Matt Walsh Slams the UK Over the Case of Charlie Gard, 'Every Life Is of Infinite Value'

July 06, 2017

WRITER

The story of Charlie Gard is a heartwrenching and tragic tale of what socialzed medicince has to offer. Matt Walsh is a Blaze contributor and author of the article that shed light on this story in America on an issue that has divided England for months and he joined Glenn on radio Thursday to dig a little deeper on the issues.

"Slate has written an article, 'the right is turning the Charlie Gard tragedy into a case against single-payer health care. It's just the opposite.' That's their headline. First of all, is this not a case against single-payer health care?" Glenn asked.

This should be a simple and easy case to resolve but this is the huge pitfall of single payer healthcare.

"This is a very basic, no-brainer case, that the parents should be able to go get treatment for the child, period. There's no other way of looking at it. There's no other way that a sane person can look at it. But, second, that's the whole point. This is what we're trying to avoid, this idea of weighing the one against the many. It's health care, it's not supposed to be that way. We don't look at Charlie Gard and say, 'Well, let's weigh him against 1,000 people,'" Walsh said.

"He is one individual. Every life is of infinite value. And that's how all those lives -- all of them should be treated when they're in the hospital. Certainly, parents should have the right to treat their own children's lives that way."

GLENN: Matt Walsh. One of the clearest thinkers available today. And that's saying something because there are not a lot of clear thinkers out there. They're hard to find.

Matt Walsh, you'll find at TheBlaze.com. He's got a book out, The Unholy Trinity: Blocking the Left's Assault on Life, Marriage, and Gender. Make sure you pick it up if you're a fan of Matt Walsh. Make sure you grab the book. And also, you can find him at TheBlaze.com.

Matt, welcome to the program.

MATT: Hey, Glenn, thanks for having me.

GLENN: So you were the one who has really brought this story to the attention of -- of America, the Charlie Gard story, the story of this 11-month-old child who has been fighting for his life against the socialized medicine situation in England for months. I -- I can tell you why they're not covering it here in America. How are they covering it over in England?

MATT: Over there, it's been, as you said, for months, it's been -- it's been -- you know, the story has been all over the place. The parents have been all over their, you know, kind of prime time shows. And it's been sort of like what the Schiavo case was here, in terms of just the intensity of coverage.

GLENN: Are they as divided as we were with Schiavo?

MATT: Yeah. From my reading of the situation, they're just as divided. And it kind of cuts down the same lines. Although, I think in Europe you may have fewer who are sort of on the pro-life side than you do here, although we don't have that many here anymore too.

GLENN: Well, I don't remember if you remember this, Matt. But, Pat, play the audio clip. This is from a few years ago on like their breakfast show on the BBC. This is a guest, and they're talking about socialized medicine and what to do with undesirable children. Listen to this.

VOICE: This may strike your listeners as way out --

GLENN: No, this is not it.

VOICE: And I think if I were a mother of a suffering child, I would be the first to want -- I mean, a deeply suffering child, I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face.

PAT: Good golly.

VOICE: And I think the difference is that my feeling of horror, suffering, is much greater than my feeling of getting rid of a couple of cells, because suffering can go on for years.

GLENN: Whoa.

VOICE: I'm sorry. We're just about to introduce another guest there, but that's a pretty horrifying thing to say.

VOICE: What?

PAT: What?

VOICE: That you would put the pillow over the --

VOICE: Of course I would. If it was a child I really loved that was in agony, I think any good mother would.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Wow.

Matt, where is this coming from?

MATT: Now, that you played that, I do remember that. And that is -- just the idea that you're going to kill your own child out of love. This idea of killing out of love -- it's not any different than you hear these horrifying cases of mentally disturbed mothers. What about Andrea Yates who drowned her five kids in a bathtub and did it because she loved them? How is that any different?

It's no different. So once you start going down this train, that's where it heads. But where it comes from, we know all across the West, it's just a fundamental inability some people have to recognize that life is sacred, to recognize that life has inherent value. So you start seeing -- they see someone and they say, "Oh, they're suffering. They're disabled. Or they're poor," or they've got these other external factors that make their life less desirable. Well, you might as well get rid of them. Because there's no reason to keep them around.

So there's this kind of, like, utilitarian, materialistic view of life. That, as long as it's useful, as long as it's pleasurable, as long as it's convenient to those around it and to itself, then we keep it around. But once that ends, then we get rid of it. And it's just a -- it's a -- that's what I tried to explain when I wrote about it.

Once you've put yourself on that side of the argument -- and this is not hyperbole, you have put yourself on the same side of all of the worst people in the history of the earth. And all of the worst atrocities that have ever been committed, have always been committed with that kind of thinking. So you place yourself on that side. And good luck to you in that case.

GLENN: So, Matt, do you find any cause of concern? Have you read what the pope actually said, not just the release, but -- or the newspaper account from it, but what he actually -- the entire thing?

MATT: Yeah. Well, this is the story with the Vatican. At first, the -- you know, the Vatican comes out with a statement that all but explicitly endorses the courts and the hospital and takes their side in it, which was horrifying. I mean, I couldn't -- as cynical as I am, especially about this pope sometimes, I couldn't even -- I couldn't believe that. I couldn't believe that they actually did that.

Because we need -- we need the Vatican and the Catholic church to be pro-life, to be -- it's been one of the only pro-life institutions left standing. The idea that that would go away, to me, especially as a Catholic, I just couldn't stomach it. But then the pope comes out -- he sends out kind of a vague tweet. And then he comes out and he says that we need to support the child. And the Vatican offers to take the child into the Vatican Hospital, which, of course, the other hospital declines that.

