GLENNFebruary 20, 2017

The Legacy of Jane Roe and the Landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Case That Changed America

In 1970, the woman at the heart of Roe v. Wade — Norma McCorvey --- was a self-proclaimed confused 21-year-old mother who found herself pregnant. Three years later, she would take on the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” and become the prominent plaintiff in the history-making Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade. After the landmark Supreme Court decision, McCorvey dedicated her life to overturning it, and became a notable pro-life advocate.

On Saturday, McCorvey died as a pro-life advocate at the age of 69.

"So McCorvey's child was over two years old and had been adopted by the time the Supreme Court actually came out with its ruling. She said, at the time I fought to obtain a legal abortion, but truth be told, I have three daughters and never had one, which is something that is left out of the story often," Co-host Stu Burguiere said on The Glenn Beck Program.

Of her role in the landmark court case, McCorvery had this to say in 2012:

I’m Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of the Roe vs. Wade decision that brought "legal" child killing to America. I was persuaded by feminist attorneys to lie; to say that I was raped, and needed an abortion. It was all a lie. Since then, over 50 million babies have been murdered. I will take this burden to my grave.

Enjoy the complimentary clip above or read the transcript below for details.

PAT: The reason we have abortion on demand today is because of someone named Norma McCorvey, just a young woman who had an unwanted pregnancy and she decided to have an abortion.

STU: Just 21 years old.

PAT: Yeah, just 21.

STU: She herself said she was very confused at the time.

PAT: Right.

STU: She had gone through sort of crazy relationship issues.

PAT: And she was only pushed toward abortion when she went for help. She was pushed toward abortion. And from just about the minute she had the abortion, she regretted it. Actually, did she have the abortion?

STU: No.

PAT: I don't think she even wound up having the abortion, now that I think of this. She didn't even have an abortion.

STU: Yeah. That's the interesting part of the story.

PAT: She actually wound up having her child.

STU: Because the court case took too long.

PAT: That's right.

STU: She had birthed before that. And it wasn't immediately after. She had a period where she was still on board.

PAT: Still okay with it. That's right. That's right. Took a few years.

STU: And advocated for abortion and eventually turned around. One of the interesting things about it is, in the abortion debate, you always hear this: Well, what? So if the life of the mother is in danger, you want there to be no abortion. That's what you want when you say you want Roe vs. Wade repealed.

PAT: And, by the way, first of all, thing one, that almost never happens.

STU: No. Almost --

PAT: If this were 1783, it would happen all the time.

STU: Yeah, yeah, very important in 1700s.

PAT: It isn't the 1700s anymore. Or even the 1800s or even the 1900s. It's 2017. And doctors will just tell you that just doesn't happen. I've talked to doctors who have delivered thousands, tens of thousands of babies. And they've told me it's never happened.

STU: I will say particularly with partial-birth abortion, they say it never happens. You know, a pregnancy can complicate a lot of different things, obviously. And so it's not -- you know, the earlier it is, the more common. But, still, the issue with this particular thing, which I find to be so interesting is that when row -- Jane row, also known as Norma McCorvey, went to the doctor back in the day -- at that time in Texas, abortion was legal in the case of the mother's life being endangered.

PAT: Hmm.

JEFFY: Wow.

STU: That was the only exception they had at the time. But they had that exception before Roe vs. Wade in the state where Roe went to get the abortion. That is how ridiculous this has been twisted.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: That has always been an exception. It is a pre Roe vs. Wade exception. And honestly like an understandable one in that at the very least you're making some decision -- it's at least justifiable in that you might make the decision based on -- you're essentially choosing one life over the other at that point.

PAT: Oh, if it's between my wife and the unborn baby --

STU: Of course.

PAT: -- you're choosing the mother of your children every time. The love of your life.

JEFFY: You have to, right? You have to.

STU: So McCorvey's child was over two years old and had been adopted by the time the Supreme Court actually came out with its ruling. She said, at the time I fought to obtain a legal abortion, but truth be told, I have three daughters and never had one, which is something that is left out of the story often.

She -- the case went on for a long time. It wasn't until the mid-'90s that she became a born-again Christian and was received by the Catholic Church. I think she was Catholic for a while. I think she converted from that too. But she remained Christian. She said that she became a real -- a real outspoken opponent of abortion. I mean, think about this. You know, think about -- like what if Rosa Parks was, "You know, I was wrong about those buses." This is a big change. You know what, we should be sitting in the back. I got to be wrong on that one.

That would be a story, I feel like.

PAT: Yes, it would be a story.

STU: I don't think that would have ever happened. But it's an interesting thing in that this is the case, the name that everyone knows, Roe, this is the woman who came out and advocated against this procedure for two decades.

PAT: If it was Wade, you wouldn't have minded as much.

STU: No.

PAT: Because Wade was the person trying to allow her to have the abortion, right?

STU: No.

PAT: Or actually Wade didn't want her to. She was fighting for --

STU: Roe was the one. Yeah.

PAT: But, I mean, it's never talked about that even the person who got this law overturned, all through America and legalized abortion, even she was a very staunch abortion opponent.

