BLOG

WaPo editor who advocates the ‘right’ to abort Down syndrome babies: ‘The Nazis agreed with you’

Ruth Marcus, an editor with “The Washington Post,”  is under fire after writing an opinion editorial Friday titled “I would’ve aborted a fetus with Down syndrome. Women need that right.”

Marcus, a mother of two, began the piece by saying,”There is a new push in anti-abortion circles to pass state laws aimed at barring women from terminating their pregnancies after the fetus has been determined to have Down syndrome. These laws are unconstitutional, unenforceable — and wrong.”

She goes on to say that if she had found out during either one of her pregnancies that her unborn child had Down syndrome, she would have terminated the pregnancy, “without hesitation … tragic as it would have felt and ghastly as a second-trimester abortion would have been.”

Children with Down syndrome have “limited capacity for independent living and financial security; Down syndrome is life-altering for the entire family,” wrote Marcus. She added, “That was not the child I wanted. That was not the choice I would have made. You can call me selfish, or worse, but I am in good company.”

Glenn’s take:

“Yes … she’s in good company,” agreed a very sarcastic Glenn. “All the Nazis agreed with [her.] The Nazis passed a law in 1939 that you could kill these lives that ‘weren’t worth living’ … They started with the Down syndrome babies, those were prime targets.”

“But listen to this,” added Glenn. “By 1941, the German people stood up against the elites, the doctors, the hospitals and the nurses, and said you can’t kill children with disabilities and Down syndrome. So, no, she actually doesn’t have a lot of people who agree with her. She does have the Nazis, but not the German people of 1941.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So glad that you've tuned in today. Thank you so much.

I was really disturbed this weekend, all this weekend. I -- I read an op-ed in the Washington Post about abortion and -- and people who are standing against laws that say we shouldn't kill those with Down syndrome.

I don't -- I don't understand it. Look, if you don't want to take care of a child with Down syndrome, okay.

But there are people that would take a child with Down syndrome. There are. Lots of them.

To just say that it's -- hey, it's my right. I don't want to have this child. Okay. All right. This is a child. It's a child.

And I think we're so much worse off without a child. But because we're living in this post HEP modern world where there is no such thing as reason, there is no such thing as questioning, there is no such thing as truth, there is no such thing as reality, well, then, we can do whatever we want.

And this is really coming from the -- the universities.

They've been pushing it. But they've been pushing these kinds of things for a long time. Remember, the eugenics movement came from Germany.

And the reason why it came from Germany over here -- the reason how, in the 1880s, we started going to, you know, our elites went to school over in Germany. Our doctors went to school in Germany. And they were into this nihilistic, God is dead kind of thing. Misunderstanding what Nietzsche was saying.

Nietzsche actually was warning the people. God is dead. We've killed him. We've killed him. Now, what's our God?

That's a really important question. Now, what is our God? Because we are serving other gods. We are. Whether it's a political party or money or our jobs or whatever, we're serving another God. People who are saying, I think I can abort a Down syndrome child, you're serving the God of yourself. I want my time. I want my life that I was promised.

You weren't promised anything. And I think we're worse off without these children.

I'm going to do a special tonight. I want you to watch at 5 o'clock. I want to show you the history and where this leads. Where this leads. Because I did a lot of homework this weekend. Because it was really -- it really bothered me.

But I want to go back to -- Stu, do you have the professor from --

STU: Yeah. Some of the audio from that.

GLENN: Yeah, do you have that?

STU: Roger HEP Scrutin.

GLENN: Yeah. Roger Scrutin. Okay. So Roger Scrutin is a professor that says, you know, we've got a problem.

Now, he's speaking in Australia.

And he's saying, we have a problem. And I want to talk to you about it. But I can talk to you about it here, kind of, if everybody will stay rational. But I definitely can't have this conversation in America. So let's play cut one.

VOICE: One of the first things that happens when a totalitarian government takes over, is that the universities are cleaned up. That's to say, people who are doing that kind of thing, get thrown out. This is what happened when the Nazis took over the German universities and when the Soviets took over -- the communists took over the Russian universities.

And it was the case in eastern Europe in my day, with the sole exception of Poland, which had universities, which were the only universities where every professor was on the right. That was because the communists were everywhere.

But on the whole, this is the first move that the totalitarian mentality makes, to stop that kind of free-minded open scholarship in pursuit of truth. And it may be there has to be something like that.

You know, maybe after all in the Middle Ages, maybe theology was like that.

