Charlie Gard Case Now Hinges on Doctor's Opinion, But Still Not Parents' Wishes

The parents of Charlie Gard received some very good news after a U.S. doctor was allowed to examine their son and his medical records. A brain scan done will determine whether Charlie will receive experimental therapy that could save his life. However, even if the therapy works, Charlie will still never live a normal life.

"This has never really been about whether there's going to be some miracle cure for this poor kid," Co-host Stu Burguiere said.

The real issue remains who has the final say in whether Charlie lives or dies and what kind of treatment he has access to.

"As long as the hospital doesn't pay, it truly is nobody else's business --- none. Because if they want to spend $2 million and prolong the child's life for a month, they have a right to do that," Glenn said.

GLENN: Hey, we have some really good news on Charlie Gard today. Charlie Gard's parents remain optimistic following a brain scan that will determine whether he'll have this experimental therapy. The scan took place at, GOSH, the great Ormond Street Hospital, where a US professor of neurosurgery examined the 11-month-old boy yesterday.

The -- while they were studying the scan and other medical records, they have not yet decided whether they feel the boy could benefit from the treatment. But the doctor from America spent about four and a half hours inside the hospital on Monday. Hospital said there was an honorary contract in place, meaning that for the duration of the visit of the doctor, he had the same rights as one of the hospital's own doctor. He was given full access to Charlie's medical records, hospital and clinical facilities, including diagnostic images. Meetings between the American neurosurgeon and the other medical experts are due to continue on Tuesday.

What happens if they -- what happens if this doctor says, yeah, I'm not optimistic. It's different than I thought?

PAT: I think it could be really bad. That would probably end it.

GLENN: Where do we stand? I mean, I still stand for life. But how do you make that case now to a socialized hospital?

PAT: Let them go to the Vatican.

STU: Well, yeah. There's no reason that they can't go anywhere else and get treatment. Even if the tests show that there's nothing going on there, there's no risk. The person is going to die anyway. Why not try the treatment?

PAT: Yeah.

STU: It's at their expense. I could understand the socialized hospital saying, "You know, no, we're not going to do these expensive tests."

GLENN: Right.

PAT: Fine. Do it somewhere else.

STU: And be -- let them go to somebody else. Again, this has never really been about whether there's going to be some miracle cure for this poor kid --

GLENN: It's about whether you have the right to have a hospital tell you you're going to do to die.

STU: Do parents have the right to be able to bring their kid to the facility of their choice for medical treatment?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. With money.

STU: Especially when the alternate is death. This is not one of those cases where the hospital is saying, we need to give this kid basic treatment for a disease that we're going to cure.

STU: And the parents are saying, well, we'd like to try marshmallow fluff. We think that's going to cure it. Like, it's not one of those cases.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: This is a case of death or the parents bring the kid to someone -- maybe it's a one in a million shot, but why not take it?

GLENN: You know what's amazing, look at this from the flip side. Why do we always feel justified to come in when somebody is like, oh, cancer. Cancer and -- I'm just going to go on the power of prayer. And we always say, oh, my gosh. No. You got to go give him treatment. The kid who had chemo several times. Remember him? And the parents --

PAT: He wanted to stop.

GLENN: He came to them and said, "I don't want anymore chemo." I think it was a boy. And he said, "I don't want to go like this." I don't --

PAT: I'm done with it.

GLENN: I'm done with it. I don't want anymore treatment.

PAT: And the parents agreed. And then the court forced the treatments on him. Remember that?

GLENN: Correct. Yeah, forced him. Now, what's the difference between that? The kid didn't have -- had gone through it over and over again. He wanted to go to Mexico for some experimental treatment. He didn't want to go that way. He wanted to try something else. We all know that you're giving -- chemotherapy, you're giving him poison. It's poison. With the hope that the body dies after the cancer dies.

You're starving the cancer to death by giving the body poison. So the body is poisonous. And as the cancer eats it, it dies first. That's the hope of chemotherapy.

