Cecile Richards Gets Excited When Women Talk About Killing Their Babies

October 07, 2016

Writer

The left once touted a trifecta as its mantra on abortion: safe, legal and rare. But things have changed.

"We have lost one of the three big things that the left used to preach about, which was safe, legal and rare. They no longer care about rare," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Friday on The Glenn Beck Program.

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, recently stated that she gets excited hearing about how and why women choose to get an abortion:

RELATED: Real Men Are Pro-Life

For too many years, certainly for my generation, all issues about sex and sexuality were stigmatized. Abortion was, homosexuality was. And the exciting thing to me now is that young people are telling their stories and they are living out loud. More women are telling their abortion stories, and I told mine. I think once we get out of the shadows, and I think the LGBT movement has led the way in this, it normalizes what should be an open and honest conversation.

"You know, I get excited when people tell me their stories about killing people, too. Don't you? I always enjoy that," Co-host Pat Gray added.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these uncommon questions:

• Is abortion still a terrible decision women struggle with?

• Has intentionally dehumanizing fetuses led to more abortions?

• Why have women allowed abortion to become a common form of birth control?

• Can fetuses turn into Buicks or brussel sprouts?

• Does Cecil Richards care about human life?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

PAT: Oh, Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood gets excited when she hears about how and why women choose to get their abortions. That's great.

You know, I get excited when people tell me their stories about killing people too. Don't you? I always enjoy that.

STU: Well, there's an entire --

PAT: A lot of fun. A lot of fun.

STU: -- you know, billion dollar industry of horror movies. People like to -- they definitely like to engage.

PAT: That's true. That's very true.

STU: Violent video games are --

PAT: So, yeah. Call us and share your favorite murder story.

STU: Again, we have lost one of the three big things that the left used to preach about, which was safe, legal, and rare. They no longer care about rare.

PAT: At all.

STU: They want it to be safe, I guess. I mean, although, you see with Gosnell and others, it's not necessarily at the top of their list of interests.

They want it to be legal. That's the number one. They want it to be legal. And it seems like it's more like, kind of safe, legal, and encouraged is the new slogan.

Because now it is -- it's not about, well, this is a terrible decision, and women struggle with it. And -- that's not the pitch anymore. The pitch is, this is a wonderful thing to help our lives. You know, I wouldn't have been able to get the job I got. My -- who knows, I would have been in debt. Like they say these things as if they're the equivalent --

PAT: It would have been really inconvenient for me at the time.

STU: Yeah. I wouldn't have been able to deal with it. Well, look, it can be very difficult to deal with in certain circumstances.

PAT: Right. That's why there's adoption.

STU: There's other things to address that issue.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: You know, but the idea that you're going to praise this, because why? Because I think it's -- they've realized that they're only going to get to a certain point by saying, "This is a really negative activity that we must allow in society." They have to turn it into, this is a very positive activity to make any further in the debate I guess.

PAT: And she says, the exciting thing to me now is that young people are telling their stories, and they're living out loud. More women are telling their abortion stories. And I told mine. I think once we get out of the shadows, and I think the LGBT movement has led the way on this, it normalizes what should be an open and honest conversation.

JEFFY: What.

PAT: And so now, yeah, that's the thing, to normalize abortion. And to make it just the most natural and wonderful thing you can do. We've already had open and honest conversations, at least from our standpoint we're honest about it. We're certainly open about it.

They're not honest about it. It would be nice if they would be honest about it and at least admit, it's human life they're talking about. And they won't. They won't do that.

JEFFY: So...

STU: It's kind of why at some level I respect people like her and the Sandra Fluke's of the world. It's like, at least they're admitting it.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: They're saying -- I mean, they're not trying to couch this in a, well, look, I'm personally against it. And I would never say -- after six months, then I think it's bad. They're like, nah, eight seconds before birth, kill it.

PAT: Right. Right.

