The left "celebrates" 40 years of Roe vs. Wade

January 23, 2013

Writer

The 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade is this week and groups on both sides of the issue have been doing different things to bring attention to the abortion debate. Earlier this week, Glenn spoke to pro-life activist Lila Rose about the great work she is doing at Live Action and the March for Life. Today, Glenn highlighted a more disturbing side of the anniversary.

Abortion advocates seem to be "celebrating" the anniversary in rather creepy ways…Here's one example:

So…apparently abortion is a middle aged male?

Irony alert.

Aren't pro-life conservatives constantly being accused of a "war on women" and abortion is a women's rights issue? Conservative men are constantly maligned for even taking a stance on an issue that couldn't possibly understand? So who better to be the representative figure of abortion…than a creepy man who appears to be hitting on all women?

"It is so disturbing," Glenn said after hearing the ad. "He is talking about Roe versus Wade and the way they're ‑‑ I mean, they've made it a sexual commercial."

Not only have that sexualized the sensitive issue — remember, the debate is over whether or not abortion is murder — they've turned it into a joke. This video was designed to make you laugh.

"I particularly enjoyed the use of the word "baby" so many times," Stu pointed out. "'Hey, baby, we killed you.'"

"I just, I find it amazing that they thought that was appropriate to take a guy and make him sound like, "Yeah, baby. We're going to get some lovin' now," when this is the argument against it is that you don't kill children for birth control. And that's what ‑‑ this whole thing just felt that way," Glenn said.

But that's just one of the less disturbing pieces of media to come out of the activists on the left side of the issue.

A new documentary is being released on the four doctors left in the United States still perform late [3rd] term abortions.

"Who in their right mind would do that?" Glenn asked.

"I'm surprised they are doing it," Stu answered. "They are doing it like, we're the fantastic four. Like, they're like profiling them like they're heroes essentially of course."

One would think that doctors involved in any documentary focused on such a controversial issue would be very clinically based and well spoken — not the case. Stu played audio from an NPR show called Shades of Grey that displayed the complete disconnect from reality.

If these individuals in this audio and the documentary are in favor of making late term abortions legal, it seems like they would make sure the issue was discussed in a light where is leaves you asking questions or less polarized.That's not really what's going on.

"I don't think you'll feel that way when you hear these clips," Pat commented.

Remember, this is from NPR and brought to you by your tax dollars:

VOICE: Of course there is another aspect to this and, umm, you know, I always do kind of in a way have a moment's thought of thinking of the end of this fetus and that I think of this as a life necessarily but it's a loss.

As Glenn, Pat and Stu point out, what exactly is one losing if not a life? Tissue? Cysts? Cells? Do they not make life?

And on that note, they don't "necessarily" think of it as a human life…okay…would this doctor liked to be described as not "necessarily" a murderer? In order to perform a procedure like this, there should probably be a very definitive line, right? If your doctor tells you that you don't "necessarily" have cancer, you're probably going to want to confirm that before taking any actions moving forward.

"What's it going to grow into?" Pat asked rhetorically. "It's not ‑‑ you don't think of it as life necessarily. What is it?"

In a different clip a nurse discusses her experience with partial birth abortion:

NURSE: We have a sonogram in the room and one person is in charge of manning the sonogram. So the transducer is on the mom's belly. So you can see calcified structures. So skull, ribcage, arms and legs and that kind of thing.

Interviewer: Doctors learn to look at very gruesome things. It is the nature particularly of being a surgeon.

NURSE: You break the bag of water and the umbilical cord gets kinked and the infant dies pretty quickly so that the procedure's being done on, you know, a dead ‑‑ a dead fetus. I reached in with the forceps and the sonogram was on one of the limbs, I believe it was the arm and so I pulled and I pulled and put it in a dish. And he moved the sonogram over and the heart was still beating.

"Imagine if I came over and I put something around you or your child at any age or your grandfather who has Alzheimer's and doesn't really understand and I put a chain or a clamp around his arm and I pull it off his body," Glenn said after hearing the audio. "What do you think grandpa, with no quality of life, doesn't really know what's going on, has Alzheimer's. Do you think Grandpa feels any pain? That doesn't ‑‑ that doesn't seem to bother her."

And remember, many of these people on the far left are the same people that will organize a protest to protect a tree or won't let you transport lobster because of the "comfort level".

"And they don't care what the baby experiences," Pat said. "They don't care."

Remember, this is also what groups like Draw The Line and The Center for Reproductive Rights consider to be "women's rights" and "reproductive rights". These groups are endorsed by individuals like Meryl Streep, Kevin Bacon, and others who are paid millions to star in our favorite movies.

Stu noted that the woman in that clip was clearly disturbed by the experience and was very uncomfortable with it.

"But she at the end came — she's still doing it. She's still doing abortions after that experience," he said.

Here's another clip where a woman discusses having seven abortions:

VOICE: Where you are now I've been. It took me years to get to where I'm at now. I've had seven abortions; I have three kids. Take the time. Think about your decision. Weigh out your pros and cons. Having a child is not an easy chore.

"That's why you have seven abortions because babies, they're not easy chores," Stu said disgusted. "That's the way to look at a newborn life? It's a chore, and it's not an easy one."

The lack of value for life in these audio clips, to put it lightly, is wildly disturbing. Glenn recalled a line from Les Miserables that puts, not just the late term abortion debate, but the entire abortion debate into a powerful perspective. At the end of the movie, when Jean Valjean is about to die, he and his adopted child, who he has sacrificed everything for, have a moving exchange.

"He knows he's going to die, and he says ‑‑ such a simple line. "You're the best of my life." That gets me every time," Glenn said. Because when you stop and think of it, all of the trouble that you might be having with your kids, all the trouble that you might have had with the kids or all the trouble that you are going to have with your kids, when you stop, you will look and say, "You're the best of my life." And when somebody can look at a child and say, "You're not an easy chore," wow. I don't even begin to relate."

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep