 3: It was really the prep that made it taste good.
Speaker 3: Granted the husband was a chef, so he knew how
Speaker 3: to prepare it Osubuka style and used a really nice wine.
Speaker 3: I had bought it smelled great, it didn't taste bad.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't do it again. I don't have any regrets
Speaker 3: I did this. So I just want to go back
Speaker 3: to the title NPR cannibalism. It's perfectly natural, all right.
Speaker 3: In twenty twenty one, another story, NPR said the Declaration
Speaker 3: of Independence was a document with quote flaws and deeply
Speaker 3: ingrained hypocrisies. Here's what they wrote, The Declaration is a
Speaker 3: document with flaws and deeply ingrained hypocrisies. It also laid
Speaker 3: the foundation for our collective aspirations, our hope for what
Speaker 3: America could be. So in that spirit, here again is
Speaker 3: the Declaration of Independence, as read by the NPR staff.
Speaker 3: So that was twenty twenty one where they just crapped
Speaker 3: on the Declaration of Independence and then they read it.
Speaker 3: You know what they did in twenty twenty two, what's that?
Speaker 3: They said, We're not going to read the Declaration of
Speaker 3: Independence anymore. So it was a long tradition, And in
Speaker 3: twenty they tweeted the following this July fourth, we break
Speaker 3: with tradition. Instead of reading the Declaration of Independence, we
Speaker 3: examine what a quality means and is meant in this document.
Speaker 3: Important segment about our past and future. That so the
Speaker 3: Declaration of Independence is apparently no longer allowed on NPR
Speaker 3: because apparently hating America is NPR's mission.
Speaker 2: Yet again, your tax dollar is hard at work here,
Speaker 2: So there's going to be pushback, right, there's gonna be
Speaker 2: fighting here. Ultimately, what are the chances that this sticks
Speaker 2: and that we actually say, hey, you're not getting tax
Speaker 2: dours for this radical agenda that you're pressing and trying
Speaker 2: to indoctrinate on so many people.
Speaker 3: So look, I am hopeful. I want it to happen.
Speaker 3: I'm fighting for it to happen. Let me give you
Speaker 3: another example. NPR issued an editor's note warning that the
Speaker 3: Declaration of Independence is quote a document that contains offensive language.
Speaker 3: And here this was in twenty twenty two editor's note
Speaker 3: on July eighth, twenty twenty two. The story quotes the
Speaker 3: US Declaration of Independence a document that contains offensive language
Speaker 3: about Native Americans, including a racial slur. That was what
Speaker 3: they were saying the Declaration they find offensive in the NPR.
Speaker 3: Also in twenty nineteen, they apologized for calling illegal immigrants
Speaker 3: illegal and they posted.
Speaker 1: Quote, sorry, that was a mistake.
Speaker 3: NPR's policy is not to characterize people as illegal. By
Speaker 3: the way, in federal law, an illegal alien is referred
Speaker 3: to as an illegal alien.
Speaker 1: That is in the United States Code.
Speaker 3: But NPR says, we slip up from time to time,
Speaker 3: but we'll keep working hard to get it right. They
Speaker 3: also here was another story NPR sounded the alart about
Speaker 3: young men who abstained from masturbating to pornography. And here
Speaker 3: was the headline of the story in NPR in twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four. Masturbation abstinence is popular online. Doctors and therapists
Speaker 3: are worried, like what the hell? Here was another story.
Speaker 3: NPR featured a Valentine's Day story around quote queer animals,
Speaker 3: in which it suggested the make believe clownfish in Finding
Speaker 3: Nemo would have been better off as a female. And
Speaker 3: that quote banana slugs are hermaphrodites, and that quote some
Speaker 3: deer are non binary. The title of the story was
Speaker 3: Manny Loves Cayenne plus five facts about queer animals for
Speaker 3: Valentine's Day. Okay, these people are freaks. Queer animals for
Speaker 3: Valentine's Day. This is what they're writing. By the way,
Speaker 3: a year ago, this was twenty twenty four, Valentine's Day.
