Disturbing honesty from the left on abortion

January 25, 2013

WRITER

This morning during Glenn's interview with Senator Rand Paul, Glenn discussed an recent article on Salon supporting Roe v. Wade on it's 40th anniversary. Glenn referred to the article as "absolutely incredible," because of its honesty on the issue. The writer of the article not only admits that she knows an abortion does end a life, she thinks that perfectly fine. Why? Because, in her opinion, not all life is equal.

Unhinged honesty… That's the only positive aspect to this Salon article titled, "So what if abortion ends life?". The piece, written by Mary Elizabeth Williams, centers around her believe that yes, abortion ends a life, and that's a-okay.

"I believe that life starts at conception. And it's never stopped me from being pro-choice."

Williams claims that the anti-abortionists have "co-opted" the word "life". Ironic considering she admits that life does begins at conception; therefore, "life" is what abortion opponents are fighting to protect. While the left may wish the issue of abortion is centered around the woman, those who oppose abortion don't hate women. They are fighting for the rights of an innocent human life, therefore "pro-life" is hardly a straw man. She might have a point if pro-lifers called themselves "anti-murders," but that's not the case.

Of all the diabolically clever moves the anti-choice lobby has ever pulled, surely one of the greatest has been its consistent co-opting of the word “life.” Life! Who wants to argue with that? Who wants be on the side of … not-life? That’s why the language of those who support abortion has for so long been carefully couched in other terms.

If by "carefully couched in other terms," she means relabeling the right to life to a mere "choice", then sure. To those who were taught about the birds and the bees, and are aware of the many forms of birth control, the "choice" to evade pregnancy should happen before the creation of life (obviously rape is a different situation -- not a situation that removes the equality of life, but one where choice is violently eliminated).

While opponents of abortion eagerly describe themselves as “pro-life,” the rest of us have had to scramble around with not nearly as big-ticket words like “choice” and “reproductive freedom.” The “life” conversation is often too thorny to even broach.

The writer also seems to be under the impression that the argument against is because of pro-life advocates. The fight for life is a reaction to an attack on life — in this case the most innocent of life. The right to life is not only one of the most basic tenants of our founding documents, it's the most basic of human rights the left loves to claim they're fighting for. Calling abortion rights advocates "pro-choice" isn't something abortion advocates had to scramble for. It's a deceitful term used to make women feel like someone is trying to take away their rights when they're fighting for the right of a child to be born.

Honestly, how "pro-choice" is someone who supports the removal of the most basic human right known to man? In her own words this writer says, "I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life."

The right to life is such a strong tenant of this country that it caused America to go to war with itself in order to put an end slavery. And if there weren't such strong defenders of life and equal rights segregation would still exist, women wouldn't have the right to vote, and WWII would have likely had a much different ending.

Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides.

Given the honesty in the statement above, the next appropriate question would have to be…when does a human life attain the same rights as those of us lucky enough to have been born? Once your an adult, living and working on your own? Until then are mothers free to kill their children? It's unlikely she feels that way.

She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

Most would agree that the woman is the boss in this situation, and unless her pregnancy was the result of rape, she made the decision on "her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health," when the child was created. The child is merely a product of how responsible she was with "the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her" …if you know what I mean.

When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb?

The honesty in this article, which while frightening, should be appreciated by those fighting for life. It draws a brand new set of "semantic lines in the sand." (A set that was already established in our Constitution.)

Is all life equal?

In her own words, Ms. Williams considers pro-lifers are "wing nuts" who intimidate the left away from these conversations. Equal rights have been fought for by wing nuts in the minority of an issue before -- wing nuts like Martin Luther King, Jr. That's pretty good company.

While attempting to defend Roe vs. Wade, this article makes abortion completely illegal and unconstitutional. This article comes just shy of calling abortion killing for circumstantial convenience.

Americans have the right to life. Pro-lifers should be celebrating and sharing this article. While Williams may think she has done the left a great justice by finally removing the straw men in the pro-choice "when does life begin" argument, what she's really done is exposed all the disturbing truths about abortion. The revelations that cause many former Roe vs. Wade supporters to become pro-life — the things that make the light-bulb turn on and cause you to realize an unborn child is in fact a life.

