Star Parker: Here's Why Nobody (Except Glenn) Played Audio of My Pro-Life Testimony

Abortion is one of those topics that is never fun to talk about. Some people respond to the horror of killing an innocent life by pretending it doesn't exist. That's partially why the left has been able to further their agenda and completely change the abortion narrative.

Thankfully, there are people like Star Parker, who is a columnist and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE), who stood up last week and testified on behalf of the Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017 (H.R. 490) in the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

Her testimony sparked intense interest and garnered many interview requests, but in most of these appearances, the media was more focused on her response to Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), who confronted her on her testimony, calling her ignorant and demanding her to apologize.

Parker joined Glenn on his radio program Friday. Before introducing her, Glenn played an audio clip of her testimony that has since gone viral. Then, Parker gave a shocking revelation.

"Thank you, Glenn, for having me on," she said. "You are the first to actually play some of what I said in the testimony. Mostly because of what happened after."

Glenn was astounded.

"Wow," was all he could say.

Parker continued.

"So that's what went viral," she said. "So what really got lost --- I really appreciate you playing that --- is the actual testimony. This is very serious business what we've been doing."

Glenn expressed how sick he is of the media's use of "back and forth viral bites" that have nothing to do with the actual problems at hand. In a time when the definition of life is coming into question, Glenn emphasized the need to get this one right before it's too late.

"If it's a puppy when it's in the dog's womb, it's a child when it's in the human's womb. We're entering a time now where we're going to have to define life with AI. And that's going to screw everything up," Glenn said.

Watch Parker's testimony below.

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments section.

GLENN: I swear to you -- it's like I woke up in a parallel universe. I cannot believe the conversations that we have to have today as a society. Even polite society. There is no such thing as polite society anymore.

I want to play some audio we played for you earlier this week. This was actually from a hearing on H.R.490. The Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017. And Star Parker was testifying in front of Congress. And, man, is she brave. Listen to this.

STAR: But if you also consider in your deliberations regarding H.R.490, the last time in American history that we were faced with hard Constitutional and political questions on the civil conflict between humanity and convenience, personhood and property, justice and public opinion, slavery was as abortion is, a crime against humanity.

Like slavery, tensions were created in a public square and in law concerning who qualified for natural rights worthy of protection.

In the first 89 years of our nation's existence, it was the black slave who sought freedom and equal protection under the law. And many attempts were made to heed their cry. Today, it is the concede person living in the womb of its mother that should be considered human with opportunity of equal protection under the law.

It is ironic that, while the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution in 1868 humanized slaves, the United States Supreme Court of 1973 dehumanized of the life of the being in utero, handing down a decision that wreaked in ethnic cleansing, to once again allow a powerful few to determine exactly who had a right to humanity.

GLENN: Star Parker is with us now.

How much heat are you getting, Star Parker?

STAR: Well, thank you, Glenn, for having me on. And, frankly, that is the first interview -- you are the first to actually play some of what I said in the testimony.

GLENN: Shut up.

STAR: Mostly because of what happened after.

No, seriously. So I'm listening to it saying, oh, so I did make my point.

No, what happened during the Q&A, I answered a question and then referred back to some of the discussion that was earlier, one of the congressmen.

We call him now Congressmen Coward Cohen. And because he kept throwing in welfare programs into the discussion. But he wasn't the only one. So did a protester during the time that they were actually shown an ultrasound in the hearing room, first in the history of the country. You think it would be front page news that they actually showed an ultrasound of a live, in-the-womb child in a congressional hearing.

As I said, so I then answered and addressed his promise about welfare and trying to delude what we were talking about, called it disingenuous to combine the two issues. And he lit into me. I mean, he called me ignorant. He told me that I didn't know how to address the Congress, after the hearing was over. He came up and put his finger in my face and told me I better come to his office and apologize.

GLENN: Wow.

STAR: Yeah. So that's what went viral. So what really got lost, I really appreciate you playing that, is the actual testimony. This is very serious business what we've been doing.

GLENN: Yeah. I have to tell you, Star, I am so sick of the back and forth viral bites that have nothing to do -- I'm sorry. And they will call me ignorant as well. Arguing about welfare programs when it comes to abortion is exactly the same is arguing for slavery because it will destroy the economy and people will suffer.

STAR: Right. Well, and that's why I had to address it, even though maybe I was a little out of order because he didn't ask me a specific question. But I wasn't addressing him. I was addressing the chairman who did ask me a question. Chairman of the subcommittee for the judiciary on Constitution and civil justice. Getting to what you're discussing earlier and how it's unbelievable the things that we have to now discuss in the public square, when children are listening, because of the sexual matters that are coming on to the front pages. And yet they're rooted in this abortion question.

When you're killed in the womb -- what we're doing in abortion -- let's even set aside for one moment, the moral, the medical, and the mental implications to abortion. Abortion feeds a narrative that women are just victims that can't control their impulses. They can't, as you said, learn how to say no when things are inappropriate and find the language to say, "Excuse me, sir, but this is not appropriate. So I'm leaving the room right now."

And it's because it feeds that narrative that you can't control your sexual impulses. And so now people are sexually out of control. That's why marriages have collapsed. That's why out-of-marriage births have escalated. And we, as a nation, better get a grip on this.