That's crazy. That's absolutely crazy.

STU: But it's worked a million times. So it's not crazy.

GLENN: Right. But sometimes -- oh, it is. It will be looked at as absolute barbarian treatment in the future. But it's the best we have.

STU: It's the best we have. And it's been successful many times.

GLENN: It's the best we have. But we don't allow people to say, I want to try another treatment. I don't want to do that. I don't want to do that. We won't allow them to make that decision. But here's a family that says, I want to try an experiment. I want to try this medicine on my child. And we're now standing in the way? I mean, the government, the people of Great Britain, their government is standing in the way saying, "No. No treatment." It's the exact opposite.

STU: Yeah, I mean, this one is 60 steps past these cases we've talked about.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, yeah.

STU: Because at least you could make an argument -- and as a person who is Libertarian when comes to government, my idea is, look, there are going to be mistakes made, but as a society, we should err on the side of the parents.

GLENN: Parents.

STU: And what they want. As sad as that is -- there are exceptions to that. But they are very few. I mean, I think -- even though there will be terrible mistakes made because of that policy, I think you have to err on that side. That being said, I can at least understand the government's position. You know, here we have a treatment for a disease that works. And we can -- it might be terrible, but at least we have a chance. At least that is a position of supporting life, right or wrong. You know, and we might say, hey, you know what, Andy Kaufman, you're going down to some crazy chicken place.

GLENN: Chicken place.

STU: Chicken place. Well, it's not going to work. We know it's not going to work. We've looked into this treatment. It's nothing. And they're fooling you.

While again, a person should have the right to make that decision for themselves, you're talking about children. At least it's a position here of life. At least it's focusing on trying to save the person. This is something where they're focusing on trying to kill the person.

There's no argument to be made that this kid should sit here and die when there's a possible treatment that could help, even if it is for a week.

GLENN: Yeah. And because it's none of your business.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: It's none of your business. It's only the people's business because the hospital thought they had to pay because it is socialized medicine. But as long as the hospital doesn't pay, it truly is nobody else's business. None. Because if they want to spend $2 million and prolong the child's life for a month, they have a right to do that.

STU: A day. An hour. Anything. I mean, how many times we've seen how many stories of people who are in their dying breaths that change other people's lives? How many times have we seen this? You don't just extinguish life because it makes -- well, we don't really want -- I can't even think of what their argument is.

GLENN: Their argument is he's suffering. He's in pain.

STU: Lots of people suffer. Lots of people suffer. And if you're right and this kid is going to die anyway, it's going to happen, nature will take its course.

PAT: Don't you think the parents have the best intention for their own baby? If they thought that their child was in intense pain right now, I don't -- I really don't think they would put them through it.

GLENN: Do you know any parent -- I mean, that's sane -- any parent that can handle their kid's pain?

PAT: No. Uh-uh.

GLENN: For my grandchildren -- my grandchildren, I have gotten down on my knees and prayed, "Lord, give that to me. Please, give that to me." For my grandchildren.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, that's the way people are.

STU: And there are exceptions to these things where you have cases of abusive parents, parents who intentionally do want to inflict harm on their children. There are, of course, those cases.

GLENN: Yes. This is not one of them.

STU: But this is a situation where the parents are living and dying by giving this kid one chance. And there is no earthly reason to not give them that chance.

PAT: Yeah, they're not trying to shirk their responsibilities. They're not trying to take the easy way out. This is really the harder way.

STU: Yeah. Totally.

GLENN: It is.

This week on the Glenn Beck Podcast, Glenn spoke with Vox co-founder Matthew Yglesias about his new book, "One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger."

Matthew and Glenn agree that, while conservatives and liberals may disagree on a lot, we're not as far apart as some make it seem. If we truly want America to continue doing great things, we must spend less time fighting amongst ourselves.

