Glenn interviews Rand Paul

Glenn Beck is seen here on GlennBeck.TV, a feature available exclusively to Glenn Beck Insider Extreme members. Learn more...

GLENN: Senator-elect -- boy, this sounds good. Senator-elect Rand Paul is with us. Senator-elect, how are you, sir?

RAND PAUL: Very good. Good to be with you, Glenn.

GLENN: Ahhh. Thank you for running. Thank you for winning.

RAND PAUL: Well, it wasn't an easy -- it wasn't an easy chore. We had to get through a lot of mess to get there, but in the end I think it's going to be worth it to have somebody who really honestly is going to try to rectify the problems of the budget and the debt.

GLENN: Senator, I believe things today that I didn't believe two years ago. I believe things today that I would have thought was absolutely insane. I'm doing a show tonight on George Soros that if I didn't have the evidence in front of me, if I didn't have -- I mean, it's -- it's nuts what's going on. You are somebody who would like to restore us, not change us. Restore us; am I correct?

RAND PAUL: Absolutely. I think the real thing we face in our country is a debt crisis of monumental proportions and I'm reading this little book called Broke right now and in it I think what I like most about it is that it honestly and refreshingly says, you know what? This is a bipartisan problem. We didn't get here because the Republicans did this or the Democrats did this. They both did this to us, and it's going to take a bipartisan way out of it. But the way out of it is to say we have to cut spending.

GLENN: Okay, now --

RAND PAUL: And one of the other things is I got from looking -- I'm about halfway through this book now -- is that instead of talking about contraction of the government, we need to talk about expansion of the private sector. So, you know, if government is consuming 25% of gross domestic product and we want it to consume 20%, let's talk about that that's going to be a 5% expansion of the private sector. It would be the most momentous growth you'd ever see in our country if we just take that 5% we give to government and let's give it back to the private marketplace.

GLENN: Well, I appreciate you reading the book, and I hope that it is useful to somebody in Washington. I try -- what I tried to do is to get people to think out of the box because I believe, I believe we are facing the most dangerous two years of our republic's history. These next two years may decide whether we as a country live or die. Would you agree with that?

RAND PAUL: Yeah, I think that I keep telling people there's a day of reckoning and that it's not in the distant future, that it's now become an imminent problem. And I've said this repeatedly for over the last year that it isn't just our kids and our grandkids. It's really around the corner and that I don't want our country to have the chaotic situations that erupted in Greece. And when level-headed people like Bernanke are telling us -- who are not alarmists who are telling us that the debt is unsustainable, when Greenspan -- the other quote you have in there about Greenspan saying that within the next three decades it will be paid for but basically by devaluing, dramatically devaluing the dollar, that worries me. And -- but I'm also a great believer in the ability of capitalism and individual ownership of property to create jobs, and I really want to -- really we need to extoll the virtues of what we can do as a country, what we have done as a country, and say look, we don't need to say government has to do everything for us. We can do it ourselves. You know, it's like we have to believe in ourselves again. That's what I keep telling people.

GLENN: Here's what I am concerned about. There is, as I'm doing a show on Soros tonight, there is a global governance that is being constructed, and most of it is already in place. It's already there. And there are people pushing us over the edge because they want that global governance. They don't believe in really our sovereignty and our system of government. They are trying to cut us down to size, et cetera, et cetera. The rest of the world is looking at what we're doing to their economies now by quantitative easing. They see what's happening. The world is going to turn on us and blame us for all of their problems. And in some ways, especially the last two years, we'll deserve that. You are being faced now with a couple of things. One of them is the debt ceiling. And the Republicans I thought, you know, they stood lockstep. Nobody voted for the increase of the debt ceiling. I don't believe that we cannot raise the debt ceiling. I think we have to cut spending dramatically. But if we can't do both, we have to make some -- we can't default on our loan because I'm afraid of an event like that, of any kind of real major event will set the dominoes, just push the first domino over and then it's just a collapse. Do you agree or disagree with that?