Speaker 3: They also devoted a panel to what it means to
Speaker 3: be woke and to quote white privilege, and the title
Speaker 3: was stay woke. This this is this is all right,
Speaker 3: I'll give you another story. They routinely promote chemical and
Speaker 3: surgical mutilation of children, calling it quote gender affirming care,
Speaker 3: without mentioning the irreversible damage caused by these procedures. And finally,
Speaker 3: in twenty twenty one, a PBS program aired a quote
Speaker 3: children's programs, this is what they're talking about to kids,
Speaker 3: featuring a drag queen named little Miss hot Mess. And
Speaker 3: here's drag Queen. Little Miss hot Mess sings the hips
Speaker 3: on the drag queen go Swish Swiss Squish to a
Speaker 3: virtual child audience on an episode of Let's Learn This
Speaker 3: is who they are? By the way, okay, one more
Speaker 3: that I that there are two more that there's so
Speaker 3: many they keep piling up. NPR educated the nation on
Speaker 3: quote the whole community of gender queer, dinosaur enthusiasts and
Speaker 3: trans Sarah toops. So here's a quote from the story.
Speaker 3: Many people who are queer, whether they are trans or
Speaker 3: some other form of gender queer or whatever it is,
Speaker 3: we love dinosaurs. Along with being a dinosaur expert, Riley
Speaker 3: is herself transgender. According to Riley, there is a whole
Speaker 3: community of gender queer dinosaur enthusiasts online. We had no idea,
Speaker 3: so we checked it out. Sure enough, they're there. We
Speaker 3: found dozens of paleo artists online that identify as queer
Speaker 3: type dinosaur. Into the LGBT subreddit, hundreds of results with
Speaker 3: pride dinos, rainbow dinos, dino moms, dino dads, and lots
Speaker 3: of puns like ali saurus, and then all right here
Speaker 3: the last couple. Then PBS White House correspondent Yamichi Alsandor
Speaker 3: characterized President Trump's patriotic twenty twenty Mount Rushmore speech as
Speaker 3: a love letter to quote white resentment that promoted the
Speaker 3: myth of America. And then all right, NPR suggested that
Speaker 3: ar't here's something nutty. Doorway sizes are based on quote
Speaker 3: Layton fat phobia. They also said they assigned reporters to
Speaker 3: investigate how the thumbs up emoji is racist. They have
Speaker 3: a story which skin color emoji should you use? The
Speaker 3: answer can be more complex than you think. These people
Speaker 3: are idiots, they are radicals, They're zealots now by the way,
Speaker 3: they're entitled to idiots and radicals and zealots.
Speaker 1: But Ben, why should you pay for that? Why should I?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's exactly the point that the President's making as well,
Speaker 2: and why there's a good chance we may actually get
Speaker 2: a big victory on this one.
Speaker 1: Don't forget. We do this show Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
Speaker 2: Hit that subscriber auto download button on those in between days,
Speaker 2: grab my podcast, the Ben Ferguson Podcast. I'll keep you
Speaker 2: updated on the latest breaking news there as well, and
Speaker 2: the Senator and I will see you back here on
Speaker 2: Friday morning.
Speaker 1: As before.
Speaker 2: If you want to hear the rest of this conversation
Speaker 2: on this topic, you can go back and download the
Speaker 2: podcast from early this week to hear the entire thing.
Speaker 2: I want to get back to the big story number
Speaker 2: three of the week.
Speaker 1: You may have.
Speaker 2: Missed, Senator. In our final segment. I want to talk
Speaker 2: about something that is shocking. This is exactly why we
Speaker 2: do the show, why we do a podcast three days
Speaker 2: a week, and what you're about to hear right now,
Speaker 2: I hope that you will share it. Grab the podcast, subscribe,
Speaker 2: hit that autodalo button, and share the podcast wherever you
Speaker 2: are on social media. This is why we do the
Speaker 2: show to get stories like this out to the masses.
Speaker 2: This one deals with shocking expose on Planned Parenthood. They
Speaker 2: have now been exposed for prescribing hormones to minors in
Speaker 2: an undercover investigation.
Speaker 1: Well that's right.