Watch a clip from the full interview with Matthew Yglesias below:


Find the full podcast on Glenn's YouTube channel or on Blaze Media's podcast network.

Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

'A convenient boogeyman for misinformation artists': Why is the New York Times defending George Soros?

Image source: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg via Getty Images

On the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" Tuesday, Glenn discussed the details of a recent New York Times article that claims left-wing billionaire financier George Soros "has become a convenient boogeyman for misinformation artists who have falsely claimed that he funds spontaneous Black Lives Matter protests as well as antifa, the decentralized and largely online, far-left activist network that opposes President Trump."

The Times article followed last week's bizarre Fox News segment in which former House Speaker Newt Gingrich appeared to be censored for criticizing Soros (read more here). The article also labeled Glenn a "conspiracy theorist" for his tweet supporting Gingrich.

Watch the video clip below for details:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The former ambassador to Russia under the Obama Administration, Michael McFaul, came up with "7 Pillars of Color Revolution," a list of seven steps needed to incite the type of revolution used to upend Eastern European countries like Ukraine and Georgia in the past two decades. On his TV special this week, Glenn Beck broke down the seven steps and showed how they're happening right now in America.

Here are McFaul's seven steps:

1. Semi-autocratic regime (not fully autocratic) – provides opportunity to call incumbent leader "fascist"

2. Appearance of unpopular president or incumbent leader

3. United and organized opposition – Antifa, BLM

4. Effective system to convince the public (well before the election) of voter fraud

5. Compliant media to push voter fraud narrative

6. Political opposition organization able to mobilize "thousands to millions in the streets"

7. Division among military and police


Glenn explained each "pillar," offering examples and evidence of how the Obama administration laid out the plan for an Eastern European style revolution in order to completely upend the American system.

Last month, McFaul made a obvious attempt to downplay his "color revolutions" plan with the following tweet:

Two weeks later, he appeared to celebrate step seven of his plan in this now-deleted tweet:



As Glenn explains in this clip, the Obama administration's "7 Pillars of Color Revolution" are all playing out – just weeks before President Donald Trump takes on Democratic candidate Joe Biden in the November election.

Watch the video clip below to hear more from Glenn:


Watch the full special "CIVIL WAR: The Way America Could End in 2020" here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Start your free trial and get $20 off a one-year subscription with code BANTHIS.

Modern eugenics: Will Christians fight this deadly movement?

Photo by Olga Kononenko on Unsplash

Last month, without much fanfare, a new research paper disclosed that 94 percent of Belgian physicians support the killing of new-born babies after birth if they are diagnosed with a disability.

A shocking revelation indeed that did not receive the attention it demanded. Consider this along with parents who believe that if their unborn babies are pre-diagnosed with a disability, they would choose to abort their child. Upwards of 70 percent of mothers whose children are given a prenatal disability diagnosis, such as Down Syndrome, abort to avoid the possibility of being burdened with caring for a disabled child.

This disdain for the disabled hits close to home for me. In 1997, my family received a letter from Michael Schiavo, the husband of my sister, Terri Schiavo, informing us that he intended to petition a court to withdraw Terri's feeding tube.

For those who do not remember, in 1990, at the age of 26, Terri experienced a still-unexplained collapse while at home with Michael, who subsequently became her legal guardian. Terri required only love and care, food and water via feeding tube since she had difficulty swallowing as a result of her brain injury. Nonetheless, Michael's petition was successful, and Terri's life was intentionally ended in 2005 by depriving her of food and water, causing her to die from dehydration and starvation. It took almost two excruciating weeks.

Prior to my sister's predicament, the biases that existed towards persons with disabilities had been invisible to me. Since then, I have come to learn the dark history of deadly discrimination towards persons with disabilities.

Indeed, some 20 years prior to Germany's T4 eugenics movement, where upwards of 200,000 German citizens were targeted and killed because of their physical or mental disability, the United States was experiencing its own eugenics movement.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas documented some of this history in his concurring opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., Justice Thomas describes how eugenics became part of the academic curriculum being taught in upwards of 400 American universities and colleges.