RAND PAUL: Well, most of the time the debt ceiling vote has ended up being a symbolic vote. Those who have voted no have been ones who said to government, you know, we can't continue to run up the debt. And there never really has been a serious challenge of the debt ceiling not going up that I'm aware of. I don't think there will be a serious challenge this time on it. My inclination, though, is to vote no to send the message that we can't keep borrowing.

GLENN: That's right.

RAND PAUL: But I do agree that it's sort of a backwards approach. Really what we should be doing is promoting and what I will promote from the get-go is I will introduce a budget that is balanced and that's what we need to do is have someone introduce and have that as an alternative. But that's doing the planning in advance. The debt ceiling is doing the planning -- is not really doing planning. It's just saying we won't borrow more. But I do think as a general principle we should tell, you know, the American people want us to quit borrowing and that's what I'm in favor of. Whether you do it dramatically in one day in one vote is still I think something that has to be discussed. But I think we do have to introduce balanced budgets, we do have to have -- the Democrats want to say, oh, the Republicans are hypocrites, you won't introduce anything that can cut spending, you know, to pay for tax cuts and this and that. I don't accept the logic on it, but I will accept that, yes, we should introduce spending cuts and I think we need significant bills that cut several hundred billion dollars right off the bat and we need to introduce it and that's what needs to be the Republican message.

GLENN: Do you see a way out of this quantitative easing? I mean, Tim Geithner said it would never happen. Ben Bernanke said under oath it would never happen, the Fed will never do that. The last two challenges where it did come to a real push, the first one came I think under George W. Bush, or was it Clinton? One of them was George W. Bush, and Bush sold gold. He just sold the gold at Fort Knox. He sold a pile of it and kept things rolling that way. I think Bernanke has just said the debt ceiling doesn't matter to us at the Fed. We'll just keep -- we can just keep, you know, doing what we're doing.

RAND PAUL: Well, what concerns me about it is that, you know, during the crisis in 2007, we doubled the monetary base. That's all the bank reserves and the currency basically doubled. A lot of that money is still sitting in banks because the Federal Reserve for the first time is paying interest rates. Not much, but is paying interest to the large banks in New York to keep the money in the banks. I think a lot of that money has not filtered into the economy yet. But my concern is we already doubled the monetary base, you know, in the period of about four months in 2007. That's still lurking about and will create inflation eventually and then they want to do more easing on top of that. That concerns me.

The other thing that concerns me is a lot of us have been talking about ObamaCare and how awful it is, and I agree with all that but I don't think we've been talking enough about what these banking regulations are doing because the banking regulation bill to my mind may be even worse for the economy than ObamaCare.

GLENN: I agree.

RAND PAUL: Because if you talk to small community banks and businesses, even with good credit they are finding they are having a tough time getting money. So the banking regulations are stifling the loaning of money. That's exactly the wrong thing you want to do in the midst of a great recession.

GLENN: And this is going to hurt the -- in the end there will -- it will wipe out all the small banks, all local banks, all the community lenders and it will leave just giant institutions in its wake, and that will just kill small business.

RAND PAUL: And one of the things that we've been talking about through all of this is that when people say we need to regulate things, well, yeah, let's regulate the banks that caused the problems, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. I'm all for more regulations on those banks and also on the Federal Reserve. Let's control the mess that the Federal Reserve got us in by keeping interest rates below the market rate and causing this huge housing boom and ultimately this bust. But let's don't heap more regulations on the private banks that really had nothing to do with the problem.

PAT: Can these new financial regulations be repealed?

RAND PAUL: They need to be, and I think we're going to find that they are really -- it's the same with ObamaCare. The more we know with each of these bills, the more they will be a disaster. And particularly if the economy takes a down turn again, which I think it may, the banking regulations have to go because, you know, in the Great Depression one of the things that made it a lot worse is they increased reserve requirements in the middle of the Great Depression and all of a sudden made it much more difficult for loans to originate. And that was when we went from '32 down to 1937, but a large part of that was the government making bad decisions. We're doing the same thing now. President Obama believes government is the answer to everything. What we need are people who will be vocal in our government to say, you know what, we are the answer. It's ourselves. The American dream is getting the government out of the way of individual entrepreneurs and businessmen. But the American dream is not heaping more regulations on business.

