Episode 160 | Reproductive Injustice

This week on the podcast, we discuss the outrageous pro-choice concepts that we often treat with a seriousness that they don’t deserve – such as “consent to pregnancy,” “reproductive justice,” how the term fetus is used to indicate the unborn aren’t human babies, and more! Plus, we talk about the growing number of pro-lifers convicted of violating the F.A.C.E. act, and the legal debate it has sparked about its constitutionality and how it can be weaponized.

Episode Synopsis:

This week on the podcast, we discuss the outrageous pro-choice concepts that we often treat with a seriousness that they don’t deserve – such as “consent to pregnancy,” “reproductive justice,” how the term fetus is used to indicate the unborn aren’t human babies, and more! Plus, we talk about the growing number of pro-lifers convicted of violating the F.A.C.E. act, and the legal debate it has sparked about its constitutionality and how it can be weaponized.

Episode Duration: 22 min

Transcript

[Intro with Music]:

Sometimes controversial, always politically incorrect, and pro-life without exception, without compromise, and without apology. It’s the Pro-Life America podcast with your hosts, Sarah Waites and the president of Life Dynamics, Mark Crutcher.


Sarah: Welcome back to the Pro Life America podcast. I’m your host, Sarah Waites, and I’m joined by my co-host, Mark’s daughter, Sheila Crutcher. Hello, Sheila. 

Sheila: Hi, Sarah. Hi, everyone.

Sarah: And we are also joined by our doggy co-host, Kodak, who’s in the corner chewing on his bone. So if you hear the clattering, that’s him contributing.

Sheila: It’s technically called a bully stick, but…

(laughter)

Sarah: Gonna be snobbish over here. “It’s not a bone, it’s a bully stick.”

Sheila: He knows that you say you want a stick, he responds. You want a bone, he responds. To him, it doesn’t matter – just as long as he gets one.

(laughter)

Sarah: Thank you for joining us. Today’s topic, we are going to talk about outrageous abortion concepts that are kind of the foundation of a bunch of their arguments.

Sheila: Right.

Sarah: And these are some things that I don’t think necessarily always get discussed as much. Some do, some don’t.

Sheila: Mm hmm.

Sarah: But things that we think are definitely worth talking about. But first, we’ve got a couple of other news to talk about. We’re going to kick things off by talking about a controversial statue from New York that is making its way to the good old state of Texas.

Sheila: Mm hmm.

Sarah: So we covered in a previous show about this statue. It’s an eight foot golden statue, titled “Witness,” to honor the late Supreme court justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg – and of course, abortion.

Sheila: Mm hmm.

Sarah: The artist stated that she created the statue to pay homage to Ginsburg because, “she is a fierce woman and a form of resistance in a space that has historically been dominated by patriarchal representation. With Ginsburg’s death and the reversal of Roe, there was a setback to women’s constitutional progress.”

In addition to the nod to abortion, the statue has also generated some controversy for satanic like imagery. The female figure has braids shaped like goat horns and arms like tentacles. The statue has been on display in New York, but it’s going to be moving to the University of Houston, and it’ll be on display there at the Cullen Family Plaza from February 28th thru October 31st.

Sheila: Speaking of other news, the Biden administration and the Department of Justice are continuing their war against the pro-life movement, and they’ve ramped up prosecuting pro lifers after the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. According to a Christianity Today article, more than a dozen pro-lifers have been convicted of federal crimes just in the past year. And eight more are going to face trial in Michigan in April.

Sarah: Yeah.

Sheila: This is coming after six pro-lifers were recently convicted in Tennessee and will receive sentencing later on July 2nd. So they were charged under the FACE Act.

Sarah: The Freedom of Access To Clinic Entrances Act. And basically what it does is it makes it illegal to block or impede anybody trying to get into a “reproductive” or health care facility. But it’s really designed and intended for abortion clinics.

Sheila: Right, exactly. And this is what the administration is also using it for.

Sarah: Mm hmm.

Sheila: Those charged and convicted, they were convicted with obstructing access to reproductive health services. They were simply praying and singing hymns in front of this abortion clinic entrance.

Sarah: Blocking the doors.