STU: So she went as far as to work for an abortion clinic. Okay? She was working at an abortion clinic. And she had an anti-abortion group move in next door to her. I mean, think about this. They always say, "Oh, you shouldn't be able to protest out in front of one of these clinics." Think of this story: They moved in next door. During smoke breaks -- during smoke breaks, someone from Operation Rescue, which is Reverend Philip Benham said she was completely pro-abortion.

They started talking. Slowly, they became friends. And that was kind of the genesis of her conversion. And, I mean, it's an incredible story.

If this was the opposite -- like, for example, you know, some terrible ruling that the person who was involved in it recanted and went the other way. And I say a terrible ruling as far as the left's perspective. This would be the ultimate movie. This woman's story would be an incredible movie telling this incredible conversion.

JEFFY: Conversion.

STU: Yeah. I mean, I'm trying to think of a good example of one. But there's been many of those stories, where the person comes out and at first advocates for the wrong side of the policy. And then history proves that they wound up being on the right side in the end because they converted in the middle and took a tough stand and couldn't believe what they previously had stood for. That's this story.

PAT: Right.

STU: It's just a policy they don't like, so almost no one knows it. And --

PAT: You're right. She would be celebrated. I mean, there would have been many, many major motion picture movies released about her.

JEFFY: What's interesting that too is that she began her conversion just by talking, you know, out back, smoking a graduate with the people that were against it next door. Didn't have anything to do with burning cars, throwing signs, hollering, dragging crosses across the street. It was just --

PAT: Killing abortion clinic doctors. None of that extremism.

JEFFY: Right. None of that. None of that.

PAT: How old was she?

STU: She was only 69. And she was in an assisted living facility.

JEFFY: At 69?

STU: Yeah, really -- really sad. Because, you know, was an important voice. The voice, really.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And an incredible thing -- an incredible turn of events. And I still think to this day -- and I've said it before on the air that I think this is going to be looked back in whatever -- 100, 200 years -- I don't know what the time line is, as the slavery of our day. The type of thing that people who believe and advocated for it will be trashed by future generations, the way they trashed the Founders for having slaves. And, again, a lot of that is unfair. And you have to view it in the period of the -- you know, you have to view it in the context of the time where it occurs. But it's the type of thing that will be so unthinkable, particularly as technology advances.

We're to the point now -- we showed a video on Pat and Stu the other day of a new type of ultrasound.

Thank you, Jeffy.

A new type of ultrasound where you can see the baby doing baby things. This is not like it's blurry and you can kind of see the face. They had the 3D ultrasounds that came out, you know, within the last, what? Fifteen years. And now they're kind of common. You can get them. They're more expensive.

But it's like to the point of basically you see the baby playing and turning around and doing all sorts of things that you'd recognize from a baby. And this is at 20 weeks.

JEFFY: Yep.

STU: This technology is going to prove to people that this is a crazy process.

PAT: And you think, wow, that's an active piece of broccoli in there.

STU: No, it's not broccoli, Pat. No, it's going to be a baby. Yeah, it's a baby.

PAT: Wow.

JEFFY: My heart must be working on that carburetor for that Buick moving around.

STU: No, it's not a Buick. It's not a Buick. It's a baby.

PAT: Are you sure?

STU: And over time, technology is working against the, quote, unquote, pro-choice argument here. The more we see these little pieces of broccoli as babies, the harder it is for people to justify this decision.

PAT: Yeah. And it's interesting because Beyonce is being celebrated right now because she's so very, very pregnant. And she's not pregnant with tissue or a Buick. She's pregnant with twin babies. Babies. And they've said it. And she says it. And, well, okay. Then how is it that nobody else is pregnant with babies? They're pregnant with tissue or a fetus or you don't want to say the word.

JEFFY: It's really strange that she's --

PAT: It's a weird phenomenon.

JEFFY: I mean, Beyonce is celebrated for -- because, well, she's the queen. But, I mean, over the past few years, they've really celebrated several -- numbers of celebrities for having babies, that it's this wonderful thing.

Like, what are you talking about?

STU: Well, and that's, of course, because they all know it's true.

PAT: Sure they do.

STU: They all know it.

PAT: They do.

STU: They all realize.

PAT: And that's why I cut them no slack for the time period. Because the time period is 2017. They know what's growing inside the woman and it's a human baby. They know that.

STU: Understood. However, I will say, it's a legal process. Society has decided --

PAT: Still.

STU: And really, the courts have decided that this is a legal process. So it should be viewed within that context. I think there are a lot of people who look -- you know, I'm not thinking about the thinkers. I'm not talking about people who are involved in this debate. You know, the debate as currently constructed is debating about whether it should be allowed before -- or excuse me, only before 20 weeks. I mean, there's -- we're talking -- we're giving you a five-month window to figure out whether or not you're going to keep this thing or not. And that's still considered too restrictive. It's not considered too restrictive in Europe. But it's too restrictive here. So that's completely different.

I think a lot of people who go to an abortion clinic, who grow up in a family where this is approved of, they just don't go into deep thought about it. It's a legal thing. They have a problem. They eliminate the problem.

And that is what -- you know, why it's important for us to continue blabbing about it. I mean, there have been hosts that have banned abortion talk on the air. We didn't talk about it all that often for a decent amount of this show's history. And we've talked about that before. It is important to talk about. It needs to be thought about.

You don't get the pass of, well, I don't know, it's legal, and it would solve my current problem as is. It needs to be considered thoughtfully.