GLENN: I only have about a minute left with you and I have to ask you this: Do you believe that there are radicals and revolutionaries in our midst?

RAND PAUL: Well, I mean, I think there are people who have different beliefs. There are people who believe once, you know, the government's the answer to everything and there are varying degrees of that. I think that the current administration, there is every evidence that their belief is in a very, very large governmental presence in everything.

GLENN: Do you -- have you heard of Cloward and Piven?

RAND PAUL: Not right offhand.

GLENN: All right. We'll send you some information on Cloward and Piven. I believe that there is an effort to collapse the system, that it is a different kind of revolution than these radicals foresaw in the 1960s but it is one in a business suit. And as nuts as it sounds, I'm concerned that the country is at the brink and there are people that want to push it over. I want to play a piece of audio. They have been saying that the left -- the left has been saying that the tea parties are dangerous. I want you to listen to this piece of audio from an anchor on MSNBC last night.

RATIGAN: We are here with very disconcerting questions. Are things in our country so bad that it might actually be time for a revolution? The answer obviously is yes. The only question is how to do it. And our next guest, cartoonist --

GLENN: Now, he talks about -- he talks about violence, and violence may be necessary. Can -- do you believe we are so fragile that any kind of act of real violence, any kind of striking out is a danger to the republic at this point because the whole thing could collapse?

RAND PAUL: Well, what I do tell people often is that I think out of chaos bad things can happen and so I don't want chaos. I don't want what happened to Greece but I also don't want what happened in 1923 to the German currency and I do fear that. And people say, oh, America, that could never happen.

GLENN: Oh, it can.

RAND PAUL: I think it could happen and that is my great fear is that we destroy the currency but out of chaos, yes, there could be much, you know -- Germany elected Hitler and then people come to me the same way the come to you and saying you're saying so-and-so's Hitler. I'm not saying anyone's Hitler. What I am saying is out of chaos Germany chose a strong leader that said give me liberty and I'll give you security and I don't want to have that kind of situation occur in our country.

GLENN: Rand, it is -- congratulations, senator-elect. It is good to have you in Washington. You keep your backbone and watch your back because, man, there are going to be all kinds of -- watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington before you go.

RAND PAUL: My favorite movie.

GLENN: God bless you and thank you very much.

RAND PAUL: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: Appreciate it, bye-bye.


How prepared are YOU to weather a future crisis? We recently published a brand new quiz so you can find out exactly how prepared you are. Whether you're a "prepper" with a bunker fit for the apocolypse or just want to feel more secure for the future, there is always something more to learn. That's why Glenn wants to give his newsletter subscribers his "Ultimate Preparation Guide," filled with practical tips for building a solid foundation to weather future crises. And let's face it—in our crazy world right now, who couldn't use a bit more peace of mind?

Enter your email below to get "Glenn's Ultimate Preparation Guide" sent straight to your inbox!

Editor's Note: Arizona House Bill HB2770 has since been shut down! AZ Rep. Rachel Jones tweeted that the AZ Freedom Caucus shut down the bill before it could reach the board. It is encouraging to see states stepping to protect the American people from getting one step closer to a Central Bank Digital Currency. Hopefully, Arizona will be a precedent for the other states!

On today's radio broadcast, Glenn warned about dangerous Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) language being smuggled into routine legislation in REPUBLICAN-led states. This is unacceptable, and as Glenn said, we can't let this legislation pass as it now stands.

The legislation being used to smuggle in this CBDC language is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a routine piece of legislation passed on the state level that helps standardize commercial and business transactions. However, a new round of UCCs being deliberated RIGHT NOW amongst a swath of Republican-led states anticipate the use of "electronic money." In a public letter sent to the Republican states currently deliberating this legislation, the Pro-Family Legislative Network said this can only refer to the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) under consideration and testing by the Federal Reserve. Biden's Executive Order 14067 issued in March of 2022 started the push for CBDC, and now these states, knowingly or unknowingly, are laying the legislative groundwork for making CBDC a reality.

There is absolutely no reason why Republican-led states should aid in laying the foundation for CBDC, yet 12 of them are deliberating it RIGHT NOW, with one UCC bill already on one GOP governor's desk! We have to act NOW to stop these UCCs in their tracks and demand our lawmakers amend the bills without the "electronic money" language.