Sheila: Right. And one police officer testified. He admitted during the trial, the pro-lifers were peaceful, but they had refused to leave. They can receive convictions of about 10-and-a-half to 11 years, and the prosecutors added a civil rights conspiracy charge – i. e. they were saying that there was a conspiracy to violate the women’s civil rights, those who were in the clinic trying to get abortions. And so that’s why they were able to get a more extreme sentence.

Sarah: Well, violating the FACE Act can have quite a lengthy prison sentence as part of the conviction.

Sheila: Right. But the Biden administration is adding these conspiracy, you know, against civil rights charges to help increase sentencing for these pro-lifers that are now getting convicted under the Biden administration.

Sarah: Well, in the nineties, they were using FACE and RICO in order to go after pro-lifers who were blocking clinic entrances, super gluing doors, stuff like that. Peaceful protests, but still blocking clinic doors. And so the administration at the time, which was the Clinton administration, really went after pro-lifers. And you saw this mentality of making an example out of them in order to stop them. I think this is the Biden administration doing the exact same thing.

Sheila: This is a persecution of the pro-life movement and pro-lifers because of the overturning of Roe versus Wade. And the reason that they’re using the conspiracy charge against civil rights is this gives them more leeway for more people to get prosecuted – even if it they are so-called passive participants.

Sarah: Yeah.

Sheila: An example is Jonathan Darnell who was on the podcast who had been charged.

 Sarah: Yeah, and we’ll put the link to that in the description so you can listen to that interview.

Sheila: So he was simply videoing other pro-lifers who were doing a rescue and he got charged.

Sarah: Yeah, he wasn’t actually participating in it. He was just documenting it.

Sheila: Right. But he was charged with the conspiracy against civil rights. And so their Biden administration is using this so that they have more leeway in prosecution. And with this, conservatives have been calling for House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Jim Jordan, and the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, to pass what’s called the FACE Repeal Act of 2023.

Sarah: Mm hmm.

Sheila: Representative Chip Roy, of Texas, first introduced the legislation in September, and Senator Mike Lee, of Utah, introduced a senate version of the bill. And basically, it would repeal the FACE Act, saying that it’s unconstitutional.

Sarah: I think the other reason why they’re padding in this civil rights violation charge, is trying to force the issue through the courts that abortion is a civil rights issue.

Sheila: Right. They’re doing it to try to get around the state’s restrictions on abortion. They’re doing everything they can to keep abortion unrestricted since the Supreme Court decision of overturning Roe versus Wade.

Sarah: I mean if you think about it, It’s absolutely, insanely crazy that a person who is peacefully sitting outside, praying, singing songs, whatnot – but not being physical but just peacefully blocking something – is sentenced to that amount of time. If they did the same thing at Walmart or a Costco, I mean, it would go viral all across the internet, but you wouldn’t see somebody who was locked up for years and years and years for something like that.

Sheila: Well, no, and we’ve seen outrageous and even violent behavior from so called pro-choicers and they don’t get jail time like these pro-lifers are facing.

Sarah: Yeah, it’s outrageous. And speaking of outrageous, we’re going to switch gears and talk about the outrageous abortion concepts that are floating around out there, and unfortunately oftentimes, we take them far too seriously. We respond to them with a seriousness that they don’t deserve.

Sheila: Well, I don’t take them seriously. I’ve heard it all my life, so I’m just like, “uh, yeah.”

(laughter)

Sarah: So how this came about was, if you subscribe to our emails, I sent out a little blurb in our last email about this. The fact is, I’ve seen a number of videos, and tweets, and all sorts of social media posts lately where pro-choicers’ argument hinged on the concept of “consent to pregnancy.” And as I said in the email, consent to pregnancy is not a real thing. They can shout it, say it as many times as they want to, but it’s not a real thing. The fact is, when a male and a female have sex, pregnancy is always a potential outcome.

Sheila: It’s a biological fact.

Sarah: It’s a biological potentiality. When we choose to have sex, we are accepting the natural and predictable outcomes that comes along with it – that can be pregnancy, that can be STDs. For women, the tendency to get pregnant, barring health complications or age, is our biological default – not something we opt-in to, or check yes for, or consent to it’s…

Both: …it’s natural.

Sheila: It’s not out of the norm. It’s a normal thing.

Sarah: That’s why pharmaceutical companies have made boatloads of money selling contraceptive drugs and devices.

