80 Percent of People Think Abortion at 20 Weeks Is a Bad Idea

Ultrasounds are proving to be one of the most effective tools to fight abortion. The powerful images show expectant mothers exactly what's inside that might be destroyed. And a new technology that shows video is especially astounding.

"You're going to have pictures that make them look just as adorable as they do once they're born. And once that starts happening within it's going to become less and less and less popular, and you're going to be able to restrict abortions to earlier and earlier and earlier," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Friday on The Glenn Beck Program.

RELATED: Researchers Release Amazing Video of Clearest Pregnancy Ultrasound Ever Captured

A solid 80 precent of people think abortion at 20 weeks is a bad idea. In fact, the majority of Americans want more restrictions on mid- and late-term abortions.

"What's going to defeat it, I think, is going to be technology. It's not going to be people making arguments in the senate. It's going to be people who are crushed by what they think they might have done before seeing videos like this," Stu said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

STU: Using powerful new technology, an international team of doctors and scientists have managed to capture amazingly clear video of a 20-year-old -- 20-year-old baby in the womb would be weird. 20 week old --

PAT: Very uncomfortable for the mother.

STU: Seriously.

PAT: Very uncomfortable.

STU: That is -- I mean, I don't know how you would get a seat belt.

PAT: I have a 6'3" thing inside of me. And.

[Laughter]

I really have a backache right now.

STU: Especially if she's, like, 5'2". I feel like it's really difficult. But 20 week old baby in the womb. So this is new footage. And the footage is pretty incredible. Incredibly detailed. And the fetus can be seen fiddling with its umbilical cord, turning its head from side to side, and stretching. The system used to capture the video is created by a group called I find using a grant of around $13 million from the well trust and science research Counsel, which I know, Pat, you're a big follower of.

PAT: Oh, yeah.

STU: You have a bumper sticker on your car.

PAT: How much I love them.

STU: The automated ultra sound technique, which can cause traditional ultra sound scans to be inconclusive. You're going to have pictures that make them look just as adorable as they do once they're born. And once that starts happening within it's going to become less and less and less popular, and you're going to be able to restrict abortions to earlier and earlier and earlier. There was a time where it wasn't even thought of 20 weeks. Now you're talking about 80 percent of people think abortion at 20 weeks is a bad idea. 80 percent. This is not a 50/50 issue when you talk about the lines that are being fought upon when it comes to what restrictions should be applied. Almost everyone wants more restrictions than we currently have. Europe has more restrictions than we currently have.

This is not -- there's no -- it's a bizarre thing that the left continues to go on television and say I don't know nine seconds before birth you can still abort kids. They're still at that position, and they're going to hold onto it as long as it being. But what's going to defeat it, I think, is going to be technology. It's not going to be people making arguments in the senate. It's going to be people who are crushed by what they think they might have done before seeing videos like this.

PAT: Yeah, because already with the ultrasounds.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: You show a mother who is contemplating abortion an ultra sound, and you have to do this in Texas now. 90 -- over 90 percent of them choose not to have the abortion. Just based on the technology we already have. And that's a lot more clear and a lot more precise showing what's inside the womb. You're right. I think it's going to become much more rare.

STU: And the new one, it's still black and white. Eventually you're going to get to a point where you're going to be able to see. You're going to be able to see the face, you're going to be able to see --

PAT: The baby holding the hi, mom sign.

STU: The baby trying to text mom. The baby playing Angry Birds. There's a lot of --

PAT: A lot of stuff. But soon we will.

STU: It's hard to look at that. We just showed the video here on blaze TV if you're not watching. And the video, it looks like it's did doing things that babies do. It's not a fetus. It's not a broccoli, it's not a Volkswagen. It's a baby. You can tell it's a baby. It's doing baby things. And this is the point where we're having discussion about. 20 weeks. Five months isn't enough for you to make this decision? And every time someone says 20 weeks, you have, oh, wow. I can't believe they're trying to take women's rights away. This is nuts. This is a being that has rights.

PAT: Yeah.

JEFFY: Oh, yeah.

STU: How do you not look at it like that and not understand it?

PAT: That's not even a consideration to the left.

STU: I do think this is a winnable battle, though. This is something over time. It might take a couple centuries, honestly.

PAT: As far as they have because we seeded the battle to them. We're, like, yeah, okay. We won't talk about this anymore.

STU: It makes me uncomfortable.

PAT: Yes, and I don't want to be uncomfortable, and I don't want you to be uncomfortable, and we're just going to get angry at each other, so we won't talk about it. We're not there anymore. I'm not there anymore.

STU: No, not at all.

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.

RELATED: If Trump can support criminal justice reform, so can everyone else

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.

RELATED: Forget Rabies, 'Woke' Hipsters in Brooklyn Skipping Vaccines to Prevent 'Dogtism'

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.