Rand Paul pushes to defund Planned Parenthood after 'incredibly disturbing' videos

August 05, 2015

WRITER

Although the attempt to defund Planned Parenthood failed in the Senate, Glenn gave credit to Senator Rand Paul for actively trying to do something about the destruction of innocent life.

The senator had some strong words to say about the “callous disregard of the doctors” as well as suggestions on how the American people can help.

"One idea I’ve had is that everybody should send a copy of the ultrasound of their baby. You know, most parents are proud of the first ultrasound of their baby. They ought to send that to their legislator and say you know what, ultrasound has been used for such good," he said.

Watch the full interview in the video below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment:

Glenn: Although the attempt to defund Planned Parenthood failed in the Senate yesterday, Senator Rand Paul deserves credit for actively trying to do something about the destruction of innocent life. Senator Paul joins me from the Capitol now. Senator, how are you, sir?

Sen. Paul: Very good, Glenn. Thanks for having me.

Glenn: It is extraordinarily disturbing to me that we couldn’t muster up enough even Republicans to stop this. For some reason, the people in Congress or in the Senate don’t see this as baby harvesting like I do and like you do.

Sen. Paul: Well, I think the videos are incredibly disturbing, and when I heard about them using ultrasound to manipulate the baby into a position so it can be removed a little bit at a time so they can get at the baby’s organs, kidneys, livers, and sort of the callous disregard by the doctor sort of saying oh yeah, livers are popular, it’s hard to hear that and for people not to realize these are coming from a fully formed baby. I think we rarely get the debate in such sharp relief. We often have the debate where the other side wants to call it tissue, but when we’re talking about lungs, brains, hearts, livers, I think it’s hard and should make all sort of people shudder that we’re doing this.

Glenn: Can I talk to as a doctor, not as a political guy or a candidate right now? Let me just talk to you and ask two questions as a doctor. First of all, what do you as a doctor say to those doctors that are doing this?

Sen. Paul: You know, we have an ancient oath, the Hippocratic Oath, that says first do no harm. I don’t know how you can be consistent with any kind of oath like that. Years ago they took out some of the specifics towards abortion and sort of somehow in their minds qualify and say abortion is not doing harm. I don’t know how anyone could do that day in and day out knowing that you’re pulling out the pieces of a baby. I mean, I don’t know how they do it and how they live with themselves. I think it’s a good debate for us to be having. Those on the other side of the issue should be ostracized. They should be removed from office.

The vast majority of Republicans did vote for this. Every Republican except for one and then two Democrats did vote with us. The real question as to whether the vote was important will be determined by the electorate when these people go back to the polls, and so we shouldn’t let this die. We also should vote to defund them through the appropriation process.

I’m a believer that thousands of items should be targeted for defunding, not just one or two, not just ObamaCare, not just Planned Parenthood. The power of the purse is Congress to direct funding, and we’ve gotten away from that to where people think oh, it’s extraordinary for us to tell the president. That’s actually our job to do that.

Glenn: Right. The other thing I want to ask you as a doctor is the argument on the other side is this is hurting, you’re going after—Rand Paul, and I heard this specifically, Rand Paul is going after women’s health.

Sen. Paul: Well, it’s absolutely just untrue. There are 9000 community health centers. We have thrown more federal money at healthcare than we ever have in the history of time. You can’t go a block in our country and not find something for free, and so we have 9000 community health centers funded by the government, $5 billion. We’ve doubled it in recent years, and there’s 700 Planned Parenthood clinics. So, 9000 free government clinics, 700 Planned Parenthood, the only difference is Planned Parenthood offers abortion. The other difference is Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer most of the women’s health items they say they offer. They don’t offer mammograms. The exams are not done by doctors for breast exams. You’re typically referred somewhere else. So, it’s been a crock for a long time. It’s been a front for abortion, and let’s have this debate.

They’re also huge funders of the Democrat party and huge funders of liberals, and so I guarantee they’re going to come after me and target me. They’ve also targeted Joni Ernst as well.

Glenn: I heard Hillary Clinton in a statement she recorded recently where she said I am proud to stand with Planned Parenthood, and I was struck—because I’ve seen the video, I was struck on how evil that is. I said today that I don’t think I’ve seen anything in America that is this close to Josef Mengele. Is that hyperbole?

Sen. Paul: Now Glenn, that would be the first time you had hyperbole—

Glenn: I know.

Sen. Paul: What I would say is that if you ask the general public about removing a fully formed baby and harvesting its organs, I think you’re probably going to get a 70%, 80% issue. There are some hardcore people who don’t care, but like I say, I know a lot of people from all walks of life, not just conservatives, I know pro-choice women, and you know what, they’re horrified by this. So, when we’re talking about a fully formed baby, the numbers go lopsided in our direction. It’s a rare person who thinks fully formed babies ought to be taken out.