Sheila: And that’s why Planned Parenthood, which used to be known as the birth control League, started pushing birth control. Margaret Singer, Eugenics – watch Maafa 21 the documentary if you want to learn more about that – but that’s the whole reason why it existed.

Sarah: We no more consent to pregnancy, anymore than we consent to catching any of the illnesses that float around every year, like the flu. Right? Does anyone think that we consent to the flu? Do we consent to calories from the foods that we know we shouldn’t eat, but we do? I mean, think about how ridiculous this is. And yet it’s permeated into the language and it gets used so much. And you wonder where does this come from? And personally, I think it’s a PR line from the abortion industry.

Sheila: Oh, it absolutely 100 percent is!

Sarah: Because when you think about it, this idea of “consent to pregnancy” is kind of a natural cornerstone of the sexual revolution and the abortion movement. In fact, you mentioned Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood herself is quoted for saying, “Our objective is unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children.” So in other words, if you can convince people that pregnancy is something that you can consent to or opt into, then you can just opt out of it, right, by having an abortion.

Sheila: Mm hmm.

Sarah: But this is by no means the only thing that we’re seeing these days, and these arguments even work their way up to the highest levels. I’m going to play you a clip from Kamala Harris during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings when she was asking a question about abortion. Listen to what she had to say.

Audio Clip (Kamala Harris): Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?

Sarah: Yes! Absolutely! Let’s think about this. The Selective Service Act, which is known as the draft, right? Which has, throughout the years, been exclusively applied to men, right?

Sheila: Mm hmm. Yep.

Sarah: What about how several states permit chemical castration of convicted sex offenders?

Sheila: Mm hmm.

Sarah: That’s the government exerting control over someone, a male’s body.

Sheila: Right.

Sarah: What about laws against prostitution? Laws against incest? What about drug laws? I mean, you go down the list – there’s all sorts of things that the government tells men that they can’t do with their bodies.

Sheila: Or regulates – which would be like laws regarding the act of circumcision. They have regulations around that.

Sarah: Mm hmm. And I know where this argument comes from. She’s trying to imply that women are the only people in this country who have laws applied to them about what they can do with their bodies. Despite the fact that that is, if you just think about it for like two seconds, that’s incorrect.

Sheila: Mm hmm.

Sarah: This is not a deal of gender inequality.

Sheila: It’s not. And again, this argument, you’re right, comes directly from the abortion lobby, Planned Parenthood. And a lot of young females have drank the Kool Aid on this argument and believe it.

Sarah: It perpetuates this idea that any laws about abortion come from old white men who are trying to keep women barefoot in the kitchen. Right?

Sheila: And it also shows how they use abortion as supposed to be this helpful tool to help females solve so-called problems.

Sarah: Mm hmm. You see that argument or that idea as part of a lot of their arguments. One of my personal favorites is their argument that a fetus isn’t a baby or it isn’t a human.

Sheila: What is it then?

(laughter)

Sarah: That’s a good question.

Sheila: They can’t tell you what…

Sarah: “It’s a fetus!” If you press them, they always say like, “well, it’s a fetus. It’s a fetus. It’s a fetus.” Well, what is a fetus? Right? Merriam Webster says it is, “a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth.” John Hopkins, which is known for their medical program, they have a dictionary of terms. They define a fetus as, “an unborn baby from the eighth week after fertilization until birth.” Oops, I guess John Hopkins didn’t get the memo that it was not a baby.

Sheila: A fetus is just a period of development. It is Latin for offspring.

Sarah: Yeah, the NIH, says that, “in humans, a fetus is a unborn offspring in the fetal period, which begins nine weeks after fertilization and ends at birth.” If you look at medical dictionaries, they will talk about infant and baby. They’ll, sometimes they’ll say infant, sometimes they’ll say baby – in conjunction with a fetus. All of these are just words that we use to indicate a point in development.

Sheila: Mm hmm. A stage.

Sarah: Just like infant, toddler, teen, adult – all are human. Some are more developed than others, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are a human.

Sheila: If we’re getting technical, teenagers aren’t as developed as adults. We don’t, our brain isn’t…

Sarah: And there are probably plenty of adults, and plenty of parents out there, who are arguing that their teen…

Sheila: …is not developed. Because technically, our brains aren’t fully developed until, what, we’re 26 years old?.