STU: And while I think that's abhorrent and terrible, at least they're being honest about it. It's very rare from someone on that side of the aisle to be honest about this issue.

PAT: True.

STU: And in some ways, it's nice to see. You wonder like, if America has an opportunity to go through an honest debate with one side of the aisle saying, "You know we should be able to kill this thing at any point. Maybe a few months after birth. I mean, if it's really annoying, crying all the time, colic-y, eh, let's pull the trigger." If you have one side of the aisle saying that and the other one saying, "Well, we think human life is kind of important to defend -- if we lose that battle, we deserve everything we get from it.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: We deserve a collapse of our entire society if that's one that can be lost.

PAT: Other than aborting Jeffy in his 644th trimester, you know, you can't disagree with what you just said any more. And you've got people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz who wouldn't even admit her own children were human before they were born. Remember that?

VOICE: You have three children, correct?

DEBBIE: I do.

VOICE: What are their ages?

DEBBIE: I have twin 16-year-olds and a 12-year-old.

VOICE: And in your opinion, were they human beings before they were born?

DEBBIE: You know, I believe that every woman has the right to make their own reproductive choices.

PAT: That's not the question.

VOICE: What did you believe about your children though?

DEBBIE: That I had the right to make my own reproductive choices, which I was glad -- a right which I was proud to have.

VOICE: So were they human beings? Just yes or no.

PAT: Well, one of them was. One of them was a Buick. One of them was a brussels sprout before it was born.

DEBBIE: They're human beings today. And I'm glad that I had an opportunity to make my own reproductive --

JEFFY: They're human beings today.

PAT: They're human beings today. I mean, that's just complete dishonesty.

JEFFY: We were amazed when that brussels sprout grew up to be a human.

PAT: Yeah, I couldn't believe it. Hey, I've got a brussels sprout inside my stomach, but let's see what happens. Maybe we eat it for dinner when it comes out. Then it turned out to be human. Imagine my surprise.

JEFFY: Amazing.

PAT: It's just -- it's so dishonest. It's --

STU: She will not give ground in her little argument.

PAT: And there's so many like her. And you're right, Cecile Richards, she doesn't care.

Featured Image: Cecile Richards speaks during the second day of the Democratic National Convention at the Wells Fargo Center, July 26, 2016 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Photo Credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

GLENN

Poor Jussie: His narrative is falling apart completely

Activist Mommy Elizabeth Johnston takes a stand in solidarity with the unborn at 'Day of Mourning'

youtu.be

If there was ever one issue to take a stand against, it's abortion. "Activist Mommy" Elizabeth Johnston joined Glenn to talk about her upcoming event in New York, standing with the unborn. Watch this clip to hear all the details.

How congress can restore justice through judicial discretion

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

As the nation soaks in the victory of the recent passing of the historic First Step Act, there are Congressmen who haven't stopped working to solve additional problems with the criminal justice system. Because while the Act was impactful, leading to the well-deserved early release of many incarcerated individuals, it didn't go far enough. That's why four Congressmen have joined forces to reintroduce the Justice Safety Valve Act—legislation that would grant judges judicial discretion when determining appropriate sentencing.

There's a real need for this legislation since it's no secret that lawmakers don't always get it right. They may pass laws with good intentions, but unintended consequences often prevail. For example, there was a time when the nation believed the best way to penalize lawbreakers was to be tough on crime, leading to sweeping mandatory minimum sentencing laws implemented both nationally and statewide.

Only in recent years have governments learned that these sentences aren't good policy for the defendant or even the public. Mandatory minimum sentences are often overly harsh, don't act as a public deterrent for crime, and are extremely costly to taxpayers. These laws tie judges' hands, preventing them from using their knowledge and understanding of the law to make case relevant decisions.