If your state is listed below, contact your representative NOW to put an end to CBDC language.

1. North Dakota

North Dakota House Bill HB1082 passed BOTH chambers and is now sitting on Governor Burgum's desk. Burgun has 3 DAYS to veto this bill once it's placed on his desk—if not, it will pass automatically. If you are a North Dakota resident, it is absolutely CRUCIAL that you contact Governor Burgum's office NOW and demand that he veto this bill and re-introduce it without the "electronic money" language.

2. Arizona

Arizona House Bill HB2770 has been SHUT DOWN! See the above editor's note for more details.

Arizona House Bill HB2770 passed the House majority and minority caucuses. Arizona residents, contact your representative's office NOW so that they amend this bill without the "electronic money" language.

3. Arkansas

Arkansas House Bill HB1588 is in committee, and if passed, will head to the House floor. Though the bill is only in its beginning stages, it's important for Arkansas residents to stop this bill in its tracks and amend it without the "electronic money" language.

4. Missouri

Missouri House Bill HB1165 is also in its beginning stages in committee. That means it's important to contact your representative as soon as possible to amend it without the "electronic money" language.

5. Oklahoma

Oklahoma House Bill HB 2776 passed the House Committee and will go to a chamber vote soon. If passed, it will go to the Senate, then the governor's desk. If you are an Indiana resident, contact your representative's office NOW to amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

6. Indiana

Indiana Senate Bill SB0486 passed the Senate and is headed to the House. Republicans control Indiana's executive office and BOTH chambers of the legislature. There is no excuse for this bill to pass. If you are an Indiana resident, it's vital you contact your representative NOW and demand they amend this bill without the "electronic money" language.

7. Kentucky

Kentucky Senate Bill SB64 passed the Senate and is now being deliberated in the House. If you live in Kentucky, contact your representative's office to amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

8. Montana

Montana Senate Bill SB370 passed the Senate and was sent to the House on March 3rd. If you are a Montana resident, contact your representative's office NOW so that the bill doesn't without changing the "electronic money" language.

9. Nebraska

Nebraska's Legislative Bill LB94 passed committee and the first floor vote. As Nebraska only has one legislative chamber, this bill is dangerously close to passing the legislature and being sent to the governor's desk. If you are a Nebraska resident, contact your representative's office NOW and demand they amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

10. New Hampshire

New Hampshire House Bill HB584 is currently in House committee deliberations and has not yet reached the House floor. If you are a New Hampshire resident, contact your representative's office NOW to amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

11. Tennessee

Tennessee House Bill HB0640 didn't successfully pass the House. However, it was deferred to a Senate committee and has now taken the form of Senate Bill SB0479, which is now in committee. This bill is still alive, and it's important for you, Tennessee residents, to stop it before it reaches the floor! Contact your representative to amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

12. Texas

Texas House Bill HB5011 was filed and is ready to be taken up by committee. Fellow Texans, let's not let this bill progress any further! Contact your representative and demand they amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

6 things you NEED to know about the Silicon Valley Bank collapse

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Silicon Valley Bank's collapse is sparking traumatic memories of the 2008 financial crash. Should we be worried SVB is signaling a similar economic catastrophe, or is everyone overreacting to the media's hype? Glenn told his listeners to be "healthily terrified." This event is sure to have ripple effects throughout the economy, but the more you are informed about it, the more you can prepare. Here are 6 things you need to know about Silicon Valley Bank's crash—explained in simple words.

1. The short answer to what happened: SVB didn't have enough money to pay its depositors.

Remember the scene from It's a Wonderful Life when all of the residents make a run on George Bailey's bank demanding their money? Fortunately for them, their money was in the altruistic hands of George Bailey, who used his honeymoon savings to give the depositors the money they demanded.

Silicon Valley Bank's depositors weren't so lucky.

In short, the depositors made a run on Silicon Valley Bank, demanding the withdrawal of their money. But SVB simply didn't have the liquid money available to give their depositors, causing regulators to shut down the bank shortly afterward.

2. It all started with COVID...

Why didn't SVB have enough money for its depositors? To explain this, we have to go back to the pandemic era.