But the interesting thing about medevial theology is that it encouraged the intellectual method, despite its requirement of orthodoxy.

GLENN: So it's really interesting what he's saying is, whenever there's a totalitarian regime anywhere in the world, the first thing they do is take the universities. And the universities are meant to question, hold to the facts, and use scientific standards to be able to decide. And he is saying that we have rejected that, just the way they in some Europe, just the way they did in Russia, just the way they do in China, rejected those scientific standards. And we're entering a new dark age.

And, you know, that might sound like hyperbole, to those who might be listening on the left. But it's -- can you honestly say that scientific standards have been adhered to -- boy, this is controversial -- for -- for climate change.

I mean, I'm willing to look at the thermometer and say, okay. The thermometer is going up. The thermometer is going down. I'm not willing to project a weather pattern out over 100 years.

I'm not willing to look at weather or climate over 100 years because you've already been wrong.

STU: Well, you can look at it, you just to have apply the appropriate level of skepticism and uncertainty, which is not allowed.

GLENN: Correct. Correct. Then also you cannot shun those who have a different opinion. Scientific standards rely on you to say, okay. Wait a minute. Question. Question. Question. Is there any new data? Is there anything that's changing? Question. Question. Question.

We're not questioning anymore. And that should scare everyone. We need to question these things.

Now, I'm willing to -- I'm willing to say, okay. Global warming is happening. It makes sense to me that maybe man is playing a role in that. I don't think man is insignificant.

But I also don't think that the planets -- the planet will destroy us before we can destroy it. And I don't want that to happen. I want to do the things that we can do.

I'm willing to do those things. If you -- without even proving. It's good to take care of the planet. But if you prove to me that we are doing things, okay. So then, what's the next step?

What's the most effective thing we can do?

Well, stop eating meat. Get rid of farms. Okay. How come I'm not hearing that.

STU: Yeah. You very rarely do. And that's the same source, the UN, that gives us all the rest of it.

GLENN: So it doesn't happen because it doesn't entail $14 trillion of wealth being redistributed. That's why. There's no wealth redistribution when it comes to the farms. None.

STU: You don't need laws. You don't need more control. You just do it, right?

GLENN: Just stop. Just stop eating meat.

STU: And, of course, they won't. I mean, very rarely. It took Al Gore, what? Five or six -- it was longer than that. Ten years before he supposedly converted.

GLENN: Right.

STU: It would be interesting to know if that's actually true. But instead of being in a place where you can question things like that, we are in a place where the Australian government has provided a 19,000-dollar grant, to a playwright, who has written a play, entitled Kill Climate Deniers.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: The plot, a classic rock band takes the stage in parliament's house main hall. And 96 armed eco terrorists stormed the building and take the entire government hostage, threatening to execute everyone, unless Australia ends global warming.

GLENN: Is that more akin to the Dark Ages or to the Enlightenment?

STU: Of course, the Dark Ages.

GLENN: Of course. Of course it is. And that's exactly what we're being dragged back into.

We fought hard Asman. We fought hard (?) to get out of the Dark Ages, where somebody said, I know the answer, and you don't.

And I'm basing it on what was then known as something that you didn't use any of your senses, you couldn't see it, taste it, feel it, hear it. It was called nonsense.

And so we rejected all things that were nonsense. We fought hard to get out of the Dark Ages. And we are going back into it. And we are being led to slaughter.

And we -- we got to turn this around. Now, listen to what he says about women's studies, et cetera, et cetera.

VOICE: So we have been lucky (?), but is it the case that we still have them? We have seen the growth of an extraordinary number of new subjects in the university, in which the pursuit of truth seems to be secondary to something else. The other thing being the pursuit of some kind of political conformity.

If you take a subject like women's studies -- now, I know this is a controversial issue. But perhaps it can be talked about freely in this room. You can't talk about it freely in America on the whole.

Anyway, there is a subject, it's very difficult to imagine, that you would succeed in that subject, if you didn't have either at the outset or certainly in the conclusion, feminist opinions.

Now, there is -- it's a subject constructed around an ideology. It might be that this ideology is grounded in truth. Who knows? But to question it is something which is essentially made impossible, both by the curriculum and by the way of teaching it. And I think you'll find that there are quite a lot of subjects like that, growing in our universities, in which conformity to an orthodoxy takes precedence over intellectual method.

GLENN: He talks about, so what is the solution, that you replace the male hierarchy with female hierarchy? You replace the white hierarchy with the black hierarchy?

