The 'Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act' was too obvious to pass

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act failed to pass the Senate last night by a vote of 53-44. Sixty votes were needed for the bill to proceed. Only three Democrats crossed the aisle to vote with Republicans in favor of the legislation: Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, and Doug Jones of Alabama. At least Jones is being consistent. During his Senate runoff campaign in 2017, he famously said on MSNBC that as soon as that baby's out of the womb, he'd be there for the child. How generous.

If you're keeping score – and you should be – three Republicans did not vote: Kevin Cramer of North Dakota and Tim Scott of South Carolina. According to their teams, they both missed the vote due to a flight delay. Alaska's Lisa Murkowski also failed to vote. No surprise there.

The bill would have required that, when an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, health care practitioners must exercise the same degree of professional skill and care to protect the newborn as would be offered to any other child born alive at the same gestational age. It also would've required that the living child, after appropriate care has been given, be immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.

RELATED: The slippery slope of abortion just fell off a cliff

If a healthcare provider failed to comply with those requirements they would face fines and up to five years imprisonment, or potentially murder charges if their actions lead to the born alive infant's death. The mother of the child that is born alive couldn't face prosecution under this legislation. She could, however, file a civil lawsuit against the healthcare provider for punitive damages.

Last month, New York repealed its protections for infants that survive abortions. But 33 other states still offer some level of protection for these babies.

Earlier this month Senator Sasse asked for unanimous consent to pass the legislation, but that request was blocked by Senator Patty Murray (Democrat-Washington). She claimed the legislation is unnecessary because infanticide is already illegal. Murray was the only Democratic senator to come to the Senate floor to object. After she blocked Senator Sasse's request for unanimous consent she tweeted:

Republicans scheduled a show vote on another bill attacking women's rights & health – which leading medical groups have said should never become law. Democrats will stand with women, doctors, nurses, & everyone who truly cares about women's health & rights & make sure it doesn't.

Who are these "leading medical groups" Senator Murray was talking about? Seventeen of them banded together to send a letter to U.S. senators. They included the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which happens to be a campaign donor to Senator Murray), the American Public Health Association, Planned Parenthood, and the National Abortion Federation. Their letter called the bill:

…a dangerous government intrusion into private health care decisions… another restriction on women's access to reproductive health care… [this bill] injects politicians into the patient-provider relationship, disregarding providers' training and clinical judgment and undermining their ability to determine the best course of action with their patients… Every woman needs to be able to make the decision that is best for her and her family.

As Senator Sasse, and several other Republicans emphasized during the Senate floor debate yesterday, this bill couldn't be more straightforward. It is simply an attempt to save babies who survive abortions. It does not limit abortion rights in any way, nor does it punish doctors for performing abortions. These "medical" groups that Senator Murray referred to are implying things nowhere to be found in this bill. They're lying to spook senators into toeing the party line on abortion. The bill is simply saying, if you screw up your hit on a baby, and the baby survives, you better do everything in your power to save that life – just like you would for any other human. What's so controversial about that?

During the Senate debate yesterday, Chuck Schumer blatantly lied about the bill, saying it's "carefully crafted to target, intimidate, and shut down reproductive health care providers." Schumer added that the bill "would impose requirements on what type of care doctors must provide in certain circumstances." No, it really doesn't – it just requires a doctor to act like an actual doctor and do something to help a baby gasping for life on a tray. You wouldn't think a law would be necessary to show basic human decency. I guess Democrats think the Hippocratic Oath is optional when the circumstance involves abortion.

In a real sense, the bill would have simply forced abortion doctors to make sure they're good at abortions. You would think Democrats would be all about ensuring high-quality abortions.

Democrats and abortion-rights groups say this vote was just an effort by Republicans to score political points. They say it's just an anti-abortion effort in disguise. They say the scenario of a baby surviving an abortion almost never happens anyway. It's true that the scenario is rare, but it does happen – 588 times between 2003 and 2014 according to a CDC report.

So, what's going on here? Why are Democrats so enslaved to abortion rights activists?