Sarah: Our mid to late 20s, yeah. That’s why there’s been a number of comedians, especially from our generation, to talk about problems that they thought that they had in their 20s. And if their 30 year old selves could talk to them, it’s like “really this is not a big deal.” But at the end the day you can call the unborn whatever you want to. It doesn’t change what they are.

Sheila: …the biological fact.

Sarah: Yeah. The biological reality is, that when a human being is pregnant, their offspring can only be of one species. So if they’re not human, as some of these pro-choicers I have read online saying that it’s not human, what is it? And when can we get the scientific community out there to document this? Because, historically, we have only given birth to other humans.

Sheila: Mm hmm. And at what point does it go from being whatever it is to a human?

Sarah: Yeah, that’s the whole magical birth canal argument that they bring about. The last thing I want to mention, because there’s so many pro-choice arguments out there, but we’re really kind of focusing on concepts, not specific arguments. But I want to talk about how they always are going on about reproductive justice. This is their buzzword, right? This is usually the word that they will use to encapsulate abortion, to talk about abortion without actually saying the word abortion.

“Reproductive justice.”

Abortion is the deliberate taking of human life.

Sheila: Mm hmm.

Sarah: Abortion ends the lives of the most vulnerable in our society who cannot stand up for themselves.

Sheila: Who cannot consent.

Sarah: Mm hmm. Abortion has been frequently promoted as a “tool” to solving disabilities. Ridding the world of disabilities, right?

Sheila: And other societal problems.

Sarah: Remember the outrage over Iceland’s abortion statistics that happened a few years ago? Right? Abortion has been a tool of black genocide. Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent.

Sheila: Right.

Sarah: And we at Life Dynamics have documented that the abortion industry has targeted black and hispanic communities by placing abortion clinics in areas where those populations are disproportionately represented. We have also documented that women have been killed for refusing to have abortions. Yet the side about choice, who’s supposed to be all about choice, has remained stone cold silent.

Sheila: Right, because it’s not a choice for abortion.

Sarah: And from a side that is constantly talking about equality and gender equality, they shout down and silence men for standing for their position on abortion.

Sheila: And not only men, but they shout down pro-life women too.

Sarah: So tell me, out of all of this, where is the justice?

Sheila: There is no justice. That’s a perfect example of injustice. And again, that goes along with eugenics and Maafa 21, and looking at people as less than human, which society now does with the unborn.

Sarah: Yeah, absolutely.

Sheila: And like you said, there are tons and tons of stupid arguments that they try to push. A lot of them come straight from the abortion lobby, politicians, Planned Parenthood. It’s like they have little checklists and then people, in not only our country, but across the world say, “oh okay, I’m going to write that down.”

Sarah: Like the burning IVF clinics one. Oh my goodness. How many times do we hear a pro-choicer saying, “an IVF clinic is burning and you only have the choice to save like a baby or a bunch of jars with…”

Sheila: Uh huh, with frozen embryos.

Sarah: You know, and somebody tweets this out. And somewhere there’s a pro-choicer going, “Oh, that’s good! I gotta write this down and use this.”

Sheila: Yeah. They think that their arguments, you know, that pop up are so brilliant. “Oh, got those pro-lifers again! Hahaha. “

(laughter)

Sarah: That’s like Albany Rose, a pro-lifer on social media, has a – it looks like a sweatshirt – and it says, “Fetus is not a species Karen.”

(laughter)

Sarah: I love that. It’s so good. But yeah, the thing that bugs me the most is they’ll say these ridiculous things, and they expect a serious response from us. And the unfortunate thing, is that so many times pro-lifers, because pro-lifers try to be so nice about it, they give it a serious response that it doesn’t deserve. Like if someone tells me it’s not a human being. Well, what is it?

Sheila: Mm hmm. Well, the problem is, you can give them fact after fact, you can give them a full argument and there’s no retort that they can give – because whatever they’re going to say is false. And so they come back with emotional things.

Sarah: Or they block you.

Sheila: Mm hmm. Exactly. So, emotional reactions, blocking. And this is why we see, you know, an uprising of violence against pro-lifers.