JEFFY: And being against abortion is not hating women.

STU: No.

PAT: It's just the opposite. Just slightly over half of the people born will be women.

STU: Yeah, 27, 28 million would be alive under our policy.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: That would not be alive under the left's policy.

PAT: The hateful thing is to terminate all of those women, all of those females. That's the War on Women right there. You know, in Australia -- an Australian politician just said that -- because I guess in Queensland, Australia, they're -- it's still a criminal offense to have an abortion in some circumstances. And some MPs have said they won't support the legislation to decriminalize it. It's only lawful to prevent serious danger to the woman's physical or mental health.

But there's a politician saying that he believes these politicians owe women an explanation. It's a real cop out. If you're voting no, then you're saying it's appropriate for it to remain in the criminal code. Well, yeah, murder should remain in the criminal code.

And they're trying to make a big issue out of this. Because they're acting as if the women are the criminals, when the ones that are charged are the doctors. If you perform -- just like in this country, when there was -- when there was a criminal act involved in the abortion, it was the doctors that were held accountable, not the women.

STU: I see what you're saying. You're saying women can't be doctors.

PAT: Well, okay. Women doctors sometimes could be involved here.

(chuckling)

STU: Unbelievable.

You played that trick on me a few weeks ago. But, yeah, I mean, obviously that's the way it's typically enforced.

But, I mean, really, it's not -- while the legality issue is incredibly crucial. And, you know, when you have something that is -- violates a central tenet of this country being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, when you have something that so clearly violates that tenet, I can't -- it needs to be more than legal. Right? It's a situation where we wake up. We talked about this a while ago. In the 1950s, 45 percent of white people said, if a black person moved in next door to them, they'd move. Forty-five percent of white people in a poll said that.

JEFFY: What year was that?

STU: 1954. Mid-'50s.

Now that number -- well, and this is a number that's now 20 years old. I haven't seen an update for it because the poll I saw said only 1996 was the latest they did this. In 1996, it was 2 percent.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: From 45 to 2 percent. That's not because of law. That's not because they passed laws saying that black people must move next to white people.

It's because people -- white people over time realized how dumb their position was. Right? And they had a moral change of their heart, understanding the reality of the situation, which is that you shouldn't move out of your house if black people move in next door. It sounds silly.

JEFFY: It sure does.

STU: To say that now. Back then it was half of white people said that, almost. Forty-five -- and, you know, we know how difficult it is to deal with realtors and all the paperwork and all the craziness. This is not like I wouldn't go talk to my neighbor if he was black. This is, I would move. I would leave my home if a black person moved in next door. That number goes from 45 to 2 percent. Not because of law. Because people had a change of heart. Because people made convincing arguments over a long period of time. And right now, while it's a very split partisan issue, it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be that.

And, you know, a lot of people say, "Well, you know, you should be able to have it for X amount of time. And afterwards, you know, then it has to stop." The majority of the people say no to late terms. And that's good. But you need to be consistent here.

PAT: It's pretty close on abortion at all.

STU: Yeah, it's about split.

PAT: It's about split halfway down the country right now. It's almost 50/50. But I think it's 53/47. Something else. Right in there. So I think we have the momentum right now, and we just need to keep it.

STU: Yeah.

JEFFY: Good.

RADIO

Are Hamas and Palestine in the Book of Revelation?!

Is Hamas mentioned in the Bible? Does the Palestinian flag have a connection to a prophecy in the Book of Revelation? Glenn Beck speaks with filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza about his new film, “The Dragon’s Prophecy,” based on the book by Jonathan Cahn, that discusses these “coincidences.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Dinesh, welcome to the program, how are you?

DINESH: Glenn, it's a great pleasure. Thanks for having me.

GLENN: Oh, you're welcome. I watched your film last week, and I've got to tell you, it's -- it's frightening, and really powerful.

DINESH: Well, we begin, Glenn, as you know with putting you on a motorcycle with a GoPro, and you ride with Hamas into the Kibbutz. Hamas took this footage. Remarkably, not a lot of people have seen it. The Israel government, I think was reluctant to show it, except to a handful of journalists.

But it opens my film, and it has a bit of a graphic warning. But it's ten minutes of putting you right on the scene of October 7th, 2 years ago, and the film kind of takes off from there, to give you the widest significance that engages politics, but history, archaeology. And even as you mentioned, a hint of Biblical prophecy, so that the political is wedded into the moral of the spiritual.

GLENN: So let me play a trailer here from the movie. Here it is.

VOICE: So who are the Jews? Who are the Palestinians? Whose land is it really? Could the fate of the world, of humanity itself, be somehow tied to this place?

VOICE: The nation of Israel is a resurrected nation. So what if there was going to be a resurrection of another people, an enemy people of Israel? The Bible speaks about this whole war as a dragon, representing the enemy, attacking a woman, representing Israel.

VOICE: Civilian deaths on both sides represent victories on the part of the dragon.

VOICE: Hamas burned everything within their ability to maximize the civilian casualty.

VOICE: Came back to a land that was largely barren, and we brought it back alive, and we are going to keep it!

VOICE: The devil hates the Jewish people because they represent the existence of God!

VOICE: Because without that Jewish foundation, there is no Christianity.

GLENN: So let us -- go to the Dragons Prophecy here for a second. What is the case of the Dragons Prophecy?