Hunter pleads GUILTY, but did he get a pass on these 3 GLARING crimes?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Last week, Hunter Biden made the shocking decision to suddenly plead guilty to all nine charges of tax-related crimes after claiming innocence since 2018.

Hunter first tried an "Alford plead" in which a defendant maintains their innocence while accepting the sentencing, typically due to the overwhelming evidence against them. Hunter's Alford plead was not accepted after the prosecutors objected to the suggestion, and Hunter quickly pleaded guilty.

Glenn could not believe just how disrespectful this situation was to the justice system and the American people. After years of lying about his innocence, which only served to deepen the divide in our country, Hunter decided to change his tune at the last minute and admit his guilt. Moreover, many expect Joe Biden will swoop in after the election and bail his son out with a presidential pardon.

This isn't the first time Hunter's crimes have turned out to be more than just a "right-wing conspiracy theory," and, odds are, it won't be the last. Here are three crimes Hunter may or may not be guilty of:

Gun charges: Found guilty

This June, Hunter Biden was found guilty of three federal gun charges, which could possibly land him up to 25 years in prison. Hunter purchased a revolver in 2018 while addicted to crack, and lied to the gun dealer about his addiction. While Hunter could face up to 25 years in prison, it's unlikely to be the case as first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum sentence. That's assuming Joe even lets it go that far.

Tax evasion: Plead guilty

Last week, Hunter changed his plea to "guilty" after years of pleading innocent to federal tax evasion charges. Since 2018, Delaware attorneys have been working on Hunter's case, and just before the trial was set to begin, Hunter changed his plea. According to the investigation, Hunter owed upwards of $1.4 million in federal taxes that he avoided by writing them off as fraudulent business deductions. Instead, Hunter spent this money on strippers, escorts, luxury cars, hotels, and, undoubtedly, crack.

Joe's involvement with Hunter's foreign dealings: Yet to be proven

Despite repeated claims against it, there is ample evidence supporting the theory Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's business dealings and even had a hand in them. This includes testimony from Devon Archer, one of Hunter's business partners, confirming Joe joined several business calls. Despite the mounting evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter's overseas business dealings and was using his influence to Hunter's benefit, the Bidens still maintain their innocence.

Why do we know so much about the Georgia shooter but NOTHING about Trump's shooter?

Jessica McGowan / Stringer | Getty Images

It's only been a few days since the horrific shooting at the Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, and the shooter, Colt Gray, and his father, Colin Gray, have already made their first court appearance. Over the last few days, more and more information has come out about the shooter and his family, including details of Colt's troubled childhood and history of mental health issues. The FBI said Colton had been on their radar.

This situation has Glenn fired up, asking, "Why do we have an FBI?" It seems like every time there is a mass shooting, the FBI unhelpfully admits the shooter was "on the radar," but what good does that do? While it is great we know everything about the Georgia shooter, including what he got for Christmas, why do we still know next to NOTHING about Trump's would-be assassin? Here are three things we know about the Georgia shooter that we stilldon't know about the Trump shooter:

Digital footprint

Just a few days after the shooting, authorities have already released many details of the Georgia shooter, Colt Gray's, digital footprint. This includes extensive conversations and photographs revolving around school shootings that were pulled from Gray's Discord account, a digital messaging platform.

Compared to this, the FBI claims Thomas Crooks, the shooter who almost assassinated Donald Trump, had little to no digital footprint, and outside of an ominous message sent by Crooks on Steam (an online video game platform), we know nothing about his online activities. Doesn't it seem strange that Crooks, a young adult in 2024 who owned a cell phone and a laptop left behind no digital trail of any relevance to his crime?

Home life

The FBI has painted a vivid image of what Colt Gray's home life was like, including his troubling relationship with his parents. They released information about his parents' tumultuous divorce, being evicted from his home, several interactions with law enforcement and CPS, and abuse. Investigators also found written documents of Colt's related to other school shootings, suggesting he had been thinking of this for some time before committing the atrocity.

In contrast, we still know next to nothing about Crooks's home life.

How he got the weapon

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Colt Gray was gifted the rifle he used in the shooting from his father for Christmas last year. We also know Colt's father is an avid hunter and would take Colt on hunting trips. In 2023, Colt was the subject of an investigation regarding a threat he made online to shoot up a school. During the interview, Colt stated he did not make the threat. Moreover, his father admitted to owning several firearms, but said Colt was not allowed full access to them. The investigation was later closed after the accusations could not be sustained.