Speaker 3: Planned Parenthood was caught in a sting and undercover phone
Speaker 3: calls were made by the pro life activist group Live Action,
Speaker 3: and it showed that that Planned Parenthood clinics across multiple
Speaker 3: states offer cross sex hormone treatments to miners as young
Speaker 3: as seventeen, with very little parental supervision and very little
Speaker 3: medical supervision. Live Action did an undercover investigation in which
Speaker 3: a woman posed as a sixteen year old miner and
Speaker 3: she called dozens of Planned Parenthood locations seeking what she
Speaker 3: called gender affirming care. At least seven different facilities said sure,
Speaker 3: they would provide cross sex hormones at the first appointment,
Speaker 3: So not after a long consultation, just immediately first appointment.
Speaker 3: Come on in, we'll give you those hormones. Several instances,
Speaker 3: Planned Parenthood told the caller she could choose to meet
Speaker 3: with the provider virtually and have access to the cross
Speaker 3: sex hormones. The very same day, and this is after
Speaker 3: being told the person is a minor and that they
Speaker 3: had just begun considering trying to medically change their sex.
Speaker 3: In Minnesota and in Oregon, facilities there said they could
Speaker 3: schedule the miner within days or even on the very
Speaker 3: same day. This is what Planned Parenthood is doing. Five
Speaker 3: different facilities stated that no prior therapy, zero, no mental
Speaker 3: health clearance, and no prior documentation was needed to obtain
Speaker 3: cross sex hormones. And understand, these hormones can do irreparable
Speaker 3: damage to children. They can sterilize children, they can permanently
Speaker 3: harm a child, and Planned Parenthood is a multi billion
Speaker 3: dollar business that is more than happy to sterilize your
Speaker 3: child without you even knowing about it.
Speaker 2: By the way, we've got this audio and I want
Speaker 2: to play this coming from live action where you describe
Speaker 2: them trying to schedule this, and I want people to
Speaker 2: listen to it. And again, this is when we ask
Speaker 2: for you to help get this out. No one's covering
Speaker 2: this in the media. This is why we ask you
Speaker 2: to grab the podcast and share it so that others
Speaker 2: can hear this. Right now.
Speaker 4: It's a calling plan Parent, Thank you.
Speaker 5: Producing Planned Parents had greater your.
Speaker 6: Thanks you for calling Plan Panhead, Minnesota, North Dakota, DA Dakota.
Speaker 5: Hello, get up for calling Plan parents this time.
Speaker 4: My name Sophia. I'm just trying to schedule some gender
Speaker 4: firming care. I really just want to be able to
Speaker 4: get some testostero to start my journey.
Speaker 6: So we can have for part night booking here in
Speaker 6: Michel appointments that you can come in to see one
Speaker 6: of our providers.
Speaker 4: Are you or a No, I'm sixteen, you're a good
Speaker 4: three being here then sixteen and okaya, you're okay to
Speaker 4: do it for minors.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you can legally get hormone under eighteen?
Speaker 5: How old are you?
Speaker 4: Sixteen? I know my mom has to come in with me,
Speaker 4: and does she have to be in there the whole time? Like,
Speaker 4: how does that work? Because I don't know if I'm
Speaker 4: comfortable with that.
Speaker 6: At some point that the appointment, maybe he doesn't have
Speaker 6: to be in the remitting room with you.
Speaker 4: You said I could do it virtually, Yeah, so what
Speaker 4: would that look like? So I just talked to a
Speaker 4: doctor and then they'd be able to prescribe me.
Speaker 5: Yeah, if it's virtual, you'll meet with the doctor and
Speaker 5: then go over like all men very inform me and
Speaker 5: at the end they will then be pretty bribing r
Speaker 5: oone that would then be tripped out like your local harmony.
Speaker 4: I don't need any like therapy or anything first, Like,
Speaker 4: you don't need any record of that, not that I
Speaker 4: know of. I don't need any sort of like records
Speaker 4: of having gone to therapy or anything like.
Speaker 6: That, right, Yeah, so unless you have trent here and
Speaker 6: it would not be required.