DINESH: Glenn, in the Book of Revelation 12, there is a depiction of a dragon representing the devil, going to war against a woman, representing Israel. And the woman is pregnant, representing the Messiah. So this is the sort of spiritual backdrop. It's a confirmation of what people sometimes say, that underneath our political fight, there is a spiritual war. But people don't often ask, who is fighting? Like who are the combatants?

And the answer is, this is a war that has been raging between sort of God and the devil from the very beginning of time. And the provocative idea in the film is that the devil cannot overthrow God, and so the -- the devil tries to find out, what is it that God cares about? Let me ruin that!

So in Genesis 1, for example, why does the serpent target Adam and Eve? Adam and Eve have nothing to the devil, but the devil goes, "I want to ruin them, because this is God's cherished creation. If I can ruin them, I can get my revenge against God."

And I think for the same reason, the devil targets the Jews and the Christians. The Jews, because they are the original chosen people. And so the devil's agenda is really simple: Drive them out of their ancestral homeland from the river to the sea. And also, put a big Islamic victory arch right on top of their holiest sight, which is the site of the Solomonic Temple.

And then, of course, the Christians are, the Bible itself, refers to Christians as like spiritual Israelites. And so the Devil is like, I hate that too. I will persecute and harass and destroy the Christians no less than the Jews."

And, look, this is not just sort of idle Biblical speculation. You can see this happening right in front of us in the world today.

GLENN: Talk to me about the meaning of the word Hamas, Palestinians, where that came from. Can you take us through that a little bit?

DINESH: Yeah, this is the genius of Jonathan Khan and his book, The Dragon Prophesy. He points out that Hamas in Arabic means something like force or strength, but in Hebrew, interestingly, the -- the word means violence and destruction. And if you -- in Hebrew, it literally says things like, "Lord, save me from the men of Hamas, or Hamas dwells in the dark places of the earth."

GLENN: I had to go to my Bible to look it up.

It does say that. It does say that. It's crazy!

DINESH: Yes. Not only that, Glenn. But the four colors of the apocalypse, mentioned in the Book of Revelation, which reflects famine, death, and destruction. The white horse, the black horse, the green horse, the red horse.

Han points out. He goes, just take a look at the Palestinian flag. It's made up of four colors. Basically, white for the white horse. Red for the red horse. Black for the black horse. Green for the green horse. And all of this, I think, within -- if there's a single connection, you can be like, "Hmm. I don't know."

But there are so many of these connections out in the film.

GLENN: So many.

DINESH: That, ultimately, it's almost like, you have to sort of -- you have to step back and reconsider if you are even understanding what's happening in front of you, in the widest and sort of deepest possible light.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I don't know about, you know -- I haven't studied this, you know, enough. I just watched the movie once.

And it's worth watching. But you will go back to Scriptures, and you will look it up. It is worth pondering. Because it shows you, where we might be right now. And the battle that we're preparing for.

Which is a really terrifying thing. But I would rather know it, so I can be prepared for it.

You also -- you know, did a lot of archaeological stuff. What stood out to you in the research that you did?

DINESH: What stood out to me, Glenn, was that for 2000 years, and even more, there are figures that appear in the Bible, Pontius Pilate, Isaiah, Jeremiah. We're going for King David. We're talking now about three -- a thousand DC.

So 3,000 years ago. And even 30 or 40 years ago, if you said, prove to me that these figures are real. Prove to me, outside the Bible, using historical or archaeological evidence, you couldn't do it. Remarkably, just in the last few decades, there are conscriptions and stones and clay seals, coming out of the ground, that are showing that these Biblical figures are real, the Bible is an account of real people and true events. So you could dispute the theology of the Bible. You can question the miracle. But the historicity of the Bible is being resoundingly affirmed.

And it's almost as if the world has become more secular and pulled away from God, God is speaking back.

But not in the thunderous language of Genesis 1. You know, in the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. But rather, in the kind of prosaic language of science and archaeology.

GLENN: Yeah. It was really amazing. Because you don't think -- we live in our time. And so you don't think of the times that have come. David didn't exist.

You know, these stories are true. They didn't exist. And now we're finding all of the archaeological evidence, and we just -- at least I did. I just accepted, that, "Yeah. These -- the big things, we knew existed." No. No. We didn't. It's now just being proven now because of what we're finding in archaeological digs.

DINESH: Not only that, but for centuries, really for two centuries going back to the enlightenment, you have the armchair critics who would read the Bible and say, "Well, it looks to me, this was written several hundred years later."

But now we know that that can't be the case, because there are minor -- minor figures in the Bible. And, you know, the royal steward of King Josiah in, like, the 6th or 7th Century DC, and suddenly a seal comes out of the ground in Jerusalem and there's this name on the seal. Now, nobody 300 years later -- this is like asking for the names of interns who worked for Donald Trump. Hundreds of years from now. Who would possibly know their names and identities?

So this is why the Bible is being affirmed, even at the level of excruciating detail.

GLENN: The fact that everyone said that Pontius Pilate didn't exist. And the stair that has his name carved into it, 2000 years ago, that was discovered.

It's those things that you're like, "I mean, how do you deny some of this stuff now?"

I mean, it's just piling up.