But it's the same story. Where there's kind of conflicted messages. And obviously Pope Francis doesn't have control of what's going on there. But to me, it's still not enough. I need the pope to come out in stronger language and actually -- I know he doesn't like doing this kind of thing. But he needs to. Actually condemn --

GLENN: He condemns capitalism -- he condemns a lot of things. But he did not condemn the snuffing out of this child's life. And here's what he said: The complexity of the situation and the heart rendering pain of the parents and the efforts of so many to determine what is best for Charlie, we have to acknowledge we do sometimes, have to recognize the limitations of what can be done in modern medicine.

Well, where is the talk about, you know, the sanctity of all life? Where is the talk about miracles?

I mean, I don't understand this. We would stop all cancer treatment, except for the most benign of cancers. We would be doing experiments with people who are in stage four cancer. We would just say, you know what, let's accept the limits of modern medicine.

If we stop trying to save lives, medicine stops moving forward. Doesn't it?

MATT: Yeah. Well, it defeats the entire purpose of medicine. But that's the problem, once you introduced as we have in the last -- once you've introduced abortion and you introduce euthanasia -- and keep in mind, that in Europe, in some countries in Europe, you can get euthanasia -- even if you're not terminally ill, they give euthanasia to alcoholics, depressives, to children. So they're just getting rid of everybody on both ends of the spectrum over there, and it's completely perverted the whole concept of medicine, which is always to do no harm. Hippocratic oath. To always treat and heal and do what you can.

And that's the thing that's so horrifying, that the Vatican missed this aspect. Not just -- you know, it's bad enough that they didn't say enough on the sanctity of life issue of it, but this is -- the fundamental issue here is that the parents have their own money. And they just want to take what was donated to them -- they just want to take the kid, bring them to America, and just try, try something, rather than just letting him die. I mean, of course, any parent would want to do that if they had the means to do it. So this is just -- it's just -- I'm speechless.

GLENN: Slate has written an article: The right is turning the Charlie Gard tragedy into a case against single-payer health care. It's just the opposite. That's their headline.

And, first of all, is this not a case against single-payer health care? Even though these -- these parents have the money, once you're trapped into that system, that system must be absolute. You can't let people make their own decisions. So it must be absolute.

Is that not the only reason why they're not allowing this child to leave the hospital? Because the state must have control and be able to say, "I have the control of God over life and death and what you do once you check into our system." It's hotel California.

MATT: Yeah, this is all about -- of course. That's Slate for you, always missing the point. But that's -- of course, this -- it's about single-payer health care and it's about the sanctity of life. Those are the two issues that this is about, and about parental rights too. So those are the three. And it's all linked, of course. And the issue is: Who should have the final say on these kinds of medical decisions? Should it be the patient or the patient's caregiver, the parent, or should it be the state? Those -- that's the question. When it comes down to it, who decides what kind of treatment is given and which lives are worth saving?

And in a single-payer health care system, of course, it will be given control over to the government, so the government is going to make those decisions. Because it's all about efficiency. And it's all about, well, let's not waste our time or precious resources on this life that's going to die anyway, which is a really troubling way of looking at it. Because, hey, we're all going to die anyway. Like you pointed out, Glenn, cancer. I mean, there are many kinds of cancer that can be treated. But it probably will shorten your life span, even if you get past the first bout of it. I mean, there are many diseases like that.

So once you start traveling down this road, it goes to some really dark places. And it's astounding to me that so many people fail to see that because it's so obvious to me.

GLENN: Matt Walsh, the author of the article that I believe was the first article really to bring this to light in America, the story of Charlie Gard.

Slate writes -- and just think about what you just said, Matt. Slate writes: The right will raise the specter of death panels, which you just said, who makes the decision of who lives or who dies? Which is exactly what's happening. These outlets have turned one hard case into a sweeping referendum on the inherent justice and effectiveness of socialized medicine.

It's as if the death of one child matters, but the death of thousands is the cost of reform. Or as if intervening in one complex and tragic case is heroic, but building a system that would prevent the suffering of many is more intolerable overreach. How do you respond?

MATT: Well, that is -- first of all, I don't want to get too sidetracked. But this is not a hard case. This is not a hard case. This is a very basic, no-brainer case, that the parents should be able to go get treatment for the child, period. There's no other way of looking at it. There's no other way that a sane person can look at it. But, second, that's the whole point. This is what we're trying to avoid, this idea of weighing the one against the many. It -- health care, it's not supposed to be that way. We don't look at Charlie Gard and say, "Well, let's weigh him against 1,000 people."

He is one individual. Every life is of infinite value. And that's how all those lives -- all of them should be treated when they're in the hospital. Certainly, parents should have the right to treat their own children's lives that way.

And so we don't want to get into a situation where the government is coming in and sort of -- they have their formulas and their statistics, and they kind of have everybody on a spreadsheet. And they decide, "Well, let's emphasize this life over that one." We don't want to do that at all. That's the whole point -- we're trying to avoid that.

So that's why you allow individuals to make the decisions. And you allow the free market to reign, so that we don't have these kinds of weighing this against that. Because it shouldn't be. There's no reason for it to be that way. There's no reason we should have to weigh Charlie Gard's life against anything else because the parents have the money and they just want to get him treatment. And so they should be able to do it. That's it. We don't look at anything else or any other situations. They should be able to do what they want to do and have the resources and capability to do it.

GLENN: Matt, thank you very much. You can follow Matt at TheBlaze. Also, follow him at Matt Walsh Blog. And look for his podcast at SoundCloud.com. Matt Walsh.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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.

Glenn's Show Prep