Otherwise, we're going to always have discussions about sexual matters and somebody else. And accusations that are coming forth, that we don't even know if are true. Like just wanted happened to the candidate who, 40 years earlier, someone said, a-ha, this is what you said to me. Who remembers what they said 40 years ago?

GLENN: So, Star, how do we -- we are entering a time -- and we -- you know, we have the oldest Congress in the history of the United States. This is the oldest Congress ever.

And we are on the -- the edge of profound technology change that is going to make us question what life even is. And I don't mean, is it life in the womb? That's a pretty easy one. Yeah.

STAR: Yeah.

GLENN: If it's a puppy when it's in the dog's womb, it's a child when it's in the human's womb. We're entering a time now where we're going to have to define life with AI. And that's going to screw everything up.

How do we get -- how do we get to a point to where we can have rational discussions that must be had now?

STAR: That is the million-dollar question. But, you know, you just brought up a fascinating point that I'm going to have to contemplate and think about later, about the oldest Congress. Because you would think there would be deep passion, since they're on the senior year, to argue for the most innocent in the womb, because they're next.

A couple of states have already passed euthanasia. We're starting to, as a culture, collapse when it comes to protecting the innocent, understanding what the Constitution really means.

But how do we get there? We may have to start over. That's why I fight a lot for school choice. We're going to have to again build a moral framework within our youth.

And the only way to do that is get you out of these cesspools that we call schools that indoctrinate them in secularism and put them in schools where they're building moral framework and integrity.

The only ones that are really trapped now in failing government schools are the very poor, the most vulnerable, who are getting lost in all of this noise. And that's why their lives are in more chaos. So how do we get back? You replace everybody in Congress.

I was surprised that after McCain lost the -- you know, the presidency when he ran. That he didn't just retire even at that age.

What is he still doing there? Why hasn't he passed the baton to younger energy? And now they can have it even over his own. The whole thing may get to the place that we were in the 1850s, to where we can't go on anymore. And end up in a real difficult direction.

GLENN: I think we're headed in that direction.

STAR: I do too.

STU: Star, your commentary was really interesting in talking about abortion, as it relates to slavery. And I think a lot of people assign their sort of moral decision-making on difficult topics like this to society. So I think even back in the day, a lot of people who probably if they really stopped and thought about it, would think, slavery is crazy. It's a crazy idea.

But since society said it was accepted and it was legal, people just sort of went along with it. It was a controversial issue, maybe. But they didn't want to talk about it in polite company.

STAR: Yeah. Same thing.

STU: Is that what you're seeing now because it's not people who are necessarily horrible people, but they want to avoid the tough sort of moral --

GLENN: Big time.

STU: -- examination of themselves to really think about whether this is right or wrong.

STAR: That's right. That's right. And not only on abortion. On many issues. But you're absolutely right. The same politicians would have it today. And, in fact, one of the things I also said in that testimony is, if you put Roe v. Wade next to Dred Scott, they read almost verbatim. They're both talking about property. They're both talking about, you know, the rights of the person who had -- the letter we hear from the left, even on abortion: Well, if you don't like it, don't have one. That's the same they were saying during slavery. Well, you don't have to own one. Yeah, well, remember, very few owned slaves.

Now, the narrative of the left is every white person is guilty of slavery because all of them had one. No, that was not true. Slavery was elite -- you had to have some money to own a slave.

Anyway, it was very controversial. But you're right. The silent majority allowed this country to go 89 years and then enter into a Civil War because they just didn't have the courage to speak up.

You're absolutely right. They knew it was wrong. And every time the Congress tried to manipulate around. It's the same way they manipulate us now around abortion.

Well, maybe we just won't let it into the (inaudible) state. Well, maybe we can just pass this bill after -- maybe we can -- no, if it is a crime against humanity, you shouldn't be doing it, and you should be doing everything you can to stop it. And that's where we are even with the abortion question today, exactly where we were with the question of slavery back in the day.

GLENN: Does it amaze you that Margaret Sanger and all the eugenicists back then that were trying to wipe out the black race, openly wipe them out, are so seemingly celebrated as friends of the black community now, that that's what they're standing up for? Oh, no. We're just trying to help the poor inner city black woman.

STAR: It's crazy. On Halloween, they tweeted out their real agenda: Black women, have an abortion. Because they're safer than having the child.

It's crazy. The first black president in the country goes to Planned Parenthood's annual celebration. The way they kill off black children in this country. Twenty million blacks have died in the womb of their mom since Roe v. Wade. And he goes. And not only he goes, but he says, God bless you.

Yeah, it's amazing how blinded people are to these facts. How is it that we allow ourselves to be complicit in abortion, with Planned Parenthood, by allowing them to get corporate welfare year after year at $520 million. It's what they're getting.

In fact, everyone you know. Everyone -- they know everyone. They know probably ten times. Might as well just hand the money straight to Planned Parenthood. Because it still wouldn't equal $520 million.

And for some reason, we want corporate welfare out of here. But that billion dollar corporation gets 520 million tax dollars every year to do their primary business, which is to kill offspring.

GLENN: Star, thank you so much. God bless. Thank you.

STU: Hmm.

Star Parker is the founder and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. You can get her on Twitter @UrbanCure. UrbanCure. Or UrbanCure.org.

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.