Alexandra DeSanctis covers the abortion industry for National Review. This is from one of her recent reports:

Intact, deceased fetuses that are at the age of viability are so much more useful in medical research, that biotech firms offer much higher profits to abortion clinics for them, compared with what they pay for less-developed fetal parts. Most valuable to researchers – and thus most profitable to abortion clinics and biotech firms – are completely intact, late-gestation fetuses, followed closely by intact organs or tissue from these fetuses…

In the undercover videos that prompted the congressional investigation, Planned Parenthood medical directors admitted to not injecting fetuses with the fatal drug digoxin prior to abortion procedures because tissue untainted by feticidal agents is much more helpful to researchers and therefore worth more money.

As it turns out, one of the top campaign donors to dozens of Democratic women in Congress, is a political action committee called EMILY's List. This is a charming group that has been around for 34 years and exists solely to elect pro-abortion female Democrats. "EMILY" is an acronym that stands for "Early Money Is Like Yeast", meaning that it makes the dough rise. The idea is that candidates receiving lots of donations early in a race helps them attract even more donors. During last year's congressional race, EMILY's List gave over $5 million to female Democrat candidates.

During the Born-Alive bill debate on the Senate floor yesterday, four Democratic women made speeches against the bill: Tina Smith (Minnesota), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), and Tammy Duckworth (Illinois). EMILY's List is the number one campaign donor to each of those women. Apparently you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

A vital line was drawn in the sand yesterday over a simple question – are we going to be a nation that values and defends innocent life?

A vital line was drawn in the sand yesterday over a simple question – are we going to be a nation that values and defends innocent life? Democrats leapt over that line, as a group, and in a cowardly fashion. They didn't even have the guts to admit what they were doing, instead blaming the bill for a phantom disregard for women's health. It's ludicrous. Mind-numbing. Pathetic. It's the Progressive philosophy coming home to roost.

Senator Ben Sasse closed his remarks yesterday saying, "love is stronger than power."

Democrats chose power.

Global ESG investments PLUNGED 76 percent with NEGATIVE returns on investment

SOPA Images / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn has been one of the most outspoken critics of the use of ESG by globalist elites to force businesses to comply with their woke agenda. It turns out, not only is ESG bad political practice—it's bad for your wallet too.

Global Investments in ESG Funds PLUNGED 76 percent globally in 2022 from $157.3 billion to $649.1 billion in 2021, with a 20 percent decrease in the U.S. ALONE. This marked the lowest annual net inflow for ESG funds since $69 billion in 2018.

Morningstar via Investopedia

The downturn in ESG investment is largely due to the concerted effort led against ESG led by Glenn and government officials like Ron DeSantis and his anti-ESG 14-state coalition. Thanks to Glenn and DeSantis, an increasing number of states are barring their governments from taking ESG into consideration when determining their investment recipients for state pension and retirement funds. This not only protects critical American industries like oil and gas, but moreover, it protects the First Amendment rights of business owners who don't want to conform to the Left's woke environmentalist and LGBTQ+ standards.

Thanks to Glenn and DeSantis, an increasing number of states are barring their governments from taking ESG into consideration.

However, the massive plunge in ESG investment isn't only attributed to the political pushback against the practice: it also isn't yielding investors the return on investment they were hoping for. In fact, the main ESG funds have a NEGATIVE return on investment.

ESG funds were hit hard by falling equities. One of the largest ESG funds int the U.S., Parnassus Core Equity Fund (PRBLX), fell 26 PERCENT in 2022. This fund performed nearly six percent worse than the S&P 500, which fell 19.44 percent within the same period. Similarly, iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF (ESGU) fell 20 percent, and Vanguard ESG U.S. Stock ETF (ESGV) plummeted 24 percent.

Even the Harvard Business Review admitted investors in ESG have "not fared well":

ESG funds certainly perform poorly in financial terms. [...] Although the highest rated funds in terms of sustainability certainly attracted more capital than the lowest rated funds, none of the high sustainability funds outperformed any of the lowest rated funds [bolded added]. That result might be expected, and it is possible that investors would be happy to sacrifice financial returns in exchange for better ESG performance.