The whole idea of third trimester abortion is kind of crazy because at that point if it’s a risk to the mother, try to save the baby, remove the baby through C-section if it’s a risk to the mother. Most third trimester babies can actually have a chance of surviving.

Glenn: I have to tell you, after I saw Cecil the lion and the outcry from the left on Cecil the lion and the silence or the acceptance of baby harvesting, am I wrong to say this is baby harvesting?

Sen. Paul: No, I think it is. It’s harvesting of baby organs, and there seems to be a neglect on their part.

Glenn: Yeah. I see this, I don’t think this, Rand, and maybe this is a new understanding for me and maybe it goes much further than just this one issue, but I don’t think this is a problem with Washington. I think this is a problem with the American people. The American people, when we care more about Cecil the lion than we care about baby harvesting, I’m afraid for our country. I really am truly afraid of what we’re becoming.

Sen. Paul: Well, what I’ve always told people is I’m known for someone standing up for individual rights, the right to be left alone, and most choices in life you should get. The thing is all those rights derive from a right to your life and to have no one physically aggress against your life. We really need to have this debate in our country when does life begin? When they had the debate a few years ago over partial-birth abortion, at least one of the Democrats was honest enough to say that if the baby did come out, was still alive, and you weren’t able to kill the baby before it came out, that really the baby wasn’t a baby until you take the baby home.

I’ve worked in a neonatal nursery. I’ve worked with babies that are a pound, pound and a half that survive and end up doing fine. We examine their eyes to make sure they don’t go blind from being born so early, but to think that that baby doesn’t really have rights until you take them home, it’s absurd, and I think most people don’t believe that. If this radical notion from these people were well known, I think we begin to win the argument a little more, and I think actually we are, but we aren’t yet there. Washington is always a decade behind the people, and people need to do a better job of hurrying up and replacing some of these legislators so we could actually get to the will of the people.

Glenn: I mean, I’ve never been a guy who—I don’t go in front of abortion clinics and protest. I don’t protest anything. I’m a slug of an American. This one so deeply bothers me, Rand. I mean, we’re doing something in Birmingham on August 28th where the slogan is all lives matter, and it’s true—black lives matter, white lives matter, baby lives matter, old people’s lives matter. What can the average person do who has never really protested and don’t see themselves standing in front of an abortion clinic? How can we help?

Sen. Paul: You know, one idea I’ve had is that everybody should send a copy of the ultrasound of their baby. You know, most parents are proud of the first ultrasound of their baby. They ought to send that to their legislator and say you know what, ultrasound has been used for such good. You can actually save babies in the womb through surgery now. Send that ultrasound and say you know what, our taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be getting ultrasounds of babies so we can manipulate them around to harvest their organs. That was one of the things that upset me about it is they talk about doing abortion under ultrasound so they can actually use this great technology not to save a baby but to actually manipulate the baby into a position so you can harvest the organs.

Glenn: Can I look at this a different way? I was talking about this on the air today on radio, and I said if I had an abortion and I didn’t have a problem with abortion, I think I would be a little upset that I didn’t get a kickback in this. How dare you take my baby from me, what is mine? I’m paying you $1000 to do it, and then you’re selling the baby?

Sen. Paul: Well, the investigation ought to be what kind of consent is actually being obtained. I’m guessing when this consent is being obtained that no one is telling them we are going to harvest your baby’s organs. And actually they might say tissue, but they’re not going to admit that the procedure you’re going to get is going to have a baby with arms, legs, kidneys, livers, lungs, and that there’s a different price for each organ. I don’t think that’s being discussed. I would very much imagine that that is glossed over and that people are being run through, and it’s just a little extra money making to make expenses for Planned Parenthood.

Glenn:: I’m not a lawyer, and I’m not a law man. I’m not in your position. I’m just an average American who sits here and looks at this stuff, and I think these people should go to jail. Do you think they’ve crossed the line of jail time possibly?

Sen. Paul: There are laws about already from the partial-birth abortion. There are laws saying you’re not supposed to manipulate the baby in order to harvest organs, and so that’s a question. The woman online when they ask her about it, she says oh yeah, there’s some laws, but that’s just for lawyers to figure it out that there are some laws. She doesn’t say partial-birth abortion, I think, in the video, but she admits that there are some laws. Yeah, that’s why it should be investigated. Really the question ought to be whether or not real consent is being obtained or is this occurring, the sale of the body organs occurring without really an adequate consent.

Glenn: Rand Paul, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Sen. Paul: Thanks, Glenn.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.