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.

Remember when cartoons were happy things? Each panel took you on a tiny journey, carrying you to an unexplored place. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes:

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other artform gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it's a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between . . . panels is a kind of magic only comics can create.

When that magic is manipulated or politicized, it often devolves the artform into a baseless thing. Yesterday, Occupy Wall Street published the perfect example of low-brow deviation of the artform: A six-panel approach at satire, which imitates the instructions-panel found in the netted cubbyhole behind seats on airplanes. The cartoon is a critique of the recent news about immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border. It is a step-by-step guide to murdering US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.

RELATED: Cultural appropriation has jumped the shark, and everyone is noticing

The first panel shows a man shoving an infant into a cage meant for Pomeranians. The following five panels feature instructions, and include pictures of a cartoonish murder.

The panels read as follows:

  1. If an ICE agent tries to take your child at the border, don't panic.
  2. Pull your child away as quickly as possibly by force.
  3. Gently tell your child to close his/her eyes and ears so they won't witness what you are about to do.
  4. Grab the ICE agent from behind and push your knife into his chest with an upward thrust, causing the agent's sternum to break.
  5. Reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart.
  6. Hold his bloody heart out for all other agents to see, and tell them that the same fate awaits them if they f--- with your child again.

Violent comics are nothing new. But most of the time, they remain in the realms of invented worlds — in other words, not in our own, with reference to actual people, let alone federal agents.

The mainstream media made a game of crying racism with every cartoon depiction of Obama during his presidency, as well as during his tenure as Senator, when the New Yorker, of all things, faced scrutiny for depicting him in "Muslim clothing." Life was a minefield for political cartoonists during the Obama era.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

This year, we saw the leftist outrage regarding The Simpsons character Apu — a cartoon representation of a highly-respected, though cartoonishly-depicted, character on a cartoon show composed of cartoonishly-depicted characters.

We all remember Charlie Hebdo, which, like many outlets that have used cartoon satire to criticize Islam, faced the wrath and ire of people unable to see even the tamest representation of the prophet, Muhammad.

Interesting, isn't it? Occupy Wall Street publishes a cartoon that advocates murdering federal agents, and critics are told to lighten up. Meanwhile, the merest depiction of Muhammad has resulted in riots throughout the world, murder and terror on an unprecedented scale.

The intersection of Islam and comics is complex enough to have its own three-hour show, so we'll leave it at that, for now. Although, it is worth mentioning the commentary by satirical website The Onion, which featured a highly offensive cartoon of all the major religious figures except Muhammad. It noted:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street is free to publish any cartoon they like. Freedom of speech, and so on—although there have been several instances in which violent cartoons were ruled to have violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the First Amendment.

Posting it to Twitter is another issue — this is surely in violation of Twitter's violent content policy, but something tells me nothing will come of it. It's a funny world, isn't it? A screenshot of a receipt from Chick-fil-A causes outrage but a cartoon advocating murder gets crickets.

RELATED: Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud concludes that, "Today the possibilities for comics are — as they've always been — endless. Comics offers . . . range and versatility, with all the potential imagery of film and painting plus the intimacy of the written word. And all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see."

Smile, and keep moving forward.

Crude and awful as the Occupy Wall Street comic is, the best thing we can do is nod and look elsewhere for the art that will open our eyes. Let the lunatics draw what they want, let them stew in their own flawed double standards. Otherwise, we're as shallow and empty as they are, and nothing good comes of that. Smile, and keep moving forward.

Things are getting better. Show the world how to hear, how to learn, how to see.

People should start listening to Nikki Haley

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Okay. Let's take a vote. You know, an objective, quantifiable count. How many resolutions has the UN Human Rights Council adopted condemning dictatorships? Easy. Well. How do you define "dictatorship"?

Well, one metric is the UN Human Rights Council Condemnation. How many have the United Nations issued to China, with a body count higher than a professional Call of Duty player?

Zero.

How about Venezuela, where socialism is devouring its own in the cruelest, most unsettling ways imaginable?

Zero.

And Russia, home of unsettling cruelty and rampant censorship, murder and (actual) homophobia?

Zero.

Iraq? Zero. Turkey? Iraq? Zero. Cuba? Zero. Pakistan? Zero.

RELATED: Nikki Haley just dropped some serious verbal bombs on Russia at the UN

According to UN Human Rights Council Condemnations, 2006-2016, none of these nations is as dangerous as we'd imagined. Or, rather, none of them faced a single condemnation. Meanwhile, one country in particular has faced unbelievable scrutiny and fury — you'll never guess which country.

No, it's not Somalia. It's Israel. With 68 UN Human Rights Council Condemnations! In fact, the number of total United Nations condemnations against Israel outnumbers the total of condemnations against all other countries combined. The only country that comes close is Syria, with 15.

The Trump administration withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday in protest of what it perceives as an entrenched bias against Israel and a willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members.

In an address to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley said:

Let's remember that the Hamas terrorist organization has been inciting violence for years, long before the United States decided to move our embassy. This is what is endangering the people of Gaza. Make no mistake, Hamas is pleased with the results from yesterday... No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.

Maybe people should start listening to Haley. Hopefully, they will. Not likely, but there's no crime in remaining hopeful.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.