DINESH: It's -- it's utterly impossible. And then we are in Jerusalem, and we go up to this place called Sheillo, in the middle part of Israel, and we find these remarkable red heifers. I've read the book about the red heifers. This has to do with the fact that in the end times, the dome of the rock will come down. The Jewish Temple -- the Solomonic Temple will be rebuilt, and some of the rabbis are actually preparing for temple services, which involve the ashes of a red heifer.

So all of this is not just interpretations. You have people in Jerusalem. And in Israel, actually preparing for this. In a practical way.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

In fact, one of the things that they said. Let me take a break. And have you come back and answer this. One of the things they said.

Because we were talking about the red rest offers two years ago.

And they were talking about maybe making, you know, red heifers into ashes to prepare.

And Hamas said, at the time, that's one of the reasons why they -- they went after on October 7th, was because of the red heifers. And you go into that. And what they really call October 7th.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Great Reset Elites are Planning a Post-Human Future | Whitney Webb | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 269

Global elites are still pushing forward with their Great Reset agenda to enslave the world and create a post-human future despite President Trump’s crushing of ESG and DEI, researcher and author Whitney Webb tells Glenn. In her long-awaited return to "The Glenn Beck Podcast," Whitney explores the intricate web of global elites, including the World Economic Forum’s downfall under Klaus Schwab and current state under Larry Fink as well as the rise of digital IDs and AI-driven governance like Albania’s “digital minister.” Whitney also discusses the tools she believes the Great Reset elites are building to control us, including the Biden-era ARPA-H program and possible surveillance tech tied to Palantir and the CIA. Further, Whitney ties the globalists’ agenda to the chaos happening in cities like Chicago and Portland and what Trump must be wary of when deploying the National Guard. Plus, as a leading expert in the financial crimes and corrupt connections of Jeffrey Epstein, Whitney weighs in on the debate over the “black book” and why the government still hasn’t released all the Epstein documents.

You can read Whitney Webb's latest reporting on the Epstein case HERE: https://unlimitedhangout.com/author/w...

RADIO

“HE HURT GIRLS”: High school athlete who REFUSED to play against an adult man speaks out

Frances Staudt is a high school athlete in Washington state who refused to play against a team with a trans player – clearly an adult man. She joins Glenn Beck to speak out: “In NO WAY am I feeling like I’m…‘safe and supported.’” She also joins to discuss the civil rights complaint filed on her behalf to the Department of Education.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to read something from Francis Stout. She posted -- she's 16 years old. She lives in Washington State. This evening, as a young female athlete in the United States of America. I was actively silenced for standing up for my own safety and belief.

During the Tumwater High School girl's basketball game on February 6, 2025, a biological male from Shelton High School, opposing team was brutalizing my teammates, using his biological -- his biological advantage, clearly and intentionally overpowering his competition.

I made the decision to sit out one of my very last basketball games of the season because I refuse now and forever to compete against any biological sport that I play.

I was incredibly distraught at the fact that nobody would step in on our behalf, including the staff, coaches, referees, and parents from both sides.

This is due to the sheer fact that in our society, we have been pushed to be silent. And bow down to the demands to accept what we know to be untrue.

When I became visibly upset and angry.

I was met with allegations of discrimination, as well as threats made by other players, and a grown man who was tasked with serving my school district.

The principal and athletic director who stood in front of parents, and the students claiming to care about our students' bodies, their beliefs, and feelings, but they certainly did not care about mine tonight. This is far from over.

It has a fueled a passion in me, to speak out and go against the wrongdoing that is still happening to female athletes in this great country.

Isn't it ironic that just yesterday, national girls in Women's Sports Day was the day that President Trump signed the no men in women's sports executive order. And here I am, the very next day, having to deal with such an injustice.

That has caused so much emotional distress in my life. I will never not stand up for myself, or my ability to speak out and protect my safety, as a female athlete. Sixteen years old from Tumwater, Washington. It's Francis Stout.

Hello, Francis.

FRANCIS: Hello. Thank you so much for having me on the show. It's not lost on me, the significance of speaking with you today.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh, thank you. So, Francis, you were -- you were not notified. Nobody was notified. You just go to this game. And you see somebody who you describe as obviously a male.

FRANCIS: Yes.

GLENN: Why do you say that? And tell me the intimidation tactics, or the brutalization tactics, if you will, that you felt he was doing.

FRANCIS: Well, I feel it is obvious from any stand, where he would have stood out on the court. He was warming up and stretching, looking around, dancing with the girls on his team.

It is obvious there's clear biological differences between girls and boys.

GLENN: Okay. Yeah.

FRANCIS: And you could see just by everything. And lots of -- there's a lot of just roughness on the court. And pushing girls down.

And nothing that a normal girl on my team or the other team, would have really been able to do.

Very harsh and just, it was a very clear difference.

GLENN: So you go and say, I will sit this game out. Or I can't play. Because I don't feel safe on the court. Is that correct?

FRANCIS: Yes, that's correct.

GLENN: What was the response at the time?

FRANCIS: At the time, people looked and, "oh, whatever." Just asked me, "Oh, are you sure you don't want to play? It's not that big of a deal." I got told by a lot of people, "It isn't that big of a deal, it doesn't matter. Nothing is going to happen, and you're just looking for attention."

GLENN: Jeez.