It was not solely race that was the target of the U.S. eugenics movement. Eugenicists also targeted the institutionalized due to incurable illness, the physically and cognitively disabled, the elderly, and those with medical dependency.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade, which wiped out pro-life laws in nearly every state and opened the floodgates to abortion throughout the entirety of pregnancy. Since then, 60 million children have been killed. Abortion as we know it today has become a vehicle for a modern-day eugenics program.

Since the Catholic Church was established, the Truth of Christ was the greatest shield against these types of attacks on the human person and the best weapon in the fight for equality and justice. Tragically, however, for several decades, the Church has been infiltrated by modernist clergy, creating disorder and confusion among the laity, perverting the teachings of the Church and pushing a reckless supposed “social justice" agenda.

My family witnessed this firsthand during Terri's case. Church teaching is clear: it is our moral obligation to provide care for the cognitively disabled like Terri. However, Bishop Robert Lynch, who was the bishop of the Diocese of St. Petersburg, Florida, during Terri's case, offered no support and was derelict in his duties during the fight for Terri's life.

Bishop Lynch had an obligation to use his position to protect Terri from the people trying to kill her and to uphold Church teaching. Indeed, it was not only the silence of Bishop Lynch but that of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which also remained silent despite my family's pleas for help, that contributed to Terri being needlessly starved and dehydrated to death.

My family's experience, sadly, has turned out to be more of the rule than the exception. Consider what happened to Michael Hickson. Hickson was a 36-year-old, brain-injured person admitted to a Texas hospital after contracting COVID-19. Incredibly—and against the wishes of Michael's wife—the hospital decided not to treat Michael because they arbitrarily decided that his “quality of life" was “unacceptably low" due to his pre-existing disability. Michael died within a week once the decision not to treat him was imposed upon him despite the efforts of his wife to obtain basic care for her husband.

During my sister's case and our advocacy work with patients and their families, it would have been helpful to have a unified voice coming from our clergy consistently supporting the lives of our medically vulnerable. We desperately need to see faithful Catholic pastoral witness that confounds the expectations of the elite by pointing to Jesus Christ and the moral law.

A Church that appears more concerned with baptizing the latest social and political movements is a Church that may appear to be “relevant," but one that may also find itself swallowed up by the preoccupations of our time.

As Catholics, we know all too well the reluctance of priests to preach on issues of abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and other pro-life issues. We have heard that the Church cannot risk becoming too political.

At the same time, some within the Church are now openly supporting Black Lives Matter, an organization that openly declares itself hostile to the family, to moral norms as taught by the Church, and whose founders embrace the deadly ideology of Marxism.

For example, Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso, Texas, knelt in prayer with a cardboard sign asserting his support for this ideology.

Recently, during an online liturgy of the mass, Fr. Kenneth Boller at The Church of St. Francis Xavier in New York, led the congregation with what appears to sound like questions affirming the BLM agenda. Moreover, while reading these questions, pictures of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery, assumed victims of racial injustice, were placed on the altar of St. Francis Xavier Church, a place typically reserved for Saints of the Catholic Church.

Contrast these two stories with what happened in the Diocese of Lafayette, Indiana, where Rev. Theodore Rothrock of St. Elizabeth Seton Church fell victim to the ire of Bishop Timothy Doherty. Fr. Rothrock used strong language in his weekly church bulletin criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement and its organizers. Consequently, Bishop Doherty suspended Fr. Rothrock from public ministry.

In 1972, Pope Pius VI said, “The smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God." It seems that too many of our clergy today are enjoying the smell.

I encourage all who are concerned about the human right to life and about Christ-centered reforms in our culture and our Church to raise your voices for pastoral leadership in every area of our shared lives as Christian people.

Bobby Schindler is a Senior Fellow with Americans United for Life, Associate Scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, and President of the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network.