The pandemic saw a rapid decrease in spending and a massive increase in bank deposits. Due to the uncertainty of the future and lockdowns limiting ways to spend money on recreational activities, like restaurants, bars, and other outlets, many Americans stocked up money in their accounts. In fact, SVB's deposits doubled in 2021 alone, bringing in more money than they could lend out to their clients.

To make a return on their available cash, SVB wanted to invest it, as many banks do. Since they had reached their lending limit, they decided to invest it in U.S. Treasury Securities, which are the government's means of funding itself without using taxation (in a nutshell). These are considered "ultra-safe" investments because they are backed by the "full faith and credit of the federal government."

Unlike other forms of investments, investing in Treasuries means the government will do everything within its legal power to pay back the money used to fund itself. In other words, it is typically very safe... so what happened?

3. Then came the magic cocktail—record-high inflation and rising interest rates...

Interest rates ruined the typically "ultra-safe" investment. Due to 40-year record-high inflation, the Fed lifted rates eight times by a total of 4.25 percentage points in 2022, raising interest rates from 0.25 percent to 4.375 percent. This means the value of U.S. Treasuries investments plummeted rapidly. SVB reported that it lost $1.8 billion due to the decreased value of its Treasuries investments after a year of rising interest rates.

This raises the following question: why didn't SVB just weather the storm and wait for interest rates to decrease? There are two issues with this. The first is that, with so many of their assets held up in Treasuries investments, SVB still wouldn't have enough liquid assets to give their depositors during the bank run.

The second issue is that Treasuries investments have a ten-year limit. In 2021 during the Trump administration, interest rates were at an all-time low of 0.125 percent.

The record-fast increase of interest rates in 2022 caused very little chance for rates to go back down to their historic 2021 lows within ten years for banks to make their money back on their investments.

To avoid this, SVB planned to sell their investments at a loss and re-purchase Treasuries investments at the decreased value, giving them an extra ten years to bet on decreased interest rates in the future.

But people caught on to SVB's plan and didn't want to ride with the risk.

4. Account holders withdrew their money... FAST.

As aforementioned, SVP lost $1.8 billion when it sold its depleted Treasuries investments. While they were betting on being able to re-purchase the devalued securities, hoping that they would go up in value in the future with lowered interest rates, investors were worried about the risk.

Once they made the announcement of their $1.8 billion loss, their stocks began to drop, and venture capitalists warned the companies they invest in to pull out of SVB. This had a snowball effect, leading to a "bank run" of depositors demanding to withdraw their money from their SVB accounts.

This led to the perfect storm: SVB's investment losses coupled with the influx of withdrawals were so immense that regulators had to step in and shut the bank down to protect depositors. The government currently "running" SVB, for all practical purposes, is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FDIC closed SVB on Friday and reopened the bank on Monday, March 13th as the Deposit Insurance Bank of Santa Clara.

5. Some people may lose their money. 

Banks insure accounts with $250,000 or less with FDIC insurance. That means, in cases of bank failure, exactly like this one, the FDIC covers all accounts less than $250,000. The FDIC said SVB customers who had less than $250,000 in their accounts will have access to all of their money when the bank reopens. Since it reopened this week, they should have access to their funds.

However, many of SVB's depositors had more than $250,000 in their accounts—it is Silicon Valley after all. Therefore, their accounts were not covered by FDIC insurance. Will they get their money back? There is a chance that they will not.

It is unclear how much SVB currently has to cover uninsured deposits. It is likely not enough. The FDIC has issued a "Receiver's Certificate" to the uninsured account holders with the amount in their account that is not covered by FDIC insurance.

The FDIC said it will pay some of the uninsured deposits by next week by liquidating any additional assets held by SVB. However, if the liquidated assets are not enough, many of SVB's uninsured account holders could lose their money for good.

6. Is this 2008 all over again?

SVB's collapse was the largest bank failure since 2008, when Washington Mutual failed with $307 billion in assets. Its failure, along with the collapse of the Lehman Brother's investment bank, triggered the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Are we in danger of repeating 2008?