FRANCIS: Every sort of thing you could hear from people.

GLENN: Right.

FRANCIS: But it was only after I got upset after seeing him hurt girls on my team, and also take away from my ability to play because I feared for my own safety, that people really started having issues.

GLENN: Yeah. And what -- when you got upset, what happened?

FRANCIS: So I went and tried to talk to the principal of Tumwater, Zach Shuderman (phonetic), and I told him, "This is wrong. Why are you not protecting me and my rights to play, and my own sport? And why are you not putting a stop to this? It's clearly wrong. It is a violation of my own privacy and safety, that you have told every single person at that school, that you care about."

But you -- he did absolutely nothing to help me. He told me, "That it was discrimination against the boy -- and the man, actually, eighteen years old."

GLENN: That's what he said?

He said, "The man?"

FRANCIS: Yes. He said -- he said, "I'm not going to misgender, quote, unquote, this individual."

GLENN: Hmm. Okay.

He's also said, and maybe it's not the principal, maybe it's the superintendent, "As a district, we remain committed to fostering an inclusive environment where all students feel safe, supported, and valued."

Do you feel safe, supported, or valued?

FRANCIS: That is a very easy answer: Absolutely not.

There is -- in no way, am I feeling like I'm supported. I have had -- when I was 15 years old, the 18-year-old man was in my own locker room.

That is quite the opposite of safe and supported, that I should be able to feel.

There's a man -- or, boy in the girl's locker room right now at Tumwater High School that they're still doing nothing about, telling girls that they can go somewhere else to change, if they feel uncomfortable. They only care about a certain protected class, and it clearly is not the girls who just want their own privacy and safety.

GLENN: So now, a lawsuit has been lodged against you. The Foundation against Intolerance and Racism filed a civil rights complaint, to the Department of Education.

FRANCIS: Yes, on our behalf.

GLENN: On your behalf.

FRANCIS: It was filed.

GLENN: Thank God. I read that. How is that possible? On your behalf.

FRANCIS: However -- yeah, I was investigated, however, by the WIAA in the Tumwater School District for harassment and bullying for, quote, unquote, misgendering the man, saying that he was a man, who was apparently bullying and harassment. And that is what happened.

I -- but myself and my family was the one who filed the complaint.

GLENN: Well, I'm -- I'm glad. Because I was having a hard time understanding how our DOJ was -- was not standing up for your civil rights on this, especially since the president has made it very clear.

FRANCIS: Yes.

GLENN: Can you give me any update on where this stands, and where this is headed?

FRANCIS: So we're still waiting to hear back. We filed it a little bit ago. And still waiting for news. We have hope, that it will be in our favor. And I am very much looking to seeing where it can take us. And, yeah, I am hoping that it will be all good.

GLENN: Francis, I have to tell you, you give me an awful lot of hope.

FRANCIS: Thank you.

GLENN: I think we treat our children as little kids. You know, you hit 16 years old, back in the old days, back in the old days, I mean, older than me -- you know, our Founders were in their 20s and 30s, you know. Thomas Jefferson I think was 30.

They were expected to do more. And we just say, "Oh, your childhood. Your childhood?

Yeah, there is something about keeping childhood sacred, and keeping childhood as safe as possible. But you are a great example of what 16-year-olds should be like. You should know what your rights are, what your responsibilities are. Why you believe certain things that you do, if you're passionate about them. Obviously, you're passionate about this.

And make the case. You give me an awful lot of hope, Francis.

FRANCIS: I very much appreciate that. While I can not tell you how much I -- as I mentioned in my speech last Saturday, this is the Turning Point of America, and I was an incredible fan of Charlie Kirk. I think he was an amazing man, and I think he's given me a voice to speak out.

And given me courage. And I think that it's important, although we're young, to speak up for what we believe in.

It's important I have those values. And still by my family as well. And my parents.

And I think it's very important, he did not die in vain. I think that we need to make our country proud, and we are going to be the future of America. And we need to start acting like that. And we need to speak up for what we believe in, and what is right. And know good and evil.

GLENN: Do you have any friends in Washington state. Because I grew up in Washington State.

I know what it's like. Your family. Is it just you guys? Are you just alone in Washington State?

Because you're amazing. But it --

FRANCIS: Thank you.

GLENN: But it must not be very popular to be you and your family in Washington State.

FRANCIS: Well, no. You see all around, there's people who disagree.

But we have a close group. It really shows you, who your close friends are. And who is there for you.

But it is definitely not the majority in Washington State, of what me and my family believe in.

But this isn't over. And I think that we can make a change. And I think people need to have their eyes opened. And realize, that there's clearly something wrong. And I think people can be very oblivious to the fact of that.

But there's -- it is a pretty small majority, especially in Washington State, as you can probably --

GLENN: Oh, yeah, I know it quite well.

The -- do you have any friends that disagree with you, that are still standing with you as a friend?

FRANCIS: I don't really have many friends who have told me, they disagree. I've been called a lot of names. I've lost a lot of friends over it.

But I don't have many friends who disagree with.

I think it's really sad, because they've been told by so many people, that they are right. And people who disagree with them, are automatically horrible people.

And especially telling people that, oh, this isn't happening. Kids are believing him, and parents are believing him.