Because legislation surrounding criminal law is often very touchy and difficult to change (especially on the federal level, where bills can take multiple years to pass) mandatory minimum sentences are far from being done away with—despite the data-driven discoveries of their downfalls. But in order to solve the problems inherent within all of the different laws imposing sentencing lengths, Congress needs to pass the Justice Safety Valve Act now. Ensuring its passing would allow judges to use discretion while sentencing, rather than forcing them to continue issuing indiscriminate sentences no matter the unique facts of the case.

Rather than take years to go back and try to fix every single mandatory minimum law that has been federally passed, moving this single piece of legislation forward is the best way to ensure judges can apply their judgment in every appropriate case.

When someone is facing numerous charges from a single incident, mandatory minimum sentencing laws stack atop one another, resulting in an extremely lengthy sentence that may not be just. Such high sentences may even be violations of an individual's eighth amendment rights, what with the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. It's exactly what happened with Weldon Angelos.

In Salt Lake City in 2002, Weldon sold half a pound of marijuana to federal agents on two separate occasions. Unbeknownst to Weldon, the police had targeted him because they suspected he was a part of a gang and trafficking operation. They were oh-so-wrong. Weldon had never sold marijuana before and only did this time because he was pressured by the agents to find marijuana for them. He figured a couple lowkey sales could help out his family's financial situation. But Weldon was caught and sentenced to a mandatory 55 years in prison. This massive sentence is clearly unjust for a first time, non-violent crime, and even the Judge, Paul Cassell, agreed. Judge Cassell did everything he could to reduce the sentence, but, due to federal law, it wasn't much.

The nation is facing an over-criminalization problem that costs taxpayers millions and amounts to the foolish eradication of individual liberties.

In cases like Weldon's, a safety valve for discretionary power is much needed. Judges need the ability to issue sentences below the mandatory minimums, depending on mitigating factors such as mental health, provocation, or physical illness. That's what this new bill would allow for. Critics may argue that this gives judges too much power, but under the bill, judges must first make a finding on why it's necessary to sentence below the mandatory minimum. Then, they must write a clear statement explaining their decision.

Judges are unlikely to risk their careers to allow dangerous criminals an early release. If something happens after an offender is released early, the political pressure is back on the judge who issued the shorter sentence—and no one wants that kind of negative attention. In order to avoid risky situations like this, they'd use their discretion very cautiously, upholding the oath they took to promote justice in every case.

The nation is facing an overcriminalization problem that costs taxpayers millions and amounts to the foolish eradication of individual liberties. Mandatory minimums have exacerbated this problem, and it's time for that to stop. Congresswomen and men have the opportunity to help solve this looming problem by passing the Justice Safety Valve Act to untie the hands of judges and restore justice in individual sentences.

Molly Davis is a policy analyst at Libertas Institute, a free market think tank in Utah. She's a writer for Young Voices, and her work has previously appeared in The Hill, TownHall.com, and The Washington Examiner.

New gadget for couples in 'the mood' lets a button do the talking

Photo by Matt Nelson on Unsplash

Just in time for Valentine's Day, there's a new romantic gadget for couples that is sure to make sparks fly. For those with their minds in the gutter, I'm not talking about those kinds of gadgets. I'm talking about a brilliant new device for the home called "LoveSync."

This is real — it's a simple pair of buttons for busy, modern couples who have plenty of time for social media and Netflix, but can't quite squeeze in time to talk about their... uh... special relationship.

Here's how it works. Each partner has their own individual LoveSync button. Whenever the mood strikes one partner, all they have to do is press their own button. That sets their button aglow for a certain period of time. If, during that time window, their partner also presses their own button, then both buttons light up in a swirling green pattern to signal that love has "synced"...and it's go time.

According to the makers of LoveSync, this device will "Take the Luck out of Getting Lucky." It brings a whole new meaning to "pushing each other's buttons." It's an ideal gift to tell your significant other "I care," without actually having to care, or talk about icky things like feelings.

If you find your significant other is already on the couch binge-watching The Bachelor, no problem! You can conveniently slink back to your button and hold it in for four seconds to cancel the desire. No harm, no foul! Live to fight another day.