Some argue that we are not in danger of another economic catastrophe, simply because SVB holds less than 1 percent of the nation's assets. However, as Glenn warns, there is a danger of banks repeating the same mistakes as SVP.

SVP wasn't the only bank to use its surplus deposits to invest in U.S. Treasuries, which means that other banks are wrestling with the depleted value of their securities investments due to rising interest rates.

Bank of America, for example, lost $109 billion in their securities investments due to rising interest rates, the most among its peers—and Bank of America is no small fish in the ocean of assets.

Other major banks recorded other massive losses in their securities investments due to rising interest rates. JP Morgan Chase lost $36 billion, Wells Fargo lost $41 billion, Citigroup lost $25 billion, and Goldman Sachs lost $1 billion. If the little banks collapse, will they get the same effort and attention from the federal government as the "big guys?"

The critic may argue that these are still small values given the incredibly large amount of assets held in banks nationwide. However, this is missing the point. Major banks have majorly invested in securities since the pandemic-era skyrocketing rate of deposits. Now those investments are depleted in value.

They can either sell those investments at a loss, or they can wait and hope that they will recover over time. However, if those investments are no longer liquid, what happens when their depositors come knocking? Will they have enough liquid assets to cover a massive bank run? These are the lingering questions that our banks need to address.

As Glenn says, this will impact you—it is only a matter of time. What will you do to prepare?

Glenn just purchased the entire historical Roe v. Wade archive as a solemn reminder of our nation's past and the vital importance of honoring the sacredness of life. Since Roe was overturned in 2022, many states have been stepping up to protect both their unborn citizens AND the mothers carrying them.

Which states are doing the most to protect their most vulnerable? Here are the top 12 states with the strictest laws against abortion.

1. Alabama

​Alabama has some of the nation's most protective pro-life measures, banning all abortions in the case of life-threatening circumstances for the mother. That means abortion is banned at every ​stage of pregnancy. Health care providers found guilty of performing abortions face a class-A felony, the most serious charge besides Capitol Murder, with the potential of carrying a life sentence in prison. However, the pill, Plan B, is classified as "contraception" rather than abortion. Taxpayer-funded Medicaid does not cover abortion procedures except in very limited circumstances.

Alabama is one of the few states to add protections within its state constitution for the unborn. The state:

Acknowledges, declares, and affirms that it is the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life.

2. Arkansas

Like Alabama, Arkansas bans abortion at every stage of pregnancy except in life-threatening situations for the mother. However, Plan B is still considered "contraception" and is legal. Taxpayer-funded Medicaid does not cover abortion procedures except in very limited circumstances. Additionally, Arkansas added the amendment to its state constitution, declaring:

The policy of Arkansas is to protect the life of every unborn child from conception until birth, to the extent permitted by the Federal Constitution.

3. Idaho

Idaho bans abortions at every stage of pregnancy with the exceptions of life-threatening situations to the mother and instances of rape and incest. The health care practitioner who gave an abortion must prove "affirmative defense," which means they have to prove in court why the abortion is necessary and meets the legal criteria. Patients approved for abortion must wait 24 hours after counseling to receive the procedure. Anyone who performs an abortion unless it's in one of the approved cases will face felony charges. Like Alabama and Arkansas, taxpayer-funded Medicaid does not cover abortion procedures.

Unlike Alabama and Arkansas, Idaho law does not include explicit constitutional or statutory protections for abortion.

4. Kentucky

Kentucky has also banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy except in life-threatening situations for the mother. There are no exceptions for rape or incest. However, abortion providers are fighting the all-out ban on abortion through appealing to the state's previous abortion ban after six weeks of pregnancy. The appeal is ongoing.

Though Kentucky voters voted down a proposal to add an amendment to the state constitution banning abortion, the state adopted the following policy towards abortion in 2018:

Children, whether born or unborn, are the greatest natural resource in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

5. Louisiana

Louisiana also banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy with no exceptions for rape or incest. However there is an appeal to allow abortions in the case of rape and incest. Healthcare practitioners who violate this ban are subject to criminal prosecution. Moreover, Louisiana adopted an amendment in their state constitution—specifically, the Louisiana Declaration of Rights, banning the construction of any constitutional right to abortion:

To protect human life, nothing in present constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion.