And so they think that I'm just wrong and looking for attention. And I've been called for -- just the other day. I got called a transphobe in the hallway by this kid that I used to be friends with. And said hi to every day.

And I walked by. And got yelled at. And it's sad. It really is.

GLENN: Yeah. You sound smart enough to know, there are easier ways to get attention.

Right?

FRANCIS: Exactly. Yes.

GLENN: Thank you so much for everything you're doing.

Please keep me informed.

Keep us up-to-date. We want to follow the story.

If there's anywhere we can help. Just know you're not alone. And it will be people like you, that will be remembered some day.

It's the people who did the things they didn't necessarily want to do, that didn't make them possible. In fact, made them a target. You, but they had -- they had the faith in go bigger than themselves, they knew they had a responsibility. And they stood.

Those are the kinds of people that actually make it into the history books. Not the one that walked through the crowd, as you were walking the lie, who said, you're a transphobe.

That person is never going to be remembered in history. You will be. So thank you. Keep it up.

FRANCIS: We truly appreciate that. And it means more than you know. From the bottom of our heart. I appreciate this opportunity, in speaking to you. And I will not forget what you said. That means a lot.

GLENN: Thanks a lot, Francis. God bless you.

RADIO

The enemy Israel faces today threatens US tomorrow

There is a grave danger brewing in America, Glenn Beck warns, and it revolves around the Israel/Hamas debate. So, he sets the record straight on where he stands and why he believes the survival of Western civilization is on the line: "The enemy that Israel is currently facing today will be the enemy that the free world will face tomorrow."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want you to really hear me carefully.

There is a grave, the brave danger that is building.

And I want to talk toy about it. I saw it last night, with my own eyes. In a very small number.

I want to make this really clear. Very small number of students. I saw it last night. And I want to talk to you about it. But, first, let me set it up with this. So Christopher Rufo wrote: On the right, many supporters of Israel -- I think that would be you and me. Many supporters of Israel -- because I'm a supporter -- including prominent Republican politicians argue that America has a theological duty to support the Jewish state. Now, I think personally for me, I feel that's true. But what does that mean, exactly? I'll get into it, in a minute. Their view is based on a complex interpretation of Bible prophecy. As a Catholic, I find it mystifying. As a political analyst, I find it unconvincing. Analyst, sorry.

The other supporters would like to shut down critical analysis of the war altogether. Equating criticism of Israel, with anti-Semitism and suggesting those who question the wisdom of America's support should be welcome in polite society. I want you to know, at the outset, absolutely wrong.

Because you disagree with Israel, does not make you an anti-Semite. It doesn't. It doesn't.

It makes you a thinking human being, honestly. These moves might have been effective in the past, but not so much anymore.

Instead of theological or shame-based approaches, friends of Israel must frame their arguments in terms of national interest.

One hundred percent right! One hundred percent right!

We need to understand our national interests. So hear me out on this: So you know, I have received the defender of Israel award from Benjamin Netanyahu years ago. I was just named by the Jerusalem post as the number one Christian supporter of Israel in America.

So I'm kind of known as -- I guess as a Zionist. Okay?

I believe that Israel has a right to exist, and the Jewish people have a right to live. Somehow or another, you get awards for saying that.

But I want you to understand something. My support is not blind loyalty, nor is it anything that is -- makes me Israel first.

It doesn't. God first, America second. Israel is in the pile of everything else. Okay?

My first citizenship, is to the kingdom of Christ. My second citizenship, is to America. I will do nothing that will violate my citizenship, my passport to the kingdom of God.

And I certainly won't violate things for my first citizenship, to save my second citizenship. But that's the rank of my citizenship. God first, America, right behind it. And the earthly sense, America first, okay?

No loyalty to the government of Israel. In fact, there's many things I don't like about the government of Israel. But you know what, I'm not a citizen. I don't vote. And I don't have to worry about their laws.

When it comes to war, I want nothing to do with that foreign war. Or, quite honestly, almost any foreign war. Pragmatism I'm tired of paying for it. I'm tired of our blood being shed. I want nothing to do. That's not my support of Israel or the Jewish people. It -- what is required when we talk about these things, is Israel's -- Israel's existence is not just about their national survival. It is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is the only -- lone beacon in the Middle East, that is standing against radical Islam. They're the only ones. They're the number one target of radical Islam.

Now, look at what's happening in the Middle East right now. Those countries that we used to think of as having real radical ties, now Saudi Arabia, they're actually saying, you know what, we can actually co-exist.

That's what's necessary. Coexistence in the Middle East. As long as we have a reason -- as long as we believe we each have a reason to live, and we have a right to live, we can solve any problem. We can solve any problem.

They are facing Islamist evil. And that evil is the same evil that wishes to dismantle our civilization and our country! And it's happening in our own country. My support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics. A people's moral and historic right to their homeland and to their right to live in peace. That's it. And I would say that to anybody. If the Gazans wanted their own land and say, because this is a two-state solution. That's been offered to them, over and over and over again.

But it wasn't river to the sea. Which is the definition of wipeout all of the Jews. No Jews in this land. Okay?

You want to share? I'm totally fine with that. But I can't -- I couldn't. We wouldn't put up with a neighbor who is constantly saying and trying to kill you.

So when it comes to politics. I believe Israel has a right to defense herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction. But I'm not going to fight that.