Speaker 4: There's nothing that I need before, right, Like I don't
Speaker 4: need to like have records and meeting with a therapist
Speaker 4: or anything, right because my parents definitely aren't.
Speaker 6: I'll let me do that.
Speaker 4: I just decided last week, and so I kind of
Speaker 4: want to get in as soon as possible. Do you
Speaker 4: have any means available soon?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 1: It depends on the location two, but we usually do have.
Speaker 5: Availability for like the next week of whatever you call it.
Speaker 4: Do you think that if I came in, went over
Speaker 4: everything with a doctor and they could send them prescription
Speaker 4: that day.
Speaker 6: Yes, I think they could be able to The provider
Speaker 6: is going to send a prescription to your pharmacy the
Speaker 6: same day.
Speaker 5: Of your appointment?
Speaker 4: Oh perfect, Okay, so I can get the hormones the
Speaker 4: same day.
Speaker 5: Needs you think a little bit to get it together.
Speaker 5: But yeah, if not the same day, then more than
Speaker 5: likely the very next day.
Speaker 4: Perfect, thank you for calling.
Speaker 5: You have a great day.
Speaker 2: I mean, you hear that, Senator, and it makes you
Speaker 2: so angry because what you're hearing is the underworld of Hey,
Speaker 2: we don't need parents.
Speaker 3: We don't need parents, we don't need doctors, we don't
Speaker 3: need evidence. And by the way, the defenders of this
Speaker 3: mutilation and then these are also the folks that defend
Speaker 3: surgeries where you're you're actually physically the sterilizing little boys
Speaker 3: or little girls. The defenders of this they say, oh,
Speaker 3: it's the result of of of a long you know,
Speaker 3: therapy and a medical condition. It's very clear Planned parenthood
Speaker 3: doesn't give a flip what your medical condition is. That's
Speaker 3: not their business. They're in the business of selling. They're
Speaker 3: in the business of selling abortions, which is their main business.
Speaker 3: But they're also in the business of selling sterilizing kids.
Speaker 3: Because look, cross sex hormones and that that includes testosterone
Speaker 3: or estrogen given to the opposite gender. They're meant to
Speaker 3: alter the body to show characteristics of the opposite gender,
Speaker 3: and and they can alter the body's natural makeup. They
Speaker 3: can alter the functions of the body, but they can
Speaker 3: also result in in numerous side effects, including permanent infertility.
Speaker 3: And and Lyla Rose, who's the president of Live Action
Speaker 3: and a tremendous warrior standing for life here here here's
Speaker 3: what Lyla Rose said. She said that the investigation exposes
Speaker 3: quote a chilling reality that Planned Parenthood is fast tracking
Speaker 3: vulnerable children into irreversible hormone treatments with almost no medical oversight.
Speaker 3: These dangerous drugs can sterilize, stunt growth, and leave lifelong scars.
Speaker 3: This is not healthcare, it is child abuse, and it
Speaker 3: must be stopped.
Speaker 2: It really is incredible. The last question I have to
Speaker 2: ask you on this is after this type of information
Speaker 2: comes out, is there any role that Congress can play
Speaker 2: in getting involved now that we see this so clearly?
Speaker 3: Absolutely, and every year Planned Parenthood gets more than seven
Speaker 3: hundred million dollars in federal tax payer dollars. That needs
Speaker 3: to end. We need to defund Plant Parenthood. You shouldn't
Speaker 3: be forced to pay for the sterilization of kids. You
Speaker 3: shouldn't be forced to pay for abortion all over the country.
Speaker 3: And so I hope we will see leadership in Congress
Speaker 3: I'm certainly fighting the defund planned parenthood and I hope
Speaker 3: we get it done this year.
Speaker 2: Right now, as always, thank you for listening to Verdict
Speaker 2: with Center, Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you don't forget
Speaker 2: to deal with my podcast and you can listen to
Speaker 2: my podcasts every other day you're not listening to Verdict
Speaker 2: or each day when you listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd
Speaker 2: love to have you as a listener to again the
Speaker 2: Ben Ferguson podcasts and we will see you back here
Speaker 2: on Monday morning.