6. Mississippi

Mississippi bans all abortions except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest that have been reported to law enforcement. Though Mississippi did not adopt a constitutional amendment to ban abortion as a right, the Mississippi Code says:

Abortion carries significant physical and psychological risks to the maternal patient, and these physical and psychological risks increase with gestational age.

Moreover, doctors who perform illegal abortions face civil and criminal charges.

7. Missouri

Missouri bans all abortions except in the case of a medical emergency concerning the mother, with no exceptions for rape or incest. Those seeking to get an abortion must prove "affirmative defense," which means they have to prove in court why the abortion is necessary and meets the legal criteria. Minors seeking an abortion through "affirmative defense" must do so with parental consent. Moreover, those seeking an abortion must be offered an ultrasound.

Moreover, Missouri adopted the following statute protecting the unborn:

It is the intention of the general assembly of the state of Missouri to: (1) [d]efend the right to life of all humans, born and unborn; (2) [d]eclare that the state and all of its political subdivisions are a ‘sanctuary of life’ that protects pregnant women and their unborn children; and (3) [r]egulate abortion to the full extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States, decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and federal statutes.

8. Oklahoma

Oklahoma was the first state to successfully ban all abortions after conception following the overturn of Roe v. Wade and continues to lead the way as one of the toughest states on abortion. Exceptions include life-saving procedures for the mother or pregnancies resulting from "rape, sexual assault, or incest." Those who perform legal abortions can be reported and prosecuted criminally under state law HB427 and be charged at least $10,000 per illegal abortion procedure. Violations also include insurance companies or private citizens caught funding abortions.

Though Oklahoma has not adopted a state constitutional amendment concerning abortion, its Public Health Code states that it cannot be “construed as creating or recognizing right to abortion."

9. South Dakota

South Dakota bans all abortions except in life-threatening cases for the mother. There are no exceptions for rape and incest. However, it is legal to travel out of state to get an abortion. There are no state constitutional provisions protecting against abortion.

10. Tennessee

Tennessee bans all abortions except in life-threatening cases for the mother. There is currently a movement in the Tennessee state legislature to enact exceptions for rape and incest. Like Idaho and Missouri, healthcare practitioners who gave an abortion must prove "affirmative defense," which means they have to prove in court why the abortion is necessary and meets the legal criteria. Those who provide abortions illegally can be criminally prosecuted.

Tennessee's state constitution was amended to supersede a 2000 Tennessee supreme court case, which held:

A woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy is a vital part of the right to privacy guaranteed by the Tennessee Constitution [and that] the right is inherent in the concept of ordered liberty embodied in our constitution and is therefore fundamental.

The new state constitutional amendment reads as follows:

Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion.

11. Texas

Texas bans all abortions except in life-threatening cases concerning the mother. There is a movement in the Texas state legislature to provide exemptions for rape and incest.

Moreover, Texas received a lot of heat for its law not only criminalizing providing illegal abortions but enabled citizens to report illegal abortions. However, several cities in Texas are pushing back against the abortion ban. After Dobbs, Texas increased the penalties for performing an abortion up to life in prison, including a civil penalty of no less than $100,000 per abortion performed.

Attorney General Ken Paxton said the following:

Now that the Supreme Court has finally overturned Roe, I will do everything in my power to protect mothers, families, and unborn children, and to uphold the state laws duly enacted by the Texas Legislature.

The cities of Austin and San Antonio passed ordinances preventing city funds from being used to investigate the provision or receipt of abortion care.

12. West Virginia

West Virginia bans abortion at all stages of pregnancy, except in the case of a “nonmedically viable fetus”, ectopic pregnancy, or medical emergency. According to the West Virginia state legislature, "Nonmedically viable fetus" means:

A fetus that contains sufficient lethal fetal anomalies so as to render the fetus medically futile or incompatible with life outside the womb in the reasonable medical judgment of a reasonably prudent physician.

Victims of rape and incest can obtain abortions up to eight weeks after conception, but only if they report to law enforcement first.

In 2018, West Virginians voted to add the following language to the state constitution:

Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of abortion.