That's not -- that's not scientific. That's not thoughtful. That's nothing. That's truly nothing.

RADIO

The Glenn Beck Program Honors Charlie Kirk

Join Glenn as he goes live to honor the memory of Charlie Kirk. A time of prayer, grieving, and remembrance for a husband, father, and patriot.

RADIO

Glenn joins Megyn Kelly live to discuss Charlie Kirk shooting

Covering the breaking news of Charlie Kirk at shot at Turning Point USA event.

RADIO

Please pray for my friend Charlie.

Please pray for Charlie Kirk.

Please pray for our Republic.

RADIO

Gen Z's surprising support for Trump and socialist policies revealed in new poll

A shocking number of young Americans support BOTH President Trump and democratic socialism, a new poll has found, and they're willing to make major changes to the American system to get what they feel they deserve. Justin Haskins, who conducted the poll with Rasmussen, joins Glenn Beck to break down the unexpected findings…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Justin Haskins. He's the president of our republic. StoppingSocialism.com. He's editor-in-chief. And also the coauthor of several books, with me. Welcome to the program, Justin.

How are you?

JUSTIN: I'm doing well, Glenn. How are you?

STU: Well, I was well, until you contacted me on vacation, and sent me this disturbing poll.

I am in bed at night.

And I'm reading this. I'm like, oh, dear.

What? My wife is like, I told you to not check this email. I'm like, I didn't know Justin was going to write to me.

Justin, tell me, first of all, before we get into it, how secure is the sample size on this poll?

JUSTIN: It's a very good sample size. 1200 people nationally.

Only 18 to 39-year-olds. And we did that deliberately, so that we could get a sample size large enough so we could pull out valid responses, just from younger people.

So the whole purpose of this poll was to find out what younger people, 18 to 39 think, voters only. And people who say that they're likely to vote. So we're not talking about just people out in the public. We're not talking about registered voters.

We're talking about people who are registered to vote. And say they're likely to vote.

GLENN: So let's go over some of the things that you have already released to the press.

And that is, in the survey, 18 to 39-year-olds, likely voters.

The Trump approval rating is a lot higher than you thought it would be. Right?

JUSTIN: Yeah. Yeah. Forty-eight percent positive approval rating of Donald Trump, which for young people, is very high.

So that's -- that's the good news.

That's the only good news we're going to talk about.

GLENN: We might have to come back to that first question several times.

Do you believe the United States is a fundamentally good, evil, or morally mixed country?

JUSTIN: Yep. This one is not too bad.

It's not great. But fundamentally good was 28 percent.

Which is low. But mixed was 50 percent.

And fundamentally evil was 17 percent.

And I think mixed at 50 percent is not an unreasonable, crazy response.

I -- I can see why all sorts of people might choose that.

So I don't think there's anything terrible here. It depends on what you mean by mixed. Fundamentally good at 28 percent. It's a little low. Fundamentally evil at 17 percent, it's a little disturbing. But it's not -- it's not insane. The insane stuff comes a little bit later.

GLENN: Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Major industries talk about the crazy stuff coming later, here it is.

Major industries like health care, energy, and big tech should be nationalized and give more control and equity to the people.

JUSTIN: Yeah. This was -- this was -- this one floored me. If I look at strongly agree. Somewhat agree for that statement you just read. It's over 70 percent of young people, including -- including the vast majority of Republicans. Young Republicans. And people who identify as conservatives.

It was pretty similar, in fact, how young people responded compared to liberals and independents.

And Democrats.

They all pretty much agreed that, yes. The government. The federal government should be nationalizing whole industries to make things more equitable for people.

GLENN: As the guy who is the chief -- editor-in-chief of stopping socialism. What's the problem with nationalizing energy, and health care?

JUSTIN: Well --

GLENN: What happens, typically.

JUSTIN: Well, usually, there's blood in the streets, when you do too much of that.

You know, socialism, communism have been spectacularly horrible, throughout the course of human history. Across every society, culture, religion.

It doesn't matter when or what kind of technological advancements you have. The more you collect vies a society. The more authoritarian that society gets. The less you have individual freedom. And the worst the economy usually is for regular people. So it's been a catastrophe across-the-board. Everyone listening to this audience, probably knows that.

And so the idea that you would have three-quarters of young voters. So remember, these people will be the primary voters in ten to 20 years.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JUSTIN: Saying, yeah. We should be nationalizing whole industries. Whole industries, is so disturbing.