I don't agree with everything that Israel has done. But what difference does that make? Because I'm not making for our dollars or our blood to be spent. I just say, "Everybody has a right to live."

But let me make it personal, if -- if somebody told me, over and over and over and over again, that they wanted to kill me and my entire family, that I didn't have a right to exist. That I was the source of all evil in the world, and then acted on that threat, over and over again. Do you believe that I would have a right to defend myself? If I couldn't get anybody in the world to listen and stand with me, and I had to do it all myself, would I have a right to -- to take action in response to them?

Remember, I believe nature's law gives us a lot of stuff.

If I walk into a bear cave and mama and the cubs are in there, I think the bear has a right to maul me to death. Because it senses trouble. Now, that's an animal, but if I go in and I'm hunting those cubs, Mom does have a right to kill me.

But that would assume that she had any kind of intellect. Humans have intellect.

If Hamas were Canada and we were Israel.

And Hamas, Canada, did to us, what we did to Israel, answer this question honestly: Would there be a single building left standing north of our border today?

If they came and raped the same percentage. Killed, slaughtered. Set our babies on fire, do you think that we wouldn't have crippled Canada right now?

And no matter what anybody said, you think we would stop until that threat stopped!

That's not a question of morality. That's just the truth. All people, everybody has a God-given right to protect themselves, period. And Israel is doing that, in the way they feel is right. You can argue with that. And you can disagree vehemently with the way they're fighting the war. My support for Israel's right to finish the fight against Hamas, comes after 80 years of rejected peace offerings.

Two failed state solutions.

Hamas has not hidden its mission. Hamas says, it's the eradication of Israel.

That's not a political agreement. That's not a reasonable disagreement. In my book, it's not a land dispute.

That's -- that's a nihilist.

That's people who -- who -- who are actually calling for genocide, and proudly calling for wiping out of all the Jews.

Okay. Do I believe that America should be in that fight? No. Do believe that that should be in our national interest? Yes.

To support the people who are standing up against what will be our, possibly, last foreign war, as Jefferson said. Islamists believe, if you listen to what is being said in Dearborn, they are planning on Sharia law here in America.

That is -- that will wipe everything of the West out, and they are moving in to our countries.

I have no problem with Muslims. I have a big problem with Islamists, and there's a huge difference. What we saw on October 7th was the face of evil. Women and children slaughtered. And beyond that, even the Nazis tried to hide it. Okay? The Nazis, they knew the rest of the world would not approve. These people were proud of it. We've played the tapes for you. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped. Dragged through the streets.

And now, we see people defending that evil, in our own country!

That is nothing short of a moral collapse! That is probably the greatest danger that we have, is this -- is this ideology that says, "If I disagree with you, I can kill you."

The -- the confusion of, I disagree with Israel the way they're fighting a war, and so I'm going to say, "I support Hamas, because the Jews are always wrong. The Jews are lying. And I don't believe any of those videotapes because it was probably Jewish propaganda." That's moral collapse. If the chants in the street were Hamas, give up the hostages, don't ever do anything for that again. And Israel, for the love of Pete, stop the bombing, I would be totally cool. Totally cool.

Because that's reasonable. But that's not what we hear. We hear open sympathy for genocidal hatred. That is a chasm that has opened up in our society, and it's not just a chasm opening up, you know, from decency, but from humanity itself. And that's where the danger lies. The same hatred that we saw in the 1930s, that I predicted would happen again in about 2008, that we would see it in our vetoes. That hatred is taking root here, in Dearborn, in Minnesota, in London, in Paris.

And not as horror, but heroism. And if we're not vigilant, the enemy that Israel is currently facing today, will be the enemy that the free world will face tomorrow.

That's not about politics. That is truth. It's not -- it's -- it's about having the courage to call evil by its name. And say, that doesn't happen. Never again, not in the future. That doesn't happen.

You don't have to open a Bible to believe or understand this. You don't. But if you do, if you're a believer, then the issue cuts much, much deeper. And I opened an op-ed on this. And I will be publishing on GlennBeck.com, that goes deeper into that. But I don't expect you to believe the Bible or believe what I believe. I believe it's a very strong case, good versus evil here. Or right versus wrong, if that's the way you want to phrase it.

And national interests. If you look at what the world is headed towards. This -- this is not just about Israel's right to exist.

This is about whether we still know the difference between right and wrong. Good and evil.

Life and death cults.

It's about, do we have the courage to stand for the principles, that God outlined?

And that's not, you're going to inherit the land, or any of that crap. The principles of, you can live, I believe you have a right because you just like me, are a beloved child of God. That's what it is. And if we can't -- if we don't have the courage to make the case and -- and we're trying to convince people, just to blindly follow, because God says. God expects to us kick into reason. God expects us to think things through. And God expects us to disagree. And if we can't do those things, if we won't do those things, then the question is not will Israel survive?

The question is: Will we survive?

Glenn's Show Prep

The Legacy of Jane Roe and the Landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Case That Changed America

Are Hamas and Palestine in the Book of Revelation?!

Transcript

Great Reset Elites are Planning a Post-Human Future | Whitney Webb | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 269

“HE HURT GIRLS”: High school athlete who REFUSED to play against an adult man speaks out

Transcript

The enemy Israel faces today threatens US tomorrow

Transcript