‘I’m immovable. Abortion is murder’: Glenn explains why he is pro-life

January 22, 2014

The Glenn Beck Program

Glenn opened this morning’s radio program with a candid monologue about why he is pro-life. In light of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s recent comments about “right-to-life” “extreme conservatives” not being welcome in his state and prominent Republicans and Democrats stating abortion will be a major theme this election cycle, Glenn decided it was time to broach the sensitive subject and explain why he believes abortion is murder.

Well, get ready. Both political parties have said that they plan to make abortion one of the main issues this election year. Now, why are they doing that? Well, let me give you a real quick snapshot on Cuomo. The reason why Cuomo came out and said: There's no place for people who are pro-life and everything else is because of Bill de Blasio. Bill has taken the party over in New York, and the Democrats have fully gone leftist in New York. Governor Cuomo is deciding now that he's got to play a role in that, so he's got to go as hard left as he possibly can.

This show, while all of us here feel passionately about abortion, we are intensely pro-life, we have never really focused on it. In fact, it was one of those topics that we said we will never really talk about. We don't want to get into that because it's so divisive, et cetera, et cetera. And when you have a discussion about it, you just go back and forth in circles and you usually get shouted down with some bull crap about back alley clinics and a war on women. But since it's about to become a major election issue, and since New York Governor Cuomo has just made being pro-life a big reason for not being welcome in his state, I am going to talk about it.

The biggest problem with this debate is that we as conservatives have lost it. We lost it the day we allowed abortion supporters to get away with the biggest language coup in the history of the world. And because of that coup, the other side is not for killing babies. They are not for mass genocide, which has taken the lives of 55 million children since 1973… They are pro-choice. If we were simply trying to decide whether we have, you know, Rice Krispies over Cap'n Crunch for breakfast, then I would understand calling it pro-choice.

Now, how did this happen in a conversation that is so unbelievably important? They still argue that all they really want is for [abortions] to be safe and rare. But that's all. Rare and safe. Let's ask the tens of thousands of women in the horrific abortion mills in Philadelphia and Houston how safe their choice was in a story that the press didn't want to cover. Let's ask the untold women whose lives have been torn apart by that choice that you never see in the media because of an agenda. Mentally and physically the relationships that have been destroyed with massive regret for their entire life… Not to mention that with 1.2 to 2 million of those choices every year, adding up to 55 million since 1973. Doesn’t really seem to be that rare at all. Yeah, instead of the death of a baby, instead of the deaths of tens of millions of babies, including a disproportionate number of minorities… it is indeed just a woman's right to choose.

Forget about the choice that she had about her spouse or boyfriend or whoever had nine months earlier. See, that's where choice comes into play. That's where choice comes into play… Forget about the choice she makes at conception. None of that personal responsibility nonsense can even be considered. There can't be any consequences for anyone's actions today. No man must pay for his sins. You have to be allowed to choose what goes on with your body. Women need to choose what goes on in their body and with their body.

[…]

But there again, the debate gets side tracked. We can't even call what's in the womb life. Can't do that. It's not life at all… We have come so far in the past 40 years since Roe vs. Wade. Now it's some sort of inhuman abuse of women. It's an extreme violation to even ask a woman to look at what is growing inside of her. Before you make the ultimate, irreversible decision to end your baby's life, just look at the ultrasound, see what is inside of you. Look at how amazing this is. This is what we do if you're seeking an abortion in Texas. God bless the Republic of Texas. So why do abortion providers and supporters so vehemently oppose a pre-abortion ultrasound? Well, here's the reason. Because 90% of the women who have one realize what is in their womb is not tissue. It's not a knife. It's not a fork, a spoon, a shoe. It's a baby. It is her precious living human baby.

But the old adage is true. Control the language, control the argument, control society. Nothing proves that point more vividly than the abortion debate. The other side never even talks about a baby. No human life is even involved at all. In fact, the father and his wishes never, ever even enter into the equation. It's about a woman and her right to choose, never about the man. What does a man feel? If we object, we're of course waging a war on women. We're the oppressors.

We're the Nazis, which is really ironic, given the fact that again, 55 million human beings were killed in this country and we're the ones who are trying to desperately stop this genocide because we're the Nazis… It is a genocide, and I know that's strong language, but I'm sick and tired of pussyfooting around on the subject. It is time for strong language… It's murder… I'm immovable. Abortion is murder. Period… The left tries to tell us just as they do with global warming that the debate is over. It's all settled. Roe vs. Wade, 40 years ago. It's a Constitutional right. Really? Show me that Constitutional right. Show it to me… It doesn't exist. It doesn't exist in either of our founding documents. It doesn't exist in our Constitution. It doesn't exist in the Declaration of Independence. In fact, the preamble of the Constitution specifically protects the unborn. Let me read it for you:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, To ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.

Who are our posterity? Our unborn children – those who should be born and will be born. And the Declaration of Independence protects their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[…]

But there are a couple of tough questions regarding abortion. And actually, the first one for me isn't tough at all: If the mother's life is in danger. I'm sorry, but if I have to choose between my wife and the mother of my children, and the baby, I'm choosing my wife. Does this make me inconsistent? Perhaps. Does it make me a flawed person? Perhaps it does. Maybe we'll try again for the baby, and Lord, forgive me, because I am only human. But I need her. My other children need her. I think most people are on board with that. Some people aren't. And that's fine. I'm flawed. I pray that I can have a better understanding.

But here's the really, really hard question. What about the real choice of the woman? What if her right to choose to create a baby was stolen from her [because of] rape? Now you have taken away her right to choose… If you're asking her to carry to term nine months, a baby from a monster – not the baby's fault, obviously – but from the woman's perspective, that reminder, that act of violence, that horrible violation, the trauma of that? I can't even begin to comprehend. And again, I know that makes me a flawed human. Maybe. I've tried. I guess some people would ask her to carry the baby full term because it is either killing a baby or it isn't. But if she can't deal with the baby because of the circumstances of conception once the baby is born, give her up for adoption. I understand, I have an adopted son. And he has changed my life. But if it is my wife or daughter, I can't demand that of her. Horrible flaw in me, I'm sure. But it is who I am today.

But I want to make it very clear: The only reason why they're going to talk about abortion is because they win. They will separate us and try to make us hate each other. The Republicans will do it to the Democrats and the Democrats will do it to the Republicans. Don't fall for that. But don't you dare shy away. We hold these truths to be self-evident for ourselves and our posterity. We must stand up, square our shoulders, and be better than we think we can be, as guardians of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

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