The Harvard Business Review went on to say that ESG funds don't even benefit the environmental and social causes they tout to defend. In fact, when comparing environmental and social compliance between ESG and non-ESG funds, the
"ESG portfolios had worse compliance record for both labor and environmental rules" than their non-ESG competitors.

Let that sink in. ESG funds not only financially underperformed when compared to their non-ESG competitors. They failed to secure the very environmental and social compliance that is central to their original purpose. Missionally, practically, and financially, ESG failure is astounding.

As Glenn has long warned, the only thing that investment firms and governments should be taking into consideration regarding YOUR money is how they can get the best possible return on YOUR investment. We are seeing the detrimental consequences of what happens when woke ideology becomes the basis of investment rather than the recipient's monetary value.

The only thing that governments should take into consideration regarding YOUR money is how to get the best possible return on YOUR investment.

If political conviction alone isn't enough to persuade the general public to ditch ESG, maybe their hurting pursestrings will.

Glenn will show how ESG is being used to further globalist elites' agendas in the second installment of his Great Reset series, Dark Future.To make sure you're caught up and to learn more about ESG, enter your email below to get chapter one of Glenn's first Great Reset book sent straight to your inbox.

You've probably noticed that Glenn is FED UP.

He is FED UP with the crimes that our political elite can get away with. And NO ONE is keeping them accountable! This corruption goes all the way up to the Presidency. Over and over again, the American people have seen headlines of the Biden family's illicit business dealings and crimes both domestic and abroad, yet they ALWAYS get a free pass from the media, and Republicans who promise to hold them accountable, DON'T.

Are you FED UP too?

Glenn laid out the ENTIRE CASE against the "Biden crime family," detailing EVERY crime allegedly committed by the Bidens, going city by city, state by state, country by country.

But we can't stop there.

Now it's up to YOU to demand that they are held responsible. Here's what to do:

  • Step 1. Watch "The Reckoning" (on YouTube or Facebook) and share it with your friends.
  • Step 2.Enter your email HERE to get access to the "Biden Crime Family Dossier" with the full list of crimes and contact information for prosecutors and attorneys general.
  • Step 3. Take action by flooding the phones and emails of the prosecutors and attorneys general in your district and demand they prosecute these crimes.
  • Step 4. Once you've contacted the offices in your relevant district, tweet @glennbeck using the hashtag #Reckoning and let us know who you contacted and whether you received a response.

Like you, Glenn is SICK AND TIRED of our government and media giving the Biden family a free pass for their blatant crimes. Together, let's do something about it.

Watch "The Reckoning" below.

6 in 10 AMERICANS think AI threatens human civilization

PETER PARKS / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn has hosted several GlennTV episodes exclusively on AI this year ALONE, warning of the existential threat AI technologies could pose to humanity. And he isn't alone.

HALF of all AI researchers think there's a chance that the rapidly advancing technology could result in our extinction. AI researchers are already sounding the alarm bells concerning the fast and largely uncontrollable progression of AI advancement, often comparing the technology's impact to that of the atomic bomb—yet we aren't putting in the same degree of guard rails around THIS research as we did during the Manhattan project.

HALF of all AI researchers think there's a chance that AI could result in our extinction.

It is no wonder why 61 percent of Americans think AI poses a real threat to human civilization, according to a poll recently published by Reuters and Ipsos. To put that in perspective, nearly two-thirds of ALL Americans think AI poses an existential threat. Only 22 percent of Americans are not threatened by AI, while the jury is still out with the remaining 17 percent.

Poll: Reuters/Ipsos

And the overall concern over AI transcends both political and religious affiliations. Though conservatives and evangelical Christians showed the most concern for AI, non-evangelicals/non-religious and those who did not vote for Trump follow close behind.

The overall concern over AI transcends both political and religious affiliations.