Sarah: Well, you know, I saw a video recently, where I think it was either Steven Crowder or Charlie Kirk and they were on one of these college campuses. And this, this very entitled liberal person came up to him and said, “why are you here?”

And they’re like, “well, I’m here to discuss the issues.” And they said, “look, historically, when you look back, when people stop talking about this stuff, when you have both sides demean the other side and write off any communication, that’s when violence happens.” Communication, sharing the ideas, and letting the bad ones out there to just wither on the vine is how you solve issues – not by not talking about them and shutting them down, right?

Sheila: And that’s exactly what you see with pro-choicers.

Sarah: Yeah, they don’t want to discuss it and, to your point of they don’t have any good comebacks, it’s so funny. I’ve had so many discussions. I remember one time when we were discussing about Christianity and abortion, and they were arguing that you could be a pro-choice Christian. And when they ran out of arguments, they started pulling out of Buddhism. I’m like, “whoa,whoa,whoa! Our conversation was about Christianity and abortion. You don’t get to pull from Buddhism to make your point.”

Sheila: And that’s what they try to do is when they get back into…

Sarah: …it’s a bait and switch.

Sheila: Yeah. When they get backed into a corner, because they can’t defend their position, they either respond emotionally or they try to switch the topic.

Sarah: Yeah.

Sheila: And speaking of, make sure that everyone that y’all watch the abortion distortion video series.

Sarah: Yes, we really address all of these pro-choice arguments and so many more. And of course, it’s in Mark’s words and irreverent style.

Sheila: Right.

Sarah: And Sheila’s animations, which will make you giggle.

Sheila: And so make sure that you watch that, you know, on either our YouTube, Rumble, or on our website.

Sarah: Absolutely.

Sheila: Make sure you watch that. And talking about Mark’s writings, this week’s From the Mouth of Mark is from a blog post called, “Choice is a Moving Target.” And this one I think just sums it up perfectly – the pro-choice nonsense.

He wrote, “There are numerous other examples of how the defense of abortion has been forced to change over the years, but the reason why they have had to do this has remained constant. Simply put, at its core, the pro-choice position is not based on any fundamental or observable truth. Whether the standard is scientific, biological, legal, or theological, the humanity of the unborn is simply undeniable and given that reality, there is no way to rationalize their slaughter. The problem our enemies are having with their moving target strategy, is that all their quasi lucid arguments have been exposed and they now have to resort to the absurd.”

(laughter)

Sarah: I was going to say quasi lucid?

Sheila: Yeah, no, the absurd. That sums it up perfectly.

Sarah: Yes, it does.

Sheila: And so until next time, Life Dynamics is not here to put up a good fight.

Sarah: Mm mm. We’re here to win.

Sheila: Because winning is how the killing stops.

Sarah: We’ll see you next episode.

[End]

Web player not showing? Click here.
In This Episode We Discuss:
  • Greetings (00:23)
  • Statue dedicated to Ginsburg & abortion headed to Texas (01:20)
  • The rise of F.A.C.E. convictions a sparks a legal debate (02:22)
  • Outrageous pro-abortion concepts (07:27)
  • From The Mouth of Mark (20:56)
  • Final Thoughts (21:52)
Links:

Like This Episode?

Why Not Check Out Some of our Other Episodes?

Like this one..

Have an idea for a show? Let us know here.


Subscribe So You
Don’t Miss An Episode!

Click below to pull up the full list of where you can listen and subscribe.

Why Not Leave A
Review Of The Show?

Ratings and reviews are so important! So please, take the time and leave a review today.


Don’t Forget To Share This Episode
With Your Pro-Life Friends!

Sharing our podcast on social media is so easy. Simply click the share link on the audio player above to easily copy the link or share the episode directly on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More Episodes:

Episode 128 | Why Are Unmarried Women More  Likely To Vote Democrat?

Episode 128 | Why Are Unmarried Women More Likely To Vote Democrat?

This week on the Pro-Life America podcast, we go over exit poll data and discuss the reasons why unmarried women are, as one reporter phrased it, “a Democratic bonanza.” Plus, we cover the FDA’s changes to Plan B package warnings, and a UK woman who was arrested for praying silently near an abortion clinic. Perhaps the New Year isn’t ringing in 2023, but 1984.