And I don't think that conservatives are -- understand how deeply rooted some of these ideas are with younger people.

GLENN: No. No.

And I will tell you, I think some conservatives are walking a very dangerous line. And, you know, coming up with a little mix of everything.

And -- and I think we have to be very careful on -- on what is being said. And who are WHO our friends and allies are.

By the way, that number again is 39 percent strongly agree.

37 percent somewhat agree.

Somewhat disagree, 12 percent. Strongly disagree, 5 percent.

That is disastrous. Now, try this one on. These are the ones that have been -- we have new ones.

These are just a few of the ones that were released late last week. The next presidential election is in 2028. Would you like to see a democratic socialist candidate win the 2028 presidential election?

JUSTIN: Yep, 53 percent said yes.

Fifty-three percent of all voters said yes. And the most shocking thing, was that 35 percent of those who we poll, who said they voted for Donald Trump, in 2024, said that that they want to see a socialist win in 2028. And so about a third of Republicans, 35 percent of Trump voters, 43 percent of people who call themselves conservatives, so even on the right, among younger people. There is a large group that want a socialist president, in 2028.

GLENN: And the reason -- the reason is, it -- it tied into the next few questions. Okay.

So here's question five. Among the following options, which best describes your biggest reason, you would like to see a democratic socialist candidate. Thirty-one percent said housing costs are too high. Twelve percent, taxes are too low for corporations. Eleven percent, taxes are too low for wealthy have I seen.

Eight percent want single payer health care systems. Seventeen say the economy unfairly benefits older, wealthier Americans.

Fifteen percent say the economy unfairly benefits larger corporations. 5 percent, some other reason.

And 2 percent, unsure. Now, let's get into the new polls that were breaking today.

Question six.

How would you describe your current financial situation?

JUSTIN: Yeah. Only 24 percent said that they're doing well. Thirty-four -- 38 percent said getting by. Struggling 29 percent. Seven percent said in crisis. So if you add up just getting by, struggling, and in crisis, that's 74 percent said that they're just barely getting by, at best.

And I think that explains a lot of the other negative responses we've seen so far.

GLENN: That's not good.

JUSTIN: In this poll. And the ones that are going to come pretty soon here.

GLENN: Seven. Which best describes your personal life situation?

You are thriving, you're doing well with a few ups and downs. You feel stuck and uncertain. You feel lonely, disconnected, or emotionally drained. You're in a crisis and feel most negative about your personal life.

JUSTIN: Yeah. Yeah. About a third said that they feel stuck or uncertain. Lonely. Or that they're in a crisis.

That's a third of young people. Say that.

I mean, that's -- that's not great. Only 19 percent said thriving.

46 percent said, they have ups and downs. Which I think is not. Too shocking.

But the idea that there's a third of American voters out there, who feel like, they can't buy a home. And they feel like they are lonely. And that they're in crisis. And that life is not just going well at all for them.

Again, I think that's -- that's driving a lot of the support for socialism. When you have 53 percent of these people saying, yeah. I want a socialist president in 2028.

GLENN: So socialism is not the answer. It is the symptom. It is the symptom of what people are feeling right now.

And they -- they don't know any other -- they don't -- nobody is presenting them with anything other than, you know, Republican/Democrat bullcrap. And socialists are coming at it from a completely nigh angle. Or so the youth think it's the oldest and most failed system of all time.

But they're seeing this as a solution that is different than what the party -- the Republican/Democrats are offering. Even though the Democrats are offering the socialism thing.

Number eight, do you think the American economy is unfair to young people?

Sixty-two percent say yes.

JUSTIN: Yeah, and 27 percent said no.
And I think that this really gets at the heart of what the issue is here.

When you look at the reasons. When you look at the detailed things of the poll.

What -- to try to find out if there's an association between some kind of demographic or response question about people's lives and their support for socialism, to see if there's a correlation there between something that is happening. And whether someone is a socialist or not.

One of the top correlations, connections, is, if people think the economy is unfair.

And if they're having trouble buying a home. Or they don't think they can buy a home. Or that's one of their reasons for supporting socialism.

So, in other words, there's this fairness issue. And it's not even about inequality.

It's not about, well, they have too much -- well, if they feel like the -- to use a Trump term. Rigged.

And throughout the data. That's what we see over and over and over again. Is lots of people say, the economy is rigged. For older people. For wealthier people, for corporations. It's rigged. And if they say, yeah. I think it's rigged, you know, then they're more likely to say, yeah. I want a socialist.