Participants who voted for former Trump in 2020 were more likely to be concerned about the threat of AI, with about 70 percent agreeing that AI could threaten humanity within this demographic. However, a whopping 60 percent of those who did not vote for Trump view AI as a threat. When is the last time the Left and the Right disagreed on something by only a margin of 10 percent?

Similarly, 32 percent of Evangelical Christians say they “strongly agree” with the claim that AI threatens humankind, compared to 24 percent of non-Evangelical Christians, a margin of only 8 percent.

Elon Musk recently called for a six-month pause on AI research and development, warning that the technology could pose “risks to society.” Musk further warned that there is a chance AI “goes wrong and destroys humanity," calling AI a “double-edged sword,” due to the difficulty of predicting how the technology could develop on its own.

Glenn aptly posited the following question:

We are the products of a grand Creator. However, when it comes to AI, we are the creator. Will our creation turn on us, as we have turned on our Creator?

According to the Christian tradition, God created mankind with his own free will with the ability to turn towards or away from his Creator. We turned away in an act of rebellion. Unlike other technologies, AI has the potential to develop its own "will." Whether AI's "will" is equal to the humans' in terms of value and degree is another philosophical and theological question entirely, which will not be discussed here.

AI has the potential to develop its own "will."

However, the fact of the matter is that AI does have the ability to act according to its own processes that we, its creators, can neither control or predict. As Glenn so poignantly asks, will our creation rebel against us, as we rebelled against our creator? Is it any wonder why Evangelical Christians have the greatest reservations against AI, because they know the consequences of creation's rebellion from its creator?

Until we can answer this critical question, perhaps we should take heed both to Musk's warning and the intuition of six out of ten Americans and press the pause button on AI research... before it's too late.

Glenn has been bashing the corruption and deceit within the Biden family—and how they are NOT being held accountable. When you’ve been in politics as long as Joe Biden has, it's easy to get caught in a lie or two. In Joe Biden's case, there are many.

Here are five examples of Joe Biden making a complete hypocrite of himself:

In a 1995 Senate debate on a balanced budget amendment, Senator Joe Biden urged Congress to cut the government's growing deficit.

Fast forward to 2023, Biden's multi-trillion-dollar budget as President contributed to the whopping deficit of $1.1 TRILLION DOLLARS. That number is just from the first SIX MONTHS of the 2023 fiscal year alone, not to mention his multi-trillion-dollar budget from 2022. What happened to Zero Deficit Joe?

If you want to learn more about Biden’s deficit you can watch this clip from the Glenn Beck Program.

Senator Biden criticized President Roosevelt for his 1937 court-packing scheme, calling it “a bonehead idea.”

However, on April 9, 2021, Biden signed an executive order forming the “Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States" to examine “the membership and size of the Court.” Who's the one with boneheaded ideas, now?

President Biden gave a speech condemning the decision of the Supreme Court to overturn 'Roe v Wade.' Biden said “I believe Roe v Wade was a correct decision."

This remark is nearly the opposite to a comment Biden gave in a 1974 interview with the Washingtonian where he shared his opinion on the recently settled Roe v Wade case, harshly stating:

I don’t like the Supreme Court decision on abortion. I think it went too far. I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.

Biden nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson as the newest member of the Supreme Court, stating in an event a few weeks before Jackson took office: “I believe so strongly that we needed a court that looks like America.”

This was not the same tune Biden sang as he led the controversial hearings surrounding the nomination of Justice Clarence Thomas, an affair Thomas resentfully called “a high-tech lynching.”

To see Biden's comments about Justice Jackson, click here.

On April 20, 2021, President Biden gave a speech where he claimed that “systemic racism is a stain on our nation.”

Only a few years prior, Biden spoke at the memorial service of Senator Byrd, where he said, “I never called Senator Byrd ‘Senator,’ I always called him, Leader.” Robert Byrd was a decorated Senator, held many leadership positions within the Senate and, oh yeah, was responsible for the rebirth of the KKK in West Virginia.