In comparison, all we know is that Crooks stole his father's rifle and did not inform his parents of any part of his plan. We have no clue how Crooks acquired the rest of his equipment, which included nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bullet-proof vest, and several homemade bombs. How did Crooks manage to acquire all of his equipment without the FBI taking notice?

It feels like the FBI is either incompetent or hiding important information from the American people. Or both.

Join Glenn TONIGHT for BlazeTV's exclusive debate coverage!

Bill Pugliano / Stringer, Grant Baldwin / Stringer | Getty Images

Join Glenn TONIGHT, September 10, at 8 p.m. Eastern, for his LIVE coverage of the ABC News Presidential Debate!

Don't rely on the mainstream media to spoon-feed you their spin on the debate. Dodge the censorship and decide for yourself! Join the BlazeTV livestream tonight to get the debate coverage America deserves: the pure, uncensored truth. Plus you'll get to be the first to see Glenn's LIVE reaction to the debate as it goes down!

If you become a BlazeTV+ subscriber today, you can gain access to the live chat with your favorite hosts, including Glenn, Stu, Liz Wheeler, and more as they share their thoughts on the debate. Go to BlazeTV.com/debate and get $40 off of your annual subscription with code DEBATE. This is the largest discount we’ve ever offered, so don’t miss out! See you TONIGHT at 8!

You do NOT want to miss it!

These ‘conservative’ Glenn Beck critics are now supporting Kamala Harris

Drew Angerer / Staff, NBC NewsWire / Contributor, NBC NewsWire / Contributor | Getty Images

There’s a certain irony in how some of the loudest critics of Glenn Beck within the conservative ranks have now thrown their support behind Kamala Harris, a figure whose politics stand in stark contrast to the values they once claimed to uphold. Let's take a look back at these self-proclaimed guardians of conservatism, who once claimed Glenn Beck was a threat to the conservative movement, but are now backing the most far-left, radical candidate the Democrats have ever produced.

Adam Kinzinger

Adam Kinzinger was elected in 2010 as a Tea Party conservative, riding the wave of anti-establishment sentiment that defined the movement. However, by 2013, he was already distancing himself from the principles that got him elected. Criticizing Glenn Beck for labeling him a RINO, Kinzinger said, "The perception is, if you do one thing out of line with what is considered hard-core conservatism, or what Glenn Beck says or what Mark Levin says, then you are a RINO." Now, he’s taken his political shift to the extreme, endorsing Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention and praising her as a defender of democracy—all while claiming to be a Republican and a conservative.

Bill Kristol

Bill Kristol’s flip-flop is even more astounding. Kristol, who once took it upon himself to attack Beck for his warnings about radical Islam and creeping authoritarianism, now finds himself on the same side as Kamala Harris. Kristol’s past criticisms of Beck, comparing him to fringe elements like the John Birch Society, now ring hollow as Kristol himself becomes an apologist for the far left. His endorsement of Harris shows that his commitment was never to conservatism but to whatever political winds would keep him in the spotlight.

Jennifer Rubin

Jennifer Rubin is a prime example of how establishment figures at outlets like The Washington Post have masqueraded as conservatives while working to undermine genuine conservative voices. Rubin, who once criticized Beck by saying, "Rather than reflexively rising to his defense when questioned about Beck, why don’t conservatives call him out and explain that he doesn’t represent the views of mainstream conservatives?" was never truly aligned with conservative values. Her columns have consistently pushed establishment narratives, and now they read like PR pieces for the Democratic Party, especially when it comes to Kamala Harris. Rubin’s journey from supposed conservative commentator to one of the Biden administration’s staunchest defenders shows that her critiques of Beck were always about protecting her place within the Washington elite, not about upholding any real conservative principles.

Kinzinger, Kristol, and Rubin once posed as guardians of conservatism, warning about the supposed dangers of Glenn Beck. Now, they’ve endorsed Kamala Harris, a candidate whose policies are anathema to conservatism. Their criticisms of Beck were never about protecting conservative values—they were about steering the party back under their control. But the real target wasn’t just Beck; it was the audience he represents—everyday conservatives who challenge the status quo. These insiders have always seen that base as the real threat, and their actions make it clear who they were really trying to sideline.

Glenn's Show Prep