And I also think the same group has a relatively high approval rating of Donald Trump.

It's because the reason that a lot of young people like Trump in the poll, is that he's not part of the establishment.

And I think -- I don't think they -- I think a lot of young people who voted for Trump and who liked Trump, they didn't do it, because they liked free market, pro-liberty policies. And that's not a good thing.

But I don't think that's why they did it. I think a lot of them voted for Trump and supported him, because he's not the establishment. And that's what they don't like. They want to blow the establishment up.

JUSTIN: So my -- Justin, my sample size is my two young adults. My two children.

And they're like, talking to me, and saying, Dad. I will never be able to own a home, looking at the prices, looking at interest rates. They're like, I can't even afford to pay rent at an apartment. And they don't know what to do.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JASON: And so they're looking at -- on, like, TikTok. And they're like, who is this Mamdani guy? This sounds interesting. They bring this to me. They grew up listening to me indoctrinating them their entire lives. They're looking at other voices like on TikTok. Are we just not being loud enough?

GLENN: No. We're not -- we're not connecting with them. We're not -- I feel like they don't feel they're being heard.

And we are speaking to them in red, white and be blue.

And that means nothing. The Statue of Liberty means nothing to them. Ellis Island means nothing to them. The flag means nothing to them.

It's all partisan politics.

They're all symbols of really, the two parties.

You know, and an America, they don't relate to at all.

I think that's -- that's our biggest problem, and not being able to break through. To your point, question nine. How confident are you that you will own a home at some point, in the next ten years?

29 percent say, they already own a home. Which I found interesting. That's -- I think a pretty high number for somebody who is 18 to 34 years old.

JUSTIN: Thirty-nine.

GLENN: Thirty-nine.

JUSTIN: Yeah.

GLENN: There's a lot of 18 to 30. That I didn't own home when I was, you know, 30. Just got a home when I was 30. But go ahead. Go ahead with the rest of that poll.

JUSTIN: Yeah. So then 21 percent said discouraged, but somewhat hopeful. 12 percent said, not confident. 10 percent said, you are convinced you will never own a home. 3 percent not sure.

So if you add up the negative responses, it's around 43 percent that gave that response.

GLENN: Right. But, again, 29 percent, you already own a home. And 25 percent you are confident you will own a home, is still good. It just -- these -- these other numbers, have, you know, discouraged, but hopefully you will own a home. Who is discouraging that? And how is that being discouraged?

You know, only 12 -- let's see 12. Twenty-two. 25 percent are not sure they will ever own a home. That's too high of a number.

But I -- I don't think that's completely dismal. Now, a completely dismal answer, to the question, would you support a law that would confiscate America's excess wealth?

Including things like second homes. Luxury cars, and private boats, in order to help young people buy a home for the first time?

Are you for or against that? We'll give you that number here in just a second.

GLENN: There are some disturbing results, that get very disturbing, going from here on.

We've got two of these today, and then more tomorrow.

We'll spend more time with you tomorrow, Justin.

But would you support a law that would confiscate American's excess wealth, including things like second home, luxury cars, and private boats in order to help young people buy a home for the first time? Get the results.

JUSTIN: Yeah, 25 percent strongly support that, 30 percent somewhat support it, 55 percent in total for support. Only 38 percent strongly or somewhat oppose, with just 20 percent saying strongly oppose. So the vast majority now is -- is supporting this Communistic policy to confiscate people's wealth in order to help people. Younger people buy homes, which is in line with that question, we talked about earlier. Where it said, you know, three-quarters of these respondents wanted to nationalize whole industries to make things fairer. So it's all about -- it's all about this sense of unfairness that exists.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JUSTIN: And they feel like. Young people feel like the system is rigged. They feel like neither party is on their side, and they want to blow the whole thing up, by just taking wealth away from people, nationalizing whole industries, and redistributing it all.

And guess what, that's basically the democratic socialist platform. So it's not a surprise that that's -- that's becoming increasingly more popular with these young people.

And I don't think that free market, pro-liberty people are dealing with -- with this.

GLENN: No.

JUSTIN: In a real way.

In fact, I think a lot of us have believed recently that the wind is at our backs, and we're actually winning more and more young people over.
And that isn't what's happening according to the poll results.

GLENN: It explains why the Democrats have not moved their position off of the socialism stuff.

Doesn't it?

We keep saying, why? It's not working with anybody.

It is working. It is working with people under 39.

18 to 39-year-olds are hearing this message, and are embracing this message.