Have fun explaining those buttons to inquiring children.

No word yet on whether LoveSync can also order wine, light candles or play Barry White. Maybe that's in the works for LoveSync 2.0.

Of course, LoveSync does have some pitfalls. Cats and toddlers love a good button. That'll be a fun conversation — "Honey, who keeps canceling my mood submissions?" And have fun explaining those buttons to inquiring children. "Yeah, kids, that button just controls the lawn sprinklers. No big deal."

If you've been dialing it in for years on Valentine's Day with flowers and those crappy boxes of chocolate, now you can literally dial it in. With a button.

Good luck with that.

The social power of 'Reddit' is helping teens of anti-vaxxers get vaccinated

Noam Galai/Getty Images for TechCrunch

Reddit certainly earns its motto as "the front page of the internet," with roughly 540 million visitors monthly, the third most-visited website in the U.S., sixth worldwide. Unlike Twitter and Facebook, Reddit is a largely anonymous platform. People's faces are masked, their names are disguised. Which makes their hidden humanity all the more impactful.

On Reddit, both news and serious information are threaded in among gifs of cats and posts about Call of Duty, but that doesn't make it any less important. For many people, Reddit signifies the town hall where news is passed along or stomped into obscurity.

It gives you a healthy read of our society as a whole.

A recent Pew Poll found that Reddit leans left politically at a rate higher than the general public. Most users are young men, whose extensive internet use gives them a gatekeeping authority over what information should be considered important. From there, it spreads through the rest of the internet and helps shape public opinion.

So, it makes a lot of sense that Reddit has become a sort of makeshift safe place for children who grew up with parents who refused to give them vaccinations. Of course, Reddit also vehemently mocks the anti-vaccination folks, for better or for worse, often the latter, but that's a subject for another day.

The Daily Dot recently published an article on this strange intersection of ideology and nerd culture. "Desperate teens of anti-vaxxers are turning to Reddit for vaccination advice."

The article follows Ethan, whose parents are staunchly against vaccinations:

But Ethan is not his parents. When he turned 18, he decided to take matters into his own hands. He wasn't sure where else to begin, so he turned to Reddit.

Where do I go to get vaccinated? Can I get vaccinated at my age?" Ethan asked his fellow redditors in December. Ethan's post flooded with over 1,000 comments from users offering their encouragement and support, along with practical advice. "Good on you for getting your vaccinations," one user responded. "It's never too late and you're not only protecting yourself but those around you who truly can't get vaccinated.

Ethan told the Daily Dot that some redditors even offered to give him money via GoFundMe or PayPal if insurance didn't cover the shots. "People were really supportive, and that was really cool," he said. "I had the blessing of Reddit. They were supporting me on a decision my mom freaked out about." Ethan is not alone. "More and more teens are turning to places like Reddit to seek out information on where and how to get vaccinated, and if it's too late."

Whatever your opinion on vaccinations, there's a positive message to all of this. A human message. Hopeful. Proof that, in an increasingly caustic world, people can turn to one another in times of need.

Whatever your opinion on vaccinations, there's a positive message to all of this. A human message. Hopeful.

Now more than ever, that is crucial.

Given the social power of Reddit, it is often characterized as a tool for politicians or political movements. Throughout the forum, various political ideologies gather and organize like factions in some ideological war. A political thread on Reddit is like a Facebook comment section at its most hostile, arrogant or confident, but with no identities attached to the attacks, rants or opinions. When you find yourself riled into a debate, it's easy to wonder who's behind the replies, especially the more vicious ones.

People often characterize it as a hive-mind message board full of circlejerk memes and jokes about SpongeBob. This description isn't entirely wrong, but it is shallow and incomplete. At its core, Reddit is humane. Its users, for the most part, are compassionate. If it were an experiment on human nature, the results would be gratifying.

Glenn's Show Prep